🚀 go-pugleaf

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 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-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.