🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 21:57:32 -0700, Billy wrote:

> In article <Y8ednQjhR_VcfOHSnZ2dnUVZ_qgAAAAA@giganews.com>,
>  RLW <rlwatkins@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-
hocke
> y>

Even if the Scientific American "article" was true, so what? 

His hokey(sic)-sick graph was a damned lie. It's wrong. 

And since Mann knew that he was hiding the MWP and LIA, he was 
intentionally dishonest. Which disqualifies him from being called a 
"scientist". 

He had to of known. So much for SciAm's stupid lie that it was an 
"afterthought".