No. I don't think that climate change poses an existential threat. I think dumping toxic brews is far more harmful than a historically marginal rise in CO2 levels and a changing shoreline.

Re maximizing profits - what does sarcasm have to do with the conversation? Oh - you mean that Al Gore and other snake charmer's might lose some money if people don't buy their shit. Ok. Maybe you have a point.

But rising due to what reason? And what are the consequences. Haven't there been periods of global warming in between periods of global cooling over the last 2.4+ million years? And did you notice there were NO ice ages before that? Hmmm. Millions of years and no ice ages. And then 22 or so in the last 2.4 million years.

Why is that?

Are our measurements wrong? Or did something change (perhaps tectonic shifts that changed water and air currents?) All this shows is that things aren't static. What makes you think that the last 135 years are significant or the changes are significant or that you even know what the caused the change?


I happen to think putting harmful industrial waste into barrels and dumping them into the ocean is far worse that rising CO2 levels. But that's just me.

Yes - we should look back at the last year (or some such relevant time period). And in geological terms 55 million years is 1 year.

We're not going back 4+ billion years. (Which would be the entire record.) Nor are we going back to the early proterozoic (2 billions years); nor the pre-cambrian 500 millions ago. No. I think starting 80 million years ago when mammals evolve is good starting point. Temperatures and C02 levels have changed dramatically over that period.

We care about survival. (That includes other species). Coastlines rise and fall. Florida wasn't there a short while ago, but it's there now. There used to be a land bridges where now there aren't. All this has happened in the last few thousand years (not millions) and not due to human activity.

If you want to say we should do things differently ... and we should do (this) or we should do (that) then fine. We'll discuss (this) and (that). But when people say that we're breaking record temperatures and they go back only 135 years then they are misrepresenting the truth - for whatever reason (they're ignorant, they're liars, they are trying to galvanize action with a few "white lies.")

Because 135 is too short a time frame. If you're tracking a stock and want to see it's history would you use it's price ticks over the last 135 seconds and think that is the representative of the whole? If you follow baseball or basketball would you extrapolate the results from one game and say that is what the player will average over the year or his career? No.
Compare 135 years to 100 million years and what do you get. Put it on a year scale. Do the math and see if you think the sample means anything.

One month equals approximately 8 million years.
One week equals approximately 2 million years. (Yes there are 4.33 weeks in a mth but this exercise to help grasp the scope.)
One day equals approximately 250,000 years
One hour equals approximately 10,000 years
One minute equals approximately 160 years


So ... we have records for less than the last one minute and we're extrapolating over the past year. (And that's only using 100 million years as a basis.) We can (and should) go further back.

Proto-Humans have been around for what 3-5 million years? (Depending on the text)
So we know that humans are fine in global temperature and CO2 variations in that time period.
Primates have been around for 20+ million years. So that time frame is good.
Mammals have been around for 80+million years. So that time frame is good.
Proto-mammals have been around for 130+ millions years. So that time frame is good. Let's not go further back. The relationship would be less obvious.

Take a look at the temperature and C02 levels of 55 million years ago (we as a species would survive with ease as would other mammals) and compare it to now. That would be a record worth comparing to. Using the last 135 years as a comparison point is more that silly - it's being dishonest. (ie lying to people to make a point).

Wow!!! Hottest year on record. Ooooooo. Guess the world started 135 years ago. And those "records" from 55 million yrs ago counts for nothing.

You can yell fire. The point is that you cannot falsely yell fire. If you do you will be held liable for the consequences thereof (people being trampled to death as they were fleeing the fire).

Well said. I wish I had mod points to mod you up.

Wish I had mod points for: Just because you're talking does NOT mean you're communicating.

:-) thanks for the reminder

What? You didn't read the book did you? Galt "gave up" because he didn't want the owners of the company to take his idea. It had nothing to do with railroads.

Yeah. Another Slashdot circle jerk.

There was no Republican Southern Strategy. There was Nixon's Southern Strategy - which was his belief that Wallace would split the Democratic vote and that he could win states with less than 45% of the vote. Which he did.

You're proof of Goebbels big lie statement.

One senator cannot "forbid" anything.