....is an inaccurate term and is being replaced by the more descriptive term "global climate change". The warming term arose because the underlying process includes the trapping of excess solar heat by greenhouse gasses. However, the end result will be that some places will get warmer and some will get colder. Some will become wetter and some drier. Some places may see no change in yearly annual temperature, but the cold of winter and heat of summer will be more extreme. The extra energy stored in the atmosphere will raise the average temperature of the earth, but the effect in any given locale is not really pridictable given present forecasting technologies.

In an earlier post, brightstar posited that climate "tipping points" can't be irreversible since the earth did not melt down is the climate shifts that created the sahara. That argument makes little sense. Whatever tipped the Sahara from its former temperate to it's present arid climate has not reversed itself over a very long period of time. The fact that the increase in Saharan temperature wasn't reflected all over the world shows a lack of understanding of the most fundamental principles of climatology. The Sahara got warmer and drier, somewhere else got colder or wetter. So no, global climate change is not going to melt down the whole world, but it sure may screw up where YOU live.

Despite all of this, climate changes are, in fact, are reversible, but only over periods of 100's or thousands of years. So yeah, if we keep screwing up, the Earth will eventually sort itself out. But it might take a few thousand years. The Earth doesn't care. It's been here for billions of years. As far as the Earth is concerned, we showed up 15 or so minutes ago.

The Earth has been through more extreme climate changes than this one we are causing now is likeley to be. In fact some have used the existence of natural climate cycles as an argument against current climate changes being man-caused. That argument is falacious. It would be akin to building a dam across a river, causing it to back up a town, then arguing that the dam COULDN'T have caused the flood, because the river floods on it's own some

I actually think this to be a good feature - the Wingnut's column itself is limp, but the discussions it stimulates are wonderful.

@Brightstar

First, as if you care, when I'm having a "discussion" with someone and they go ad hominem, I figure that they are out of ammo, and I've won. Perhaps you didn't notice that I did not criticize creationism. I simply pointed out that it is a religious version of how things came about, and as such, does not belong in science class. It is not science. It does not even deserve to be held up in science class as a point of comparison. Creationism is not a legitimate alternative to evolution in science, just as evolution is not a legitimate alternative to creation is sunday school. They are alternatives only in the sense that they can't both be true. But you, or anyone, are free to choose.

I don't want my kids learning in school that creationism is a legitimate alternative to evolution. Requiring the teaching of creattion in science class would, to me, be the equivalent of requiring that an explanation of evolution be a required addendum to the book of Genesis in every bible. I mean, if you want to open kids minds, then why not? Kids who read the bible deserve to know the alternatives too by that argument.

Another issue is that a government requirement that religion be taught in public schools violates the constitutional separation of church and state. The separation of church and state protects religion just as much as it protects state.

Next posts: "Flaws" in Evolution, Global warming and "lefty" science.

At this risk of sounding like a little kid - they started it!

Where was the outrage from these Repubs when Ann Coulter called anyone who disagreed with the Prez, a traitor?

I'm kind of interested in reading what response Rushbo will have to all of this. After all, his material is often just as "offensive".

OMG! Seriously?

Let's get a few things straight. The Theories of Evolution and Natural Selection are scientific explanations for the development of life on Earth. They are in and of themselves comprehensive explanations of the same, and are fully supported by giga-shitloads of actual tangible data. . Creationism is a religous explanation, not supported by scientific evidence. Spaghetti Monsterism is a parody of the creation story that was concocted from whole cloth to illustrate that one could come up with a creation myth supported by the same amount of tangible evidence as the Judeo/Christian creation story (and to poke some fun at global warmers too). The other creation ideas you mention are simply errant nonsense. None of these ideas belong on the same level as Evolution and Natural Selection.

Teaching nonsense to kids is not opening their minds, it addling them. Should creationism be taught in schools?Maybe. Maybe it should be taught in comparative religions class, or maybe in Social Studies. Should Spaghetti Monsterism? Sure! If you are trying to make a point about the validity of one creation myth vs another. But they should not be taught in science because THEY ARE NOT SCIENCE!!

As far as your ideas about GlobalnWarmimg ryderedzffrsfdfd