🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <_fydnVvW4f5G0uPSnZ2dnUVZ5oSdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote:

> 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". 

You have a reference for that, right? Something more rigorous than the 
American Thinker site, I trust.

-- 
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