Wow... it must be a very well established science if 13 years completely invalidates all figures. Fascinating. Oh, wait... nevermind, that page was updated in 2009 and the source site was updated in 2003, so at worst, 8 years.

It is kind of hard to find a site that shows geologic time scale CO2 levels... I guess it's because it causes people to question the popular AGW models...

but here's a different chart from 2002: http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.html (site updated in 2007) It looks mighty similar, though.

The condescending attitude does not advance your cause any.

I am familiar with the apologist explanations for these incongruities, but find their explanations lacking. First, it does not address periods of lowering CO2 levels and rising temperatures (see, for example, the entire Cretaceous period).

Additionally, let us take into account that CO2 only partially contributes to global temperatures, one would still think that when CO2 levels plummet from 4000 ppm in the mid-Devonian to just ~350 ppm in the early Carboniferous (BEFORE the Carboniferous glaciation), there would be at least some type of significant climate effect, but such is not the case. CO2 levels were cut by 90% and there was hardly any significant drop in global temperatures until several million years AFTER CO2 levels bottomed out.

And that is the biggest issue with these models... during all of these geological periods, the CO2 levels were fluctuating on a much larger scale (orders of magnitude upwards of 10x) and temperature changes weren't seen sometimes for a million years or more. Yet the apologists insist on attributing the infinitesimal human contribution to atmospheric CO2 as having a much larger effect in a much quicker time scale than the huge CO2 changes that happened during these prehistoric periods. The article you linked to attempted to explain away the 200 to 1,000 year lags in historical (.5 million years ago) figures, but nothing is offered to explain the million year lags, or outright gaps, in CO2-to-Temperature correlation.

If one wants to claim that CO2 is a major (albeit partial) contributor to global warming, then one must account for these problems of scale not otherwise accounted for. Instead, the focus is on the comparatively recent past (.5 million years ago), which is insignificant when talking about a global climate that functions on cycles that typically run several million years. That is akin to taking the temperature in January and again in July and predicting that the temperature in November will be over 200 C. It just doesn't work because you are looking at a time scale that is far too short.

When there is proof that humans pose the threat of raising atmospheric levels over 1,000 ppm, then we can talk, until then there is no reason to think that the infinitesimal of CO2 we contribute will ever significantly impact the climate.

Agreed, however I never argued the opposite... in fact, the entire point of my post was to show that we don't even have correlation on CO2 vs. Temperature, let alone causation. All those same "many inputs" you mentioned that affected the Paleozoic and Mesozoic climate are affecting us today and it is grossly premature to suggest that the infinitesimal human contribution to atmospheric CO2 causes the climate of our planet to change in the slightest.

Here is the chart that shows CO2 levels compared to global temps: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

You'll notice that during the Ordovician period, CO2 was well over 4000ppm, and sometimes upwards of 5000ppm, yet the temperatures near the end of that period were right at modern levels.

Also, if you'll carefully look at the CO2 levels vs. the temps during the Carboniferous period, CO2 had been precipitously dropping for ~50 million years, bottoming out at around 350 ppm... but look carefully at the CO2 line compared to the temp line... CO2 bottoms out and stays there for ~5 million years before you start to see a decrease in global temps... and CO2 was under 1000 ppm for several million years with zero change in global temps.

Also notice that that cooling cycle ended in the mid-Permian period, but the temps rose quickly, but CO2's rise followed this rise in temps, it didn't precede it.

Also notice that CO2 levels were steadily declining throughout the Cretaceous, yet that was coupled with rising global temps. You would think that if CO2 was so closely tied to global temps, that a precipitous drop in CO2 would be accompanied by a precipitous drop in temps and vice versa, but that has rarely been the case.

It seems clear that something else is driving these large scale warming and cooling cycles and no absolute connection can be made between global temperatures and CO2 levels, let alone a causal connection.

And even if we could draw such a connection, we would first have to look at where all this atmospheric CO2 was coming from in the first place... there were no factories, cars, or even humans during the high-CO2/high-temp periods, such as the Cambrian or Devonian. Considering that all the CO2 produced by humans is infinitesimal compared to what Earth naturally produces, it is highly doubtful, even if CO2 does contribute to global warming, that we could produce enough to appreciably affect global temperatures.

And finally, even if we could say that humans are significantly contributing the global warming, there is absolutely no proof that such would endanger life on Earth in any way, shape, or form. During the hottest periods of this Earth's history, life has seen the greatest explosions in diversity and growth. Indeed, hot temperatures are the norm for Earth and we should welcome the rising temperatures and the economic, agricultural, and biological benefits it is sure to bring.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1215188/Chris-Packham-Let-giant-pandas-die-out.html

Pandas need to die... nature is screaming at us that they need to die. Why are we ignoring the obvious?

Although, thank goodness they were around long enough to give us some high-quality poo.

Religion assumes that there is a purpose to life to the same degree that Science assumes that there is order to the Universe.

In addition, we should avoid conflating "purpose of life" and "purpose in life". Religion attempts to explain the purpose OF life (i.e. not one's own life, but life in general). But even if one fully understands the purpose of life, they still need to find their purpose IN life. They are two distinct questions and often have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Two examples of this: A person may fully understand the game of basketball, but may not know what their role in the game is.

Or, we may say that there is no real purpose for war/chaos/natural disasters, but even absent a general purpose a person may nevertheless find deep meaning and purpose for their own existence in such chaotic and meaningless times.

It entirely depends on what they are wrong about.

If "religious folk" are wrong about the existence of God, sure that may be catastrophic (depending on the religion).

But similarly, if "scientists" are wrong about the existence of God, that may be equally catastrophic (or at least would fundamentally alter so much of the underpinning of the science as to put it back at square one).

If, however, "religious folk" are wrong about the validity of the Book of Genesis, they would have to reassess their understanding of a number of aspects of their religion.

And if "scientists" are wrong about the Big Bang, they would have to reassess their understanding of a number of aspects of their fields of study.

It also depends on what the person is using their religion/science to "prove". I often find the argument between science and religion rather comical for both sides... trying to use science to "disprove" religion is like trying to use science to "disprove" poetry. And vice versa... poetry cannot be used to disprove science. Religion is FAR more akin to poetry than it is to science... Both religion and poetry try to give structure, meaning, and understanding to life. Science dissects life and explains how it functions, but says nothing about the fundamental "why" of existence. Each has its use and life would be less rich and enjoyable without either.

It is equally absurd to expect Religion to explain the mechanics of the universe as it is to expect Science to explain the purpose of life. Each has developed to explain and explore a particular aspect of our existence.

You cannot use biology to explain the movement of the planets, either. But that doesn't mean that biology is not a science. It is a just a different branch of science.

Now, Religion is not a Science, but that does not mean that Religion is not a valid method for understanding a particular subject (in the case of Religion, the subject is our purpose in life).

Slashdotters should try to gain a fundamental understanding of epistemology before debating the validity or usefulness of Religion.

This is only true for the nonsensical religions... i.e. religions that have accepted paradoxes as a fundamental aspect of their belief. Granted, that describes most religion, but not all.

In Christianity, this problem is most prevalent in the Nicene Religions... those Christian sects that have adopted the internally inconsistent Nicene Creed. It is the Nicene Creed that has caused most of the "lack of understanding" you are referring to. And Nicene Christians are expected to accept the paradoxes of the Creed on "faith".

Non-Nicene Christian religions do not have this problem.

Take, for instance, the classic "Problem of Evil"... How can a omni-benevolent (all good), omnipotent (all powerful) and omniscient (all knowing) god allow evil to exist?

It is the Nicene Creed that insists that all three of the above mentioned attributes of God are absolute and immutable. Since they cannot accept any diminishing of these "essential" attributes, they must then say that evil does not exist, which is, of course, nonsense. They are stuck in the paradox of their own creation.

Non-Nicene Christian religions (of which there are few) do not necessarily have this problem. For instance, according to the late prominent LDS theologian and philosopher, Truman G. Madsen, the LDS church believes that God has all the power that it is possible to have in a universe (and the way he uses this word seems that it could mean more than just the physical universe we live in, perhaps all of existence, or perhaps a "multi-verse") that self-exists (in other words, whatever realm of existence God lives in existed without the need for being created by Him) and among beings with inherent agency (or in other words free will that was not created by God, but is inherent in the "self" of each person).

This partially negates God's power and solves the Problem of Evil. This concept is also the basis for understanding all of the LDS religion's beliefs.

Interesting. There are two major issues with your post.

First: You conflate Libertarianism and Anarchism. Anarchists desire "no government", Libertarians desire a government limited to narrow, specifically defined duties (i.e. the Night Watchman state... wiki it) and doesn't interfere in other aspects of life.

Second: The government in Firefly was the Alliance government, so all the ills you see in the show are the product of a powerful central government, not the ills of a Libertarian one. A powerful centralized government, more than anything else, is concerned first and foremost with the preservation of its central control. Such a governmental system is fundamentally flawed and is doomed to failure, since you cannot control all the people and attempting to do so overburdens the system. In the overburdened state, the central government is forced to maximize "order" (i.e. control) in the most populous regions, leaving the sparsely populated areas to suffer under various forms of localized despotism. That is what you are seeing in Firefly. That is what happened in Communist Russia.

Of course the central planets had their own form of despotism. They were "civilized", which is double-speak for pacified and helpless.

I would much rather live on an outer planet than suffer under the tyranny of the caretaker (http://www.americanfreemen.org/tyrannyofthecaretaker)... granted, there is the chance that I'd end up on a tyrannical outer planet, but I'd take that gamble over the certainty of living in tyranny on an inner planet.

I'd be interested to hear your definition of "nutball" and how libertarianism fits with that definition.

Having a degree has nothing to do with idiocy. There are plenty of "smart" idiots (i.e. educated people who can't see past their own nose). Look at so-called "climate gate"... I'm not going to take sides on that issue and I don't need to in order to make a point... the mere fact that it happened at all means that a lot of very "smart" people were complete idiots.

Yeah, I forgot to simply remove that line... I think I was going to end with something like "rather than see millions of people pretending that they are civilized and sacrificing their humanity to maintain that illusion."

I am not disputing the scientific significance of the "taming" of the atom, but are you suggesting that murder is justified if we merely use a scientifically significant tool of destruction? That is the precise form of hubris and dogmatic rhetoric that I am talking about.

Also, I am not disputing the atrocity of the Inquisition, but at its height it resulted in the deaths of a few dozen people a year, with a grand total of at most 3,000 to 5,000. (Exact figures are difficult to obtain for various reasons, but these are the best estimates by historians.)

So tell me, which is worse? 5,000 killed for religious reasons or 250k+ killed for scientific/nationalistic reasons? Do the reasons even matter? Innocent death is still innocent death. Right? Where is the compassionate humanism now?

I, on the other hand, have not justified any side. In fact, I've categorically condemned destruction and death... I do not give tyranny any lenience, regardless of who is perpetrating it.

It's one of those crazy notions known as "having principles".

The most juvenile aspect of this is the utter predictability with which /. responds. All one has to do to work posters into a lather is mention the name of Glenn Beck. Just post "Glenn Beck said X"... if "X" is a Good Thing (tm), then we'll get flooded with comments of how "a broken clock is right twice a day". If "X" is a Bad Thing (tm), we get this thread.

And the funny thing is that this is absolutely no different than what was happening 3-4 years ago under Bush. /.ers want to pretend that rabid anti-"other side"-ism is the sole purview of the "right wing" fanatics.

If I've noticed one thing in my years of reading /. it is that everyone here likes to claim higher intelligence, but are just as susceptible to buying into propaganda, fear-mongering, and group-think as any other demographic.

Do you honestly believe you are less fear driven than the "right-wing"? Less dogmatic than the "religious"? Less deluded by your own sense of superior knowledge than 19th-century men? The fear, dogma, and delusions are about different things, but they are equally as strong.

For every redneck idiot out there, there is a white lab coat idiot out there. For every right-wing nutcase, there is a left-wing nutcase. Every rabid Republican has a counterpart rabid Democrat. The destruction caused by ignorance is only matched by the destruction caused by hubris.

Destruction is destruction and death is death. Does it matter whether it's caused by the religious zealotry of the Inquisition or by the scientific hubris of the A-bomb? Do we measure human suffering by the numbers killed or by the quality of life lost?

Just because we have more information, doesn't make us smarter and it CERTAINLY doesn't change human nature. We think we are "civilized", but we are still subject to the same desires, motivations, strengths, and weaknesses that ruled our ancestors 100/200/500 years ago. We see our nifty gadgets and think that we are SOOO much more advanced.

Our hubris would be humorous if it weren't so destructive.