🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <gK2dnYCaA4uOduDSnZ2dnUVZ_oMAAAAA@bright.net>,
 "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote:

> "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.
> 
I don't see a single citation from you to back up your bull shit. A 
simple mind like yours would like a simple answer, such as the rosy 
economic forecast that Laffer gave Nixon that was horribly wrong because 
Laffer use 4 inputs into his model, when serious economists use 
hundreds, or thousands. We all know that CO2, CH4, and H2O will trap 
heat in the atmosphere. We know that reduced albedo will trap heat on 
the planet. We know that clouds will reflect potentially atmosphere 
heating solar radiation back into space. We know that orbital forcing 
can lower atmospheric temperatures. We know that aerosols can reduce 
atmospheric heating, and on it goes. Most of us also know that it takes 
a meteorologist to make sense of the different inputs. Are you a 
meteorologist?

There are a few scientists that think that the models that we are using 
are flawed, a very small minority. If you believe them, do you have a 
pertinent reason, or just a gut feeling?

<http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate
_change.html>

-- 
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