Our written history MAY go back that far, especially if we consider carvings at Gobekli Tepe "written". However, our geologic history goes back billions. But think of it this way: in about 25,000 years most of Florida will be underwater, but 30,000 years after that we won't need air conditioners here :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

and there will be a lot more oceanfront property available in Nevada, Arizona, and Idaho :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Carvings could mean many different things.

Archaeologists Have Discovered One of the World’s Oldest Pieces of Narrative Art, and It’s Rather NSFW

Timeline of ancient history - Wikipedia

NSFW Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Where did the books from the Great Library of Alexandria come from?

Maybe
 

It isn’t a matter of if but when all the ice melts. This could happen in as little as 1000 years, or it may take more than 10,000 years for all the ice to melt. When all the ice melts, most of Florida would be water covered along with the Eastern seaboard including Boston, New York City and Washington DC. On the West Coast LA and SanFrancisco would be gone along with Seattle and Vancouver. It will signal the ending of the last ice age we were in. We may not get that ice back for another 60,000 years. People will need to move and adapt just as wildlife always has.


Maps of What the Earth Would Look Like If All Ice Melted

I agree, all that is true and is very likely to happen, probably more like 20-25,000 years from now. And then we’ll cool again and in 55-70,000 years NYC will once again be under 2 miles of ice. But none of it has anything to do with human activity

0.04% atmospheric CO2 is barely adequate for BioLife...Below 0.02% there will be mass BioLife extinction. Optimal CO2 level is 0.08%-0.15% which is where the Sahara Desert becomes the Sahara Forest again...Like is was 90% of the time on Earth. At 0.15%, the Earth could easily support maybe 100B people.

In physical reality, a Boeing jet is "Green" (CO2 and H20 makes plants green) and a Tesla is Brown...The Dunning-Kruger TeeVee watchers (who can barely do basic math) can't even figure that one out.

TOTV - A bunch of retired old people who are now all environmental experts. It reminds me of the pandemic when the same people were medical experts.

These speakers at Villages forums who cast doubt on "global warming" seem to be living on a different planet. They offer their "opinion" that the whole global warming issue is fraught with fraud, poor science and innuendo. Some claim that there is NO climate warming. Yet, when asked, these "global warming deniers" have yet to provide even one single peer review science article supporting their viewpoint. In the meantime there are literally scores of thousands of peer review articles (the gold standard in science) that support the impact of human activities as one cause of global warming. The response of these deniers is that the peer review system is full of fraud.

If you go to one of these seminars, please ask the presenter (politely) for a list of peer review articles that support their incessant neigh saying. They can't produce even one. It kind of leads me to believe that these presenters are also charter members of the flat earth society! Then ask them what their expert qualifications are. I do not believe any of them can claim to be climatologists. One is a metiorologist (i.e. weather forecaster...and we know how wrong most of them are on a regular basis) and another has a doctorate in an unrelated field.

While many of the presenters at Villages seminars are from highly educated and informed professionals, these "global warming deniers" are basically charlatans!

I guess you didn't read post #15, which explains why.

The most obvious point of this entire discussion is that there is one side that knows the facts and another side that merely seems to know that the "consensus" exists. Everyone here will draw their own conclusions -- the same ones they came to the discussion with.

And we will all ignore the real issue -- if human progress beyond our normal state of existence (dire poverty under the heel of some tyrant) causes "climate change", then the only solution is return to the dark ages, and thereby dial down the population by about 7 billion human beings. And that is exactly the prescription ordered by what passes for "science" when politics becomes involved. Windmills and solar cells. If you do the math, you will discover that simply replacing the current US energy demands with "green energy" would require bulldozing the entire states of Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico to turn them into energy farms. Which is absurd.

Therefore, unless we're willing to sacrifice billions of lives to dial back our energy use, we're just going to have to deal with it. A warmer, greener planet is obviously better for 8 billion humans than the colder, undeveloped planet we had before.

But it sure would be nice if we could talk about how best to deal with whatever changes may be coming (if they actually are), without trying to using it for political gain.

Unfortunately, not going to happen. Not with $100 TRILLION at stake and not while the dark side appears to be winning. Although it is a misquote, perhaps their ignorance IS bliss :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

You have that right. And they, mainly he, pushes the same cherry picked charts.

You are so right. Unless you hold a phd in a subject, shut your mouth and do what you are told.

I just find it a little weird to discover so many climate alarmists retired in Florida in 2023, since Al Gore told us almost 20 years ago that it would be underwater for the past 7 years. It's almost like they didn't really believe the "consensus" or something! What a gutsy move, betting your life savings that Al Gore was wrong (while still believing he was right)!

That explains nothing. You're stuck on confirmation bias as many of the conspiracy style posts on this subject have been on TOTV.

Post #15 claimed that someone's career ended because they had particular findings about climate change. First of all, you shouldn't base any argument on an anecdote. Maybe they were just bad at their job? Maybe they were a nutjob that values cultist politics over science.

Why were they unable to find a job at one of the many other fine universities in the world that do climate research? It's a field where there's plenty of demand for jobs and government funding by many countries has been higher than ever.

I now know of two users who somehow believed the vice president was also a climate scientist. There are many others to choose from who actually have degrees in the field.

You really believe that?????

Who's the "denier" now??????

Please, VP Gore could not be a climate scientist. Where would he have found the time, with everything he had to do to invent the internet. SuperSerious.

Yavol, mien herr!

Global warming kooks need to introduce true science into the subject, not Al Gore wanna bees who only do google searches and look for campaign dollars. There are two plausible causes mentioned in most articles. The orbital path of the Earth and carbon emissions. Neither has been proven, although there can’t be much argument against Earth’s history and orbital concerns. Then you have spinning with the conflation of terms like “warming”, “climate change” and “weather” interchanged with “climate”. Fortunately most are aware of the ploys.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. The science is there, but you may find it doesn't match your preconceptions.

And, a broken clock is Only correct twice a day. And, only for a moment. Also, without a working clock you will never know when those fleeting moments occur seems that with a broken clock even when it is correct, it is still worthless.

Right back at ya :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Your argument against climate change is that a guy that got fired from teaching at a third rate college for saying things that you believe to be true? So you're saying the several thousands of other scientists around the world that haven't been fired are just making crap up for fun and that one guy who is now unemployable is correct in his findings?

No, my argument is not against "climate change", the climate has been changing for millions of years. My argument is against anthropomorphic climate change, and particularly that the powers that be have somehow managed to convince the ignorant and weak minded public that this is a "fact" and that we should spend a hundred TRILLION dollars to "combat" it, which you can be sure will only benefit them'.

One way to accomplish this is by bribing and threatening the experts that could educate the public as to the truth by creating the culture that Blue's son, a climate scientist experienced----loss of tenure for not signing on to the party line, as well as losing government grants and publications. I realize that the truly indoctrinated into this manmade climate myth will disagree, but consider this: Try to apply for a government grant for your research that intends to prove that climate change has nothing to do with fossil fuels----rotsa ruck---be honest, we all know the outcome of that. And since these are the professors that teach our young people, they get to indoctrinate a new generation.

Next, since the media are already in bed with their misguided philosophy, use them to mislead the public. Then, the corporations, reading the mood of their customers, start in with "electric vehicles", "reduced carbon footprints", "alternative fuels" and "renewable energy". And all along, those in power promoting this garbage are laughing all the way to the bank.

Now, if you want to talk science, here it is: We are currently in an ice age that began about 4.5 million years ago. During this time there have been over a dozen periods of glaciation and interglacial thaws in cycles of 60-100,000 years (and humans/hominids have survived all of them). Twenty thousand years ago, New York was under 2 miles of ice, since then we have had "global warming" and the city is ice free----so what kind of SUV did Fred Flintstone drive and did Bedrock have a coal burning power plant???? Obviously, at least to anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex, this warming has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HUMAN ACTIVITY.

Now, to throw the true believers a bone: Is it possible that human activity since the industrial revolution is altering the climate trajectory of the last 4 million years??? Sure, it's possible, but we don't have enough data to draw any conclusions. A century of weather records on one side and a chart showing 7 years of cooling on the other prove nothing about cycles that last 100,000 years. Nobody knows. But to spend $ 100 TRILLION????? We don't have the technology to fight the driving forces of the sun, Earth's orbit, and Earth's axis variations. All we can do for $100 trillion is change from burning fossil fuel in our cars to EV's that use electricity from burning fossil fuels at power plants. That and line the pockets of the powers that are benefiting from this myth and perhaps enrich warlords in the countries that supply 95% of the world's lithium.

To think that pollution hasn’t directly affected the atmosphere is naive and ignorant.

Interesting article related to this subject.

Divesting from Big Oil Is an Empty Gesture

Naive and ignorant???? Your basis for this assertion?????

"Pollution" may be affecting "the atmosphere", but then again, our planet is quite resilient. Think about the amount of "pollution" put out by a single volcano, yet the planet is still here. Who's naive and ignorant now??????

Moot
 

All this controversy is over with the single eruption of a large volcano. What a waste of scientific resources to line politicians pockets. Move on…

From USGS courtesy of Scientific American:

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

But of course, those are simply two more sources that are manipulating data in support of the Global Warming Alarmists.

"Resilient". That means that if (big "if") we stopped destroying and polluting and gave the planet a chance, it might have a chance to recover. Like a person that is buried in an ant hole and has been overwhelmed by ants, that normally resilient human can only exhibit their resilience if the onslaught ceases. Otherwise, they will slowly be consumed.
Science gives us the details of how the planet or human is being damaged and consumed and can try to calculate survival to the point of no return. But the sight of the destruction caused by the ants on the human or of humans covering the earth should be obvious that, if something doesn't change, the human and the planet will both meet a sad end.

The warnings about AI going Terminator on us humans is very real IMHO. I know these are just many movies that kind of have that plot. But AI but want to save the planet instead of putting up with us humans. Some James Bond villains had the same idea.

Maybe Drax was right :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Except, volcanic eruptions are infrequent and usually small scale. On the other hand, let's take Krakatoa-----the years following it's eruption we're among the coolest of the last 200 years, including the blizzard of '88. We were talking pollution, NOT CO2. Then there was Vesuvius and Santorini

Paragraphs four and five of the article.

Yet they allow "controlled burning" that the smoke will effect 100,000 people.

Super Volcano
 

Then there is the eruption of a super volcano. Of course this isn’t an if, it’s a when. Enjoy the fact that all super volcanoes “hot spots” are active. Yellowstone, Aera and Topa are all possibilities. They of course would make Krakatoa look like a small burp, but certainly would change our atmosphere for generations.