Ice Age Earth

[Phatscotty]

Player, how about the other side of that coin? I don't blame anyone on this and only point out it's also holding us back as a species when we get all arrogant in repeating and lecturing as a fact that which we are taught about established human history 'started' roughly 4,500-5,500 years ago. I could get into a big story that was a big deal 25 or so years ago about how experts in related fields scoffed at the idea the Sphynx is at least 9,000 years old minimum, probably at least 11,000 years old, and the person who discovered the key to understanding this truth was ignored by EVERYONE. The experts literally laughed him out of the room.

He was a water erosion expert, but without certain credentials nobody even wanted to look at his work, even though it was good science and the evidence was clear as day. Finally, he found one professor from Boston (I think) who was at least open-minded enough to listen to him for a minute. Even so, the erosion guy had to get a picture of the Sphynx, put tape over the head and paws so it just looked like a slab of rocks, and asked him what kind of erosion he thought it was. The professor, Schach, said 'duh, that's as clear a case of water erosion as there is!' then the tape was removed, and Schach was like 'oh....oh!!!!' I'm not getting too far into it, maybe another time I'll share all the details or someone else who knows this truth will beat me to it. They estimate 2,000 years or so of water erosion. Gotta go back to roughly 9,000-11,000 b.c. to get rain like that, which fits perfectly with the holocene comet that likely hit the ocean which is probably to cause such rain in places that normally get little to none.

end result? Our education system ignores a lot of stuff, and a lot of even older 'stuff' has been discovered since we were in school, and when we get arrogant about something we were taught but don't really know for sure to be true for ourselves is when we get held back by ignoring solid scientific evidence based on the over riding fact that we really don't know who we are, where we come from, or where we are going in this ocean of chaos. Science people cling to their education a lot the same way religious people find support in God or Jesus or whatever they were also born into or choose for themselves. However, the difference in my opinion is that some/many from the one is full of arrogance and wants to pretend we know everything and have an answer for everything, and some/many from the other is full of suffering but sure maybe have faith or want to pretend they know everything sometimes too, but can conclude 'it's Gods will' for things they don't understand at the time, and then there are some/many in the middle who have no problem at all admitting there is a ton of shit we don't have a clue about, and realize the more we discover only means there is so much more we don't understand, and keep an open mind, and I think an open-mind is something we can all agree is usually a good thing and we can all try to be better at.

[Metsfanmax]

Phatscotty, it sounds a lot like your choice to believe the opinion of the disregarded minority over the vast consensus of everyone else is your own example of arrogance, the arrogance to believe that you can identify the real truth where no one else can. It is far more arrogant than the choice to simply accept what the experts say and move on with our lives. All you are doing right now is signalling that you have done the work to read what some particular individuals think about various subjects where few others have. It's not a search for real truth, it's just for show.

[Phatscotty]

Yes, I've been an asshole to you, Scotty. When you say things like scientists are in on some conspiracy, that's shorthand for the n word to us. You are basically calling me a liar, and selfish. You are calling metsfanmax and TailGunner a liar and selfish. This is why I react with such vigor against you.

nah. You can think that if you like, I didn't call you a liar. I did however conclude you simply had not known about this specific story, which is totes kewl since none of us know about something before it's introduced to us. I chose rather to stick to the science, keep putting forth evidence, but it might have been dickish to keep bringing up the over-hunting. Either way, it's a leap to put that in my mouth that 'scientists are in on some conspiracy'. If that's what we need to call the simple fact many/most science peeps aren't religious and aren't into the bible even as a loose historic reference (as I see much of it) then that's got to be the conspiracy. The rest can be attributed to closed-minds. I totally get that too, I said just before this I don't totally blame them, and remind about keeping an open mind. Did you watch the video on the scablands? It spells out exactly what happened there, and the story was already well known to me before I even knew that video existed. Probably around 19 minutes or so, when you see scientists in their suits walking on checkered flooring you'll know your close. check it out, look into Frens's story. I am certain you will understand exactly why the experts over the last century laughed at his theory, dismissed his findings, even though the evidence was solid, as evidenced by his being awarded with the highest honors and his theory going on to be justified as well as helping humanity discover so much more in bigger ways than he could have ever imagined.

[Phatscotty]

Phatscotty, it sounds a lot like your choice to believe the opinion of the disregarded minority over the vast consensus of everyone else is your own example of arrogance, the arrogance to believe that you can identify the real truth where no one else can. It is far more arrogant than the choice to simply accept what the experts say and move on with our lives. All you are doing right now is signalling that you have done the work to read what some particular individuals think about various subjects where few others have. It's not a search for real truth, it's just for show.

Yuh, don't think I didn't ponder that However, like I said, I already tried sharing the new evidence of the future consensus a couple times a couple different ways. I wouldn't take it that far, obviously many other have done FAR more to discover this truth than I, who simply looked at the information with an open-mind. It probably is arrogant to state this as truth, but that's me going out on a limb by plugging other things I learned and know from my own education and experience and understanding and bias too. It all makes sense to me, so yes I run with it. You should know by now part of what you refer to as my own arrogance is really my testing something as well, hoping to get the best arguments against it as a way for me to judge the information for myself on top of just making sense.

bottom line, I am accepting what the experts now say, which is the opposite of what experts said over the last 100 years. And I'm always going to be or going to try to be at the forefront, kicking the knowledge before it becomes knowledge, helping spread the knowledge, in a way I only hope that I can try to explain things a bit better at least without getting all emotional. If you think this thread is for me and for show, you are mistaken big time. This has been a headache for me and caused friction with people I enjoyed responding to and still will but I might get Greekdawg'd here. Me putting out a 4 hour video that everybody complained was too long was as close to 'for show' as it gets for me, as I was still only trying to share something with everyone else because that's how I roll. Plus, yeah I wanted to hear the skepticism as well. I did try to put it out there for people to see and judge for themselves, with no commentary from me. A couple times. I tried.

btw, which do you prefer, CometScotty or PoliticScotty?

[Phatscotty]

PhatScotty, you are not educating or helping you are murdering.

Here's a story from a local paper. You might find the same story in your local paper:
http://www.niagarathisweek.com/news-story/6220728-grimsby-woman-heads-south-for-cancer-care/

Since you present this grand conspiracy against scientists in the geologic field, it is really easy to extend that to scientists in the genetics of cancer field.

Here is a lovely woman (who sells shoes, and I know her so I mean it when I say she is lovely) who took a second mortgage and sold her shoe store to pay some crackpots in Mexico for coffee enemas because she doesn't believe that chemotherapy is the answer (the story doesn't say that it frightens her, so she won't try it).

Her blood is on your hands.

Back on track! Like old times!

[PLAYER57832]

Wikipedia lists 3 different theories....which clearly means the answer does not exist to Wiki, because theories are theories.

Yeah, like, the theory that the sun might rise tomorrow is no different from the theory that Roswell holds an alien cadaver.
They are both just theories, so no difference at all!

okay! so, over-hunting then?

as for everything else you posted, I've already addressed it all. Read the thread, hopefully you will drop the Bible n Noah reflex once you notice I never brought it up and based none of this on that.

Noah?
I believe I responded to your posts directly... and to a couple of others, directly. Rather than pretending they are all identical, how about your answers to my points? No, you did not address them at all.

[Phatscotty]

JimBoston, you asked for links? Careful what you ask for! haha

fyi, people will see a lot of Richard Allen West here. Just want to point out he's the one that had to fool an at least curious/open-minded professor by putting tape over the Sphynx head and paws. They changed everything we thought we knew, and they were laughed at, called heretics and psuedo-scientists all along the way. Everything we think we know will continue to be changed. We really should strive to embrace as a species every idea. If it's ridiculous, let's show why it is ridiculous, and put it to rest until possibly new evidence is discovered later down the line and can be re-opened.

I think auto-rejecting a lot of things based on a lot of reasons has prevented us as a species from making a lot of progress.


perhaps even preventing our species from evolving to the next level. past war and violence and murder, past racism and ignorance and arrogance and bullying and hurting others with insults, past hate and towards love, past division and towards unity


Hoffman, Carey (2008-07-02). "Exploding Asteroid Theory Strengthened by New Evidence Located in Ohio, Indiana". University of Cincinnati. Retrieved 2008-08-05.
"Science & Environment: Diamond clues to beasts' demise". BBC NEWS. Retrieved 2012-04-15.
"Sciency Thoughts: Evidence for a Younger Dryas impact event?". Retrieved 2012-04-15.
"The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis". Scientific American Blog Network. Retrieved 2012-04-15.
"New Clovis-Age Comet Impact Theory". Retrieved 2012-04-15.

James Kennett, UC Santa Barbara, May 21, 2013, Comprehensive Analysis of Impact Spherules Supports Theory of Cosmic Impact 12,800 Years Ago
Holliday, V. T., 2011, A Cosmic Catastrophe: The Great Clovis Comet Debate: A personal perspective on an Outrageous Hypothesis., Department of Anthropology at the University of Arizona, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
Pringle, H., 2008, Firestorm from space wiped out prehistoric Americans. The New Scientist. vol. 194, no. 2605, pp. 8–9.
West, A., and A. Goodyear, 2008, The Clovis Comet: Part I:Evidence for a Cosmic Collision 12,900 Years Ago. Mammoth Trumpet. v. 23, no. 1, pp. 1–4.

Firestone, Richard; West, Allen; Warwick-Smith, Simon (4 June 2006). The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes: How a Stone-Age Comet Changed the Course of World Culture. Bear & Company. p. 392. ISBN 1-59143-061-5.
^ Jump up to: a b Firestone RB, West A, Kennett JP, et al. (October 2007). "Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years ago that contributed to the megafaunal extinctions and the Younger Dryas cooling". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 (41): 16016–21. Bibcode:2007PNAS..10416016F. doi:10.1073/pnas.0706977104. PMC 1994902. PMID 17901202.
^ Jump up to: a b Bunch TE, Hermes RE, Moore AM, et al. (June 2012). "Very high-temperature impact melt products as evidence for cosmic airbursts and impacts 12,900 years ago". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109 (28): E1903–12. Bibcode:2012PNAS..109E1903B. doi:10.1073/pnas.1204453109. PMC 3396500. PMID 22711809.
^ Jump up to: a b Kennett DJ, Kennett JP, West A, et al. (January 2009). "Nanodiamonds in the Younger Dryas boundary sediment layer". Science 323 (5910): 94. Bibcode:2009Sci...323...94K. doi:10.1126/science.1162819. PMID 19119227.
Jump up ^ Napier WM (July 2010). "Palaeolithic extinctions and the Taurid Complex". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 405 (3): 1901_1906. Bibcode:2010MNRAS.405.1901N. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16579.x.
Jump up ^ Napier WM (March 2010). "Palaeolithic extinctions and the Taurid Complex". ArXiv. arXiv:1003.0744. arXiv:1003.0744.
Jump up ^ Wittke, James H.; Weaver, James C.; Bunch, Ted E.; Kennett, James P.; Kennett, Douglas J.; Moore, Andrew M. T.; Hillman, Gordon C.; Tankersley, Kenneth B.; Goodyear, Albert C.; Moore, Christopher R.; Daniel, I. Randolph; Ray, Jack H.; Lopinot, Neal H.; Ferraro, David; Israde-Alcántara, Isabel; Bischoff, James L.; Decarli, Paul S.; Hermes, Robert E.; Kloosterman, Johan B.; Revay, Zsolt; Howard, George A.; Kimbel, David R.; Kletetschka, Gunther; Nabelek, Ladislav; Lipo, Carl P.; Sakai, Sachiko; West, Allen; Firestone, Richard B. (2013). "Evidence for deposition of 10 million tonnes of impact spherules across four continents 12,800 y ago". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (23): E2088. doi:10.1073/pnas.1301760110. PMC 3677428. PMID 23690611.
Jump up ^ Dalton, Rex (2007-05-17). "Archaeology: Blast in the past?" (PDF). Nature 447 (7142): 256–7. Bibcode:2007Natur.447..256D. doi:10.1038/447256a. PMID 17507957. News article in Nature
^ Jump up to: a b Wittke, James H. (2013-05-20). "Evidence for deposition of 10 million tonnes of impact spherules across four continents 12,800 y ago" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (23): E2088–97. doi:10.1073/pnas.1301760110. PMC 3677428. PMID 23690611.
Jump up ^ Israde-Alcántara I, Bischoff JL, Domínguez-Vázquez G, et al. (March 2012). "Evidence from central Mexico supporting the Younger Dryas extraterrestrial impact hypothesis". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109 (13): E738–47. Bibcode:2012PNAS..109E.738I. doi:10.1073/pnas.1110614109. PMC 3324006. PMID 22392980.
Jump up ^ Simon Redfern (2013-08-01). "Ice core data supports ancient space impact idea". BBC.
^ Jump up to: a b Michail I. Petaev, Shichun Huang, Stein B. Jacobsen, Alan Zindler (2013). "Large Pt anomaly in the Greenland ice core points to a cataclysm at the onset of Younger Dryas". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110 (32): 12917–12920. doi:10.1073/pnas.1303924110. PMC 3740870. PMID 23878232.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Haynes, G (5 November 2010). "The catastrophic extinction of North American mammoths and mastodonts". World Archaeology 33 (3): 391–416. doi:10.1080/00438240120107440.
^ Jump up to: a b Carrasco MA, Barnosky AD, Graham RW (2009). "Quantifying the Extent of North American Mammal Extinction Relative to the Pre-Anthropogenic Baseline". PLoS ONE 4 (12): e8331. Bibcode:2009PLoSO...4.8331C. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0008331.
Jump up ^ Pinter, Nicholas; Scott, Andrew C.; Daulton, Tyrone L.; Podoll, Andrew; Koeberl, Christian; Anderson, R. Scott; Ishman, Scott E. (2011). "The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis: A requiem". Earth-Science Reviews 106 (3–4): 247–264. Bibcode:2011ESRv..106..247P. doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2011.02.005.
Jump up ^ Argonaut (2007) "Paleoindian Studies and Geoarchaeology at the University of Arizona." Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona. Retrieved on February 3, 2010.
^ Jump up to: a b Haynes, C. V. (2008). "Younger Dryas "black mats" and the Rancholabrean termination in North America". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (18): 6520–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.0800560105. PMC 2373324. PMID 18436643.
Jump up ^ Kerr, Richard A. (2009). "Did the Mammoth Slayer Leave a Diamond Calling Card?". Science 323 (5910): 26. doi:10.1126/science.323.5910.26. PMID 19119192.
Jump up ^ Dalton R (2011). "Comet Theory Comes Crashing to Earth". Miller-McCune. Retrieved 2012-04-15.
^ Jump up to: a b Daulton, T. L.; Pinter, N.; Scott, A. C. (2010-08-30). "No evidence of nanodiamonds in Younger–Dryas sediments to support an impact event". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107 (37): 16043–7. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10716043D. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003904107. PMC 2941276. PMID 20805511.
^ Jump up to: a b Boslough, M.; K. Nicoll, V. Holliday, T. L. Daulton, D. Meltzer, N. Pinter, A. C. Scott, T. Surovell, P. Claeys, J. Gill, F. Paquay, J. Marlon, P. Bartlein, C. Whitlock, D. Grayson, and A. J. T. Jull (2012). "Arguments and Evidence Against a Younger Dryas Impact Event". Geophysical Monograph Series. Geophysical Monograph Series 198: 13–26. doi:10.1029/2012gm001209. ISBN 978-1-118-70432-5. Cite uses deprecated parameter |coauthors= (help)
^ Jump up to: a b Roach, John (2010-06-22). "Fungi, Feces Show Comet Didn't Kill Ice Age Mammals?". National Geographic Daily News. National Geographic Society. Retrieved 2010-06-25. External link in |work= (help)
Jump up ^ Cohen, Julie (2014-08-27). "Study examines 13,000-year-old nanodiamonds from multiple locations across three continents". Physorg.com. Retrieved 2014-08-29.
Jump up ^ Kinzie, Charles R.; Que Hee, Shane S.; Stich, Adrienne; Tague, Kevin A.; Mercer, Chris; Razink, Joshua J.; Kennett, Douglas J.; Decarli, Paul S.; Bunch, Ted E.; Wittke, James H.; Israde-Alcántara, Isabel; Bischoff, James L.; Goodyear, Albert C.; Tankersley, Kenneth B.; Kimbel, David R.; Culleton, Brendan J.; Erlandson, Jon M.; Stafford, Thomas W.; Kloosterman, Johan B.; Moore, Andrew M. T.; Firestone, Richard B.; Aura Tortosa, J. E.; Jordá Pardo, J. F.; West, Allen; Kennett, James P.; Wolbach, Wendy S. (2014). "Nanodiamond-Rich Layer across Three Continents Consistent with Major Cosmic Impact at 12,800 Cal BP". The Journal of Geology 122 (5): 475–506. doi:10.1086/677046.
Jump up ^ Blaauw M, Holliday VT, Gill JL, Nicoll K (July 2012). "Age models and the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109 (34): E2240; author reply E2245–7. Bibcode:2012PNAS..109E2240B. doi:10.1073/pnas.1206143109. PMC 3427088. PMID 22829673.
Jump up ^ Boslough M (July 2012). "Inconsistent impact hypotheses for the Younger Dryas". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109 (34): E2241; author reply E2245–7. Bibcode:2012PNAS..109E2241B. doi:10.1073/pnas.1206739109. PMC 3427067. PMID 22829675.
Daulton TL (July 2012). "Suspect cubic diamond "impact" proxy and a suspect lonsdaleite identification". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109 (34): E2242; author reply E2245–7. Bibcode:2012PNAS..109E2242D. doi:10.1073/pnas.1206253109. PMC 3427052. PMID 22829671.
Jump up ^ Gill JL, Blois JL, Goring S, et al. (July 2012). "Paleoecological changes at Lake Cuitzeo were not consistent with an extraterrestrial impact". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109 (34): E2243; author reply E2245–7. Bibcode:2012PNAS..109E2243G. doi:10.1073/pnas.1206196109. PMC 3427112. PMID 22829674.
Jump up ^ Hardiman M, Scott AC, Collinson ME, Anderson RS (July 2012). "Inconsistent redefining of the carbon spherule "impact" proxy". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109 (34): E2244; author reply E2245–7. Bibcode:2012PNAS..109E2244H. doi:10.1073/pnas.1206108109. PMC 3427080. PMID 22829672.
Jump up ^ Kaminskii, F.V., G.K. Blinova, E.M. Galimov, G.A. Gurkina, Y.A. Klyuev, L.A. Kodina, V.I. Koptil, V.F. Krivonos, L.N. Frolova, and A.Y. Khrenov (1985). "Polycrystalline aggregates of diamond with lonsdaleite from Yakutian [Sakhan] placers". Mineral. Zhurnal 7: 27–36.
Jump up ^ Holliday VT, Meltzer DJ (2010). "The 12.9-ka ET Impact Hypothesis and North American Paleoindians" (pdf). Current Anthropology 51 (5): 575–606. doi:10.1086/656015. Retrieved 2012-04-20.
Jump up ^ Buchanan B, Collard M, Edinborough K (August 19, 2008). "Paleoindian demography and the extraterrestrial impact hypothesis". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105 (33): 11651–4. Bibcode:2008PNAS..10511651B. doi:10.1073/pnas.0803762105. PMC 2575318. PMID 18697936.
^ Jump up to: a b Gary Haynes (2009). American megafaunal extinctions at the end of the Pleistocene. Springer. p. 125. ISBN 978-1-4020-8792-9. Retrieved 2012-04-20.
^ Jump up to: a b Marlon J.R.; et al. (2009). "Wildfire responses to abrupt climate change in North America". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106 (8): 2519–24. Bibcode:2009PNAS..106.2519M. doi:10.1073/pnas.0808212106. PMC 2650296. PMID 19190185.
Jump up ^ Perkins S (2012-04-23). "No Love for Comet Wipeout – ScienceNOW". Retrieved 2012-04-28.
Jump up ^ Pinter N., Ishman S.E (2008). "Impacts, mega-tsunami, and other extraordinary claims". GSA Today 18 (1): 37–38. doi:10.1130/GSAT01801GW.1.
^ Jump up to: a b Fiedel, Stuart (2009). "Sudden Deaths: The Chronology of Terminal Pleistocene Megafaunal Extinction". In Haynes, Gary. American Megafaunal Extinctions at the End of the Pleistocene. Springer. pp. 21–37. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8793-6_2. ISBN 978-1-4020-8792-9.
Jump up ^ Hubbe A, Hubbe M, Neves W (2007). "Early Holocene survival of megafauna in South America". Journal of Biogeography 34 (9): 1642–1646. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2007.01744.x.
Jump up ^ Stuart AJ, Kosintsev PA, Higham TF, Lister AM (October 2004). "Pleistocene to Holocene extinction dynamics in giant deer and woolly mammoth". Nature 431 (7009): 684–9. Bibcode:2004Natur.431..684S. doi:10.1038/nature02890. PMID 15470427.
Jump up ^ Martin, Paul (2005). "4 Ground Sloths at Home Cryptozoology, Ground Sloths, and Mapinguari National Park". Twilight of the mammoths: ice age extinctions and the rewilding of America. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-23141-4.
Jump up ^ Barnosky AD (August 2008). "Colloquium paper: Megafauna biomass tradeoff as a driver of Quaternary and future extinctions". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105 Suppl 1: 11543–8. Bibcode:2008PNAS..10511543B. doi:10.1073/pnas.0801918105. PMC 2556404. PMID 18695222.
Jump up ^ Scott, E. (2010). "Extinctions, scenarios, and assumptions: Changes in latest Pleistocene large herbivore abundance and distribution in western North America". Quat. Int. 217 (1–2): 225–239. Bibcode:2010QuInt.217..225S. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2009.11.003.
Jump up ^ Gill JL, Williams JW, Jackson ST, Lininger KB, Robinson GS (November 2009). "Pleistocene megafaunal collapse, novel plant communities, and enhanced fire regimes in North America". Science 326 (5956): 1100–3. Bibcode:2009Sci...326.1100G. doi:10.1126/science.1179504. PMID 19965426.
Jump up ^ Kerr, Richard A. (2010-10-30). "Mammoth-Killer Impact Rejected". Science NOW. AAAS. Retrieved 2010-08-31. External link in |work= (help)
Jump up ^ Tian H, Schryvers D, Claeys P (January 2011). "Nanodiamonds do not provide unique evidence for a Younger Dryas impact". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108 (1): 40–4. Bibcode:2011PNAS..108...40T. doi:10.1073/pnas.1007695108. PMC 3017148. PMID 21173270.
Jump up ^ Paquay FS, Goderis S, Ravizza G, et al. (December 2009). "Absence of geochemical evidence for an impact event at the Bølling-Allerød/Younger Dryas transition". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106 (51): 21505–10. Bibcode:2009PNAS..10621505P. doi:10.1073/pnas.0908874106. PMC 2799824. PMID 20007789.
Jump up ^ Surovell TA, Holliday VT, Gingerich JA, et al. (October 2009). "An independent evaluation of the Younger Dryas extraterrestrial impact hypothesis". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106 (43): 18155–8. Bibcode:2009PNAS..10618155S. doi:10.1073/pnas.0907857106. PMC 2775309. PMID 19822748.
Jump up ^ van Hoesel A, Hoek WZ, Braadbaart F, van der Plicht J, Pennock GM, Drury MR (May 2012). "Nanodiamonds and wildfire evidence in the Usselo horizon postdate the Allerod-Younger Dryas boundary". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109 (20): 7648–53. Bibcode:2012PNAS..109.7648V. doi:10.1073/pnas.1120950109. PMC 3356666. PMID 22547791.
^ Jump up to: a b Pigati JS, Latorre C, Rech JA, Betancourt JL, Martínez KE, Budahn JR (April 2012). "Accumulation of impact markers in desert wetlands and implications for the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109 (19): 7208–12. Bibcode:2012PNAS..109.7208P. doi:10.1073/pnas.1200296109. PMC 3358914. PMID 22529347.
^ Jump up to: a b Meltzer DJ, Holliday VT, Cannon MD, Miller DS (May 2014). "Chronological evidence fails to support claim of an isochronous widespread layer of cosmic impact indicators dated to 12,800 years ago". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111 (21): E2162–71. doi:10.1073/pnas.1401150111. PMC 4040610. PMID 24821789.
Jump up ^ Holliday, Vance T. (2015-12-08). "Problematic dating of claimed Younger Dryas boundary impact proxies". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (49): E6721–E6721. doi:10.1073/pnas.1518945112. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 4679064. PMID 26604317.
Jump up ^ Boslough, Mark; Nicoll, Kathleen; Daulton, Tyrone L.; Scott, Andrew C.; Claeys, Philippe; Gill, Jacquelyn L.; Marlon, Jennifer R.; Bartlein, Patrick J. (2015-12-08). "Incomplete Bayesian model rejects contradictory radiocarbon data for being contradictory". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (49): E6722–E6722. doi:10.1073/pnas.1519917112. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 4679022. PMID 26604316.
Jump up ^ Kennett, James P.; Kennett, Douglas J.; Culleton, Brendan J.; Tortosa, J. Emili Aura; Bunch, Ted E.; Erlandson, Jon M.; Johnson, John R.; Pardo, Jesús F. Jordá; LeCompte, Malcome A. (2015-12-08). "Reply to Holliday and Boslough et al.: Synchroneity of widespread Bayesian-modeled ages supports Younger Dryas impact hypothesis". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (49): E6723–E6724. doi:10.1073/pnas.1520411112. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 4679043. PMID 26604309

[Metsfanmax]

btw, which do you prefer, CometScotty or PoliticScotty?

I like CometScotty.

[PLAYER57832]

lets see how the big money's view plays out in a couple of decades, after all we don't have a choice they have the money

On this, we agree. The trouble is you refuse to believe that folks are using YOUR religion (mine, too, broadly) to distort real scientific findings on how our world actually works. Strange that for someone so into conspiracies, you reject utterly that there is any convergence between attacks on environmental science and big money corporations. You have rejected the whole idea of global warming, the danger we face from species eradication directly, never mind the greater implications of such huge die-offs. (not just from climate change by any means!) You reject out of hand most environmental regulations and show disdain/rejection for funding research as "wasteful" out of hand. (and you seem to think that the judge of whether science is good or not has to do with whether you like the result, not the quality of research).

No, that isn't the trouble at all. I not only believe it, I know it. And I gotta admit, I haven't hardly seen anyone bring religion into this, except for the most sciency among us, specifically to distort and at least to laugh off real scientific findings. Mostly I get it's based on new information, and that's how humans roll, but also, somehow, they are the one's who seem to have concluded there could never have been a mega super duper huge great flood, based simply on the fact there is a story about something similar in the bible.

This is not me, though.

Again, not sure how you missed this, read the thread, you should see me blessing global warming as the best thing that ever happened to warm-blooded fuzzy cute mammals, most of all human beings.

Then you don't really get what is projected to happen.

I reject that we have the full picture and understand everything we need to understand and nothing new can be discovered.

Of course, anyone with ANY sense would say this. But, its such a broad statement as to be therefore irrelevant.

I reject regulations can save us.

A trap statement without meaning. Some regulations are good, some needed, some quite bad. We need a direction, legislation follows that direction, but very, very broadly. As in, we need laws that say, just as an example, you cannot dump a truckload of oil in the local creek and set it on fire -- poisonous to all, dangerous as all get out, etc, etc. On the other hand, many rules may go too far or be just plain misplaced (actually make people do the wrong thing), etc. Talking about rules as either savior or villain is just misdirecting rhetoric. Its nonsense.

I reject that global warming is such a bad thing.

Then you have not read much on the impacts.

I reject the climate is never supposed to change. I accept global warming has existed long before humans existed.

No scientist would make either statement. They are more irrelevant, broad statements of no use

I accept that the earth can and has MANY times dealt with a billion times worse, which is why I now accept I do not have to treat the earth like a fragile vase, and I accept that the earth takes care of all of us, and the climate change I want to see us focus on is near-earth objects and how to prevent them from resetting civilisation yet again.

Now you make the leap from broad statements that are obviously true into specific proclamations that are just plain untrue. The Earth has "dealt with" climate change many times. The "Earth", in this sense is just a rotating body of minerals with some living objects set upon it. The trouble with this statement is that while the Earth survived, the living objects upon it did not. We are now the living objects on the Earth that might not survive, or might survive, but not well. Science fiction is full of what you may be tempted to think of as "worst case" scenarios, but in truth, the "worst case" scenarios do not include humanity surviving... at all. That may meet expectations, even the desire of some reading certain interpretations of the Bible book Revelations, but I don't believe that is something God wants us to TRY to bring on. I believe God instructs us to take care of the Earth, to be good stewards, not to abuse it in the misguided assumption that anything we do is OK and protected because we are God's people or some other misguided notion.

A huge piece I just heard yesterday which contradicts...nevermind, it will just be excused away since I know there is no way you will be convinced that all the regulations can now be dropped because it turns out we didn't have the whole picture yet and human beings are only responsible for a fraction of what we once understood.

Again, this is true. It just does not equate to the conclusions you put forward.

Also, while we don't understand many human impacts, the fact is that we do understand a great deal. Talking about global climate change is, in a way, a red herring when you talk about regulation, because while the whole picture of global climate change is not quite understood, it in no way diminishes many impacts that we do fully understand. Just as an example, we know that we are putting out far too many manufactured chemicals without understanding either their individual impacts or their combined impacts. When I say impacts, I mean pretty direct impacts like impacts on fetal development, impacts on invertebrate species (particularly frogs), etc. Rachael Carson wrote about the "silent spring" referring to birds. Now we very well might face silent summer nights as frogs disappear in the very near future. The impact of one errant species.. the zebra mussel into the Mississippi river system, is, similarly, a well documented disaster.

These are not esoteric and remote impacts. BUT, they are they kinds of rules that get dismissed by the broad "anti regulation" rhetoric you keep putting forward.

Don't worry about my science, don't worry that I am human as well and therefor also do what humans do, which is accept what we like and reject what we don't.

I am interested in an worried about your science. Please provide details. I asked some specific questions above, please answer them.

[jgordon1111]

Player I believe there is a slight misunderstanding, so much material hard to focus, reread multiple times, I am sure Scotty will correct me if I get this wrong, I don't think he is saying humanity has no part in glob al warming, but that global warming reoccurs in the planet every so often as a course of nature, here is where I may get it wrong, humaniTy needs to rather focus on outside occurrences that happened before, that caused mass extinctions and radical climate changes that were not normal I.e. large meteors comets asteroids. Like I said I might have misunderstood.

[tzor]

Perhaps a better way would be to say "you have to triage the problems."

There are a number of man made influences on the environment, locally and globally. Most of these things have to do with REAL POLLUTION. This can result from energy generation, massive farming and livestock production, and overall lifestyle choices of developing and developed nations. If you want to know what the real problems we need to address are, food distribution and freshwater distribution, then a lot of the problems are the direct result of the things I have previously mentioned. CO2 potentially increasing the average temperature is way down at the bottom of the scale.

In case you are not aware, the whole "Global Warming" scam was developed in England in order to promote conventional nuclear power and crush the coal miners union. Talk about long term environmental impacts!

I'm reminded of a cartoon in which a child laments to Mother Nature for all the damage humans have done to her. She responds that she has lived for millions of years through all sorts of extinctions. "You, on the other hand, are screwed and it's all your fault."

I'd rather see better ways to recapture the nitrogen runoff from farmlands (and all those pretty lawns) than carbon dioxide capture from power plants; more bang for the buck and we need all the bang we can get.

[jgordon1111]

Tzor, I think triage was the right word,asses the issues based on merit, not ideaology, but on actual facts alone. Agreed?

[Bernie Sanders]

CO2 is not a concerned with you, heh?

The oceans can not absorb all the CO2 without it becoming acidic, which in fact it is. This is endangering the food chain.

Humans are causing the environment to change, but science is not your strong point, only political ideology.

In case you are not aware, the whole "Global Warming" scam was developed in England in order to promote conventional nuclear power and crush the coal miners union. Talk about long term environmental impacts!
Really, really now Tzor.

You sound like Trump when he said the Chinese invented the hoax "Climate Change". Of course Trump later said, it was only a joke, ha-ha-ha. Yea right, only after Bernie Sanders brought it up.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sanders-trump-climate-change-hoax-chinese

Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.
1:15 PM - 6 Nov 2012
24,838 24,838 Retweets 14,663 14,663 likes

[tzor]

CO2 is not a concerned with you, heh?

No it's not a "concern" with me. At the last local debate we had hosted by the environmental groups, nitrogen came up a dozen times. CO2 came up once.

The oceans can not absorb all the CO2 without it becoming acidic, which in fact it is. This is endangering the food chain.

Nitrogen endangers the food chain more. CO2 on the other hand endangers the coral reefs more. That endangers a lot of wildlife, but not the "food chain."

Humans are causing the environment to change, but science is not your strong point, only political ideology.

My science is not your ideology. My science is science. Your science is ideology.

In case you are not aware, the whole "Global Warming" scam was developed in England in order to promote conventional nuclear power and crush the coal miners union. Talk about long term environmental impacts!
Really, really now Tzor.

OK then. It's time for the LINKS. (Apologies to the Iron Lady, the creator of soft serve ice cream has it coming.)

Was Margaret Thatcher the first climate sceptic?

The truth behind this story is much more interesting than is generally realised, not least because it has a fascinating twist. Certainly, Mrs Thatcher was the first world leader to voice alarm over global warming, back in 1988, With her scientific background, she had fallen under the spell of Sir Crispin Tickell, then our man at the UN. In the 1970s, he had written a book warning that the world was cooling, but he had since become an ardent convert to the belief that it was warming, Under his influence, as she recorded in her memoirs, she made a series of speeches, in Britain and to world bodies, calling for urgent international action, and citing evidence given to the US Senate by the arch-alarmist Jim Hansen, head of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

How Margaret Thatcher led the way on climate change

Margaret Thatcher: Global warming provides excuse for 'worldwide, supra-national socialism'

Thatcher & Global Warming: From Alarmist to Skeptic

What was behind Thatcher’s “conversion experience” to climate alarmism in 1988? Part of the answer was the pressure she received from her advisors John Houghton and Sir Crispin Tickell, who were in step with the emerging environmental movement. Also, global warming was an issue that provided her with enhanced international prestige.

But perhaps most important was her vigorous battle against the nationalized, unionized coal-mining sector, the leadership of which was socialistic at heart and determined to break her reform agenda.

The memories of Arthur Scargill of the National Union of Mineworkers using thuggery against strike breakers in the long months of 1984–85, and her preference for nuclear power to generate electricity, undoubtedly made her welcome an environmental issue that would help cut coal down to size.

Natural gas from the North Sea, too, was poised to replace coal and significantly reduce CO2 emission rates in electricity generation. It would have been undoubtedly different for the Prime Minister had carbon-emission reductions not been an affordable option for the U.K.

Margaret Thatcher - Speech to United Nations General Assembly (Global Environment) - 1989

[PLAYER57832]

Player, how about the other side of that coin? I don't blame anyone on this and only point out it's also holding us back as a species when we get all arrogant in repeating and lecturing as a fact that which we are taught about established human history 'started' roughly 4,500-5,500 years ago. I could get into a big story that was a big deal 25 or so years ago about how experts in related fields scoffed at the idea the Sphynx is at least 9,000 years old minimum, probably at least 11,000 years old, and the person who discovered the key to understanding this truth was ignored by EVERYONE. The experts literally laughed him out of the room.

I am a few years older than you, and have never been taught any of this. Where do you get this information?

He was a water erosion expert, but without certain credentials nobody even wanted to look at his work, even though it was good science and the evidence was clear as day. Finally, he found one professor from Boston (I think) who was at least open-minded enough to listen to him for a minute. Even so, the erosion guy had to get a picture of the Sphynx, put tape over the head and paws so it just looked like a slab of rocks, and asked him what kind of erosion he thought it was. The professor, Schach, said 'duh, that's as clear a case of water erosion as there is!' then the tape was removed, and Schach was like 'oh....oh!!!!' I'm not getting too far into it, maybe another time I'll share all the details or someone else who knows this truth will beat me to it. They estimate 2,000 years or so of water erosion. Gotta go back to roughly 9,000-11,000 b.c. to get rain like that, which fits perfectly with the holocene comet that likely hit the ocean which is probably to cause such rain in places that normally get little to none.

Source? See, let me insert that as something of a "water erosion expert" myself, its actually pretty hard to tell water erosion from wind erosion in the way you describe. At any rate, I am interested in seeing your original source material for this. Maybe there is more to it than you are relaying?

end result? Our education system ignores a lot of stuff, and a lot of even older 'stuff' has been discovered since we were in school, and when we get arrogant about something we were taught but don't really know for sure to be true for ourselves is when we get held back by ignoring solid scientific evidence based on the over riding fact that we really don't know who we are, where we come from, or where we are going in this ocean of chaos. Science people cling to their education a lot the same way religious people find support in God or Jesus or whatever they were also born into or choose for themselves.

True, to a point. In each case, for some pretty good reasons. See, there is an error in instantly rejecting new information, but its often actually a bigger error to just accept information because it is new. You need balance. No one here, least of all myself, is denying that science (and religion -- that is, the way humans interpret religion/God's words) have erred. I explained above that this is not a criticisms of science, its actually how it works, its part of why we can generally trust scientific information. We can trust it because it is tested and challenged and still, withstands the objections. Not always.. then we move forward.

However, the difference in my opinion is that some/many from the one is full of arrogance and wants to pretend we know everything and have an answer for everything, and some/many from the other is full of suffering but sure maybe have faith or want to pretend they know everything sometimes too, but can conclude 'it's Gods will' for things they don't understand at the time, and then there are some/many in the middle who have no problem at all admitting there is a ton of shit we don't have a clue about, and realize the more we discover only means there is so much more we don't understand, and keep an open mind, and I think an open-mind is something we can all agree is usually a good thing and we can all try to be better at.

No, gotta side with Mets here, definitely unless you explain yourself more fully. You offer criticism, but provide nothing but ideas. And, well... most of us have done more than just look at a few internet websites or interest blogs to get our information on these things.

[PLAYER57832]

JimBoston, you asked for links? Careful what you ask for! haha

fyi, people will see a lot of Richard Allen West here. Just want to point out he's the one that had to fool an at least curious/open-minded professor by putting tape over the Sphynx head and paws. They changed everything we thought we knew, and they were laughed at, called heretics and psuedo-scientists all along the way. Everything we think we know will continue to be changed. We really should strive to embrace as a species every idea. If it's ridiculous, let's show why it is ridiculous, and put it to rest until possibly new evidence is discovered later down the line and can be re-opened.

The trouble is that its much easier to disprove stuff than to prove stuff. That is why science operates as a "distrustful old man". Even so, it is the nature of scientists/science as a rule to look at newly presented information.

Off hand, it almost seems as if you are referring to the idea that a comet somewhere "out there" is eventually going to end life here on Earth?

i appreciate that you gave links, but I don't have time to weed through everything you have ever read, to repeat your education. Where did you get the specific story of the sphinx, and what is this big idea you have? So far, you have not presented anything but implications that you somehow have access to private information the rest of us are too stupid or arrogant to see.

[Phatscotty]

fearing carbon is ridiculous. We are made of carbon

There are plenty of reasons far more serious to fear oxygen. I'll let some people stick their foot deep deep deep down their throat first before we get into the common sense obviousness of why oxygen is so dangerous.

proceed

[Phatscotty]

Player, how about the other side of that coin? I don't blame anyone on this and only point out it's also holding us back as a species when we get all arrogant in repeating and lecturing as a fact that which we are taught about established human history 'started' roughly 4,500-5,500 years ago. I could get into a big story that was a big deal 25 or so years ago about how experts in related fields scoffed at the idea the Sphynx is at least 9,000 years old minimum, probably at least 11,000 years old, and the person who discovered the key to understanding this truth was ignored by EVERYONE. The experts literally laughed him out of the room.

I am a few years older than you, and have never been taught any of this. Where do you get this information?

He was a water erosion expert, but without certain credentials nobody even wanted to look at his work, even though it was good science and the evidence was clear as day. Finally, he found one professor from Boston (I think) who was at least open-minded enough to listen to him for a minute. Even so, the erosion guy had to get a picture of the Sphynx, put tape over the head and paws so it just looked like a slab of rocks, and asked him what kind of erosion he thought it was. The professor, Schach, said 'duh, that's as clear a case of water erosion as there is!' then the tape was removed, and Schach was like 'oh....oh!!!!' I'm not getting too far into it, maybe another time I'll share all the details or someone else who knows this truth will beat me to it. They estimate 2,000 years or so of water erosion. Gotta go back to roughly 9,000-11,000 b.c. to get rain like that, which fits perfectly with the holocene comet that likely hit the ocean which is probably to cause such rain in places that normally get little to none.

Source? See, let me insert that as something of a "water erosion expert" myself, its actually pretty hard to tell water erosion from wind erosion in the way you describe. At any rate, I am interested in seeing your original source material for this. Maybe there is more to it than you are relaying?

end result? Our education system ignores a lot of stuff, and a lot of even older 'stuff' has been discovered since we were in school, and when we get arrogant about something we were taught but don't really know for sure to be true for ourselves is when we get held back by ignoring solid scientific evidence based on the over riding fact that we really don't know who we are, where we come from, or where we are going in this ocean of chaos. Science people cling to their education a lot the same way religious people find support in God or Jesus or whatever they were also born into or choose for themselves.

True, to a point. In each case, for some pretty good reasons. See, there is an error in instantly rejecting new information, but its often actually a bigger error to just accept information because it is new. You need balance. No one here, least of all myself, is denying that science (and religion -- that is, the way humans interpret religion/God's words) have erred. I explained above that this is not a criticisms of science, its actually how it works, its part of why we can generally trust scientific information. We can trust it because it is tested and challenged and still, withstands the objections. Not always.. then we move forward.

However, the difference in my opinion is that some/many from the one is full of arrogance and wants to pretend we know everything and have an answer for everything, and some/many from the other is full of suffering but sure maybe have faith or want to pretend they know everything sometimes too, but can conclude 'it's Gods will' for things they don't understand at the time, and then there are some/many in the middle who have no problem at all admitting there is a ton of shit we don't have a clue about, and realize the more we discover only means there is so much more we don't understand, and keep an open mind, and I think an open-mind is something we can all agree is usually a good thing and we can all try to be better at.

No, gotta side with Mets here, definitely unless you explain yourself more fully. You offer criticism, but provide nothing but ideas. And, well... most of us have done more than just look at a few internet websites or interest blogs to get our information on these things.

K. Tigris Euphrates river, Sumeria. Spit out a date for the start of this civilization, as taught in textbooks when you were a young student in school, without googling it.

Source per water erosion
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=216569#p4769836

[PLAYER57832]

fearing carbon is ridiculous. We are made of carbon

There are plenty of reasons far more serious to fear oxygen. I'll let some people stick their foot deep deep deep down their throat first before we get into the common sense obviousness of why oxygen is so dangerous.

proceed

I have no idea why you think this makes sense.
We are not "fearing carbon" in any sense that you imply. Might as well say why fear fire because we are full of chemical reactions. Why fear eating hemlock or gasoline.. after all, we are made of carbon. And yeah, pure Oxygen causes harm. So does drinking too much water. That doesn't mean we can do without it, either.

As to why Oxygen is so harmful? I suspect you are eluding to the fact that Oxygen combining with things is more or less the definition of rust and burning both.

None of that sets aside the fact that part of why we fear the impact of greenhouse gases and global climate change IS because the Earth has been through these cycles before. We know a lot of what happened then and that it would not be good for humanity.

[Metsfanmax]

fearing carbon is ridiculous. We are made of carbon

There are plenty of reasons far more serious to fear oxygen. I'll let some people stick their foot deep deep deep down their throat first before we get into the common sense obviousness of why oxygen is so dangerous.

proceed

Well by mass we humans are mostly made of oxygen, so...

[Metsfanmax]

We are not "fearing carbon" in any sense that you imply. Might as well say why fear fire because we are full of chemical reactions. Why fear eating hemlock or gasoline..

This is a good point. Phatscotty, for science, I think you should drink gasoline and tell us how it tasted.

[PLAYER57832]

CO2 is not a concerned with you, heh?

No it's not a "concern" with me. At the last local debate we had hosted by the environmental groups, nitrogen came up a dozen times. CO2 came up once.

The oceans can not absorb all the CO2 without it becoming acidic, which in fact it is. This is endangering the food chain.

Nitrogen endangers the food chain more. CO2 on the other hand endangers the coral reefs more. That endangers a lot of wildlife, but not the "food chain."

You are wrong, tzor. Not only does most of our food chain rest firmly in the sea, but the sea provides a lot of the oxygen of Earth.

[PLAYER57832]

K. Tigris Euphrates river, Sumeria. Spit out a date for the start of this civilization, as taught in textbooks when you were a young student in school, without googling it.

lol -- no, not correct. Maybe you were taught this? My education was a good deal more nuanced...
except on the bit about man going to the moon. Still remember how dismayed I was that our textbooks said man could not go to the moon....

will look up the other link, if I have time before dinner.

[jgordon1111]

CO2 is not a concerned with you, heh?

No it's not a "concern" with me. At the last local debate we had hosted by the environmental groups, nitrogen came up a dozen times. CO2 came up once.

The oceans can not absorb all the CO2 without it becoming acidic, which in fact it is. This is endangering the food chain.

Nitrogen endangers the food chain more. CO2 on the other hand endangers the coral reefs more. That endangers a lot of wildlife, but not the "food chain."

You are wrong, tzor. Not only does most of our food chain rest firmly in the sea, but the sea provides a lot of the oxygen of Earth.

I am not a scientist player,but please explain to me how most of (our) food chain is in the sea? You may have mispoke there