re: #580 Ojoe

If you read the Britannica’s article on Earth’s climate history you will find that it says that for 95% of the time, there was no ice at the poles.

So we are trying to preserve an anomaly, probably.

It’s comments like that which make my head want to explode. The implication is that since it happened before, melted poles would not be such a big deal.

Let’s look at what the world looked like when we lost the poles.

jan.ucc.nau.edu

Now notice how much of California is under water. What do you think the East Coast looked like then without the poles? ONe should also note that there were much larger concentrations of CO2 back then and that this directly compliments the arguments of AGW.

So where would America be if our coasts looked like that. The middle of the country had a large inland sea too.

What would the socio-economic impact of loosing LA, SD, NY, Chicago, Philadelphia, DC, Baltimore, Florida and New Orleans be on the US?

What does Wall Street mean if there is no Wall street any more?