🚀 go-pugleaf

"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>
>
> -- 
> 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