Earth would be heading to a freeze without CO2 emissions

Nov 12, 2008
This NASA image received in 2006 shows the calving front, or break-off point into the ocean, of Helheim Glacier
This September 2008 NOAA satellite images shows a full disk Western Hemisphere view of the Earth. Scheduled shifts in Earth's orbit should plunge the planet into an enduring Ice Age thousands of years from now but the event will probably be averted because of man-made greenhouse gases, scientists said Wednesday.

Scheduled shifts in Earth's orbit should plunge the planet into an enduring Ice Age thousands of years from now but the event will probably be averted because of man-made greenhouse gases, scientists said Wednesday.



Content from AFP expires 1 month after original publication date. For more information about AFP, please visit www.afp.com .

Explore further: NASA sees Tropical Storm playing polo with western Mexico

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Native vegetation makes a comeback on Santa Cruz Island

19 hours ago

On islands, imported plants and animals can spell ecological disaster. The Aleutians, the Galápagos, the Falklands, Hawaii, and countless other archipelagoes have seen species such as rats, goats, brown ...

NASA air campaigns focus on Arctic climate impacts

17 hours ago

Over the past few decades, average global temperatures have been on the rise, and this warming is happening two to three times faster in the Arctic. As the region's summer comes to a close, NASA is hard at ...

Spy on penguin families for science

16 hours ago

Penguin Watch, which launches on 17 September 2014, is a project led by Oxford University scientists that gives citizen scientists access to around 200,000 images of penguins taken by remote cameras monitoring ...

Recommended for you

NASA catches a weaker Edouard, headed toward Azores

7 hours ago

NASA's Aqua satellite passed over the Atlantic Ocean and captured a picture of Tropical Storm Edouard as it continues to weaken. The National Hurricane Center expects Edouard to affect the western Azores ...

Tree rings and arroyos

Sep 18, 2014

A new GSA Bulletin study uses tree rings to document arroyo evolution along the lower Rio Puerco and Chaco Wash in northern New Mexico, USA. By determining burial dates in tree rings from salt cedar and wi ...

User comments : 40

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

deatopmg
3 / 5 (22) Nov 12, 2008
Crowley cautioned those who would seize on the new study to say "'carbon dioxide is now good, it prevents us from walking the plank into this deep glaciation'."

"We don't want to give people that impression," he said. "(...) You can't use this argument to justify [man-made] global warming."
-----------
I say why not? Would the author rather slip into an ice age where most of Europe, N America, Russia, and Japan are no longer habitable and the world's principle food growing area is cut in half?? "...translating into hunger, homelessness and other stresses for millions (no, billions) of people."
--
"Left unchecked, climate change could inflict widespread drought and flooding by the end of the century, translating into hunger, homelessness and other stresses for millions of people."
-------
"climate change" here obviously means just global warming; then why not call it that, or are they hedging their bets just in case they're wrong and the earth continues it's 10 yr cooling. What human device will they blame that on?
MikPetter
2.3 / 5 (19) Nov 12, 2008
the rate of warming has slowed but there has been no global cooling for the past ten years. Global warming will impact on billions of people not as the result of natural variation but because of our industrial activities. This is happening now in burma , bangladesh and the pacific islands. But i guess you dont care because the people affected aren't americans
The transition to any orbital induced ice age is many thousands of years away. Lets focus on the problems at hamd.
kerry
2.7 / 5 (18) Nov 12, 2008
I feel like people are going to just rate this article highly because it agrees with their original views that anthropomorphic-caused global warming is false. Everyone questions the science/methodology/validity of the hundreds/thousands of climate change scientists, but I will predict people will accept this one scientist's findings without question.

deatopmg,
They call it climate change because with global warming, the earth won't heat up uniformly all over. Some places will be abnormally hot, but some places will be abnormally cold (which undermines anti-climate-change arguments by stupid commenters saying how cold it was/how much snow they had last winter).
Noein
2.8 / 5 (22) Nov 12, 2008
So, which is it, denialists:

1. "Humans contribute nothing to global warming,"

or

2. "Human contributions to global warming are good."

?

Is there going to be a split in the Church of Global Warming Denialism sometime soon over this core theological issue?
ryuuguu
2.9 / 5 (17) Nov 12, 2008
Also note the time scale "be due between 10,000 and 100,000 years from now" global warming is happening now. To give a scale, 10,000 is longer than written human history.
pubwvj
3.4 / 5 (16) Nov 12, 2008
Back during the 1970's scientist warned we were facing a new ice age. Given my druthers I would rather have global warming than global cooling. A few degrees warmer is no big hassle. Even ten degrees warmer, more than they project, is not a big deal. But a new ice age is a very, very bad thing. Without summer, without a growing season, under a mile of ice we die.

Fight global cooling! Drive that SUV!

Still, I would like to see less pollution. It is rather silly for humanity to be poisoning it's own nest.

Cheers

-Walter
Sugar Mountain Farm
in the mountains of Vermont
http://SugarMtnFarm.com/blog/
http://HollyGraphicArt.com/
http://NoNAIS.org
rubberman
3.9 / 5 (13) Nov 12, 2008
I can't wait to read the enormous pile of crap that is going to be here in a few days....
Star_Gazer
2 / 5 (11) Nov 12, 2008
We just have to balance! Its either Venus type 400F runaway greenhouse effect or "Showball Earth" Hopefully we can learn to control that CO2
moebiex
1.6 / 5 (11) Nov 12, 2008
Planetary engineering- either way our survival is likely to be enhanced or diminished. Adding CO2 until widespread collapse of civilization and/or ecosystems is no better waiting powerlessly for an impending deepfreeze. Better that we figure it out now, what we can and cannot do and more effective ways/tools to achieve results we desire. There are no doubt many tools we might find eventually but in the case of warming, time may very well be running out. Remember- extinction is forever- do we have to keep pushing things until that result is unavoidable? I kind of see it like skiing- do you point those boards straight down on your first time out? Not likely- if you want to survive and maybe even have some fun you have to first learn to turn and stop. Its pretty basic and I see the same thing here. Why don't we try to reverse now while we have a chance then we can play with and tweak it later when we know we can stop and/or figure out what we're doing.
velvetpink
2.7 / 5 (14) Nov 13, 2008
Brainwashing article.
Duude
4.1 / 5 (15) Nov 13, 2008
What seems to be lost on everyone blogging here is that we just don't have enough information. Whether you buy into the global warming theory or not is missing the obvious point that we don't clearly have enough science to weigh its merits with any accuracy at all. If that were the case we wouldn't have so many on both sides of the issue so ready to dismiss contrary evidence without addressing it with science. Its the equivalnet of debating with a schoolyard, "nuh uh!"
papertiger
3.5 / 5 (13) Nov 13, 2008
Noein said "So, which is it, denialists:

1. "Humans contribute nothing to global warming,"

or

2. "Human contributions to global warming are good."

?"

The answer is "There isn't enough carbon on the planet to counteract the effects of an ice age. Even if every speck were converted to CO2 gas, carbon only amounts to 0.3% of the chemical elements on our planet, excluding whatever is inside the mantle and core."

Velanarris
3.8 / 5 (13) Nov 13, 2008
What seems to be lost on everyone blogging here is that we just don't have enough information. Whether you buy into the global warming theory or not is missing the obvious point that we don't clearly have enough science to weigh its merits with any accuracy at all. If that were the case we wouldn't have so many on both sides of the issue so ready to dismiss contrary evidence without addressing it with science. Its the equivalnet of debating with a schoolyard, "nuh uh!"
You realize you're now classed as a denialist.
dbren
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2008
Is the opposite of a denialist a nihilist?
Velanarris
3.9 / 5 (15) Nov 13, 2008
Is the opposite of a denialist a nihilist?


Nope, it's a socialist.
GrayMouser
3.1 / 5 (11) Nov 13, 2008
... Everyone questions the science/methodology/validity of the hundreds/thousands of climate change scientists, ...[\q]

Even if there are thousands of climate change scientists (which I doubt) questioning the "science/methodology/validity" of experiments is how science advances. Failing to question the validity is anti-science.

deatopmg,
They call it climate change because with global warming, the earth won't heat up uniformly all over. Some places will be abnormally hot, but some places will be abnormally cold (which undermines anti-climate-change arguments by stupid commenters saying how cold it was/how much snow they had last winter).


1) There is no, historically, good measure of average global temperature. Satellites have only provided temperatures for the last 20-30 years which is the end of the last cool period.

2) The cooling for the last 10 years doesn't count? But the warming period for the previous 10-15 years does? Where do you draw the line? How do you draw the line?

3) The Medieval Optimum (a warm period) was warmer than now AND was a period of economic plenty. The warm period before that was even warmer than the Optimum and was a period of growth. Both of these periods showed positive benefits to warming so there is no reason to expect a new warming period (if it happens) will also not benefit most people.
Velanarris
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 14, 2008
My favorite figure from the AGW camp on warming is the 2000 additional deaths per year if warming trends continue.

They also tend to ignore the 20,000 prevented deaths from cold weather events if the warming trend continues.
GrayMouser
3 / 5 (11) Nov 14, 2008
Since CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas how do they think it will have the effects of a major greenhouse gas? Additionally, how do they figure any greenhouse gas could prevent or delay an ice age?
MikeB
3.9 / 5 (12) Nov 14, 2008
I am doing my part to protect Mother Earth from the coming ice age, been toolin' around in my big ole SUV all afternoon. It ain't easy bein' green. (apologies to Kermit)
superhuman
3 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2008
What seems to be lost on everyone blogging here is that we just don't have enough information. Whether you buy into the global warming theory or not is missing the obvious point that we don't clearly have enough science to weigh its merits with any accuracy at all. If that were the case we wouldn't have so many on both sides of the issue so ready to dismiss contrary evidence without addressing it with science. Its the equivalnet of debating with a schoolyard, "nuh uh!"


Yes we don't know enough, some of us are well aware of it. But the studies done so far show that GW is more probable then not.

Besides it is obvious that there is *some* impact of all the gases and pollution we release and since we don't know enough to tell what it is (with enough confidence) it certainly is wise to try to limit our impact until we know more.

That said certainly *all* economic costs of any incentive have to be considered and for any significant reduction they are rather astronomical. That and the fact that 99% of human population only care about themselves and don't give a damn about the future (and I am not much better, there are good reasons why we are that way) makes my doubt that any significant progress is possible.

Besides all the developing countries won't be willing to strangle their economy to lower greenhouse gas emissions and the others have no moral right to protest since they themselves already released plenty of this stuff before they got to where they are today.

The only hope is in new technology, I believe nanotechnology will soon take off and it should provide us with cheaper energy and more economical methods of gas capture.

Without some technological answer we are bound to end up in one extreme or the other eventually (and I also rather have GW then ice age).
EarthScientist
3 / 5 (11) Nov 15, 2008
I renew my call for all of the Phd. men /women on the planet to resign from their positions and be retrained in the oh so simple field of Grid Science before they destroy societal function/economies the world over for their mis-understanding of how our planet and climate actually works . This CRAP must stop, the money spent by you fools and fear mongering has had a huge effect on the paradigms we face today.
This is a physics buff site and as I read story after story,I have wondered over and over if any of you are over 14 ??
Sometime you might try a new look at your goofy,absurd Phd. Gurus that feed you folks the Climate/C02 garbage and that also absurd photo-synthesis garbage they feed you.
Mathematics has NEVER explained how the universe works either,you need a Grid Scientist to give you your basics,or the full meal deal,not one of your Rubix cubist mathematician.
There is mathematic measurements to explain the geometry of the Grid system,but not without the basics of the science first. So c'mon guys and gals , WAKE THE F >>> K UP.
Velanarris
3.8 / 5 (12) Nov 15, 2008
That and the fact that 99% of human population only care about themselves and don't give a damn about the future


Actually a lot of the people you label as "denialists" care rather deeply about the future. We simply ask for more proof before we make a potentially devastating decision for our children. I don't want my children to grow up in poverty, with no choice in their products, paying huge sums of money just to stay warm.

I want them to be able to take advantage of industrial progress, and the taming of the land as my ancestors did for me.

Without some technological answer we are bound to end up in one extreme or the other eventually (and I also rather have GW then ice age).


And there's absolutely no proof of that. But if we stem our economies and growth we may not have the human or economic resources required to save ourselves from destruction.
gopher65
2.5 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2008
Who is talking about stemming our economies? Only a few eco-nuts. Personally I just want to replace all of our INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS coal power plants with safe, reliable nuclear and geo-thermal plants. I also want to replace all vehicles with electric (no more smog. WEEEEEEE!).

I have multiple reasons for wanting these things. From energy security to cost, from my anti-smog stance(heh) to a desire for technological advancement and the quality of life improvements that come from moving forward (and a simple desire for exploration). Global warming or not, these are good moves.
GaryB
4.5 / 5 (4) Nov 16, 2008
> I renew my call for all of the Phd. men /women on the planet to resign from their positions and be retrained in the oh so simple field of Grid Science before they destroy ...

2 words:
Tinfoil
hat
GaryB
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2008
>I don't want my children to grow up in poverty, with no choice in their products, paying huge sums of money just to stay warm.

2 demerits for red hearing: "children". Yes, the other side is out to get them! Call Palin!

> I want them to be able to take advantage of industrial progress, and the taming of the land as my ancestors did for me.

The whole argument is based on a flawed premise: IF we respond to global warming, IT will cost so much THEN the economy will decline.

Kind of like those times when the government spent tons of money on the national highway system... how did we ever recover?? Or, the billions and billions of pure socialist dollars that built the internet -- total disaster that was.

Let's see, investing multiple billions to build a better electrical grid, tons of money for creating new battery technologies, cash for ever more efficient solar cells, new ways of splitting water for hydrogen, smarter much more efficient machines, building materials and buildings.

Oooh, it would be a disaster for your kids to live in such a world! Let the foolish Chinese do all that! Not us! We'll stick to burning fossilized plants and pond algae! And if a little land taming was good, lets just keep on scaling it up! Amusement parks in Yosemite, shopping malls in Yellowstone. Condos in the city park hell yeah. Children are going to have a good 'ol time.
EarthScientist
3.2 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2008
Gary B person, Mork here, Young man I am THE grid scientist engaged on the planet and I wear cotton hats,thank you very much for your fashion advice,but I have tried those,they do not alter my IQ at all,or the revv.
So anyway ,you are out of luck on that one,maybe some day I can get you a lifter ride,and you would not be such an impertinent young man.
My office works to keep the grid system whole by not allowing things to be altered by excessive mining and process against our heating and motor and because we usually do those things in private,you are not informed,but little ole me lets out System information that is not harmful to anyone,just informative,as I tire of the boys who destroy things that they have no clue about.
Complain to your government,as we are NOT them,and sometimes they dont like us,but thats tough. Turn me in as a tin foil hatter letting out level 20 security information, I just love to fight with those boys,cuz I have diplomatic immunity and make them take antacids when I meet with them.
I was engaged on the planet as that Grid Scientist on Jan 1 2007,and my administration of the office is very different from the previous tin foiler,and he just had no humor at all,and I am just a tad different,but I do offer the NSA men who come and attempt to threaten me some organic cookies and a fruit juice,and I make them wait every time,but they do get paid salary,I believe,and so do I.
System Operator and Tin foil hatter , OUT
gopher65
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2008
You know... it annoys me that some people claim to be intelligent, but are apparently unable to write a halfway coherent freaking forum/board post. Normally I wouldn't comment (I'd just sweat my way through, trying to make sense of your post), but if you can't even write a post on a message board, then there is no way you can write a scientific paper.

1) Spell check: Learn it. Use it. Make love to it.

2) FFS commas CANNOT BE USED IN PLACE OF PERIODS. Honestly, you are trying to tell me that you went to university but don't have even the most basic clue on how to use a comma? Riiiiight. And I'm not talking about occasional mistakes, cause we all make those. No, this is a systematic lack of understanding of basic grammar and punctuation.

3) Proofreading is your friend. This means you, Earth"Scientist".

4) I'd critique the content of your post, but it is completely incomprehensible due to the large number of language errors.

As I implied earlier, I don't require perfection in non-formal writing; a mistake here and there is fine... but come on. The level of piss-poor Engrish going on here is mind boggling.

Normally I wouldn't comment, cause I'm not a grammar nazi, but I have to laugh that someone like you, EarthScientist, is claiming to have anything higher than a grade 5 education.

Of course all of this goes out the window if it turns out that you were completely hammered or high when you wrote that post...
MikeB
5 / 5 (3) Nov 16, 2008
This is a disavowal by the United States Government:
We have not recently been using the Gravitational-wave Resonance Index Drive. The project was running briefly in the late 1990's under the direction of Professor Dwight G. Penwicky PHD ES, until it was demonstrated that the temporal effects were not controllable with existing software. Any representations that the project was still being funded by NSA in 2007, are obviously unfounded. Dr. Penwicky, the self-styled "Earth Scientist" has been the subject of a search by several Federal Agencies since his disappearance in April 1999. If anyone has any contact with Dr. Penwicky, please contact your local FBI office immediately. Do not, we repeat, DO NOT under any circumstances accept his offer of a ride on the "lifter".
Vesta2007
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 16, 2008
Hey gopher65, very much agree with your criticism of language skills. Can you also please get a dictionary and look up 'cause' and 'because'.
Velanarris
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 16, 2008

2 demerits for red hearing: "children". Yes, the other side is out to get them! Call Palin!

If it's such a red herring then why is it at the heart of most AGW proponent's arguments?

"If you don't care about the future of the world for our children then you need to do ..."



The whole argument is based on a flawed premise: IF we respond to global warming, IT will cost so much THEN the economy will decline.
No. You've completely misread my statements. There is no "IF" we respond to global warming. They're already doing it, with no understanding of the causes and effects in play. If AGW was "settled" science then the course of action would be determinable, the models accurate, and the predictions verified.

Kind of like those times when the government spent tons of money on the national highway system... how did we ever recover??
Actually that was state government, not federal, very different.

Or, the billions and billions of pure socialist dollars that built the internet -- total disaster that was.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH

The internet was initially built by private institutions and promoted by privately held corporations.

Let's see, investing multiple billions to build a better electrical grid, tons of money for creating new battery technologies, cash for ever more efficient solar cells, new ways of splitting water for hydrogen, smarter much more efficient machines, building materials and buildings.
Yes, it would be absolutely excellent if that was being done but it's not. The majority of the money being spent on AGW is in regulation of existing infrastructure.

Oooh, it would be a disaster for your kids to live in such a world! Let the foolish Chinese do all that! Not us! We'll stick to burning fossilized plants and pond algae! And if a little land taming was good, lets just keep on scaling it up! Amusement parks in Yosemite, shopping malls in Yellowstone. Condos in the city park hell yeah. Children are going to have a good 'ol time.
Have you been to any of those locations? Once?

We have land reservations for visiting nature in it's true form. Among being some of the least visited locales available for tourism, aside from the particularly interesting ones, they're also some of the most tampered with lands you can visit. New species are introduced, scientific experiments are performed, radio tagging, etc. not exactly pristine unconquered lands.
You know... it annoys me that some people claim to be intelligent, but are apparently unable to write a halfway coherent freaking forum/board post.
You missed the hyphen for halfway-coherent and forgot the comma between coherent and freaking.
Normally I wouldn't comment (I'd just sweat my way through, trying to make sense of your post), but if you can't even write a post on a message board, then there is no way you can write a scientific paper.
Run on sentence and unnecessary use of parathesis.

1) Spell check: Learn it. Use it. Make love to it.
Looks good.

2) FFS commas CANNOT BE USED IN PLACE OF PERIODS. Honestly, you are trying to tell me that you went to university but don't have even the most basic clue on how to use a comma?
Caps lock is cruise control for cool.
Riiiiight.
Wrong.
And I'm not talking about occasional mistakes, cause we all make those.
And cannot start a proper sentence. The word is because, not cause, and certainly not 'cause.
No, this is a systematic lack of understanding of basic grammar and punctuation.
Hmmm.

3) Proofreading is your friend. This means you, Earth"Scientist".
Extraneous punctuation around a partial proper name.

4) I'd critique the content of your post, but it is completely incomprehensible due to the large number of language errors.
Probably because he's from another country.

As I implied earlier, I don't require perfection in non-formal writing; a mistake here and there is fine... but come on.
Bad use of an elipsis, improper use of a semi-colon, and the word is informal.
The level of piss-poor Engrish going on here is mind boggling.
Yes, exactly.

Normally I wouldn't comment, cause I'm not a grammar nazi,
Capitalization required for the word Nazi and by grammatic extension Grammar.
but I have to laugh that someone like you, EarthScientist, is claiming to have anything higher than a grade 5 education.
Interesting.

Of course all of this goes out the window if it turns out that you were completely hammered or high when you wrote that post...
Or that he was posting on a forum where by 15th edition of Grammar for Common English, and all subsequent editions, forums and internet communiques follow the rules of written dialogue. Meaning your post, and mine, are intellectual masturbation.

EarthScientist, you are correct. The scientists are not responsible for our current situation. The politicians and governments are pulling the strings. It's partial control, and has nothing to do with real science.
Roach
5 / 5 (3) Nov 17, 2008
Ouch, Vel I never knew you had it in you.

Kind of like clubing a baby seal though. Everyone thinks it's funny, then they realize how cruel you can be and kinda stop trusting you. Please don't review any comments I make on this site under any set of gramatical rules. My masterful control over the English language is on par with my ability to summon demons and hellspawn. Truth be told I think I could do a better job with the hellspawn than mastering a semi-colon. Of course, unlike Gopher I also wouldn't try to glorify my learnedness literary thingies, if I liked lit. I would have studied it in school.

While we are on this can someone explain to me how in the process of biological decomposition we get some of the largest helium deposits with "Fossil Fuels"? I understand radioactive decay or fusion to generate an inert elemental gas, but I am unable to name even a single natural compound with helium in it, much less a biological process, and yet almost all of the helium we get today is recovered from oil or natural gas sites? If someone could explain to me why a bunch of dinosaurs choose to be buried with helium, and could master the technology of making helium, but couldn't figure out how to recover heat from the fusion reaction? I mean they figured out cold fusion, but couldn't figure out a steam radiator to protect from the ice age. Isn't the likelyhood that oil is in fact not a fossil fuel at least worth review when generation could be easier expained through a simpler natural radio decay? Occam's Razor and what not. I mean really did the dinosaurs really use mass graves or communal latrines? The whole fossil fuel concept really needs to be revisited.

Once again, I am pro energy efficiency, not for AGW, but because I'm cheap. Rather than giving me reasons, how about someone make themselves useful and make solutions? Seriously, did these Scientist go to school and say,"Hey this field looks interesting 'Political Knob Polisher'. This says I can kiss up to liberal politicians and get paid for calling their opinions science."
gopher65
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 17, 2008
The internet was initially built by private institutions and promoted by privately held corporations.

Hmmm. I don't think it was. IIRC the original framework was developed by universities using government funds. No government investment = no internet.
You know... it annoys me that some people claim to be intelligent, but are apparently unable to write a halfway coherent freaking forum/board post.
You missed the hyphen for halfway-coherent and forgot the comma between coherent and freaking.

Nope. The hyphenization of various words is different in different countries. There is no universal standard. And there should not be a comma between coherent and freaking. That would be incorrect.
Normally I wouldn't comment (I'd just sweat my way through, trying to make sense of your post), but if you can't even write a post on a message board, then there is no way you can write a scientific paper.
Run on sentence and unnecessary use of parathesis.

Yes, I definitely parenthesize far too often. I think it is a disease of some sort. I call it parenthecitis. I hope it isn't terminal :o(.

Run on sentence? Maybe... but I'm temporarily at a loss as to how it should be properly rephrased while keeping its intending meaning intact.
2) FFS commas CANNOT BE USED IN PLACE OF PERIODS. Honestly, you are trying to tell me that you went to university but don't have even the most basic clue on how to use a comma?
Caps lock is cruise control for cool.
Yup ;). I wasn't sure if BBCode worked on this board, so I decided to use caps instead of bolding or italicizing the words.
And I'm not talking about occasional mistakes, cause we all make those.
And cannot start a proper sentence. The word is because, not cause, and certainly not 'cause.
Both true. I used "cause" because it is part of the common internet vernacular. The "And" was simply unnecessary.
3) Proofreading is your friend. This means you, Earth"Scientist".
Extraneous punctuation around a partial proper name.
Ummm... yes. That was the point. I was attempting (apparently unsuccessfully) to say that I think he is lying through his teeth when he claims to be a scientist. I've read quite a few of his posts, and he shows a universal lack of insight into the subjects about which he is speaking (typing).
4) I'd critique the content of your post, but it is completely incomprehensible due to the large number of language errors.
Probably because he's from another country.
I thought about this before I posted. I don't fault people for poor grammar if English isn't their native tongue.

I could be wrong, but this guy doesn't write like someone who speaks another language; he writes like someone from hicksville who never learnt English. People who write English as a second (or third, or fourth) language have certain odd patterns in their writing. You can normally tell if they're not native English speakers.
As I implied earlier, I don't require perfection in non-formal writing; a mistake here and there is fine... but come on.
Bad use of an elipsis, improper use of a semi-colon, and the word is informal.
That isn't an improper use of a semi-colon. Those are two separate sentences with related topics, which is all that is required for the use of a semi-colon.

I could have used either a period or a comma, depending on exactly how I wanted to phrase the sentence. This use is, perhaps, a little awkward, but it isn't wrong.

As for the ellipsis, this isn't formal writing. In an informal (yeah, informal. You're right) setting ellipses can be used to indicate a dramatic pause.
Normally I wouldn't comment, cause I'm not a grammar nazi,
Capitalization required for the word Nazi and by grammatic extension Grammar.
No. Nazi, meaning "The Nazi Party", should be capitalized. In this usage it isn't a proper noun, it is a regular noun. Just like dog, bicycle, lantern, or internet, grammar nazi is not a proper noun that indicates a unique item, but is instead a noun that describes an entire class of items. Thus it shouldn't be capitalized.

As I said before, I don't care about a few little mistakes here and there. I don't pick apart posts and comment on the misplacement of one comma, or even a dozen commas.

If it weren't for the fact that EarthScientist was claiming to be a genius who was smarter than everyone else, I wouldn't have commented on his post, even though it is terrible.
Velanarris
4 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2008
Ouch, Vel I never knew you had it in you.

Kind of like clubing a baby seal though. Everyone thinks it's funny, then they realize how cruel you can be and kinda stop trusting you. Please don't review any comments I make on this site under any set of gramatical rules. My masterful control over the English language is on par with my ability to summon demons and hellspawn. Truth be told I think I could do a better job with the hellspawn than mastering a semi-colon. Of course, unlike Gopher I also wouldn't try to glorify my learnedness literary thingies, if I liked lit. I would have studied it in school.
I typically don't do that. I simply disagree with people mocking the content of a post based off of grammar.

Most professionals who are based in fields requiring heavy math or logical reasoning skills could care less about punctuation. That's what grad students are for.
As I said before, I don't care about a few little mistakes here and there. I don't pick apart posts and comment on the misplacement of one comma, or even a dozen commas.

If it weren't for the fact that EarthScientist was claiming to be a genius who was smarter than everyone else, I wouldn't have commented on his post, even though it is terrible.

I've traded PMs with Earthscientist in the past, he's a pretty smart guy. As for grammar, it's the internet, it all comes down to trolling grammar eventually.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2008
The issue isn't really whether or not we're going to have an ice age should things progress naturally. The question is how are we going to avert it by artificial means.

Personally I don't think that CO2 emissions are going to do it, because I don't believe in the most holy, pretentious, and sanctimonious church of AGW. I think it will be averted via other means.

That being said, if I WERE one of the faithful I'd be just as happy to avert an ice age (which would be FAR, FAR more destructive to human civilization than several degrees of warming) via AGW...unless of course my agenda was more a political one to give more governmental control over the energy sector.
rubberman
1 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2008
I cant beleive this enormous amount of crap!!!
gopher65
1.7 / 5 (3) Nov 17, 2008
I typically don't do that. I simply disagree with people mocking the content of a post based off of grammar.

Most professionals who are based in fields requiring heavy math or logical reasoning skills could care less about punctuation. That's what grad students are for.

Uh, they should. The whole point of formal writing is to get your point across in as clear and concise a fashion as possible. If you can't write, you can't do that.

Watching engineers, you know which ones get ahead? The ones who can write. The ones who can't are consigned to the (relatively;-)) low paying grunt jobs of the engineering circle. If you can't write a report, you're screwed. I've seen people fired because they didn't think reports were important. Oh they wrote them. They turned them in on time. But they were garbage. Language *IS* important. Any scientist who thinks it isn't is an idiot who is doomed to failure. You can't submit grant applications if you can't write.

And you know what? Yes, this is the internet. But even on a lowly message board you're *still* trying to get your point across to other people in a clear and concise fashion. EarthScientist can't do that, so he will lose every argument he gets into.

I don't understand why people can't get that through their thick skulls. It's not a matter of neurotically catching each misplaced comma, it is a matter of communicating *your side of the story* so that other people can understand it well enough to be convinced that you are correct.

If you can't communicate, you automatically forfeit the fight.
denijane
1 / 5 (1) Nov 18, 2008
Very interesting title you have put on that extremely useful article, haven't you?
Yeah, Global warming is preventing a major disaster just few thousands of years from now. How lucky we are. Too bad that we don't live for thousands of years. Or that until then, we may see a bunch of possible scenarios both including freezing and frying...
EarthScientist
3.8 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2008
My, My Senor Gopher 65, The school I attended does not use the process of requiring any classes except the specialty I am trained to,and it does not make me lose the argument either.
You do not have any ability to task me to a science discussion .
I also use a secretary when any office communiques are required,as we are not specialists in writing for your science journals,as that paradigm is not our focus.
Your style of attacking the messenger tells of the process that harms anything your protocoler from hyperdimension does not feel comfortable with,and I dont suspect you would share your dream feed with us for critique.
Us old DOT Papas have worked to keep processes whole for centuries here for DOT's and Grid System .
Senor G,Do you actually have any science commentary?
There is no such thing as AGW and there is no such thing as photo-synthesis,now please try your hand at explaining anything different to a grid scientist.
This planet is warmed by the grid heating the magma,low grid energy equals ice age,high grid energy equals higher air temps,magma temps and higher electrical activity(i.e. Stronger storms)
The carbohydrates bound electrically to our oxygens just do not heat anything in that state,now do they?
And with the same amount of bonded carbons in the atmosphere in winter,why is it colder?
Have you ever traveled through Missouri and noticed that the ups and downs on the highway are 3 miles apart?
And can you explain to us grid scientists how it is that Mammoths were found in the Siberian Tundra standing up fully frozen,with viable seeds in their mouth?
This is a science site ,Senor Gopher,not an English language test site, could you please stay on topic and answer Mr. EarthScientists questions and get a return for your efforts?
gopher65
2 / 5 (2) Nov 19, 2008
If you cannot communicate your argument, you automatically lose. It is a very simple concept. Why can you not understand it? Say you have a mute person and a not-mute person involved in a shouting match. The mute automatically loses, because they can't participate. If you are unable to communicate in the medium in question, you lose. This applies to writing just like everything else.
EarthScientist
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2008
Poor Gopher65 is incorrigible,You lose big time with that kindergarten analogy,BUB.
When you cannot communicate with a mute ,you if you have even a smidgen of intellect,go to whatever process provides you your communication.
And by the way, the mute cannot even engage in a shouting match if they are mute and I suspect you also had trouble with the simple question,who is buried in Grants Tomb?
Dontcha think ,Senor gopher,that you look goofy enough now as to change your IP address,tisk,tisk.
Maybe a meds change,have your doctor get in touch with me for a reccomendation.