Posted on 03/02/2012 9:03:13 AM PST by null and void
Sounds like a typical place for a liberal to start...
” Massive Carbon Release Shrinks Horses to Size of House Cats”
On the plus side, cats were enlarged to the size of houses.
Of course, houses were somewhat smaller then, about the size of an artificially enlarged doormouse, or a shriveled Cheshire cat.
Thieves in Florida can walk right under your locked door. Of course, all they can steal is a lint ball.
We (meaning all us humans) were quite a bit smaller if you go back 200-300 years. Look at the below-decks space on sailing ships, or the average size of armor, or clothes, or beds.
So it is possible for our size to me “modulated” by circumstance. better food distribution, pesticides, heated buildings, awareness of nutrition factors, medicine, and broadened interbreeding all conspired to make us bigger. Maybe 500 years from now we’ll be bigger yet, or smaller 9see, like global warming’ I’ll cover all of the bases), or maybe the same size.
Aw shucks!
That would have been a horse I could afford to keep.
I've always wanted to belong to the equestrian class.
However, many other things affect size. For example, there's the "island effect" which causes Indonesian hippos, rhinos, and elephants (and perhaps even humans such as the Flores Hobbit man) to be much smaller than their African relatives. Changing food supplies and introduction of new species also affect size.
Therefore, for these scientists to say that global warming caused this one type of animal to shrink is really stretching for a reason.
Easy, globull warming causes everything from acne to cold weather to earthquakes.
How do they know which is the cause and which is the effect?
PATENT BULLSHIT!!
“That would have been a horse I could afford to keep. “
Easier to herd than cats, too, I bet.
Therefore larger horses means a greater volume of horse flatulence; ergo, increased global warming!
Hard to believe what passes as science today...
Not very long ago....this article would be considered written by a crackpot...
How much did this cost the taxpayers
Not only don't they know which is the cause and which is the effect, they do NOT know if there is a cause and an effect. That is why these "global warming" "scientists" are not scientists. They mistake correlation for causality.
Here is an example of their illogic:
98 percent of Americans involved in traffic accidents had eaten potatoes within 24 hours of the accident. The conclusions of those nitwits would be:
(1) Consuming potatoes causes traffic accidents.
Banning the consumption of potatoes will save billions in damage to automobiles and about 41,000 American lives on the roads each year.
You end up with nonsense like this when the schools stop teaching scientific principles and methods and start teaching the religion of Al Gorism.
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.