: >Dimwits often doubt if there is a greenhouse effect, but the fact
: >that the earth is not locked in a perpetual ice age, tells us that
: >thinking people there is one.
: >What does this fact tell denialist Khnum?
: >Dimwits often doubt if the globe has warmed, but direct measurement
: >tells us that it has.

: Hey Nudds, how about the global temperature
: in 1459 ad? 1025ad? 2000bce? 3500bce?
: 8500bce? 10500bce? 25000bce? 100,000bce?
: 150,000bce? 250000bce? 500,000bce?

  Dimwits often attempt to argue that since there was climate change in
the past, we are justified in altering the climate today.  This is a
childish position to take since it doesn't address the damage that may
result.  No rational mind would justify triggering a global ice age
today because they have occurred in the past.  Similarly no rational
mind will justify bringing the earth into an era of extreme heat at
an unprecedented rate of speed.  Not only are the higher temperatures
associated with substantially negative effects, but the rate of change
is known to be much larger than can be had if the biosphere is to evolve
to suit the new temperature regime.

: >Please do.  How do you conclude that the observed warming trend shows
: >that we are at the appropriate time for the beginning of a new ice-age?

: Study Geology and Paleoclimatology.  Find out for yourself.

  I have. Please answer the question, or admit that you can not.

: > If it is, then the climate is significantly more sensitive than
: >claimed, and we should obviously stop driving it into warmer regimes
: >lest we bring on a new ice age.

: The climate isn't "more sensative than claimed". That's an assumption
: on your point to further prove your illogic.  It would make sense that
: the climate is less sensative, and less responsive to the activities of
: humans.

  Your claim was that the observed warming trend shows that we are at
the appropriate time for a new ice age. Since this is not the claim of
main stream scientists, you must be claiming that the climate is more
sensitive than they claim.

  If you are correct.  Then we most certainly should stop increasing
atmospheric CO2 levels, as we will trigger a new ice age.

: >Yes, it's such arrogance to think that after years of life, one can
: >predict the death of another by the inspection of .05 seconds in the
: >flight of a bullet.

: What the hell does this mean?

  It means that you are scientifically illiterate.

: >You've drank tens of thousands of liters of water in your lifetime.
: >How can anyone proclaim boldly that breathing just a half liter of water
: >can cause death?  Or proclaim that just a few thousandth of a liter of
: >water injected in the right location can cause immediate death?

: What? I said nothing about liters of water?  Where did you get this from?

  It's rather obvious.

: >And now the Conservative attacks Government and University Science.
: >If people like Khunm ever get control of government how many books
: >will they burn?  How much politically incorrect science will they banish?

: Once again, Im not conservative, and don't intend on gaining "control"
: of the govt and burn books.  What's this about?

My reference to conservatives burning books was well timed.  Today I read...

Conservative Bishop orders bonfire of books
-------------------------------------------
- Daily Telegraph -

--
<---->