This "climate change" crap is getting sillier and really tedious.
Can we at least agrre that climate change is not new?
All it takes to do that is to be warm, conscious, past the 8th grade and have had some smattering of the sciences... biology, chemistry and physics.
Then we can concentrate on arguing why the current changes are any different or more signficant than the hundreds of previous ones.
Then there's the whole other subject: if man set out purposely to destroy the world, could he do it? My position is "no". But I'm open to discussion...
Okay, I can agree. Especially since this "new" information isn't new at all. I was seeing very well preserved pieces of wood in oil wells drilled all over the the North Slope in the mid-'80s that were thought to be some sub-tropical species of tree. There was a 150 foot thick layer of this woody material that was very broadly distributed, at around 600 to 800 feet below ground surface, as I recall. I've no idea what geological time period this corresponded to, but the question is, why is the BBC reporting these core samples as new findings?