🚀 go-pugleaf

"Billy" <wildbilly@withoutta.net> wrote in message 
news:wildbilly-580543.15355306042012@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
> In article
> <67401ca8-00a9-4553-9b08-e2cc51c65e45@l18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
> Jonesie <caseyterry5959@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 5, 7:59 pm, Billy <wildbi...@withoutta.net> wrote:
>> > In article <eO2dnaVPBqkWdeDSnZ2dnUVZ_smdn...@bright.net>,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >  "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@HotMail.com> wrote:
>> > > "Billy" <wildbi...@withoutta.net> wrote in message
>> > >news:wildbilly-5076EA.21573204042012@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
>> > > > In article <Y8ednQjhR_VcfOHSnZ2dnUVZ_qgAA...@giganews.com>,
>> > > > RLW <rlwatk...@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 Medi�val 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-ho..
>> > > > .>
>> >
>> > > 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?
>>
>>
>> He doesn't need citations.   Nor more than Lord Monckton needs a
>> degree in science.
>
> I know. He just shovels the "facts" out of his backside as he needs them.
>

Funny how I did give you bozos a nice page full of cites.
But then warmistas are generally stupid and uneducated, and consider AGW as 
some new "religion"