🚀 go-pugleaf

On Apr 5, 2:41 pm, "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.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/02/virginia-court-sceptic-access-climate-emails


Nice try though.

"Burn him!  He's a witch!"

LOL!