It has been. Getting archival climate records from glacial cores might be a new idea to the "theorists" you are now encountering, but it's standard knowledge in the scientific community. It's not like Carlson has discovered some secret perspective that those ******* scientists haven't thought of.
A new idea would be a case of semantics in our argument, I would say anything in the last 10 years is new findings, which is where most of these findings are from.
FYI, Carlson is not claiming to have found any new perspective, just saying what he has found, and again, we can throw him out of the talk need be.
As for ******* scientist, I could care less what any scientist with a political agenda has to say on anything.
But you should care. That's why so many people are in alarm. If the planet warms by 1* C over 1000 years, there is time to react and plan. If it happens in 50 years, with another couple of degrees on the horizon for the next 50 years, it's an emergency.
The whole of what I wrote.
"One thing to note, pretty sure that the rate of change of the climate is not the fastest it is been throughout history, but I do not really care if that is right or wrong,
any past changes with a high rate has had a profound effect on the planet and the life on it, so the current rate is no doubt a concern to be taken seriously."
That would be the case today. It should be alarming.
I can find data that says humanity has experience this kind of erratic climate change in the past, and worse than this. Unless you believe that humans in the past, purposely built temples and structures under water for the shear fun of it. Written by scientists with all kinds of degrees and what not, but at some point it is what you believe and who you believe.
Another point of agreement is climate changes lead to horrific situations where the population was greatly effected. Not trying to say that climate change is not a problem, it is. Not trying to say climate change is not a problem right now, it is. What I find concerning goes back to your "*******" comment, where ideology comes into play. The liberals saying you need to do this and that, and conservatives saying you need to do that or this, and they care more about votes, power, and being right, then getting the facts.
One thing I should clarify, I am in 100% agreement that a vast, vast, vast majority of scientist agree, there is climate change that has to be addressed. When it comes to why, that is where the debate lies. Even then, it is not like anyone is saying not to lessen our carbon footprint. But, there is no doubt there has been fluctuations in the past, and to think it will not happen again, is a bout of hubris, in my humble opinion. I would hope there is some debate on these topics while also an agreement of the current problem.
Remember it was 100% certain Pluto was a planet, and reputable scientists claimed this fact. Technology then brought about the realization of the Kuiper belt, and then, it almost a similar case, it was not that Pluto was not revolving around the sun, but that it was a largest of "thousands?" (maybe more) of frozen bodies revolving around the earth. You can call it a planet, but then there is thousands of other planets. You can call it a frozen body, but it still revolves around the sun. Neither side is really wrong, just that new technology gives more insight on what is going on.
I was looking for this quote before, Dr. Richard Alley (who would happily call Mr. Carlson a nutjob, btw) made a GREAT quote about it:
"Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming. If you don’t care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived. But, those warmer and colder times did not come when there were almost seven billion people living as we do. The best science says that if our warming becomes large, its influences on us will be primarily negative, and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that. Furthermore, the existence of warmer and colder times in the past does not remove our fingerprints from the current warming, any more than the existence of natural fires would remove an arsonist’s fingerprints from a can of flammable liquid. If anything, nature has been pushing to cool the climate over the last few decades, but warming has occurred."
What I have in bold, I would comment on to say that I am not 100% convinced there was never a time where humans inhabited this planet at great numbers, I think that cannot be proven one way or the other. But, I do agree, that when he says "
as we do", he is 100% right regardless of the past tells us about climate change. It won't apply to the here and now.
We are not a society of survival, we are specialists and our society is very fragile on how it is setup. There is a lot of room on this planet for people, no doubt, but not as we currently live as a society or to be support by it. The middle of Montana is not the best place for a person to have a job, and be part of the modern society, so to speak. As people get flooded out, and migrate the logistic of what to do becomes impossible, not to mention the loss of infrastructure, etc. etc. Anyway its cut, it is a bad situation, with real implications.
Again, not saying the current situation is not an issue. Yet, you look at some of the testing, and information found over the last few years, that align with data from extinctions, population losses and gains, etc., etc. there has been climate change caused by various situations. The better the technology the farther we will be able to look into the past, and the more clarity we will have from what we already know. So, while Dr. Alley is right, my problem with him is he feels the need to close a book that has not been fully written. In my humble opinion, that is hubris in the way of progress.
In the end, while interesting on why and how, all climate changes (ones of relative fast warming and cooling) end up being situations where people suffer, and life has to "endure" the process. See the studies between mid-evil times in Europe and the climate changes during those times. I should state those changes were less impactful then what we are up again today, but none the less where devastating to those societies
The more we know the more we will be able to adapt where possible.
The rest of what you have to say, and to be fair what I would have to say, is a matter of what is reputable, who is not. And based on what is considered reputable then effects what would be considered proven research (see the Pluto example)
You can find reason they don't. I can find a guy I find reputable with degrees and doctorates, and you can do the same. All calling each other nut jobs and what not.
Again, all I care about is getting information on what is going on, and continuing to gather all information from all areas, where ever possible, and keep ideology and hubris out of the equation.
What is really cool about this discussion, thanks again, very fun and informative, is we obviously see this from different angles, but in the end, as it stands right now, the current situation has been proven to be dangerous, and needs to be addressed.
If you have more I will try to get back to it, and debate some more if I have anymore to debate about since we are in agreement on the current situation, just on some other details but you have given me some new places to go look into more depth.
