Global warming?

SamIam · 12-12-2009, 08:43 PM

I didn't find your site very convenient. Is it just that I have a cold and feel like shit, or is the site for tin-foil hatters only?

I know your favorite story is that the emperor wears no clothes, but you need to lighten up some on this one. Temperatures were higher 100,000 or more years ago, but guess what? That climate did not support the life forms we see today.

Greenland had a celsius increase in temperature before 1,000 AD. BTW, it had a farenheit increase, as well. Both are systems used to define temperature. Its amazing what you get out of a 6th grade science book.

Greenland's climate has fluctuated often over the past few thousand years. When doing a study of a pheunomenon, itonly stand to reason to collect as many data as possible. If you see a parrot escaped in downtown Kansas city, it is unlikely that parrots have found a new niche in the Midwest.

Didn't your buddy, Erik von Kühnelt-Leddihn, teach you ANYTHING?

xoxoxoBruce · 12-12-2009, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIam

That climate did not support the life forms we see today.

I know you want to chastise UG and I'ma gonna let you do that, but first let me say the resident lifeforms have been changing constantly throughout the history of the planet, and humans have been around a very short blip on that timeline.

SamIam · 12-13-2009, 06:13 AM

I am in total agreement with that, Bruce. Species come and species go. The interaction of climate, ecology, and speciation is a very complex one. Presumably, we want the human species to be one of the winners.

I freely admit to being pessimistic about this, because the human species is beginning to outstrip its natural carrying capacity.

One of my fav organisms is the Trilobites, a well-known fossil group of extinct marine arthropods. Trilobites first appear in the fossil record during the Early Cambrian period (540 million years ago) and flourished throughout the lower Paleozoic era before beginning a drawn-out decline to extinction when, during the Devonian, all trilobite orders, with the sole exception of Proetida, died out. Trilobites finally disappeared in the mass extinction at the end of the Permian about 250 million years ago.

Now 290 million years is hardly the blink of a human eye. These critters, whose closest descendents resemble the horse shoe crab, were a big contender in the evolutionary sweep stakes. Some say that the rise of sharks
plus changes in climate did them in.

Theoretically we are smarter than trilobites. We might want to take a look at global warming and destruction of habitat to give ourselves a few more thousands years. I grow exhausted by posts such as UG's when he starts "dancing with sharks."

Oh, and please excuse my typo's in my last post. I've got a case of bronchitis that would make an amoeba scream.

12-13-2009, 06:13 AM	#3
SamIam Registered User Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Not here Posts: 2,655	I am in total agreement with that, Bruce. Species come and species go. The interaction of climate, ecology, and speciation is a very complex one. Presumably, we want the human species to be one of the winners. I freely admit to being pessimistic about this, because the human species is beginning to outstrip its natural carrying capacity. One of my fav organisms is the Trilobites, a well-known fossil group of extinct marine arthropods. Trilobites first appear in the fossil record during the Early Cambrian period (540 million years ago) and flourished throughout the lower Paleozoic era before beginning a drawn-out decline to extinction when, during the Devonian, all trilobite orders, with the sole exception of Proetida, died out. Trilobites finally disappeared in the mass extinction at the end of the Permian about 250 million years ago. Now 290 million years is hardly the blink of a human eye. These critters, whose closest descendents resemble the horse shoe crab, were a big contender in the evolutionary sweep stakes. Some say that the rise of sharks plus changes in climate did them in. Theoretically we are smarter than trilobites. We might want to take a look at global warming and destruction of habitat to give ourselves a few more thousands years. I grow exhausted by posts such as UG's when he starts "dancing with sharks." Oh, and please excuse my typo's in my last post. I've got a case of bronchitis that would make an amoeba scream. Last edited by SamIam; 12-13-2009 at 06:28 AM.

12-12-2009, 08:43 PM	#1
SamIam Registered User Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Not here Posts: 2,655	I didn't find your site very convenient. Is it just that I have a cold and feel like shit, or is the site for tin-foil hatters only? I know your favorite story is that the emperor wears no clothes, but you need to lighten up some on this one. Temperatures were higher 100,000 or more years ago, but guess what? That climate did not support the life forms we see today. Greenland had a celsius increase in temperature before 1,000 AD. BTW, it had a farenheit increase, as well. Both are systems used to define temperature. Its amazing what you get out of a 6th grade science book. Greenland's climate has fluctuated often over the past few thousand years. When doing a study of a pheunomenon, itonly stand to reason to collect as many data as possible. If you see a parrot escaped in downtown Kansas city, it is unlikely that parrots have found a new niche in the Midwest. Didn't your buddy, Erik von Kühnelt-Leddihn, teach you ANYTHING?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 guests)