Looney Left blames Global Warming for Earthquake

Post Reply New Topic

Eh, I wouldn't call this as something the left would generally believe. It's just a hashed up theory from a handful of professors that hardly has any weight to it.

The forces at work under the surface of the Earth far out-weigh the forces above the surface. Any effect from the surface on plate movement would be inconsequential short of a asteroid impact or a gravity well passing near the planet.

Yeah, the "snap frozen" Mammoths in Siberia which happened only 12,000 years ago.
One minute they are walking around a fertile grassland and the next minute they are frozen solid.

They say that the Australian Aborigines have been in Australia for less than 100,000 years but when they got here it was very swampy and filled with "megafauna". Huge prehistoric Wombats almost as big as elephants etc etc.

Gee, do you think a few thousand Aborigines caused that with their cooking fires?

The global warming crackpots with no credentials in geology are claiming their THEORY is the gospel truth, when in reality, even real geologists don't have the technology to test if the global warming crackpot theories are even remotely plausible.

No, but don't think the enviro-nazis are above claiming that eating giant wombats caused a really severe case of gas.

Oh, that's an easy one - in this context it's simply a grunted rallying cry for stupid people who've been taught by stupid-but-powerful people to hate people who threaten the stupid-but-powerful ones. It has no specific meaning so can be applied indiscriminately.

The real problem is in tuning out the massed voices of the likes of Browning here while still paying attention to the faint voices of the small number of people who both a) have a clue and b) are sceptical of anthropogenic-induced climate change.

I'm not really sure why science has been inexorably associated with a political leaning. It is sort of how science works - scientist envisions a theory then uses science to prove or disprove that theory. Many MANY more theories have been disproven throughout history than proven to be true. How does one scientists theory get him labelled as a liberal?

Actually the events ruveyn accurately described have nothing to do with that silly theory of snap frozen mammoths that is not even true



Much like North America the megafauna disappeared because of Human intervention, through hunting and using fire to clear land.


More likely, those ignorant of science would twist unrelated words into such a statement



Please. It is a scientific consensus based on observable data. You don't have to like it, but don't f**k with what is real because it makes you butthurt. I have read enough material from Geologists and Climatologists to know this claim that 'real scientists' don't support global warming is total BS



Conservatives get butthurt when you mention science that doesn't support their ignorant world view. Since little science does support them, they naturally are always butthurt

First there actually isn't a consensus, and in fact many scientific agencies and journals have been under fire for ethics violations such as automatically rejecting the articles written by anyone whom would question the "global warming" agenda. Climategate, and before you say it was disproven, it has been shown that the "investigators" had a conflict of interest where they would wish to cover up evidence of the ethics violations and fraud.

Is climate change possible, yes, do humans have that big of an influence on it, that is really debateable. There are so many factors in play, that to say it is solely due to human activity is a stretch. Additionally, blaming everything on global warming also leads one to believe that it is a scam.

If one were to leave this topic at 'its silly that someone would jump the gun at blaming global warming for these earthquakes' I'd be more inclined to agree with you
And as for the climategate scandal, on the opposite side, for more then two decades now, most of the data against anthropogenic warming has been funded by companies that would potentially lose profit by admitting to being partly responsible. So don't talk about a 'conflict of interest' lightly, the industry supported 'scientists' who are the most vehement deniers are the ones with the main conflict of interest. If anything the scandal of dishonest scientists in the climate change camp was a reaction to what the other side has been engaged in for more than two decades. The overwhelming data supports global warming, the only ones who are really arguing against it are the industry researchers and the poor misguided fools that listen to them

That depends on how honest they are concerning the funding. Yes it is an indication that their results need to be taken with a grain of salt and encourage other people to look over the data of the said experiments. However, the scientists that received industry funding aren't the ones that manipulated (changing/deleting/etc.) their data to get certain results, it was the pro-global warming scientists.

So, right now I don't take either side at their word right now, which ends up favoring the scientists that say global warming is alarmism. Burden of proof rests on the scientists that say global warming is primarily caused by activities of man.

Actually, industry scientists are the ones who are most known to manipulate data. Asides from that they are guilty of making up data and flooding researchers in a vain attempt to divert the issue. They have been guilty of 90% of the dishonest practices in the entire debate, but unfortunately the media is paid by the same people who fund them so this is generally glossed over



The 'alarmist' position is actually perpetrated mostly by Fox News and other anti-global warming advocate agencies. Most climate scientists have a very restrained attitude, it is the media that blows it out of proportion trying to put words in their mouth. The very topic of this thread is perfect credence to this unfortunate fact. The lesson is that media is not trustworthy

You know, the worst part is, I was hoping a lot of questions would have been answered by now by NASA's Glory Climate Satellite. Unfortunately the rocket carrying it exploded while attempting to reach orbit. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some crazy guy on the internet somewhere shouting about how the oil companies did it which I hope shows you that I also believe in restraint on the issue, and not alarmist positions. What I am more interested in is the effects on biology and how life is going to evolve. There are already some species adapting to different micro-climates and levels of pollution. Climate has been alternating between various extremes for a long time, and the idea that biology affects climate is actually well grounded
The first organisms that lived on Earth were anaerobic and produced oxygen as part of their respiration. This inevitably drove them to extinction but their biological processes built the 02 rich atmosphere we enjoy today. Who is to say that what Humans are doing cannot possibly lead to an extinction event?

When have they manipulated the data, and also a lot of the news agencies actually do not have ties to industry that would actually be hurt by the carbon-tax.

MSNBC comes to mind.

While it was true that mammoths were flash frozen, it was twice the time ago. The last warmer than now period, 27,000 to 22,000 years ago. People lived along the Arctic Ocean shore, above the Arctic Circle, I doubt they stayed for the six month night, but the six month day was the most livable place they could find. Sea level was seven meters higher, the Arctic ice free, on the surface.

Mammoths were grass eaters, their food moved north and they followed, and warm pastures of warm climate grasses covered the far north.

Below the pastures was Permafrost, and slowly it melted, Then there was a warm crust over a near freezing muck, and mammoths weighed a lot. When the crust gave way they sank into a near frozen mud, and could not get out. It was ice, water, and fine muck. It sucked the heat from the bodies, they weakened quickly, and died, sinking deeper, then being covered in a new warm crust.

Austrailians made it perhaps 40,000 years ago, and brush fires happened long before people. The pattern of extinctions of large animal is worldwide, and there is much evidence that climate change was the cause, not humans with pointed sticks.

I have read the stories of humans with a spear and a torch slaughtering the Mammoths, larger than an African elephant, and the Neanderthals, but my bet would be on the mammoths, and Neanderthal and human lived in the same areas for 20,000 years.

The mammoths did die off 12,000 years ago, a period after the ice melted, when a 1,500 year dust storm called the Lesser Dryas buried most of the planet with beds of wind blown dust.

Humans had lived with mammoths for over 30,000 years.

Loss of the ice seems to be the leading cause of both Neanderthal and Mammoth extinctions.

I have been studying climate change for a while before it made the news, talk radio, or Left or Right spin.

Climate does change, often it is sudden, and sometimes Mammoths migrating to the shores of the Arctic, they lived till the ice returned, and sometimes a long dust storm made finding food impossible, and large animals died out. Most of what survived the dust were Alpine species, deer, goats, sheep, cattle, horses, which could climb above the dust. While the large herd animals that fed on low plains almost all died. With them died the large meat eaters that fed from the herds. In a herd of a million, that lives ten years, 100,000 a year will be found dying if you follow the herd.

I am sure humans are now changing the climate, producing CO2, but I do not see a direct path to the kinds of climate change we have had in the past. Humans would die without the energy of coal and oil. Perhaps they will die because of it, but the main issue is overpopulation, over use of declining resources, water, farmland, is the second major cause of extinctions, most species that over populate do die off.

From the Biblical of storing food for seven years, in my youth America stored wheat for a year, one bad crop was what we could survive. Today, there are no reserves stored, we live from crop to crop like there will never be a bad year, ever, and houses will always be worth more.

Climate change is slow to humans, but we are a bad crop away from famine, fresh water is predicted to be all used before 2040, and the population is booming.

We are growing Mono Culture, one species of Genetically Modified grain worldwide. A new Wheat Rust has jumped from Africa to Southeast Asia, so far, it is unstopable. Drought is the long term and growing condition in the American west, Arizona will be out of water within twenty years, and the drought is spreading into the grain and corn land.

Most of the population growth is third world, this cannot last. At least half of the population will die by mid centuary. We cannot double food production, produce fresh water in the amounts needed.

Global Warming is the best hope, opening the far north to food production. All of our efforts will not keep up with population growth.

Nothing makes sense except for a personal fifty year survival plan.

That is an interesting thought that global warming, in some part contributed to by man, may be beneficial to the survival of the human species. With all of the talk of global cooling in the mid 70's, I often wonder if the enhanced greenhouse effect, impacted by humans, could have counteracted or postponed the inevitability of another mini ice age.

We were getting quite a bit of snow in Florida in the mid 70's. Something that didn't happen in the 60's. Another big one in '93, that was kind of a fluke with "Thunder snow storms" but nothing significant since. Then the horrible hurricanes that started in the mid 2000's that did not continue as expected. I remember that dip in the temperatures in the 70's on Al Gore's graph in his movie, and it reminded me of those cooling fears in the 70's.

There is some evidence that abortion, legal and illegal is having a major impact on population in undeveloped countries; moreso than developed countries. The frequency of abortion and poverty are closely related. I haven't researched the population vs resource issue in the depth that you have, but it seems that humans are already taking action, to control population, in areas where resources are low.

Without the influx of immigrants in the US we were getting close to negative population growth. Abortions would occur regardless if they are legal or illegal, but the introduction of the pill in1960 has all but eliminated the families of 10-12 that were common in the early 1900's.

Chances are that are built in human evolutionary measures to control population above and beyond intentional birthcontrol when the stress of population becomes high. It is evident in animal populations; no reason to believe it would not be the same for us. One statistic I can think of is the higher incidence or expression of schizophrenia in areas that are overpopulated.

As to the effect of climate change on earthquakes, there may be some insignificant relationship, but my understanding is that even the people that are proposing the relationship of changes in ice mass are admitting that this factor would be small compared to other normal factors that influence the occurrence of earthquakes.

My dad told me when I was a little boy (in the 60's,) when I asked him about communism, he said, "Son, if you're not a communist by the time you're 20, you're an idiot, and if you're still a communist by the time you're 30, you're a bigger idiot."

I say the same thing to my sons now, except I substitute "Rabid Environmentalist" for "communist." (Watermelons come to mind.)

The self importance of the vast majority human race is staggering. The planet's gonna be around a lot longer than us, we're going away. (George Carlin, my hero.)

Anthropogenic Global Warming is the biggest scientific scam in the history of the human race. It is making a lot of people a lot of money, and that's the bottom line.

People are dumb as dogshit for believing the crap they feed us. I'd be very interested to know the percentage of aspies who've taken up this new religion.

The big money is in oil, not solar panels.