🚀 go-pugleaf

"Billy" <wildbilly@withoutta.net> wrote in message 
news:wildbilly-7C6A0A.21505204042012@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
> In article <jlajfb$ori$1@dont-email.me>,
> Chom Noamsky <beaver@stew.tasty> 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...
>
> We aren't talking about turning down the AC, because the AC will be
> airborne along with the semis and the containers that they were pulling.

LOL
Climate change will change gravity as well ??
    <snicker>
You do have a rich fantasy about what AGW means.
    No wonder you're so easily sold on this scam.


> The warmer the oceans, the more water vapor is in the air. When that
> water vapor turns back to liquid water, it releases a lot of energy.
> Energy that drives storms like hurricanes, or tornadoes. The warmer it
> is the more water vapor there is, the more water vapor there is the
> bigger the storms. Capice?
>

At least that's the SIMPLE model for the SIMPLETONS
Too bad for you that the model is a bit more complex than that and there 
other factors that come in play.