🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8O-dnVqA9bUOwePSnZ2dnUVZ_sMAAAAA@bright.net>,
 "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote:

> "Billy" <wildbilly@withoutta.net> wrote in message 
> news:wildbilly-F847DF.16592105042012@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
> > In article <eO2dnaVPBqkWdeDSnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@bright.net>,
> > "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Billy" <wildbilly@withoutta.net> wrote in message
> >> news:wildbilly-5076EA.21573204042012@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
> >> > In article <Y8ednQjhR_VcfOHSnZ2dnUVZ_qgAAAAA@giganews.com>,
> >> > RLW <rlwatkins@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:05:30 -0700, Chom Noamsky wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > On 3/31/2012 7:27 PM, RLW wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:18:28 -0400, Leonard wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> Abracadabra,  No More Mediæval Warm Period!
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> The lies behind the failed Hockey Stick
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> <yada, yada, yada>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I'm starting to get the impression that few posting here actually 
> >> >> >> know
> >> >> >> what the "hockey stick" graph was intended to represent: runaway,
> >> >> >> nearly limitless increase in surface temperature.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> A) We know that's wrong.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> B) We know that the troposphere is getting warmer.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> (A) does nothing to disprove (B).  Indeed, (B) is something
> >> >> >> *observed*,
> >> >> >> not a matter open to debate.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> (B) means that a lot of weather patterns will change and a lot of 
> >> >> >> ice
> >> >> >> will melt.  This doesn't mean Humanity will die off, but it will be
> >> >> >> very damn' expensive and inconvenient for a good many folks.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I'll hate having to explain to my grandkids that everyone stood 
> >> >> >> around
> >> >> >> debating whether it was happening instead of figuring out what 
> >> >> >> impact
> >> >> >> it will have and how to solve some of the attendant problems.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The assumption is it that warming will be all bad.  How many studies
> >> >> > have been done on the potential benefits of global warming?  What it
> >> >> > comes down to is the cost of adaption versus the cost of correction.
> >> >> > That's assuming it can be corrected, and in the view of a 
> >> >> > substantial
> >> >> > portion of the scientific community the results would be modest or
> >> >> > negligible at best.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The big problem is elements of the political sphere have been trying
> >> >> > their best to hook irrelevant agendas to climate change, and to 
> >> >> > exploit
> >> >> > it as a tool to push things that wouldn't get backing otherwise. 
> >> >> > Get
> >> >> > people alarmed, induce feelings of insecurity, then they'll be less
> >> >> > resistant when it comes to unpopular causes that have little or 
> >> >> > nothing
> >> >> > to do with climate change.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It's interesting that the Darrell Kaufman study showed climate has 
> >> >> > been
> >> >> > experiencing a long term cooling trend, starting about 2,000 years 
> >> >> > ago,
> >> >> > and was projected to go on another 4,000 years. Is it possible we're
> >> >> > actually better off with a little warming?  Quite possibly we've
> >> >> > averted
> >> >> > a future LIA...
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm not even assuming that the effects will be all bad.  The first
> >> >> benefits which come to mind are to shipping and farmers in Canada.
> >> >> Still,
> >> >> any sort of large-scale reorganization of society is costly, so we'd 
> >> >> best
> >> >> be puzzling out the details now, before it becomes an immediate 
> >> >> problem.
> >> >
> >> > Oh, the sweet security of innocence.
> >> > <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hit-them-with-the-hocke
> >> > y>
> >>
> >>
> >> Or is that the sweet security of stupidity
> >>     Too bad that "hockey stick" is broken.
> >>
> >
> > Citation, please, or are you so stoopid as to think your opinion is fact?
> >
> 
> Google is your friend
>     http://www.google.com/search?aq=2&oq=hockey+stick+global+warming&ix=seb&so
>     urceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=hockey+stick+global+warming+debunked
>  

Funny, I thought they just told me what their search paradigm thought I 
wanted to hear based on previously visited sites, and then sold my 
personal data to vendors and/or the Feds.

The most direct method for measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide 
concentrations for periods before direct sampling is to measure bubbles 
of air (fluid or gas inclusions) trapped in the Antarctic or Greenland 
ice caps. The most widely accepted of such studies come from a variety 
of Antarctic cores and indicate that atmospheric CO2 levels were about 
260�280 ppmv immediately before industrial emissions began and did not 
vary much from this level during the preceding 10,000 years (10 ka). In 
1832 Antarctic ice core levels were 284 ppmv.

We are presently at 390 ppm, and climbing.

<http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate
_change.html>

<http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00037A5D
-A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000>

October 2006 Scientific American Magazine 

Impact from the Deep

Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not 
asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions. Could 
the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?

By Peter D. Ward
 
Philosopher and historian Thomas S. Kuhn has suggested that scientific 
disciplines act a lot like living organisms: instead of evolving slowly 
but continuously, they enjoy long stretches of stability punctuated by 
infrequent revolutions with the appearance of a new species--or in the 
case of science, a new theory. This description is particularly apt for 
my own area of study, the causes and consequences of mass 
extinctions--those periodic biological upheavals when a large proportion 
of the planet's living creatures died off and afterward nothing was ever 
the same again.

Since first recognizing these historical mass extinctions more than two 
centuries ago, paleontologists believed them to have been gradual 
events, caused by some combination of climate change and biological 
forces such as predation, competition and disease. But in 1980 the 
understanding of mass extinctions underwent a Kuhnian revolution when a 
team at the University of California, Berkeley, led by geologist Walter 
Alvarez proposed that the famous dinosaur-killing extinction 65 million 
years ago occurred swiftly, in the ecosystem catastrophe that followed 
an asteroid collision. Over the ensuing two decades, the idea that a 
bolide from space could smite a significant segment of life on the earth 
was widely embraced--and many researchers eventually came to believe 
that cosmic detritus probably caused at least three more of the five 
largest mass extinctions. Public acceptance of the notion crystallized 
with Hollywood blockbusters such as Deep Impact and Armageddon.

Now still another transformation in our thinking about life's punctuated 
past is brewing. New geochemical evidence is coming from the bands of 
stratified rock that delineate mass extinction events in the geologic 
record, including the exciting discovery of chemical residues, called 
organic biomarkers, produced by tiny life-forms that typically do not 
leave fossils. Together these data make it clear that cataclysmic impact 
as a cause of mass extinction was the exception, not the rule. In most 
cases, the earth itself appears to have become life's worst enemy in a 
previously unimagined way. And current human activities may be putting 
the biosphere at risk once again.
----

Have a nice read ;O)

-- 
E Pluribus Unum

Know where your money is tonight? 
It's making the lives of Wall Street Bankers more comfortable.


The GOP is chasing us towards a cliff called "Obama."
Vote 3rd Party