Comments on: Researchers in Greenland Drill 8,000' Down to Study 120,000-Year-Old Climate

By: joan

joan — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 18:20:11 +0000

Yikes!!!!!! What kinds of exotic bacteria and viruses might have survived in that ice?

By: Austin

Austin — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 04:53:11 +0000

“It seems that some scientists conveniently overlook the fact that the Earth has been warming without any assistance from puny mankind for the past 40,000 years!”

Except for those cool periods and that ice age thrown in the mix, right?

No, it shouldn’t say “some scientists.” “Scientists” is correct. You climate change deniers are just like creationists, pretending that there is still a debate among the experts.

By: miller

miller — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 19:03:01 +0000

Even if you believe that this current warming trend is part of a natural cycle and that humans did not cause it, why would we not want to do anything and everything in our power to slow or stop it? One would think that even those skeptical of a human cause of climate change would want to sign on to measures that will help control those things that make this “natural cycle” worse? Basic high school chemistry demonstrates that methane and other gases trap heat, why not consider how these things might make this “natural” situation worse? Floods and earthquakes are natural too, but everyone agrees on measures to protect against them. Learning about what the globe looked like last time this happened may give us some clues about not only what our children can expect but perhaps some things we can do to slow down the process.

By: Robert Thayer

Robert Thayer — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 14:41:31 +0000

The antarctic ice core data [spanning 420,000 years] released in 2004 is curiously different form the presentation and the comments above [see http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/index.html. First, those temperatures were 2C warmer than now for 5000 years and less than now for the remaining 10,000 years of that brief warm spell.
We had an ice age [temperatures 4-8 C lower than now] from then until 12,000 years ago. As to Newton, above, the antarctic was cooling 40,000 years ago and only began warming 20,000 years ago. This rise lasted 10,000 years, melted the ice age and ended 10-12,000 years ago w the invention of agriculture and civilization along the Nile. We have enjoyed essentially constant ‘warm’ temperature since then. It will be interesting to see how the other end of the earth fared during these times. And there is no evidence of ‘naturally’ accelerating temperature over the last 10,000 years – not until 140 years ago, but that is not ‘natural’ as is clearly indicated by the CO2 concentration [the red line] which flips up vertically from 290 to 370 ‘instantly’ w no points above 300 prior to that. There are zoomed in graphs showing this transition at the web site.

By: Tinman

Tinman — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 11:59:18 +0000

Re Denialism in all its forms, the question I never see asked is “what evidence or test WOULD cause you to at least rethink your belief?” Obviously pointing to the mountains of AGW evidence already in hand is not sufficient. Or the mountains of evidence supporting evolution. Or [fill in your favorite here]… so the question: what WOULD suffice?

By: Barbara

Barbara — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 19:44:40 +0000

Hey fatkid, why do you think the U.S. govt. is dumping money into finding some other chunk of rock that might support life?

By: fatkid

fatkid — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 16:06:45 +0000

We are like the frog that boils to death, not realizing there’s a fire under the pot of water he is in. Global warming deniers should just be annoying background noise, like mosquitos.

The difference between us and the frog is that the frog actually jumps out of the pot..

By: Huron DeKoch-Payroll

Huron DeKoch-Payroll — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 00:56:25 +0000

The Nature quote is true-scientists believe what they believe. Creation scientists believe something else, Christian Scientists believe a third thing, and well paid shills for the coal and oil industries are paid to pretend to believe what they say they believe, and try to sell those lies to the rubes and marks out there in the world.
Science cannot be unbiased because it is the pursuit of verifiable truth, so by definition it is biased against the unverifiable and the false. As such science can never be apolitical, because much of politics involves convincing a majority of people that something is all good or all bad, which is rarely if ever the case. Global warming is the Lysenkoism of Britain and America’s right wing extremists, who are funded in the majority by the oil, coal, and gas industry.
I am amused by suppoeters, however.

By: Intellectualintegritysuppoeter

Intellectualintegritysuppoeter — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 21:48:17 +0000

I.Newton is right. Any honest news source will not use such source references as “scientists,” “scientific consensus,” or “most scientists.” They will say “some scientists” or “name of reporting scientist” or “a scientist at name of organization.” The failure to accept that no scientist speaks for “science” is either a sign of sloppy thinking (unprofessional for a journalist) or, more likely, an attempt to promote an intellectually dishonest journalist’s views.

By: I. Newton

I. Newton — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 18:32:30 +0000

In the name of unbiased, apolitical science, instead of stating, “Scientists believe that by the end of the 21st century…” perhaps a more appropriate statement should have been, “Some scientists believe that by the end of the 21st century..”.

It seems that some scientists conveniently overlook the fact that the Earth has been warming without any assistance from puny mankind for the past 40,000 years! As the the Earth becomes warmer the warming naturally accelerates.