🚀 go-pugleaf

"Billy" <wildbilly@withouta.net> wrote in message
news:wildbilly-FF165A.14314908042012@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
> In article <QoGdnbNitoAAkRzSnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@bright.net>,
> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote:
>
>> "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-h
>> >> > > > o..
>> >> > > > .>
>> >> >
>> >> > > 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"
>>
>
> Let's see, making people laugh isn't a bad thing, so I'll let that
> slide, but the page of citations that you offered requires some vetting.
> So let's look into your hungarian chamber pot and see what's there.
> The cite you gave was
> <http://www.google.com/search?aq=2&oq=hockey+stick+global+warming&ix=seb&
> sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=hockey+stick+global+warming+debunked>
> which translates into a query for "hockey stick global warming debunked".
> You were only looking for denier sites, weasel.
>
> When you google the neutral phrase "hockey stick global warming", you
> get a page of pros & cons.
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=hockey+stick+global+warming&ie=utf-8&oe=
> utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a>
> So it appears that you, much like your chamber pot, are full of crap.
>
> There is even an informative interview with Michael Manning where he
> debunks the deniers, and trashes your "Little Ice Age, and Medieval
> Warming Period" conundrum in only a few words.
>
> <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=behind-the-hockey-stick
>>
> More recently, Mann battled back in a 2004 corrigendum in the journal
> Nature, in which he clarified the presentation of his data. He has also
> shown how errors on the part of his attackers led to their specific
> results. For instance, skeptics often cite the Little Ice Age and
> Medieval Warming Period as pieces of evidence not reflected in the
> hockey stick, yet
> these extremes are examples of regional,
> not global, phenomena.
> "From an intellectual point of view, these contrarians are pathetic,
> because there's no scientific validity to their arguments whatsoever,"
> Mann says. "But they're very skilled at deducing what sorts of
> disingenuous arguments and untruths are likely to be believable to the
> public that doesn't know better."
>
> Mann thinks that the attacks will continue, because many skeptics, such
> as the Greening Earth Society and the Tech Central Station Web site,
> obtain funds from petroleum interests. "As long as they think it works
> and they've got unlimited money to perpetuate their disinformation
> campaign," Mann believes, "I imagine it will go on, just as it went on
> for years and years with tobacco until it was no longer tenable--in
> fact, it became perjurable to get up in a public forum and claim that
> there was no science" behind the health hazards of smoking.
>
> (cont.)
> -----
>
> So as you see, my little chamber pot, only your intellect has failed.
> The hockey stick is alive and well.
> ---------
>
> -- 
> "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
> merger of state and corporate power."
> - attributed to Benito Mussolini.
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI>
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_vN0--mHug>