🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

-- 
RLW