Posted on 12/16/2009 4:39:48 PM PST by decimon
“Now, did the Vikings have SUVs and coal fired power plants and heavy industry polluting the environment then?????”
No, of course they didn’t, silly - they had nuclear power plants at their secret locations, and later joined forces with the Knights Templar using their huge fortunes to build descent space ships, and together blew the join for greener pastures - which is why the Vikings, the Templars and their tresure dissapeared.
>> Man is not the fault and there is no “cure” to this non-existent “threat”
I agree with the first part but not the last part of your statement.
I can’t help but think that if we execute 10,000 liberals a week for a few years, it might make a difference, if not effect a total “cure”. Sure, there’s no science to justify that draconian action, but it just MIGHT work. How can we afford not to try?
No, the article states a temperature DIFFERENCE and not a measured temperature. A difference of 3 degrees C = 4.8 degrees F and a difference of 5 degrees C = 9 degrees F. The term “32” is NOT part of the equation when we speak of temperature DIFFERENCE. For instance, a temperature difference of 10 degrees C equals 10 times 1.8 = 18 degreesF.
Whoa hoss a difference of 5 degrees C is equivalent to a difference of 9 degrees F.
And then you said...
He is absolutely correct. 3 degrees C =5 degrees F (add 32F) and voila 37 degrees F.
Sorry, but that's wrong... :-)
1 °C = 1.8 °F
So, 5 °C = 9.0 °F
Thus, a change of 3-5 °C is a change of 5.4-9 °F
And that's the absolute truth of the matter... :-)
And.... that just goes to show you that reporters don’t know science... LOL...
I will leave the 9+32 degrees F for you to calculate.
Wrong. The article says it was 3 to 5 degrees WARMER, he didn't say it was 3 to 5 degrees out. The way the sentence reads he was saying it was 37 to 41 degrees F warmer than today, when he should have said it was 5 to 9 degrees F warmer. 353FMG is absolutely correct in calling the guy on this one.
Further analysis showed that polar bears went extinct during that period, that the human race was wiped out, and that 80% of the plant and animal species we know were permanently destroyed by the massive heat wave. Oh, wait; that couldn't be true. Polar bears are still here - drowning as the ice melts but still here. People are still around too, somehow. Exactly what damage is global warming supposed to do so that temperatures in my home town warming up to the normal highs for 60 miles south of my town will somehow destroy the world, yet the world with all species alive today survived a change three times as large during the previous interglacial?
Thank you sir for coming to my rescue. Hope to be able to return the favor some day.
· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe · | ||
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks decimon. |
||
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
Mankind is approaching the capability to actually affect the climate and its “scientists” already are filled with the hubris to believe that they know what the climate will be like in the future and to believe that they can alter it in controllable and predictable ways. They may well eventually bring real catastrophy.
Human produced Co2 is so overwhelming that its catastrophic effects are retroactive.
That’s because Bush and Cheney invented a time machine..........
and all life wasn’t wiped out because of it...LOL.
Unbelievable how they will twist anything they can...the means justifies the end.
However we should be spending a lot more time on research into the fault lines, earthquakes, super volcanos and asteroids...which ALL have been proven to be major factors in extinction events.
In fact we should be ramping up our planetory exploration because quite frankly if we can colonize the moon or Mars we certainly could adapt to any climate changes here.
Doesn’t it feel like everything right now is the opposite of what it is supposed to be?
%@&#!&# Flinstones and their SUV’s made of wood and rocks.
“.... that global sea level peaked at least 6.6 metres (nearly 22 feet) higher than today during the last interglacial,” the study said.”
Boy - if this is some AGW scammer, he’s not exactly bringing up the best of examples to prove his case. (”So - we’re about 22 feet lower than normal? That’s bad, right?”)
Is this one of those ALGOREISMS?
25 more feet of water would make living in costal regions a little more difficult.
That's okay, they "mean well". And the end goal for some of them IS the end of the human race. Jaded postmoderns. ZPG, Zero Population Growth. Let the cities return to jungles, forests, and swamps, etc...
Ah yes, the Paleocons.
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.