Originally Posted by JCL

Not sure what Al Gore has to do with anything, he wasn't mentioned in the article that started the thread. It is an easy shot however. Wasn't he some sort of elected official? Those are the ones you should trust

I am suggesting that the rate of temperature change appears to have accelerated, and that we will very likely see negative impacts on humanity from those changes. I was referring more to the temperature change itself than the period of the cycle. However, I think that the effects are likely linked, so more rapid temperature change is likely to impact the frequency as well. Not sure that the mathematical definition matters here. There has always been climate change, no debate there. Some of us believe that mankind has accelerated those changes. To suggest that because there is a natural cycle, that everything else is just fate and we should just sit back and watch, seems to me to be a poor choice. No, I am not an Al Gore follower. Try reading things by people like Dr. David Suzuki. You can call me an ecomentalist if you like. I think we are committing ecocide. Not sure if labels help much here.

I looked up 'Gnarly' to see if I understood the meaning correctly. Apparently it can mean beyond extreme, whether good or bad. So yes, I guess I agree with you, it is gnarly. Pick your definition.

Originally Posted by AzX5

Are you suggesting that Gore and/or many of his followers suspect that all prior climatic cycles lasted for exactly equal time periods and that mankind has now increased the frequency (reduced the time period) of the present climatic cycle? Gnarly!