🚀 go-pugleaf

"Billy" <wildbilly@withoutta.net> wrote in message 
news:wildbilly-E48275.15340506042012@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
> 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)
>
> -- 


You demonstrate why "billy" is Hungarian slang for chamber pot.