Humans may have prevented super ice age

[ben_meyers]

Our impact on Earth's climate might be even more profound than we realise. Before we started pumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the planet was on the brink of entering a semi-permanent ice age, two researchers have proposed.

Had we not radically altered the atmosphere, say Thomas Crowley of the University of Edinburgh, UK, and William Hyde of the University of Toronto in Canada, the current cycle of ice ages and interglacials would have given way in the not-too-distant future to an ice age lasting millions of years.

"It's not proven but it's more than just an interesting idea," says Crowley.

For much of the 500 million years or so since complex life evolved, Earth's climate has been much hotter than it is now, with no ice at the poles. During the last of these "hothouse Earth" phases, from around 100 to 50 million years ago, the Antarctic was covered by lush forests and shallow seas submerged vast areas of America, Europe and Africa.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16026-humans-may-have-prevented-super-ice-age.html

Thank dog we dodged that bullet!

Just gotta love that "settled science" and consensus.

[Narkos]

1. Umm, I guess by your "settled science" sarcasm, you're another GW denialist?

[jpak]

3. Seconded

n/t

[kestrel91316]

5. Yea, he is. IMHO not a real Dem either, BTW. Lots of semi-snark about

a number of Dem issues in his posts.

Not a friend.

[Narkos]

6. Here's the money quote from the article

"None of the researchers contacted by New Scientist thought the model's predictions are worth taking seriously." LOL!!!

[wtmusic]

7. Yet they print the damn thing anyway just to stir the pot

:grr:

[Nihil]

8. To be fair ...

... doing otherwise would simply fuel the "censorship" and
"scientific martyrdom" bullshit from the deniers.

It is much better to print this crap, point out that it is
scientifically untenable and let the readers shred it if they
choose without impacting New Scientist's objectivity.

:shrug:

[wtmusic]

11. Then they should print new evidence from the Flat Earth Society

as well. Otherwise they validate the denier POV by inclusion.

"Ours is the truth, the truth of the world's flatness, and ours is also the burden of proof. We are the minority, the followers of lies being the majority, and we gladly accept our burden, if in the end that acceptance means ridding the world of the foul half-truths spread by Grigori Efimovich and his brood of vipers. We present the following five arguments, each completely logical and to some degree building off of the arguments before it. We hope that, after carefully considering what we say here, you will look a with a little less ridicule on the Flat Earth Society and its members."

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

[tom_paine]

10. Of course they didn't. Scientific illiteracy is Ben's Special Method of Persuasion.

A class of First Graders is the appropriate venue for such idiocy, if Ben wants any success. He's not getting any here. We're just not dumb and ignorant enough.

A group of highly intelligent and informed people, including many actual scientists, is certainly NOT the place for a person like Ben to go to peddle his nonsense and "incident-based-thinking" (which is how ALL idiots and scientific illiterates "think" - analyzing trends and forming hypotheses is just not in their mentality, is it Ben?)

[tom_paine]

9. That, and a grotesque troll. A Denier, anti-science, and a one-note who has little else to say

other than "everything has happened before and it was OK, so this should be OK".

I've got a 5-year-old nephew with a greater capacity for scientific literacy and thought than THAT.

In other words, intellectually on a scale of 1 to 10: A "3". I am being charitable.

He's not worth replying to, trust me.

Ben, you know you would be happier at the FReikorps, instead of here.

Why do you waste your brilliant Savage Weiner Self on a bunch of Red Diaper Doper Babies and Liberal Vermin?

How much the Denial Industry paying you per hour? Ask for a raise.

Is that why you don't want to go to a place where your Intellectual/Scientific Literacy rating of 3 out of 10 would make you KING? Because you'd lose the $7/hr.?

Here, you are among the most ignorant, by far. At FReikorps, your mild understanding of logic and rhetoric would make you a GOD there among the cement-heads.

Why would you want to stay here, where you are daily exposed as a fool and disrespected more every day you expose yourself more as a fool? Why put up with the abuse when you can be worshipped in a place of cement-headed ignorance?

I mean, some of us here at E/E actually make our living by doing science. NOT a good place for a guy like you. NOT a good place to peddle scientifically illiterate lies and bullshit.

Let me note here that I am not affiliated with DU in any way shape or form, so I am speaking to you as a fellow citizen only.

But man, don't you ever get tired of being The Slow One? Don't you ever get tired of being The Last to Know?

Here you are a joke. At FReikorps you would be their intellectual God because you can sometimes simulate logic and scientific literacy, even if you can only sing one note over and over and OVER.

A GOD, a brilliant genius and Chief FReikorps Science Advisor.

From there, it is only a short jump to the lucrative field of FOX News Science "Expert". Don't worry that you are scientifically illiterate. Not a handicap to being a Fox Scientific Expert.

What DO you do for a living, Ben? One thing I am ABSOLUTELY certain of. The job by which you earn your daily bread is NOT in the scientific field and has NOTHING to do with science.

Please tell us, Ben. What is your chosen career?

No, really. Do tell us...

[jpak]

2. ""It's not proven..." Yup

nice try though

[wtmusic]

4. Nonsense.

Crowley is in the Department of Geoscience at Edinburgh. Such departments around the world receive significant props and funding from the oil industry.

In this quote denier Crowley shows his true stripes:

"The government should therefore take stronger action in two areas: first, enhance market options to stimulate energy efficiency and innovation across the economy; second, massively increase spending on technologies for clean coal and carbon capture and storage (CCS), currently the only method of directly preventing atmospheric greenhouse gas increases. Since fossil fuels are responsible for about 85% of the total world energy usage, they will have to be used for the next 30-40 years. In addition to providing a job stimulus, it is conceivable that a concerted thrust on CCS will enable Britain to become the world leader in these technologies."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/dec/11/comment.climatechange