World's top physicist and "climate change"

[K7SN]

Fact: Fossil fuels are a dead end and will need to replaced as they are depleted
Fact: Eventually renewable resources will be more cost effective than fossil fuels.
Fact: The countless billions of dollars that have been spent on global warming research and political activity COULD have been spent in research and development of renewable resources.

Conclusion: Global warmists have WASTED billions of dollars which could have been used to make alternative energy a cost efficient alternative to fossil fuels and are therefor a significant contributing factor to the expensiveness of alternative fuel sources.

I have a meeting with some people and would present your argument as an enlighten post on a internet and not mention your user name. I really wish we could look more closely at other natural driven solutions like tides, ocean currents (Large scale using like Gulf Stream, median scale like using larger rivers and small scale like using intertidal, brooks and creeks) and deeper geothermic heat.

May I have permission to use your post without credit or should I more facts like China and India are going to continue using coal until a cost effective alternative is available research money spent here would do more for climate change than the inadequate research currently being fund.

 

[TheVrolok]

I have a meeting with some people and would present your argument as an enlighten post on a internet and not mention your user name. I really wish we could look more closely at other natural driven solutions like tides, ocean currents (Large scale using like Gulf Stream, median scale like using larger rivers and small scale like using intertidal, brooks and creeks) and deeper geothermic heat.

May I have permission to use your post without credit or should I more facts like China and India are going to continue using coal until a cost effective alternative is available research money spent here would do more for climate change than the inadequate research currently being fund.

You're going to a meeting on the Internet's perception of Climate Change?

 

[bshole]

I have a meeting with some people and would present your argument as an enlighten post on a internet and not mention your user name. I really wish we could look more closely at other natural driven solutions like tides, ocean currents (Large scale using like Gulf Stream, median scale like using larger rivers and small scale like using intertidal, brooks and creeks) and deeper geothermic heat.

May I have permission to use your post without credit or should I more facts like China and India are going to continue using coal until a cost effective alternative is available research money spent here would do more for climate change than the inadequate research currently being fund.

LOL! I think I am being trolled. As you can see, I am just an anonymous poster on a tech BB. So by all means use away.

Take that Eski, NOBODY ever asked to use your posts!

 

[JulesMaximus]

Fact: Fossil fuels are a dead end and will need to replaced as they are depleted
Fact: Eventually renewable resources will be more cost effective than fossil fuels.
Fact: The countless billions of dollars that have been spent on global warming research and political activity COULD have been spent in research and development of renewable resources.

Conclusion: Global warmists have WASTED billions of dollars which could have been used to make alternative energy a cost efficient alternative to fossil fuels and are therefor a significant contributing factor to the expensiveness of alternative fuel sources.

Fact: Nobody would know anything about global warming if we hadn't spent billions of dollars on research.
Fact: Big oil/coal has spent billions of dollars on ad campaigns to undermining that research and to support political candidates who are favorable to their cause in order to maximize profits.

 

[Paratus]

Fact: Nobody would know anything about global warming if we hadn't spent billions of dollars on research.
Fact: Big oil/coal has spent billions of dollars on ad campaigns to undermining that research and to support political candidates who are favorable to their cause in order to maximize profits.

Hell, apparently Exxon did the climate analysis back in the 70's and proved to their satisfaction that CO2 was causing warming. They didn't like the potential hit to the business so they buried it and started funding deniers.

http://www.wired.com/2015/09/exxons-scientists-confirmed-climate-changein-70s/

Exxons own scientists confirmed climate change in the 70,s....

....Exxon’s own scientists spoke about climate change with certainty. According to a later account, senior company scientist James Black told Exxon’s Management Committee in 1977, “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels.” In 1977!

A couple years later, according to InsideClimate News, Exxon funded a three-year research project aboard the company’s Esso Atlantic supertanker. The tanker traveled halfway around the world taking carbon dioxide measurements to suss out how atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolved into the water. Exxon also hired scientists to create climate models......

 

[K7SN]

LOL! I think I am being trolled. As you can see, I am just an anonymous poster on a tech BB. So by all means use away.

Take that Eski, NOBODY ever asked to use your posts!

Thank You - I just needed an example from an open forum on the subject of climate change. I'll let you know if the quote was useful and if I am allowed to write the article; I'll share the link with you.

I would be happy to credit you;I really didn't want to use your user name.

 

[MongGrel]

Hell, apparently Exxon did the climate analysis back in the 70's and proved to their satisfaction that CO2 was causing warming. They didn't like the potential hit to the business so they buried it and started funding deniers.

http://www.wired.com/2015/09/exxons-scientists-confirmed-climate-changein-70s/

Funny how those type of things work.

 

[K7SN]

You're going to a meeting on the Internet's perception of Climate Change?

No, I'm going to a board meeting of the Nevada Wildlife Federation (NvWF) whose members run the gambit from far left to far right but the vast majority are just average Joe(s) and Jane(s). I need to started out with ongoing habitat changes; which effects both game and non-game species ,then say there is no consensus on "Global Warming" then conclude with examples of both sides in a way that doesn't offend any of our members.

The article cannot be controversial but I hope to end it by suggesting Ronald Bailey’s book The End of Doom as an approach both the left and the right can agree upon. My personal opinion is all decision makers should read that book.

Some points I want to make but cannot in our newsletter are in that book. The NvWF does not take a position; we just want people to think and not be so polemic. Given that as more people move toward the middle, things should get better.

I could go to the eco-freaks websites and get and get a apocalyptic opinion, then go to the ultra conservative 'deniers' and then go to the philosophical, then intellectual, then religious, etc.. or I can just come here and read most everything I need.

What the next generation makes of this century is our legacy.

The 19th century human innovation could solve everything.
The 20th century with to devastating wars; conflicts and an alarmist environmental community got us thinking "nature is good, mankind is evil" and the world is on a downhill slide to 'doom, Despair and Agony' ... 'excessive misery'.
The 21st century can be more of the same or...

 

[zinfamous]

And another noble laureate claimed blacks are inferior.

Dyson is an old guy that doesn't much respect climate science and has bought into the claims made by the paid opponents of climate change.

I'd argue you'd have to take off your shoes to count beyond 10 -- at your current age!


Brian

Linus Pauling was one of the most brilliant chemists ever yet went to his death still clinging to the belief that humans could entirely replace their diet with only vitamin C and live forever.

Some people...well, they just hold on to shit and never let go. Despite being geniuses.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Linus Pauling was one of the most brilliant chemists ever yet went to his death still clinging to the belief that humans could entirely replace their diet with only vitamin C and live forever.

Some people...well, they just hold on to shit and never let go. Despite being geniuses.

Why do people have to exaggerate to the point of stupidity? It really doesn't help you make your point.

(and no, I'm not a 'believer')

 

[Brian Stirling]

Actually, the guy I was thinking about, William Shockley, did actually win a Nobel prize and was one of the inventors of the transistor. He believed that blacks were inferior and was a proponent of eugenics. Shockley also proposed that individuals with IQs below 100 be paid to undergo voluntary sterilization.

And the point is even really smart people can have really dumb ideas. Even Einstein, the guy many think was the smartest guy in the last century, made some bone head statements on a variety of topics including in physics. Einstein didn't like quantum mechanics even though his early work dealt with concepts that are central to QM -- god does not throw dice he said.

Those arguing that climate change is taking place and that human kind is a significant reason do so not because of the ideas of a single guy no matter how smart but because of the consensus view of the entire community of scientists that actually study the subject.

The community of physics that opposed Einsteins view of QM have been proven correct. That is, Einstein was wrong -- and he was wrong in a field where he was expert.


Brian

 

[shira]

And the point is even really smart people can have really dumb ideas. Even Einstein, the guy many think was the smartest guy in the last century, made some bone head statements on a variety of topics including in physics. Einstein didn't like quantum mechanics even though his early work dealt with concepts that are central to QM -- god does not throw dice he said.

Einstein actually made several similar comments. In particular

As I have said so many times, God doesn't play dice with the world.

But Einstein was correct. Because, in fact, God absolutely, positively doesn't play dice with the world, for the simple reason that God absolutely, positively doesn't do anything at all.

 

[shira]

No, I'm going to a board meeting of the Nevada Wildlife Federation (NvWF) whose members run the gambit from far left to far right but the vast majority are just average Joe(s) and Jane(s). I need to started out with ongoing habitat changes; which effects both game and non-game species, then say there is no consensus on "Global Warming" then conclude with examples of both sides in a way that doesn't offend any of our members.

The article cannot be controversial but I hope to end it by suggesting Ronald Bailey’s book The End of Doom as an approach both the left and the right can agree upon. My personal opinion is all decision makers should read that book.or...

Why on Earth would you state that there's "no consensus on 'Global Warming'"? The is absolutely a consensus, a huge overwhelming scientific consensus of those actually doing research in the field.

The fact that there are "other beliefs" on climate change doesn't mean there isn't a strong consensus. There are "other beliefs" on the Holocaust, the age of the Earth, and astrology, but it's a slam dunk that the Holocaust actually occurred, the age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years, and astrological readings are utter nonsense.

If this organization is as averse to truth-telling as you imply, why would you want to give a talk to these people, especially one where you're essentially forced to lie to spare people's feelings? By all means, socialize with the nice climate deniers; I've met many who are great people. But don't give any talks on actual science to them if you want retain your self respect.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Why on Earth would you state that there's "no consensus on 'Global Warming'"? The is absolutely a consensus, a huge overwhelming scientific consensus of those actually doing research in the field.

The fact that there are "other beliefs" on climate change doesn't mean there isn't a strong consensus. There are "other beliefs" on the Holocaust, the age of the Earth, and astrology, but it's a slam dunk that the Holocaust actually occurred, the age of the Earth is about 4.5 trillion years, and astrological readings are utter nonsense.

If this organization is as averse to truth-telling as you imply, why would you want to give a talk to these people, especially one where you're essentially forced to lie to spare people's feelings? By all means, socialize with the nice climate deniers; I've met many who are great people. But don't give any talks on actual science to them if you want retain your self respect.

That should be about 4.5B not 4.5T.


Brian

 

[Brian Stirling]

Einstein actually made several similar comments. In particular


But Einstein was correct. Because, in fact, God absolutely, positively doesn't play dice with the world, for the simple reason that God absolutely, positively doesn't do anything at all.

It's not real clear just how religious Einstein was but most think he was at most agnostic. He did not like the attacks against Jews as he was raised a Jew but I don't think many believe he was a practicing Jew at all.

His comment about god not playing dice was more HIS view that probability couldn't explain the things the proponents of QM claimed. The vast body of science has confirmed the QM view and refuted Einstein's.

In addition, Einstein's second wife was his cousin -- you'd think he was from Kentucky!


Brian

 

[K7SN]

Why on Earth would you state that there's "no consensus on 'Global Warming'"? The is absolutely a consensus, a huge overwhelming scientific consensus of those actually doing research in the field.

The fact that there are "other beliefs" on climate change doesn't mean there isn't a strong consensus. There are "other beliefs" on the Holocaust, the age of the Earth, and astrology, but it's a slam dunk that the Holocaust actually occurred, the age of the Earth is about 4.5 trillion years, and astrological readings are utter nonsense.

If this organization is as averse to truth-telling as you imply, why would you want to give a talk to these people, especially one where you're essentially forced to lie to spare people's feelings? By all means, socialize with the nice climate deniers; I've met many who are great people. But don't give any talks on actual science to them if you want retain your self respect.

You are just incorrect - there is consensus on climate change, not global warming. The role of the earth's own mechanisms to counteract such increases like CO2 are still being investigated by serious climatologists. Levels of "greenhouse gases" are not outside the parameters of previous levels (this time man has added HFCs and CFCs) since the time of man (homo sapiens) as reflected by the current chaotic state of the earth's climate and when levels increase and they have been for the last 11,700 years, the earth has turned it off. We should seek to understand those mechanisms triggered by increased periods of warming (which do correspond with increases in greenhouse gases). Those mechanisms (not fully understood by our current state of science) once triggered appear to drive the earth's climate to the opposite end of the current chaoctic state, I'll coin a phrase; Global Cooling. I'm not a climatologist but I do program and work with real earth scientists, climatologist, and biologists; all of whom are necessary to understand climate change.

You said it yourself "socialize with the nice climate deniers; I've met many who are great people" I am a conservationist (not a conservative denier) and I believe in the conservation of our natural resources, not gloom and doom of an environmentalist who bemoan the current popular "sky is falling" paranoia of the times. Our group's success is by working with everyone. The discussion I referenced last week was how to bring all, warming zealots and climate deniers included, to the same table to accomplish some good, not reinforce, polemic politics.

We can only accomplish if we have membership and only have membership if we don't ostracize either those that are influenced by "global warming fanatics" or "climate change deniers." Fanatics, (apparently shira is one of those given his post quoted above) and deniers garner some research factoids, (often done with a preconceived conclusion driving and directing their "research" design) and either ignore, deride, or dismiss some known parameters of climate change because they can't fit them into their just so beliefs.

Those prone to polemicized win again; our decision was to not alienate some of our supporters and instead write "feel good" pieces that meet our core memberships goals. Sadly too many are like shira who would rather pontificate and polemicize; than really discuss with an open mind and reach a real consensus.

One last response while as you say "...it's a slam dunk that the Holocaust actually occurred..." those with an agenda have redirected discussion from the greater evil of extermination by policy that occurred in WWII by modifying mainstream discussion to the atrocities perpetrated on 5+ million Jewish victims and diminishing, if not dismissing, the 7+ million other victims of extermination policy. Does this better humanity.

I'll not try to dissuade shira here; P&N is not a forum for serious discussion. I enjoy P&N because it filled with raw emotion; unrealistic beliefs and good verbal fights; the goals of P&N don't include reaching consensus.

 

[Paratus]

Sorry K7SN, I don't buy it.

While I appreciate the effort to find common ground, there is absolutely consensus by climate scientists that the Earth is warming and we're the primary cause.

The magnitude, timing, and response of the Earths systems are under investigation, I'll give you that. Outside of large (relatively) drop off in the output of the sun the Earth is going to continue to warm. It's just the rate and the impacts that are under investigation.

We need the climate of the last two hundred years since that's the climate we've built most of our farms, cities and ports. Significant changes will be very expensive to the first world and devastating to the third world. Not to mention wildlife.

We're already seeing and paying for the effects:

• Overfishing and warming waters have significantly reduced North Atlantic cod fishing.
• Alaska is struggling with the down turn in oil and the added expense to move Inuit villages that are now threatened by climate change
• Florida is having saltwater intrusion problems on ground water due to rising sea levels.

So it's great you want to find common ground but to use an analogy, getting a cancer patient to agree to eat better, but it's only by getting them to agree to chemo and stop smoking that they'll have a chance to make it.

(I'm also unsure why you think the climate has been chaotic recently. By historical terms it's been fairly benign since the last ice age which has allowed our growth)

 

[OverVolt]

Sorry K7SN, I don't buy it.

While I appreciate the effort to find common ground, there is absolutely consensus by climate scientists that the Earth is warming and we're the primary cause.

The magnitude, timing, and response of the Earths systems are under investigation, I'll give you that. Outside of large (relatively) drop off in the output of the sun the Earth is going to continue to warm. It's just the rate and the impacts that are under investigation.

We need the climate of the last two hundred years since that's the climate we've built most of our farms, cities and ports. Significant changes will be very expensive to the first world and devastating to the third world. Not to mention wildlife.

We're already seeing and paying for the effects:

• Overfishing and warming waters have significantly reduced North Atlantic cod fishing.
• Alaska is struggling with the down turn in oil and the added expense to move Inuit villages that are now threatened by climate change
• Florida is having saltwater intrusion problems on ground water due to rising sea levels.

So it's great you want to find common ground but to use an analogy, getting a cancer patient to agree to eat better, but it's only by getting them to agree to chemo and stop smoking that they'll have a chance to make it.

(I'm also unsure why you think the climate has been chaotic recently. By historical terms it's been fairly benign since the last ice age which has allowed our growth)

...aaaaaaaand now you have lost your marbles.

Dat dopamine SNR seeing patterns that aren't there.

Been stressed out huh.

Pretty sure when the land bridge between alaska and Russia closes we are surely doomed. How will we ever adapt without oil wooly mammoths.

 

[Paratus]

...aaaaaaaand now you have lost your marbles.

Dat dopamine SNR seeing patterns that aren't there.

Been stressed out huh.

Pretty sure when the land bridge between alaska and Russia closes we are surely doomed. How will we ever adapt without oil wooly mammoths.

Feel free to research anything I've posted. It's all supported, (not that you will):

It's ok Overvolt, there's still enough adults around who aren't afraid of reality.

 

[OverVolt]

Feel free to research anything I've posted. It's all supported, (not that you will):

It's ok Overvolt, there's still enough adults around who aren't afraid of reality.

For starters warming water is the least of our over fishing problems. It ties into the same unsustainable use of resources problem, but thats just 1 climate change related example as oppose to the ones caused by lax quotas or lax enforcement of quotas, which I'm confident outnumber those that are climate change research darlings

http://news.sciencemag.org/europe/2015/06/overfishing-could-push-european-fish-species-extinction

More than 90 species of marine fishes in Europe’s waters are threatened with extinction, according to a report published today by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Sharks, rays, and other cartilaginous fish are at greatest risk, with about 40% facing extinction. The main threat is overfishing, the report warns.

Sharks, rays, and other cartilaginous fish are at greatest risk, with about 40% facing extinction. The main threat is overfishing, the report warns.

The main threat is overfishing, the report warns.

The main threat is overfishing

So in summary.

IUCN > IPCC

When it comes to real research instead of fear mongering.

 

[JEDIYoda]

This is knowledge that has nothing specifically to do with climate science. Unless he's specifically studied climate models and the specific research related to them, he doesn't know jack shit about climatology. He's even admitted as much in a quotation cited in the article about him in Wikepedia:


Quote:




Dyson says his views on global warming have been strongly criticized. In reply, he notes that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."




The fact he refers to "global warming propaganda" in the same sentence that he states that he doesn't "know much" about the "technical facts," just makes him look like an idiot.

He may not like how "people behave," but that doesn't make the information disseminated on climate change "propaganda."

So what are your credentials that allow you to discredit this guy? I doubt your amount of knowledge on the subject of climate change even comes close being of his equal....

 

[shira]

That should be about 4.5B not 4.5T.


Brian

Yep. Brain fart.

 

[shira]

Those prone to polemicized win again; our decision was to not alienate some of our supporters and instead write "feel good" pieces that meet our core memberships goals. Sadly too many are like shira who would rather pontificate and polemicize; than really discuss with an open mind and reach a real consensus.

You're utterly missing my point: By all means, write "feel good" pieces that pretty much everyone agrees with. But for heaven's sake don't introduce into your "feel good" pieces topics on which there's a scientific consensus that will alienate some of your organization's members.

You seem to believe that a "consensus on climate" change is a matter of members of your organization negotiating and coming up with a compromise that everyone can live with. You're confusing politics with science.

Politics is indeed about negotiating and making compromises in order "please" a majority of legislators. But science is about gathering proposing theories and gathering scientific evidence; and when the weight of evidence is sufficiently great that a large majority of scientists in the field agree that one particular theory stands out as a much better statement of reality that all others, then a "consensus" has been reached. There's no such thing, in reaching a scientific consensus, as "making compromises" to attract "votes" from scientists.

 

[norseamd]

I'm going to guess he has some small knowledge of the scientific method, and perhaps knows a bit about data gathering and analyses. While that may not elevate him to the level of "forum know it all", it does lend some small credence to his statements.

He has been anti-climate change for a very long time now.

 

[K7SN]

I've never stated my own personal beliefs on P&N but you polite response warrants that I do now..

Sorry K7SN, I don't buy it.

While I appreciate the effort to find common ground, there is absolutely consensus by climate scientists that the Earth is warming and we're the primary cause.

I will agree that we are a significant cause but I am not ready to concede we are the primary cause. Though my personal beliefs think we are; I don't have enough research to back up my personal beliefs.

Outside of large (relatively) drop off in the output of the sun the Earth is going to continue to warm. It's just the rate and the impacts that are under investigation.

Sorry I disagree; that solar output the only way and it is not likely to happen. What happens this millennium will influence next; unlikely to cause the extinction of man on this planet even in the next millennium (3,000 to 4,000 AD). My personal belief is that only the future actions of man this millennium could possibly stop a long term gradual decline in temperature; we are still in an ice age epoch. There are other under-investigated things that cool the earth. Since we haven't reached the levels of CO2 that in the past have triggered some of the earth's other mechanisms for cooling; I believe nothing has changed but don't have enough research to back up my personal beliefs.

I used some of in the above paragraph because (again my beliefs not back by real science) there is little to indicate the earth is ready for a paradigmatic change in our current chaotic state of climate. That means unless something outside the earth, causes (an large asteroid hitting) or triggers other of the earths mechanism (a dramatic increase ion volcanic activity as an example) we should soon (perhaps within the next two millennium) see large sheets of ice begin to form at the poles, green land and Antarctica. In the next 10,000 years the northern hemisphere again have more ice and OverVolt's land bridge to Siberia actually will happen. We agree that man's excessive use of banked carbon (Coal and Oil) is a factor. Those carbon sources are renewable but the mechanisms are beyond our control and most likely the time period would include epochs inhospitably to man. My personal beliefs are that we are more likely to get hit by or have another large asteroid pass by close enough to alter the earths orbit is far more likely; hence we call them nonrenewable energy sources.; again their is Not enough research to back up my personal beliefs, maybe we can find some way to bank that much carbon.

We need the climate of the last two hundred years since that's the climate we've built most of our farms, cities and ports. Significant changes will be very expensive to the first world and devastating to the third world. Not to mention wildlife.


We're already seeing and paying for the effects:

• Overfishing and warming waters have significantly reduced North Atlantic cod fishing.
• Alaska is struggling with the down turn in oil and the added expense to move Inuit villages that are now threatened by climate change
• Florida is having saltwater intrusion problems on ground water due to rising sea levels.

I agree completely, but I also believe with my understanding of climate change that we can't won't have the last two hundred years the next two hundred years. This post is too long to go into the minor triggers of climate change that in the last 200 years have proved that; if you challenge that opinion I'll respond in another post.

So it's great you want to find common ground but to use an analogy, getting a cancer patient to agree to eat better, but it's only by getting them to agree to chemo and stop smoking that they'll have a chance to make it.

Very good point which I agree completely but saving habitat while working in the deplorable political conditions in the US it is the only action I can take to mitigate. We just did a sage grouse initiative by working with the left, right, far left, far right and conservationist http://www.sagegrouseinitiative.com/ and are working to strengthen such efforts to bring all the players to the table on other conservation issues. That is how I got involved in this thread.

(

I'm also unsure why you think the climate has been chaotic recently. By historical terms it's been fairly benign since the last ice age which has allowed our growth)

I use 'chaotic state' to describe a complex system which we do not know all the factors. Examples; It was extremely wet in Nevada (151 years a state today) until the 1920's when it got much dryer - climate change that proves were in a chaotic state but we have hovered in one section of that state for the last 11,700 years and the variation to date are not significant; sure the Sahara bloomed and central America (ending Mayan civilization but not Mayans) dried up in that timeframe; not predictable other minor mechanisms made central America wet and the hub of biodiversity; while the civilizations in the Sahara disappeared. Krakatoa caused climate change for several years, a forest fire in Canada caused climate change and not flying planes after 911 causes climate change. These are minor triggers but I can cite those examples and many more. The increase in intensity of weather which changes the amount and duration of water vapor in the atmosphere (BTW: water vapor is considered a greenhouse gas) and the only pending research can back up my personal beliefs like it is a serious of these minor changes that will lead to the major triggers that have always occurred when CO2 and other greenhouse gases have risen slightly above the levels we are currently at.

Please ponder this jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/....jpg for a quick citation of climate change during the age of homo sapiens (400,000 years); note every time in the past (150,000, 300,000, 450,000 (Not on graph) we reached that point; the earth brings us back in a slow steady decline that lasts 140,000 years. My personal belief is we were approaching our next ice age long before we started burning coal in mass quantities and all our influences to date have just hastened a natural process; the earth will correct. Again Not enough research to back up my personal beliefs but I can detail several other mechanism in another post.

My personal beliefs hopefully not subjected to scrutiny in P&N follow: The earth is hotter than it likes and should have mechanisms to cool itself. The action of man will most likely only hasten the triggering those mechanisms. My fear is that unlikely possibility that our (mankind) actions may trigger one of those other major mechanisms haven't happened in the geologically recent past (last few million years); what happens then is unknown but doesn't bode well for mankind.