🚀 go-pugleaf

"Billy" <wildbilly@withoutta.net> wrote in message 
news:wildbilly-F847DF.16592105042012@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
> In article <eO2dnaVPBqkWdeDSnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@bright.net>,
> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Billy" <wildbilly@withoutta.net> wrote in message
>> news:wildbilly-5076EA.21573204042012@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
>> > 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-hockey>
>>
>>
>> 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?
>

Google is your friend
    http://www.google.com/search?aq=2&oq=hockey+stick+global+warming&ix=seb&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=hockey+stick+global+warming+debunked