Actually there was two mammoth finds where both animals had food in their mouths when frozen. One was sitting and the other was standing when found. Both were encased in thick ice. Another find the animal was in a laid down posture like it was hunkering down. There also have been frozen Caribou and Reindeer found also with food in their mouths. You cannot convince me that these animals even had a chance to flee south. Usually they do have some sense of weather changes enough to know to move south if a freeze was impending.

Your post is one of of absolute ignorance. One of many I might add. It is quite similar to your posts on why compact florescent lights should not be used. Every intelligent source knows better.

There is abundant concrete proof of everything the National Academy of Science report says. (That is their point!) Too bad you never read the updates from NASA.

However, your comment about "propeller heads" says it all. You don't have the ability to understand science so you prop up your ego by bashing those who do and make up your own science to look "big".

All of the actual geological and historical evidence backs up the real science of global warming. It is you who don't understand.

Your post is one of of absolute ignorance. One of many I might add. It is quite similar to your posts on why compact florescent lights should not be used. Every intelligent source knows better.

There is abundant concrete proof of everything the National Academy of Science report says. (That is their point!) Too bad you never read the updates from NASA.

However, your comment about "propeller heads" says it all. You don't have the ability to understand science so you prop up your ego by bashing those who do and make up your own science to look "big".

All of the actual geological and historical evidence backs up the real science of global warming. It is you who don't understand.

It is quite similar to your posts on why compact florescent lights should not be used.

There is abundant concrete proof of everything the National Academy of Science report says. (That is their point!) Too bad you never read the updates from NASA.

What so many screws who preach environmental responsibility seem to forget that cost of manufacture is not included in cost of Operation!

MERCURY IS BAD STUFF!

Incandescent bulbs are not as environmentally unfriendly as people think they are and you can always downgrade the bulb wattage to conserve power. We also make them in America and dirt cheap too.

So we pay through the nose for over priced light bulbs

My room is lit exclusively with LED lights.

So we pay through the nose for over priced light bulbs

I don't know why you keep saying that CFs are expensive. A while back, before I switched to LED, I got them for about a $1 each.

They shouldn't be used until someone starts making them in America. They are all made in China.

I buy American.

Plus there are a lot of other reasons. They have mercury, they are not safe.

Defending the Atmosphere

The Environmentalist - Wednesday, May 4, 2011, 2:15

by William S. Becker

PART I

Last February, three Republican leaders in Congress filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that when it comes to global climate change, judges and Justices should mind their own business.

The courts are about to get a different message. Starting on May 4, young people in the United States and several other countries will file petitions and lawsuits in an effort to force public officials into protecting us all from climate change.

The international legal intervention – the sponsors call it guerrilla law – is believed to be the first of its kind. It is being organized by Our Children’s Trust in Eugene, Oregon. It’s part of a broader campaign that will include “iMatter” marches by young people around the world May 7-14, the brainchild of 16-year-old Alec Loorz of California.

Behind these demonstrations and legal actions is a principle that goes back to Roman law: the “pubic trust doctrine”. The doctrine holds that government officials are “trustees of the commons” with a fiduciary responsibility to protect critical natural resources on behalf of present and future generations. Attorneys working on the campaign will ask the courts to rule that the atmosphere is one of those critical resources.

More concretely, the lawsuits will ask that public officials be required to create plans to return atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to 350 parts per million, the level scientists such as NASA’s Jim Hansen say is necessary to avoid catastrophic climate impacts.

The court action is meant to empower young people who have the most to lose from climate change but are too young to vote. Loorz explains it this way:
Young people will be affected most by decisions that are made today and yet we can’t vote and we don’t have money to compete with lobbyists. We do, however, have the moral authority and the legal right to insist that our future be protected.

A more technical explanation of the atmospheric trust idea is included in a book being written by the author of the concept, University of Oregon law professor Mary Christina Wood. She argues:
The legal foothold for Atmospheric Trust Litigation (ATL) is the ancient public trust doctrine, which imposes a strict fiduciary obligation on government to protect natural resources in trust for the citizens. As a legal doctrine, the public trust compels protection of those ecological assets necessary for public survival and community welfare.

The judicial branch should hold government to its legal responsibilities. So far, however, though many lawsuits have been filed, none have forced the carbon reduction needed to curb runaway atmospheric heating…

What power do judges have to enforce the doctrine? Through injunctive powers, Wood says, courts won’t tell government how to lower carbon emissions, but they can insist that governments show they are meeting their bottom-line responsibility to the citizens.

Which brings us back to the U.S. Supreme Court and the three Republicans. The high court is considering American Power v. Connecticut, a lawsuit by several states and organizations that contend major emitters of carbon dioxide are a “public nuisance”. The claim was upheld by the Court of Appeals, but energy companies and the federal government have asked the Supreme Court to rule that climate policy is a “political question” that must be resolved by Congress and the President. The parties argued the case before the Justices on April 19.

The “public nuisance” and “public trust” lawsuits are different approaches to the same basic goal: to get the courts to act where policy makers and lawmakers have failed on the most important intergenerational issue of our time.

We can expect an aggressive counter-offensive by the fossil energy lobby and by members of Congress, who will claim their opposition to court intervention is a matter of principle rather than vested-interest politics. In Part 2, I’ll anticipate and offer a reality check on some of those arguments.
PART II

Right now LED lighting is more expensive up front but they last for years and use so much less power per lumen! BUT BUT BUT I can get LED lighting that has a remote control to change colors! SHOW ME A CFC LIGHT THAT CAN DO THAT!

You really buy only American! You might be surprised what it really means to buy American because we don't have much textile industry here and here, in fact almost all the wool from America is exported and then we buy back cotten in bolts to assemble here.

Your computer and monitor and your cell phone and many other products are not safe in our landfills either. In fact they need to be disassembled and handled safely. http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/ecycling/faq.htm

We waste so much of our limited natural resources. In Scotland they have a new energy plant - it runs on whiskey. I wonder how much energy goes into making the whiskey??

OP, you got your buzzword wrong. You're supposed to say "Global Climate Change" instead of "Global Warming" because the former hasn't withstood rigorous scientific tests.

How many trees did you plant this year? I planted 20 trees. That's my contribution to CO2.

My such bitter and biting words from someone who boasts to be educated? Please, put the pretense aside. You ACT like you know everything acting like this. Don't call me ignorant. I am in the business of cleaning up smarter people's messes! Do you think tank maintenance is all about a little scrubbing and a water change, toss in some chems and everything is all good? PLEASE! I too have a college education. And among circles in my profession the people with degrees have more than once been forced to bow to MY intellectual Kung Fu. It is hard to shut my mouth when I am right. Note I did not say when I THINK I AM RIGHT! There are times I KNOW I am right. And others I know I may not be right but I am right to not except speculative data.

ANY AND ALL DATA CAN BE TAILORED TO MEET A RESULTANT CRITERIA BEFORE THE EVIDENCE IS FULLY IN! So in calling me ignorant you just branded yourself as the ignorant person here. Not once did I say I wholly disagree but I have not seen enough information and experimentation to prove the effect as it is being presented. As a man made phenomenon goes we might be partially contributory but NOT WHOLLY no matter how much you want to try to use words with passion and anger to prove your argument.

So are you ready to come down from your panic attack enough to constructively debate this or are you going to go the rout that people tried to pull on me in the Political forums? I can get jiggy with that too!