Doesn't look 14 million years old to me, either...............
And in your professional opinion the correct age is?
Well, there is the silly warning about climate change, code for global warming. The essential message, though, is the long term trend for Earth is cooling, not warming. And that really isn’t a good thing for life.
Ping.
The Bible comment is not in the article - kind of disingenuous to imply that it is.
"You have to understand where these thresholds are," he added, "Because, if human beings are unfortunate enough to push climate over one of these thresholds, it could be a total catastrophe."
Ummmmm...
Okay, on what basis is it determined that Antarctica is "permanently" frozen, and not just going through another phase? What caused the Earth to start this cooling period, and how long is it supposed to last?
And of course, what is the temperature of the earth "supposed" to be?
Doesn't look 14 million years old to me, either...............
|
What’s so hard to accept about a 14m year old object?
Hm....
D@MN Glow Bull Warming!!!
Nothing new. Lots of evidence for Neogene vegetation in numerous areas of Antarctica. Not only was the climate likely different, but Antartica was in a different place. Assuming an average rate of 1cm per year movement of continental crust, any given spot in Antarctica was 140 km away from where it is today.
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2002AM/finalprogram/session_2865.htm
“The really cool thing is that all the details are still there,” even though the plant has been dead for 14 million years. “These are actually the plant tissues themselves.”
And they redicule me for believing in the bible ... 14 million years, ya right”
So, you don’t believe living things may have existed before the strict Biblical time period, eh?
In refutation, allow me to present Exhibit A - - Helen Thomas.
In deference to the gag reflexes of the FR community I shall refrain from posting photographic (very ‘graphic’) evidence of this Exhibit A.
"You have to understand where these thresholds are," he added, "Because, if human beings are unfortunate enough to push climate over one of these thresholds, it could be a total catastrophe."
There is the Idiot of the Month statement. Is he afraid we will reverse a 50 million year cooling trend with SUVs? (Yes, he is.) Is he saying that it would be a catastrophe if life were to become more abundant in Antarctica again? (Yes, he is.) Did he just indicate that climate has crossed "thresholds" in both directions for millenia but it's only a catastrophe if humans have some role in it? (Yes, he did.)
If I had a dog this stupid I would neuter it for that reason alone.
So if we don't *push* the climate (guessing with excess CO2) towards this invisible threshold, it will never happen?
On the other hand, if we start messing with the natural progression of the Earth's climate, we could *push* it back or forward over another catastrophic threshold. Of course, if you're close minded or monetarily obligated to the first thought, you might not see the second one at all.
Of course, the Connecticut River back millions of years ago was a GIANT LAKE that went from Middletown, Connecticut to Hanover, New Hampshire and the Appalachian Mountains were higher that the Himalayas are today.
The Earth changes -- and it does it without us 'helping' it!!
