Posted on 11/22/2009 5:58:18 PM PST by chessplayer
Weatherman on TV isn’t in a position to raise taxes and tell the rest of us how to live.
“Yes we can. Like we have been doing from the beginning of time. ;)”
True. But I think that with the global warmers pushing their agenda, and the “anti-warmers” saying it’s no big deal (typicaly) - the thought of a global cooling doesn’t get across to most folks. Which may leave us unprepared. Heck, even with all the effort put out by those trying to stop global warming, if it does happen - we won’t even be prepared for warming! (We were too busy trying to stop it).
But of course, we will adapt. Just a matter of how difficult and how many will die along the way. Of course millions may be sacrificed on the altar of global warming before we see any change in climate.
My math is correct, as would be yours if we were talking about a temperature rather than a change in temperature. Thanks, ApplegateRanch, for re-clarifying the difference between a temperature measurement and delta temperature.
I never said we should change the climate. I said we should develop solutions that allow humans to adapt to ANY climate change...i.e. better clothing, etc...
Maybe you thought you were responding to a different post.
I concede.
Thanks for the clarification.
chuckle.
Catherine Zeta-Jones could leave Michael Douglas for me, too. Anything is possible.
“Weatherman on TV isn’t in a position to raise taxes and tell the rest of us how to live.”
Too true. I was just reading my F&S. Seems the editors there have completely bought into AGW.
Their Heroes vs. Villains page was really good though. Putting Rush as a villain after his palling up with HSUS.
Never say die, eh? In light of the hacked evidence of fraud, they have to beat the drum louder...
A change of 6C is NOT a change of 42.8F. It’s a change of 6*(9/5) = 10.8F. Even if it were true.
I’m not even convinced there is a problem. CO2 rises seem to follow, not precede, increases in global temps.
But you are right about there being better solutions than killing our economy and redistributing wealth. The irony is that technical solutions like the carbon sink you mentioned and others depend on a vigorous economy and continued allocation of wealth to technology and research. If the green/red loonies kill that through Cap and Trade they will have killed the very thing that could save us. If there is a real problem. Which, as I said, I doubt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.