Our Future II

[Towntalk]

It really is confusing. There are many scenarios out there about our planets last days. On the one hand you have those who preach Global Warming; then there are those who preach natural causes; then you have those who preach Heavenly causes leaving one to ask who do we believe?

For my part, I fail to believe that man is capable on his own to destroy the planet.

True, a major nuclear or biological world war could very well do it, and I don't discount that in the least, but when I read the material put out by the Global Warming people I have to ask why they refuse to explain the past Ice Ages that occurred long before man even set foot on the planet, explain how a meteor hit in the Gulf of Mexico wiped out life in North America, or how a volcano in the South Pacific darkened our planet sending it into a mini Ice Age, or how on another occasion a meteor strike in Siberia did the very same thing.

The Grand Canyon was formed long before man came due to melting Ice Bergs (a period of global warming).

Even if we bought into every element of global warming and instituted every one of their ideas our planet would still be at risk from natural events beyond our control ... volcanoes, earthquakes, meteor hits, solar events.

Recently it was reported on the History Channel that our moon is slowly moving away from Earth, and will eventually be out of Earth's gravity hold.

The Moon has a profound effect on our planet, so what will happen then?

Finally don't get me into a religious discussion about the topic, but every major religion has an opinion about Earth's final days that are totally unrelated to global warming as the Global Warming folks see it.

[Why?Town]

Yes, your quote of the Wiki seems to clear up my confusion between Geomagnetic reversal, and Pole Shift which is actually shifting of the earth's axis.

On the other hand, the article "The Day The Earth Fell Over" casts further doubt in my mind as to any need to worry. 

The article mentions a theory known as true polar wander, suggesting that if a very heavy object, like an oversized volcano forms far from the equator, the force of the planet's rotation would pull the object away from the axis the Earth spins around.

There are already many mountains (retired volcanoes) far from the equator including over 30 in Antarctica, surely they should have caused this problem by now.

[Towntalk]

Does this answer your question?

Wikipedia
The 'pole shift theory' is the hypothesis that the axis of rotation of a planet has not always been at its present-day locations or that the axis will not persist there; in other words, that its physical poles had been or will be shifted. The Pole shift hypothesis is almost always discussed in the context of Earth, but other bodies in the Solar System may have experienced axial reorientation during their existences.
Pole shift hypotheses are not to be confused with plate tectonics, the well-accepted geological theory that the Earth's surface consists of solid plates which shift over a fluid asthenosphere; nor with continental drift, the corollary to plate tectonics which maintains that locations of the continents have moved slowly over the face of the Earth, resulting in the gradual emerging and breakup of continents and oceans over hundreds of millions of years.
Pole shift hypotheses are also not to be confused with Geomagnetic reversal, the periodic reversal of the Earth's magnetic field (effectively switching the north and south magnetic poles). Geomagnetic reversal has more acceptance in the scientific community than pole shift hypotheses.
It is now established that true polar wander has occurred at various times in the past, but at rates of 1° per million years or less. However in popular literature many theories have been suggested involving very rapid polar shift.

Ref:
The Day The Earth Fell Over
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060825_earth_tilt.html

[Why?Town]

Why would reversal of the poles cause meltdown of the polar regions?

The temperature of differing lattitudes is related to their relationship to the sun.

We are in winter right now because we are tilted away from the sun.

[Towntalk]

Magnetic North Pole.

According to scientists, if this happens, the oceans will wipe out most of the East and West Coasts of the North America, and wipe out most if not all of the Island countries in the Northern Hemosphere (Greenland, Iceland, etc.).

[AllanY2525]

Towntalk... WOW...lol

Are those the Magnetic North Pole and South Pole, or the regions surrounding
the Geographic North and South Poles?  (they are not exactly the same).

There is no land mass (that I am aware of) under the ice cap at the North
Pole, unlike the South Pole which sits on the continent of Antarctica.

Antarctica used to be in a tropical climate, according to geologists who have
discovered fossils of pre-historic tropical plants in the ground there.  Their
theory is that continental drift has moved the continent to its current position
over millions of years, and that it used to be much farther north in ancient
times.

[Towntalk]

Not to worry, I watched a program on The History Channel last night that said that we will see Armageddon in 2012 so all the blather from the environmentalists would be irrelevant.

According to what was said, there will be a Polar Shift on or about December 21, 2012 that will cause the North and South Polls to shift putting into effect a complete meltdown of the two regions among other catastrophic events that have absolutely nothing to do with global warming.

http://www.history.com/content/armageddon/

[AllanY2525]

I certainly hope that the new administration will do everything in its power
to move towards alternative sources of energy A.S.A.P. - in  an effort to
prevent this from happening in the United States.

[Towntalk]

Is this to be our future?

Era of cheap energy 'will never return'

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/era-of-cheap-energy-will-never-return-1232059.html

"It is extremely unlikely that we will ever get back to the retail energy prices of the past 15 years or so. Yet I do not think that this fact is being squarely presented to the electorate nor would it be an obvious vote-winner to do so.
"We need to acknowledge that there is, in a civilised society, a right to expect affordable access to warmth, light, and the other benefits which energy delivers and that this can only be protected as prices rise by intervention, either in the energy markets or through the welfare system."