Deinonychus antirrhopus

Steve, the guys who have mega-money on the line on these issues, the insurance and re-insurance industries, take a different line from yours.

They predict ruinous and possibly bankrupting costs associated with far larger weather related disasters than we've seen in the past few decades, with global warming helping to cause more extreme weather conditions, spawn worse hurricanes and tornadoes, huge winter storms, massive rainstorm caused flooding damage, etc. Some of their concerns relate to the huge growth of population along the coastlines, in potential harms way, but the increasing prevalence of extreme weather conditions is also in their forecasts.

The idea that any change would be gradual, having little or no effect for at least 100 years, is also under attack from many planning/prediction quarters, including the US military. It has reported its concerns about potentially impending world effects of climate change that could impact their performing their missions.

Gore is not an academic or an expert or an intellectual, but simply a somewhat more informed lay person with an interest in the subject, and probably excellent access to actual experts in the field, from whom he distills his take on environmental matters.

The idea that any change would be gradual, having little or no effect for at least 100 years, is also under attack from many planning/prediction quarters, including the US military. It has reported its concerns about potentially impending world effects of climate change that could impact their performing their missions.

I sure hope you aren't relying on that complete work of fiction that surfaced a few months ago. The authors themselves stated that they realized the scenarios they were presenting were wildly at odds with what the climate scientists were predicting.

As for the insurance industries, needless to say they have lots of money on the line. If they can find a way out of paying off claims due to man-made reasons, it clearly puts their spin on climate change in doubt.

Some of their concerns relate to the huge growth of population along the coastlines, in potential harms way, but the increasing prevalence of extreme weather conditions is also in their forecasts.

Yeah and the research to back this up is what exactly?

Gore is not an academic or an expert or an intellectual, but simply a somewhat more informed lay person with an interest in the subject, and probably excellent access to actual experts in the field, from whom he distills his take on environmental matters.

No, he is an liar and deciever like all politicians.

What a lot of folks don't realize is the historical context of this sort of thing. People look at climate data from the last 400-500 years and say "oh God, things are different, this is a DISASTER!" But, if you look at, say, the last 400,000-500,000 years of global climatology, you can see that our current period of relative stability is fairly anomolous. 8,000 years ago, there was a huge global temperature spike (5 degrees warmer in about six years), melted the ice caps, &c. That was followed by a massive cooling (due to something to do with currents in the Artic Ocean, I'm not a climatologist, so I don't know the technical details). Look at the atmospheric data from arctic or antarctic ice-cores, or swamp-cores from South America or Greenland and you can get a pretty decent picture of global atmospheric conditions. Further, any damage from pollution is lagged, so there's really nothing we can do about what's already up there other than keep making technological improvements and helping small nations move along the Environmental Kuznetz Curve. The information regarding cores and global climate mostly comes from a few of the guys who work at INSTAAR, by the way. I'm lucky enough to have an uncle who works in the lab.

It's bad news for cherry blossoms, I can tell you that. We just had a climate change in Ohio down to freezing. Some core will be dug up thousands of years from now and frozen cherry blossoms will be mute testimony.

I would humbly point out that the forests on Antarctica probably grew there when the continent was closer to the equator. At least this is how they teach geology at most universities. As it reads now, it appears as if you are suggesting a temperate climate at the poles.

I blame continental drift on people, too.

[seriouslynow]Good point, eightball.[/seriouslynow]

eightball,

I'm not so sure about that.

Link

The main dinosaur fossil locations in south eastern Australia (red dots) would have been located at approximately 75 degrees South latitude, which in modern terms would place them within the Antarctic circle.

This part of the world would have experienced freezing winters with up to three months of near darkness. The moon would have stayed in the sky for up to two weeks at a time in mid winter, alternating from full to half-full and back again, so there wouldn't have been complete darkness.

Ah, sofla's back lying again, I see.

Goggle Gropups might be usefull for it.
http://groups.google.com/
...
Reid Berens
(vinofear)