Posted on 06/13/2005 11:28:10 AM PDT by BJClinton
Edited on 06/13/2005 11:31:11 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
[Gannett]
Whaddya think?
Isn't that cute, the MSM feels it can unilaterally declare a policy dispute resolved in the socialists' favor.
Because of? Or because they think it is causing it?
I do think the planet's getting warmer. Good thing, because I'd hate to live through the winters they had during the Little Ice Age. The big question is, is the warming part of a natural cycle or due to man-made carbon dioxide emissions? I haven't seen anything convincing that it is not natural - and, given that much of the global warming crowd acts like climate was stable before we discovered the internal combustion engine, methinks they have their own biases.
The big question is, is the warming part of a natural cycle or due to man-made carbon dioxide emissions?
It's a natural cycle. Google 'milankovitch cycle' and read all about it (e.g.http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm)
Fear not;
The Pentagon is prepared for whatever develops:
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,582584,00.html
It has been for about 9000 years.
How many times in the last few years have you read in that the debate is over on this one? And yet, somehow, the debate continues...
There I fixed it. The bold word are mine.
It's the lack of catalytic converters on those damn volcanoes!!! A dimmer switch on the sun would be a productive practice as well.
Lib-eco-leftist-whacko Playbook Rule #1603:
When unable to refute facts that are contrary to your position, end the debate and declare victory.
They've been promising 'global warming' for years, but they never deliver! -- I'm freezing my ass off here!
Well it was settled first in 1995. Then is was really settled in 1996. Next they finally setted it all in 1997. But then in 1998, they really finally settled the debate only to have to re-settle it all again in 1999....
The earth will chew us up and spit us out before we humans think we can destroy it.
Of course it is.
Or cooling.
When, in the 450 000-year Vostok ice core record, or anywhere else, have surface temperatures been stable for even 50 years?
Never, that's when.
If you ignore the little ice age and medevil warming periods and minipulate the data a bit, we have been stable for the last 1,000 years.
Why does that make any difference? The big question to me is what climate is best for sustaining human life and what technologies can we develop to get it there and keep it there. The optimum climate is likely warmer than it currently is, and the government should currently be promoting green house gas production. The assumed universal truth of letting planet Earth run wild doesn't make any sense to me. We don't let rainwater run wild anymore, we channel it and control it in reservoirs so that we can live and farm where we like and sustain 6 billion people. Why should we let the climate be any different?
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.