Originally Posted by B Butler

Values trump facts. This is human nature. It is far too easy for many with non-science primary values to find reasons to discredit experimental evidence and observation of nature. It is much harder -- nigh on impossible -- to re-evaluate one's values from scratch. The mind seems to have natural defenses that allow individual humans to avoid perceiving and acting upon such cognitive dissonance. Anything that would force re-evaluation of values becomes irrelevant, subject to doubt or otherwise dubious.

I don't think this is unique to fundamentalists. As someone whose primary values are scientific, I'm not sure I can imagine what it would take for me to put religion, politics or whatever ahead of scientific evaluation.

Nothing you say above quite conflicts with what I just said, but using words like "nonsense" and "dumb" don't do justice to the nature of the problem. If admitting one has a problem is the first step in tackling problems like drugs and alcohol, acknowledging that values trump reason and fact, that humans are not by nature rational animals, might be similarly necessary.

This is quite true. It's all too easy for humans to delude themselves into confirmation bias. This happens not just with creationist beliefs, but also from anti-vaxxers, anti-GMOers, and a wide array of faulty beliefs.

But since we're in the global warming thread, I think it's important to point out a big difference between AGW "denialists" (I'm quoting that for a reason) and the things that I cited above. None of the others protect the bottom line of six of the top ten (and eight of the top fifteen) largest companies in the world. There may be plenty among the masses that are cognitively dissonant about AGW, but the people responsible for sourcing that dissonance know damn well of the dangers of unmitigated AGW, and yet they've rather advocate for entrenched corporate profits. That, to me, makes them more despicable than your garden-variety bible thumper, and maybe even Jenny McCarthy.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Values trump facts. This is human nature. It is far too easy for many with non-science primary values to find reasons to discredit experimental evidence and observation of nature. It is much harder -- nigh on impossible -- to re-evaluate one's values from scratch. The mind seems to have natural defenses that allow individual humans to avoid perceiving and acting upon such cognitive dissonance. Anything that would force re-evaluation of values becomes irrelevant, subject to doubt or otherwise dubious.

Science is process and method. It is neither religion nor ideology and is best kept separate from both. Good scientific practice requires at times that one accept the counter-intuitive. In science, experimental results are the truth, and they can easily contradict a 'reasonable' assumption such as that electromagnetic radiation from a moving object moves at a faster speed than light from a non-moving object. Electromagnetic radiation cannot be accelerated.

This is not to say that scientific activity is beyond ethical scrutiny; scientists are responsible for their ethical choices on matters of life, death, and crippling injury. Just think of the judgments against Nazi physicians and medical researchers whose "test patients" were killed in experiments. I would have ethical difficulty with pointless testing on animals, the most objectionable tests being the redundant tests of toxic and corrosive substances upon living creatures. Does anyone need another test to see whether a drain cleaner would do harm to the flesh of living creatures?

I don't think this is unique to fundamentalists. As someone whose primary values are scientific, I'm not sure I can imagine what it would take for me to put religion, politics or whatever ahead of scientific evaluation.

Political extremists and moneyed special interests also put politics or economic gain above science, which explains Soviet commies fostering the quack pseudoscience of Trofim Lysenko and the Koch syndicate funding so much denial of global warming. Most of us would find moral values of some kind to preclude certain research, typically such research that does great harm to unwilling participants. Even on a study such as economics which has adopted much of the methodology of science, it would be unconscionable to impose an experiment that tests whether slavery would be an efficient technique for spurring economic growth.

... using words like "nonsense" and "dumb" don't do justice to the nature of the problem. If admitting one has a problem is the first step in tackling problems like drugs and alcohol, acknowledging that values trump reason and fact, that humans are not by nature rational animals, might be similarly necessary.

Intelligence does not itself ensure wisdom. Such brilliant people as Lenin, Mussolini, Goebbels, Quisling, and Mao have done some horrible deeds. Even great creativity of obvious marketability hardly ensures a happy life (and I do not speak of people of those whose lives were tragically shortened for no fault of their own as with Juan Crisóstomo Arriaga* or Anne Frank); alcoholism (Mussorgsky), VD (Vincent van Gogh), or drugs (Jimi Hendrix) can wreck anyone. The word 'intellectual' hardly guarantees the absence of crankiness, and such an insult as 'peasant' or 'prole' may hide some rationality of decision-making. After all, no matter how limited the learning of the fellow at the bottom of the economic hierarchy may be, that person may be the least able to avoid the consequences of folly. One must admit that the "School of Hard Knocks" can teach some things that Harvard and MIT can't.

We have plenty of educated fools on the loose, and the worst of them may not be so much the economic failures whose degree in the Humanities makes them eminently capable of discussing the fine points of Milton yet must eke out a dreary living hustling underwear at a department store as the ones who get away with some very bad behavior -- engineers who sign off on shortcuts that can save employers some costs but endanger the users of a compromised project, academics who sell out to vile interests, and many graduates of MBA programs who get paid well for treating humanity as a whole (whether subordinates, customers, or suppliers) badly.

If there were easy ways to give up drugs or alcohol, people would give them up as easily as they can change clothes. So it is with many other bad habits, and we Americans are going to find that the bad habits that we have accreted during the 3T and never fully renounced will surely hurt us. Except for blacks who can remember the Jim Crow era, Americans have no idea of what a plutocratic oligarchy feels like in America. Many of us who think that it can never happen to us will find it happening to us as the ruling elite replaces the consumer society with pure exploitation. We Americans solved nothing in the 3T, and we are going to pay a high price for such in this 4T.

*Never heard of him? He wrote some impressive works before he turned 20 -- and he died before he turned 20. He was on track to be one of the greatest composers of all time.

In the '70s I was taught in jr. high & high school that global warming has been occurring since the polar ice caps, which killed the dinosaurs millions of years ago, began retreating about 10,000 years ago due to increasing global temperatures. At one point ocean levels were low enough due to frozen water that Asians were able to walk across Bering Straight into North America. Then that land bridge was cutoff by rising ocean levels due to global warming's melting of polar ice caps.

In Missouri where I live, the entire state north of the Missouri River is soiled by Loess, which is glacial silt. There aren't any glaciers there anymore. Global warming has been happening for a long, long time. It started long before the Industrial Revolution... Long before the conception of an internal combustion engine.

Solar energy is 15 times cleaner than coal. Not perfect, but much better.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/o...l#.VGhmpjTF8yA

Originally Posted by Crosstimbers Okie

In the '70s I was taught in jr. high & high school that global warming has been occurring since the polar ice caps, which killed the dinosaurs millions of years ago, began retreating about 10,000 years ago due to increasing global temperatures. At one point ocean levels were low enough due to frozen water that Asians were able to walk across Bering Straight into North America. Then that land bridge was cutoff by rising ocean levels due to global warming's melting of polar ice caps.

In Missouri where I live, the entire state north of the Missouri River is soiled by Loess, which is glacial silt. There aren't any glaciers there anymore. Global warming has been happening for a long, long time. It started long before the Industrial Revolution... Long before the conception of an internal combustion engine.

Excuse me, but what kind of a comment is that?

Global warming is a current crisis caused by fossil fuel burning and deforestation, mainly. Warming is happening much faster and on a much greater scale now, thanks to the industrial age; what usually takes 6000-10,000 years has taken 100 years, and it's getting worse. We know that the dangerous effects are happening even faster than scientists have predicted. Ice caps are melting, glaciers are retreating and oceans are getting more acidic faster than ever before. Global warming plus habitat loss and other pollution has created the sixth mass extinction event in the history of life on Earth. The dinosaurs were likely wiped out by an asteroid collision in the Yucatan which caused severe climate disruption.

If you are a Republican, perhaps you get your info from Rush Limbotomy or Faux News. However, if you read up on the facts, and are not opposed to government action in order to preserve a false free-market ideology, you are informed about what is happening, and the need for conversion to clean and renewable energy.

Admit that the waters around ya have grown, and admit that soon you'll be drenched to the bone!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...ml?cps=gravity

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...ml?cps=gravity

(quote)
We don't need fossil fuels anymore. Many would argue that the reason we can't stop burning fossil fuels and address climate change is that our modern civilization can't continue without them. The notion that we depend on fossil fuels is a myth; and it's a myth that must be busted. And busted soon, given the rapid advance of climate change.

For decades, we have had renewable technology on the shelf. We have already invented technologies -- in many cases, over 100 years ago -- that will be the basis of our future, sustainable civilization. Electric vehicles were invented in the early 1800s and had a heyday in 1900, with a hybrid car invented in 1916. The photovoltaic effect was discovered in 1839; the solar cell was invented in 1941; wind power for electricity in 1887; geothermal power plant in 1904 and biofuel from vegetable oil in the 1890s. Granted, the tech was not entirely there yet, but neither was, say, the internal combustion engine. Cars with internal combustion needed an unwieldy crank up until 1912 and, even after 100 years, can't be driven without creating pollution. Renewable technology has, in the past decades, caught up and then some.

We can now safely say we can power civilization entirely without fossil fuels. We are starting now and can achieve this goal within decades, depending on our will and fortitude. The Solutions Project and Mark Jacobson of the Atmosphere & Energy Program at Stanford University propose that we heat our houses with solar, wind, tidal and, in some cases, geothermal. After all, we already drive cars that plug into electricity from our homes that are powered by renewables. And there will be batteries (thanks again to Elon Musk) in our homes that our cars can plug into as a reserve. We fly our jets with, get this, a carbon negative biofuel made from algae. And grow our food in regenerative organic farms. And this is just for starters.

Another myth that must be busted is that the renewable economy is unviable. Actually, our sustainable energy economy will be robust and create wealth. Already, there are more than 300 coal plants in the United States that cannot compete with solar and wind; and it is projected that the renewable energy economy will supply millions of jobs. A Brookings Institution and the Pew Center on the States report has found that greener industries grow faster than the overall economy and that states with greater green investments have generally fared better in the current economic downturn.

Which brings us to light another point: The robustness of the clean energy economy brings power back into the hands of the many, not the few. The fossil fuel energy economy is highly centralized -- not just the means of generation and transmission -- but also the wealth created, which sits in the hands of the few. Renewable energy is decentralized, puts power into the hands of communities and gives them more control over their future. Clean energy, as Billy Parish of Mosaic says, "is one of the largest wealth-creation opportunities of our time if we can make it possible for people to participate in and benefit in this transition. It is one of the biggest opportunities for broad-based prosperity."

Given that this transition to renewables will create broad-based opportunity and wealth, will reverse climate change and will secure a vital planet for future generations, I vote for the clean energy economy. What about you?

(unquote)

If you "vote for the clean energy economy," you'll have to vote against the Republicans.

Originally Posted by Crosstimbers Okie

In the '70s I was taught in jr. high & high school that global warming has been occurring since the polar ice caps, which killed the dinosaurs millions of years ago, began retreating about 10,000 years ago due to increasing global temperatures. At one point ocean levels were low enough due to frozen water that Asians were able to walk across Bering Straight into North America. Then that land bridge was cutoff by rising ocean levels due to global warming's melting of polar ice caps.

My freshman year of high school had Earth Science for the more promising students, and such knowledge as it offered is best described as 'limited' and 'primitive'. It still treated the extinction of the dinosaurs as a 'great mystery' and confused early cetaceans with Mesozoic dinosaurs. It said nothing about continental drift except that it was 'controversial'. In deference to Christian Protestant fundamentalists it had to sidestep evolution and the age of the Earth.

......

The demise of the dinosaurs about 65 million years ago had nothing to do with any Ice Age. The early Eocene, about 55 million years ago, had the warmest conditions ever, with subtropical conditions in the Arctic Ocean (which has been stable in position). Antarctica was ice-free except perhaps in high-mountain areas.

In Missouri where I live, the entire state north of the Missouri River is soiled by Loess, which is glacial silt. There aren't any glaciers there anymore. Global warming has been happening for a long, long time. It started long before the Industrial Revolution... Long before the conception of an internal combustion engine.

The warming at the end of the Last Glacial Maximum was swift. Ice sheets took time to melt away, and the exposure of bare land and especially the reforestation of areas freed from glaciation reduced the Earth's albedo and caused less sunlight to reflect into space. The melting of sea ice also created a much darker surface than the ice and allowed more absorption of solar radiation, also accelerating the warming of the Earth as a whole.

Current AGW is the result of emissions of carbon dioxide and water vapor from the burning of fossil fuels, a recent phenomenon in human terms. But between the end of the Last Glacial Maximum and now, world climates have had their own cycles.

You might be interested in this source of accessible data on these sites:

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/adams1.html

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...adams_2001.pdf

This one may simply be down:

http://geoecho.snu.ac.kr/nerc.html

It's all only a start.

Originally Posted by Crosstimbers Okie

In the '70s I was taught in jr. high & high school that global warming has been occurring since the polar ice caps, which killed the dinosaurs millions of years ago, began retreating about 10,000 years ago due to increasing global temperatures. At one point ocean levels were low enough due to frozen water that Asians were able to walk across Bering Straight into North America. Then that land bridge was cutoff by rising ocean levels due to global warming's melting of polar ice caps.

In Missouri where I live, the entire state north of the Missouri River is soiled by Loess, which is glacial silt. There aren't any glaciers there anymore. Global warming has been happening for a long, long time. It started long before the Industrial Revolution... Long before the conception of an internal combustion engine.

Texas used to be the floor of the ocean, which is why it's now covered with fossils of sea creatures.
But some humans now have the hubris to think that we can control the levels of Earth's seas. By voting for Democrats.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...ml?cps=gravity

(quote)
We don't need fossil fuels anymore. Many would argue that the reason we can't stop burning fossil fuels and address climate change is that our modern civilization can't continue without them. The notion that we depend on fossil fuels is a myth; and it's a myth that must be busted. And busted soon, given the rapid advance of climate change.

The Koch syndicate disagrees with us. For it, reality is what best serves its quick profitability, which is that people accelerate their use of fossil fuels. For the next two years we can expect a taste of plutocratic oligarchy; I just hope that we can spit it out before we swallow the toxic waste and get terribly sick from it.

It's not the technology; it is political power. The Koch syndicate largely bought the 2014 US election, and we Americans can expect to pay heavily for that.

For decades, we have had renewable technology on the shelf. We have already invented technologies -- in many cases, over 100 years ago -- that will be the basis of our future, sustainable civilization. Electric vehicles were invented in the early 1800s and had a heyday in 1900, with a hybrid car invented in 1916. The photovoltaic effect was discovered in 1839; the solar cell was invented in 1941; wind power for electricity in 1887; geothermal power plant in 1904 and biofuel from vegetable oil in the 1890s. Granted, the tech was not entirely there yet, but neither was, say, the internal combustion engine. Cars with internal combustion needed an unwieldy crank up until 1912 and, even after 100 years, can't be driven without creating pollution. Renewable technology has, in the past decades, caught up and then some.

But petroleum was both cheaper and more profitable. The automobile and the roads that they needed created well-paying jobs that millions could not fare well without. It's now hard to believe, but as late as the 1950s Detroit was the richest city in the world with excellent opportunities for people who could have never done better anywhere else even in America. Great fortunes were made in the Spindletop oil boom in Texas, with what for years was the biggest oil company (Texaco) that had no connection to any company ever associated with the Standard Oil trust.

We can now safely say we can power civilization entirely without fossil fuels. We are starting now and can achieve this goal within decades, depending on our will and fortitude. The Solutions Project and Mark Jacobson of the Atmosphere & Energy Program at Stanford University propose that we heat our houses with solar, wind, tidal and, in some cases, geothermal. After all, we already drive cars that plug into electricity from our homes that are powered by renewables. And there will be batteries (thanks again to Elon Musk) in our homes that our cars can plug into as a reserve. We fly our jets with, get this, a carbon negative biofuel made from algae. And grow our food in regenerative organic farms. And this is just for starters.

Which is much like saying that we can feed ourselves well without high-fructose corn sweeteners. Destructive technologies can survive by undercutting the more benign ones -- and will do so. Profits generate their own political constituencies and power base. Just look at what Koch is doing. Koch Industries is the 48th-largest corporation in sales volume worldwide, and it would be higher on the list if the quasi-state agencies such as the state-owned Chinese enterprises in oil production, electricity, telecommunications, rails; Saudi Aramco; Kuwait Petroleum; Petrobras (64% ownership by the Brazilian government); and the Japanese postal conglomerate were struck from the list as state enterprises.

Another myth that must be busted is that the renewable economy is unviable. Actually, our sustainable energy economy will be robust and create wealth. Already, there are more than 300 coal plants in the United States that cannot compete with solar and wind; and it is projected that the renewable energy economy will supply millions of jobs. A Brookings Institution and the Pew Center on the States report has found that greener industries grow faster than the overall economy and that states with greater green investments have generally fared better in the current economic downturn.

It is viable -- but again, the American economy is still geared heavily toward the old technologies that still can turn a profit. Oil is a boom-and-bust business dependent heavily upon discoveries for volume but high commodity prices for profits. Texas has had some rough times on occasion as wells dry up or prices plummet. Undercutting businesses can suppress competition -- just look at Wal*Mart, which has utterly destroyed small retailers in middle-income markets.

Which brings us to light another point: The robustness of the clean energy economy brings power back into the hands of the many, not the few. The fossil fuel energy economy is highly centralized -- not just the means of generation and transmission -- but also the wealth created, which sits in the hands of the few. Renewable energy is decentralized, puts power into the hands of communities and gives them more control over their future. Clean energy, as Billy Parish of Mosaic says, "is one of the largest wealth-creation opportunities of our time if we can make it possible for people to participate in and benefit in this transition. It is one of the biggest opportunities for broad-based prosperity."

Big Oil is trying to get into it, which is its right in a free-enterprise system. Exxon-Mobil has a large pilot project for transforming fast-growing algae into petroleum-like fuel. No surprise, there; the company is trying to do with biomass what heat and pressure upon dead plants did over a couple hundred million years. Big Oil already has the physical infrastructure and the marketing know-how -- and the capital for buying out successful start-ups that lack the capital, pipelines, and marketing. At some point you may not know the difference between hydrocarbon fuels whose biomass was living 200 million years ago or 200 days ago.

If you "vote for the clean energy economy," you'll have to vote against the Republicans.

Too late for 2014. All hail the powerful Romanov -- excuse me, Koch -- family.[vomit][/vomit]

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Texas used to be the floor of the ocean, which is why it's now covered with fossils of sea creatures.
But some humans now have the hubris to think that we can control the levels of Earth's seas. By voting for Democrats.

The hubris of course is completely attributable to the fossil fuel companies who continue to insist on their billions in profit at the expense of our future. And they can always buy Republicans to do their bidding.

If we vote for Democrats, and only if we vote for Democrats, our government may be able to help keep the tide from rising to some extent. But the hubris of the Republican CEOs and the representatives they have bought in our government have already pushed the tide so high that many will be flooded out around the world. We can't turn back the clock. But we CAN become more aware of what we have done-- by ignoring the impact of our votes, and by falling for the deceptive destruction wrought by free-market ideology in all its forms, which about half of the American people continue to do.

Job #1 in this 4T is to counteract and debunk the free-market ideology, and to defeat its mostly-GOP advocates at all levels of our government. Only then can we hope for a sustainable future for America. I hope over the next 2 years, more people wake up to the dire mistake they have made all too frequently over the last 34 years.

Continuing to deny the fact of global warming caused by humans, as you apparently do, will not help.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Values trump facts. This is human nature. It is far too easy for many with non-science primary values to find reasons to discredit experimental evidence and observation of nature. It is much harder -- nigh on impossible -- to re-evaluate one's values from scratch. The mind seems to have natural defenses that allow individual humans to avoid perceiving and acting upon such cognitive dissonance. Anything that would force re-evaluation of values becomes irrelevant, subject to doubt or otherwise dubious.

Yes

I don't think this is unique to fundamentalists. As someone whose primary values are scientific, I'm not sure I can imagine what it would take for me to put religion, politics or whatever ahead of scientific evaluation.

Greater knowledge of yourself and Spirit from within, if it were ever to happen to you. That would do it.

Nothing you say above quite conflicts with what I just said, but using words like "nonsense" and "dumb" don't do justice to the nature of the problem. If admitting one has a problem is the first step in tackling problems like drugs and alcohol, acknowledging that values trump reason and fact, that humans are not by nature rational animals, might be similarly necessary.

You are correct.

In my case, scientific evidence is a value, and I also have other values such as mystical realization, artistic and natural beauty, and respect for life, vital force and consciousness and the intrinsic rights of all beings. Obedience to traditional authority has never been a value for me, and money, material comforts and free-markets, although valuable, are not highest on my list either. On balance, all these values and non-values/lower values together lead me to strongly support environmentalism and reversing global warming by all practical and necessary means.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Texas used to be the floor of the ocean, which is why it's now covered with fossils of sea creatures.
But some humans now have the hubris to think that we can control the levels of Earth's seas. By voting for Democrats.

My native state, Oklahoma is the same way. In Oklahoma there are four small mountain ranges--the Arbuckles, Wichitas, Ouachitas, and Ozarks. On the peaks of all four you can pick up rocks containing fossils of sea creatures.

It was likely CFCs that dried up the oceans.

California is moving

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_California

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Texas used to be the floor of the ocean, which is why it's now covered with fossils of sea creatures.
But some humans now have the hubris to think that we can control the levels of Earth's seas. By voting for Democrats.

So you are equating the primordial oceans with global warming? Don't you find that a bit of a stretch? We're trying to work on the near term climate here. That's decades not millions of years.

Originally Posted by Crosstimbers Okie

My native state, Oklahoma is the same way. In Oklahoma there are four small mountain ranges--the Arbuckles, Wichitas, Ouachitas, and Ozarks. On the peaks of all four you can pick up rocks containing fossils of sea creatures.

It was likely CFCs that dried up the oceans.

Then explain why these fossils are now on mountain tops. Assuming your not being snarky, of course.

Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), primarily from human fossil fuel combustion, reduces ocean pH and causes wholesale shifts in seawater carbonate chemistry. The process of ocean acidification is well documented in field data, and the rate will accelerate over this century unless future CO2 emissions are curbed dramatically. Acidification alters seawater chemical speciation and biogeochemical cycles of many elements and compounds. One well-known effect is the lowering of calcium carbonate saturation states, which impacts shell-forming marine organisms from plankton to benthic molluscs, echinoderms, and corals. Many calcifying species exhibit reduced calcification and growth rates in laboratory experiments under high-CO2 conditions. Ocean acidification also causes an increase in carbon fixation rates in some photosynthetic organisms (both calcifying and noncalcifying). The potential for marine organisms to adapt to increasing CO2 and broader implications for ocean ecosystems are not well known; both are high priorities for future research. Although ocean pH has varied in the geological past, paleo-events may be only imperfect analogs to current conditions.

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs....010908.163834

I wonder if Okies can understand these points:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...ming/page4.php
(quote)

In Earth’s history before the Industrial Revolution, Earth’s climate changed due to natural causes not related to human activity. Most often, global climate has changed because of variations in sunlight. Tiny wobbles in Earth’s orbit altered when and where sunlight falls on Earth’s surface. Variations in the Sun itself have alternately increased and decreased the amount of solar energy reaching Earth. Volcanic eruptions have generated particles that reflect sunlight, brightening the planet and cooling the climate. Volcanic activity has also, in the deep past, increased greenhouse gases over millions of years, contributing to episodes of global warming.

These natural causes are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming seen in recent decades. We know this because scientists closely monitor the natural and human activities that influence climate with a fleet of satellites and surface instruments.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Then explain why these fossils are now on mountain tops. Assuming your not being snarky, of course.

Actually, it's plate tectonics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouachita_orogeny
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozarks

Nothing new actually. Below sea level sediments get shoved upward to make mountains. If 2 continents slam into each other then if there's a sea between them that sediments get shoved skyward, producing sea fossils on mountain tops.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Actually, it's plate tectonics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouachita_orogeny
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozarks

Nothing new actually. Below sea level sediments get shoved upward to make mountains. If 2 continents slam into each other then if there's a sea between them that sediments get shoved skyward, producing sea fossils on mountain tops.

I was making a similar point, albeit in a more obtuse fashion. Plate tectonics operates over millions of years, not decades, so counting on continental movement as a cause for AGW is a bit disingenuous.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Actually, it's plate tectonics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouachita_orogeny
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozarks

Nothing new actually. Below sea level sediments get shoved upward to make mountains. If 2 continents slam into each other then if there's a sea between them that sediments get shoved skyward, producing sea fossils on mountain tops.

There ya go.
Netflix has this science series on how seas have shifted over time. Africa is especially interesting, in terms of how different species evolved to the changes, including the precursors to early humans.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

There ya go.
Netflix has this science series on how seas have shifted over time. Africa is especially interesting, in terms of how different species evolved to the changes, including the precursors to early humans.

... which, while interesting, has nothing to do with AGW

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

... which, while interesting, has nothing to do with AGW

Exactly!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

... which, while interesting, has nothing to do with AGW

I think the point is Floridians can evolve pouches like kangaroos so they can carry their kids to day care, and so this whole climate thingee is not really a big deal.

I think this viewpoint was actually expressed by Kim Kardashian and one of her viewers mistook her show as a science series. Because, ya know, it was on Netflix.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I was making a similar point, albeit in a more obtuse fashion. Plate tectonics operates over millions of years, not decades, so counting on continental movement as a cause for AGW is a bit disingenuous.

I would quibble with "a bit".