1 posted on
11/01/2007 10:28:49 AM PDT by
blam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-56 next last
To: SunkenCiv
2 posted on
11/01/2007 10:29:10 AM PDT by
blam
(Secure the border and enforce the law)
To: blam
You mean 7,000 years ago we had global warming too?
3 posted on
11/01/2007 10:29:33 AM PDT by
2banana
(My common ground with terrorists - they want to die for islam and we want to kill them)
To: blam
That’s impossible. We’re constantly told that right now is the warmest we’ve ever been.
4 posted on
11/01/2007 10:31:00 AM PDT by
Hoodlum91
(I support global warming.)
To: blam
So the trees grew there when it was much warmer in the past then today obviously.
Oh.
It was natural back then for trees to grow there and no ice?
But... not now?
Got it.
To: blam
An inconvenient tree stump?
To: blam
The last paragraph was written by someone worried about future government funding for their chosen field of study.
To: blam
Uhhhh....
If they are finding tree stumps,
that means there were trees at one time,
which means the ice didn’t cover the area,
which means there must have been global warming 7,000 years ago.
==
Those melting glaciers could mess up the current global warming cries.
9 posted on
11/01/2007 10:33:15 AM PDT by
TomGuy
To: blam
"one has to turn away from natural ones alone to explain this dramatic change of the past 150 years." Unbelievable. Clearly, a natural process buried these trees in ice. But the reverse process simply MUST be caused by man.
11 posted on
11/01/2007 10:33:36 AM PDT by
ClearCase_guy
(The broken wall, the burning roof and tower. And Agamemnon dead.)
To: blam
If a glacier destroys a forest, and nobody hears it.......
16 posted on
11/01/2007 10:36:45 AM PDT by
G-Bear
(Religiously, five times a day, I turn my back on Mecca and fart!)
To: blam
"It seems like an unprecedented change in a short amount of time," Koch said. "From this work and many other studies looking at forcings of the climate system, one has to turn away from natural ones alone to explain this dramatic change of the past 150 years."He is a globull warming alarmist to the end. While the globull warming 7,000 years ago HAD to have been a natural occurance, there is NO WAY it is THIS time. </sarc>
17 posted on
11/01/2007 10:37:51 AM PDT by
Blood of Tyrants
(G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
To: blam
The planet is just naturally switching its temperature, as it does from time to time. Al Gore doesn’t have a damn thing to do with it. We’re coming out of the “little ice age”.
18 posted on
11/01/2007 10:38:33 AM PDT by
DesScorp
To: blam
one has to turn away from natural ones alone to explain this dramatic change of the past 150 years The invention of photography, which coincided with the discovery of socialism explains most of the dramatic change.
19 posted on
11/01/2007 10:38:43 AM PDT by
RightWhale
(anti-razors are pro-life)
To: blam
It’s interesting that all this occurred during the present interglacial. So, after the last glacial max the glaciers retreated enough for a forest to appear, but then marched back down to cover the forest until now. Curious.
20 posted on
11/01/2007 10:40:37 AM PDT by
colorado tanker
(I'm unmoderated - just ask Bill O'Reilly)
To: blam
There have been many advances and retreats of these glaciers over the past 7,000 years, The inconvenience of truths....but they're still trying to spin it as being part of the scam -
Makes no never mind what the truth is.
But when alls said and done, I'll take a swing towards a bit of warming before another Little Ice Age - any day.
These scum bags of the Great Swindle have to be stopped - they're after more mega-fund money to carry out some pseudo science that could have disastrous consequences...
IT'S THE SUN!
I vote we send Gore to the sun, post haste, to fix the problem. At the very least, to Mars, whose polar ice cap is melting at a faster rate than ours.
And why are they flocking to the Arctic, where there IS a cyclical melt going on while now ignoring the Antarctic, where there's a new freeze underway?
Rhetorical question -
21 posted on
11/01/2007 10:41:51 AM PDT by
maine-iac7
("...but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" LINCOLN)
To: blam
Melting glaciers in Western Canada are revealing tree stumps up to 7,000 years old where the region's rivers of ice have retreated to a historic minimum, The evidence of tree stumps invalidates the accuracy of recorded history (which for GW supplicants goes back over 150 years!).
To: blam
....where the region's rivers of ice have retreated to a historic minimum..... Obviously not...............
25 posted on
11/01/2007 10:44:53 AM PDT by
Red Badger
( We don't have science, but we do have consensus.......)
To: blam
The earth is 6000 years old and before the big flood the atmosphere was much thicker making it like a giant terrarium. So yes, it was much warmer at the poles.
26 posted on
11/01/2007 10:46:46 AM PDT by
DungeonMaster
(Al Gore, the Jessie Jackson of weather.)
To: blam
...where the region's rivers of ice have retreated to a historic minimum... Well, obviously NOT a historic minimum, if the ice wasnt there back then to have trees growing!
It really is staggering that they still expect us to buy this crap!
28 posted on
11/01/2007 10:50:08 AM PDT by
Tatze
(I'm in a state of taglinelessness!)
To: blam
If this is a glacier and not a ice sheet, why weren’t the tree stumps up rooted & ground up? Glaciers flow.
To: blam
Now wait a minute. If they are stumps that means someone cut them off, that means it is Bushes fault.
32 posted on
11/01/2007 10:52:03 AM PDT by
PeterPrinciple
( Seeking the truth here folks.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-56 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson