WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL ANYWAY?

In The New Catastrophism, (1993) refering to how academic disciplines often work in crippling isolation from each other, Professor Emeritus Derk Ager, who also wroteThe Nature of the Stratigraphical Record (1981) said: "I am often irritated by people talking about 'continuous sedimentation.' Such continuity usually only exists in the minds of sedimentologists who do not bother with the palaeontological detail..."

Life is a seemingly endless accumulation of details, of effects and side-effects--recognized or, as yet, invisible. These are viewed positively or negatively, depending-- as they say--on whose ox is gored. We here at the host site Pole Shift Forum try not to have an ox, although we've visited with a few, so we're looking for good arguments on any side.

With all the problems we could focus on, why spend time and energy on trying to figure out whether polar ice could expand to the point where it could trigger a high-speed global cataclysm? Isn't the real problem the fact that key parts of the Antarctic ice mass are melting--and so creating the threat of higher oceans against the developed shorelines of the world? (see note below)

The basic answer is simple. Most earth scientists believe that global cataclysms are exceeedingly rare, and relegated to some dim past. And so, in a world of limited financial resources, not worth much serious attention.

Others understand that--as is true with local disasters such as earthquakes--if you haven't had one for a long time, that usually means you're closer to one happening than you were yesterday.

In any case, although the possibility, even the probability of some event in the future may be enhanced if something like it can be proven to have already occured, its being possible in the future does not depend on whether it has already happened. So the best proof about past events, one way or the other, is not automatic proof of future events.

As forum hosts we don't assume anything, even that global warming is a fact. For the purposes of debate, we're willing to accept it as a possible problem that should not be ignored. Like many others, we're curious about a 'threat of global warming,' as variously defined by people who spending time studying that possibility. But, if real, it's not wise to automatically demonize such global changes along with what's often presumed to be their 'negative' effects.

A pole shift advocate asks: what if global warming could be, up to a point, a good thing because it helps limit the size of the polar ice so it never reaches a critical mass leading to cataclysm?

As we examine the concepts of Brown, Hapgood and others, we must always keep in mind Immanuel Kant 's warning:

"Concepts without percepts are empty; percepts without concepts are blind."
There's always the possibility that faulty conceptualization might be blinding human assumptions more than experts will acknowledge to the public, and perhaps to each other.

NOTE: The melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet could raise sea level as much as 15 feet. By July, 1998, the stability of the West Antarctic ice sheet was in question,because the hinge line of the Pine Island Glacier (the 'tongue' which begins to float) had been retreating 3/4 mile each year since 1992. Glacier movements can be erratic, so these changes might not be a trend. Time will tell.
Main Page