🚀 go-pugleaf

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. 
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?

-- 
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