🚀 go-pugleaf

On Apr 5, 2:54 pm, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@HotMail.com> wrote:
> "Billy" <wildbi...@withoutta.net> wrote in message
>
> news:wildbilly-7C6A0A.21505204042012@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <jlajfb$or...@dont-email.me>,
> > Chom Noamsky <bea...@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.

Are you implying that your posts here have failed to prove that you
are not a SIMPLETON, but instead some kind of sophisticated "book
learnin" dude?

Hilarious!

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/va-ag-timeline.html