🚀 go-pugleaf

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>

-- 
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