The hockey stick - had it been true - was a visual representation for publicity impact, intended to make it "obvious" to "everyone" that it was "really happening now". But it doesn;t really matter how warm the mediaeval warm period was, or how cold the little ice age was, these are relatively slow climate changes over longer periods which can be laid to natural effects. AGW has been acknowledged mainstream science for a long time: it has been generally known and understood and in the mainstream since the 1930s, having been first predicted in the 19th century. It is true even without the hockeystick. But even without the hockey stick, we have still warmed quite a bit since the 1970s. It is still true that what has warmed us up a lot since 1970 is CO2. And if you don't believe human-operated thermometers, you can believe nature's thermometers, such as when spring flowers open, and the moving range of plants and animals, the accelerated melting of glaciers, etc, which are a worldwide phenomenon, not just in the UK.

If you don't believe in AGW, perhaps you'd also like to deny Newton's Laws of Motion. Because the science of how CO2 insulates our atmosphere really is as solid as Newton's Laws. There's a very popular book that does just that, by a guy called Mark McCutcheon. Since it doesn't actually explain that is what it does (it pretends instead that it is fixing something wrong with the law fo gravity) the scientically illiterate give it rave reviews on Amazon. Or you could go to David Icke's website, and learn that cancer is a fungus.

"echinosum" wrote in message
...

Granity;872003 Wrote:
The original argument was that the hockey stick proved AGW
The hockey stick - had it been true - was a visual representation for
publicity impact, intended to make it "obvious" to "everyone" that it
was "really happening now". But it doesn;t really matter how warm the
mediaeval warm period was, or how cold the little ice age was, these are
relatively slow climate changes over longer periods which can be laid to
natural effects.

Well stated. "But the planet has always had warming and cooling" state the
deniers. Indeed, the planet has warmed and cooled, gradually, over a long
period of time, within cycles. A slightly different scenario, is rapid
warming (by comparison) that we are now seeing, with strong encouragement by
humanity. So yes, the planet has warmed before, just not at the scale and
speed we are now helping things along. I wonder if the deniers will stop
using that truth distortion at some point? Maybe when we have warmed the
planet up 3 degrees.

rob

"George" wrote in message
...

"echinosum" wrote in message
...

Granity;872003 Wrote:
The original argument was that the hockey stick proved AGW
The hockey stick - had it been true - was a visual representation for
publicity impact, intended to make it "obvious" to "everyone" that it
was "really happening now". But it doesn;t really matter how warm the
mediaeval warm period was, or how cold the little ice age was, these are
relatively slow climate changes over longer periods which can be laid to
natural effects.

Well stated. "But the planet has always had warming and cooling" state the
deniers. Indeed, the planet has warmed and cooled, gradually, over a long
period of time, within cycles. A slightly different scenario, is rapid
warming (by comparison) that we are now seeing, with strong encouragement
by humanity. So yes, the planet has warmed before, just not at the scale
and speed we are now helping things along. I wonder if the deniers will
stop using that truth distortion at some point? Maybe when we have warmed
the planet up 3 degrees.

sorry, I am making an assumption there, that reality will force the deniers
to face the truth. They may continue to argue that the planet has warmed
before, naturally.

rob

"George" wrote in message
...

"George" wrote in message
...

"echinosum" wrote in message
...

Granity;872003 Wrote:
The original argument was that the hockey stick proved AGW
The hockey stick - had it been true - was a visual representation for
publicity impact, intended to make it "obvious" to "everyone" that it
was "really happening now". But it doesn;t really matter how warm the
mediaeval warm period was, or how cold the little ice age was, these are
relatively slow climate changes over longer periods which can be laid to
natural effects.

Well stated. "But the planet has always had warming and cooling" state
the deniers. Indeed, the planet has warmed and cooled, gradually, over a
long period of time, within cycles. A slightly different scenario, is
rapid warming (by comparison) that we are now seeing, with strong
encouragement by humanity. So yes, the planet has warmed before, just not
at the scale and speed we are now helping things along. I wonder if the
deniers will stop using that truth distortion at some point? Maybe when
we have warmed the planet up 3 degrees.

sorry, I am making an assumption there, that reality will force the
deniers to face the truth. They may continue to argue that the planet has
warmed before, naturally.

rob

Haven't you been brainwashed? :-(((

--
Mike

The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rneba.org.uk
Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?
www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk

"'Mike'" wrote in message
...


"George" wrote in message
...

"George" wrote in message
...

"echinosum" wrote in message
...

Granity;872003 Wrote:
The original argument was that the hockey stick proved AGW
The hockey stick - had it been true - was a visual representation for
publicity impact, intended to make it "obvious" to "everyone" that it
was "really happening now". But it doesn;t really matter how warm the
mediaeval warm period was, or how cold the little ice age was, these
are
relatively slow climate changes over longer periods which can be laid
to
natural effects.

Well stated. "But the planet has always had warming and cooling" state
the deniers. Indeed, the planet has warmed and cooled, gradually, over a
long period of time, within cycles. A slightly different scenario, is
rapid warming (by comparison) that we are now seeing, with strong
encouragement by humanity. So yes, the planet has warmed before, just
not at the scale and speed we are now helping things along. I wonder if
the deniers will stop using that truth distortion at some point? Maybe
when we have warmed the planet up 3 degrees.

sorry, I am making an assumption there, that reality will force the
deniers to face the truth. They may continue to argue that the planet has
warmed before, naturally.

rob

Haven't you been brainwashed? :-(((

By the deniers? No. Like many people I am not 100% certain and sure. But I
do err on the side of their being a problem and meaningful action being
necessary to avert it. The strident deniers (many of them right wingers and
some the looney extreme right) act as though on some religious crusade or
bang on about some conspiracy. Should we face future catastrophy, and I
think the smart money is on that possibility, the looney right wing
extremists will I guess naturally present themselves at the prison gate for
incarceration?

No, I don't expect they will either.

rob

Not really a continuation of this thread,
but in connection with the title,
I found the article by Freeman Dyson at
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html
very interesting on this topic.

Dyson claims that if appropriate plants were grown
so that the soil-level rises by 1/100 inch per year,
this would counter the increase in CO2
(by incorporating carbon into the soil).

Dyson (who is an eminent mathematical physicist)
is a skeptic rather than a denier on climate change.
He believes the CO2 cycle is more complicated than is usually thought.




--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland