Global Warming: 10,000 Years Ago

By May 15, 2006Global Warming

A little-noticed article in the WaPo by Guy Gugliotta last week began thusly:

“New evidence from Canada and Alaska suggests that climate change, rather than human hunting, may have played the key role in a great die-off of mammoths, horses and other large North American mammals that began more than 10,000 years ago.”

Lessee, by our calculations, that would put this episode of global warming about 9900 years prior to the invention of the internal combustion engine. Somebody check our math on that…..

Here’s an article from National Geographic saying essentially the same thing, noting an article by paleoecologist Dale Guthrie in the journal Nature.

This would sorta jibe with John Stossel’s lament, below, no? We’ll wait a long time before we see Time and Newsweek cover stories screaming, “Nevermind!” on the topic of global warming. This puts our 4+-billion year-old planet in context a bit, doesn’t it? The climate warmed 10,000 years ago. It cooled 30 years ago. One might have had some man-made causes, the other certainly didn’t. But we oughta know for sure before this hysteria gets out of hand any further.

Join the discussion 5 Comments

  • Ben Blankenship says:

    One thing has always stumped me about recent global cooling, then warming. In WW II we were cooling. Why? Has pollution and CO2 release ever been greater than all the firebombings, nuclear explosions and such during that huge conflagration. I’d say we did more to warm the world then than anything that’s happened since.

  • dave says:

    While you fools argue about global warming and it’s causes, we are signing the death warrant for the human species… that’s your sons and daughters and their sons and daughters (in case you hadn’t thought of that, which I know you haven’t… otherwise I wouldn’t be making this comment here on this board)

    coral reefs are dying en masse. This alone should indicate something big is happening… wake up you fools

  • Ryan says:

    There is nothing we can do to reverse an inevitable change in the climate of the earth, anybody who says different is under a severe delusion. We go through ice ages and we go through warming periods. The earth warming may be tied to human presence but not necessarily technology. This post potentially relates animal activity to warming which if true would require us to kill off a large portion of our population to reduce trends. I would argue that this inevitable because the earth will stop supporting such a large human population and the system will balance out.

  • Earl E Riser says:

    The fact that mammals died off during a warming period 10,000 years ago and 35,000 elderly people died off in France during a warming period 3 years ago is more important than whether humans were part of the problem.
    Last year tomato plants in my neighbors backyard failed to produce tomatoes because it stayed so warm at night.
    If that doesn’t raise some red flags, well then we aren’t really worth saving anyway.
    Ignorance of the laws of nature is no excuse. Hmanity is making a career dcision at this juncture.


  • TokyoTom says:

    Pat, who do you think you’re fooling? We all know that there are cycles of ice ages, and that we came out of one not so long ago and are now in an interglacial period. Are there any idiots in your membership who look at your climate change posts who didn’t know that?

    The problem is where we are going from here. We know that NAM is hiding its head under a rock, while GE, Duke, DuPont and organizations like EPRI, ACEEE and others recognize the need to act now and are pushing for a federal framework to take the place of the state and judicial patchwork that is now springing up.

    I know you’re just the PR mouthpiece and can’t possibly be authoring the policies you’re covering for, but come on, really – this isn’t doing your members any favors. They should be aware that change is on the way. If their interests are too split for you to provide leadership that would give your members a voice (as well as PR benefits), then I suggest you get out of the way and simply report on what’s actually going on in Congress. That way NAM and it’s members won’t end up with a black eye.