Slashdot Mirror
Changes in Earth's Orbit Linked to Extinctions
Josh Fink writes "A group of Dutch Scientists have recently released a study stating that they have found that changes in Earth's orbit around the sun are linked to mammal extinctions. From the article: '"Extinctions in rodent species occur in pulses which are spaced by intervals controlled by astronomical variations and their effects on climate change..." The cycles are associated with lower temperatures, changes in precipitation, habitats, vegetation and food availability which are the main factors influencing the extinction peaks, the study published in the journal Nature said.' So on top of worrying about global warming, it seems we should also worry about the physics that govern the orbit of Earth around the sun. Too bad we don't have a way of keeping the Earth in the same orbit/on the same axis of rotation."
Yeah, by all means feel free to keep pumping crap into the atmosphere that is slowly killing the planet if not by heat just by poison. I think the global warming stuff is secondary to throwing toxins into the air and ground so that our own food is making us sick. Either case, dialing the output a bit wouldn't hurt as much as the industrial companies lead you to believe.
....... Thus ends my attempt at wit or whatever
I was arguing about global warming the other night with my half-senile extreme right-wing nutjob father-in-law. He maintained with great vehemence that the causes of global warming are debatable, therefore any emphasis on moderating pollution is a misdirected effort.
My view is that, regardless of the causes of global warming, wouldn't moderating pollution help to mitigate the effects? The cause be damned -- if there's something we can do to control the process by a few degrees isn't that worth doing?
Why all the obsession with cause to the detriment of consequence?
If the planet may be subject to orbital shifts that change the climate, shouldn't our civilization be empowered to do whatever it can to minimize such changes insofar as they represent a threat to our current au courant version of the ecosystem?
These stories are free but worth money.
Now, just checking, but how does your statement NOT get labeled as "TROLL" but my similar statemet, but on the opposite side, does? Interesting. Could it be the "tolerant-we're-for-free-speech" left at work again? NO, couldn't be... Hypocrite is too weak of a word.
I quit trying to understand the moderators here some time ago (I agree in general about the hypocracy of left-wing "tolerance" though). I'm actually something of a global-warming skeptic, myself (I consider Kyoto a worthless exercise in pablum masquerading as meaningful environmental policy, for instance) - I just thought the point about "GW" supporters seizing on evidence and marginalizing opponents could work both ways, depending on what side of the political aisle you sit on.