You are kidding, right? Do you actually believe '20% chance of widely
scattered showers in the evening.' equates to 3.8 inches of rain in five
hours in the morning and the afternoon? 20% chance of widely scattered
showers in the evening mean there is a 20% change there will be scattered
showers in the evening. LOL


mike hunt



"Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message
news:Xns9802A2A3EA43AXz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ...
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
> news:CYWdnRbAT83hyyfZUSdV9g@ptd.net:
>
>> Are these the same folks that yesterday failed to predict the rain
>> storms in our area that dropped 3.8 inches of rain in five hours?
>> '7/15/06 Hot humid with a 20% chance of widely scattered showers in
>> the evening.'
>>
>>
>> mike hunt
>
> A 20% chance is a 20% chance. Was 80% of the forecast area dry? If so, I
> say it was dead on. If it said a 0% chance then I would agree with you.
>
> Eric
>

 

Deck wrote:

> over,over,over,over,over,over....OVER
>

Then you must be the fat lady. :-)

Matt

 

Deck wrote:

> over,over,over,over,over,over....OVER
>

Then you must be the fat lady. :-)

Matt

 

Deck wrote:

> over,over,over,over,over,over....OVER
>

Then you must be the fat lady. :-)

Matt

 

Bob Adkins wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:17:07 GMT, "Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet>
> wrote:
>
>
>>You are like the biggest cynic on the planet.
>
>
> Ummm... that's my title. Now my feelings are hurt.

Yeah, Bob, try to keep up! :-)


Matt

 

Bob Adkins wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:17:07 GMT, "Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet>
> wrote:
>
>
>>You are like the biggest cynic on the planet.
>
>
> Ummm... that's my title. Now my feelings are hurt.

Yeah, Bob, try to keep up! :-)


Matt

 

Bob Adkins wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:17:07 GMT, "Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet>
> wrote:
>
>
>>You are like the biggest cynic on the planet.
>
>
> Ummm... that's my title. Now my feelings are hurt.

Yeah, Bob, try to keep up! :-)


Matt

 

steve@websitewarehouse.com wrote:

> Eric G. wrote:
>
>>Just an FYI: Tonight at 8:00PM on Discovery channel is a special on Global
>>Warming. Tom Brokaw is hosting it.
>
>
>
> No offense intended Eric G., but I can save everyone some time. I can
> sum this show up in 10 seconds.
>
> Humans are destroying the Earth. Capitalist America is the worst
> offender. Our gasses are melting the polar ice caps. We're cutting
> down too many trees. We're either going to burn up or drown.
>
> Sorry, but the long-term scientific evidence just isn't there to prove
> this. You can't measure for 50 years and extrapolate it over 500,000
> years.

You can if you are a politician or a "scientist" looking for research
grants.


Matt

 

steve@websitewarehouse.com wrote:

> Eric G. wrote:
>
>>Just an FYI: Tonight at 8:00PM on Discovery channel is a special on Global
>>Warming. Tom Brokaw is hosting it.
>
>
>
> No offense intended Eric G., but I can save everyone some time. I can
> sum this show up in 10 seconds.
>
> Humans are destroying the Earth. Capitalist America is the worst
> offender. Our gasses are melting the polar ice caps. We're cutting
> down too many trees. We're either going to burn up or drown.
>
> Sorry, but the long-term scientific evidence just isn't there to prove
> this. You can't measure for 50 years and extrapolate it over 500,000
> years.

You can if you are a politician or a "scientist" looking for research
grants.


Matt

 

steve@websitewarehouse.com wrote:

> Eric G. wrote:
>
>>Just an FYI: Tonight at 8:00PM on Discovery channel is a special on Global
>>Warming. Tom Brokaw is hosting it.
>
>
>
> No offense intended Eric G., but I can save everyone some time. I can
> sum this show up in 10 seconds.
>
> Humans are destroying the Earth. Capitalist America is the worst
> offender. Our gasses are melting the polar ice caps. We're cutting
> down too many trees. We're either going to burn up or drown.
>
> Sorry, but the long-term scientific evidence just isn't there to prove
> this. You can't measure for 50 years and extrapolate it over 500,000
> years.

You can if you are a politician or a "scientist" looking for research
grants.


Matt

 

Alas that show did nothing to prove, nor can they PROVE that although CO2
levels may higher than 150 years ago that it alone is the cause of the earth
temperature rising one degree over that time period, as they want us to
believe. That is the point I raised.

An interesting fact about computer weather models used today. If they look
BACK the do not show the last ice age or evn the mini ice age in Europe
during the sixteenth century .

Again I suggest, if the world is ACTUALLY warming we should know the actual
causes before we know if we can even try to 'do something.'

Ask yourself, would you plan a vacation based on a weather forecast for next
month?

mike hunt



"Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message
news:Xns9803ACB853A5BXz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ...
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
> news:0ZGcnVq1c5TVaybZUSdV9g@ptd.net:
>
>> If one really LISTENED to what was said on that program last night it
>> was obvious that they started with a premise then tried to convince
>> you it was a correct assumption. Everything was based on the increase
>> in Caron dioxide over the rears. The 'suggestion' was it was that and
>> that alone that was leading to a increase in temperature over the past
>> 150 years!!! Lots of theory's, as does a good lawyer, were put forth
>> as questions but were presented few definitive answers to those
>> questions. 'If' it continues. Melting ice caps 'may' lead to, 'could
>> result' etc. At one point they even suggest Florida and NYC 'Could'
>> be under water, 'If' the ice caps ALL melted etc. 'We don't know if
>> El Ninio will shift south but if it DID it could etc. Volcanoes, the
>> sun, moon and tectonic plate movement were mentioned but not one
>> suggest that they even 'might' be related to the warming trend. Many
>> thinks were closed over. The admit there is no proof to show the
>> oceans are rising, not mentioning the fact there IS a record in
>> ant-Attica that the ocean there has dropped one and one half feet
>> since Americans first went there. Mention was made to recent
>> hurricanes and the fact they were more sever in 2005 than at any time
>> in the past ten years. No mention of the fact many period in the
>> past, as recent as 1955 they were far more severe. I tuned it off
>> after an hour and a half as just one more outlet for those vested in
>> global warming. Sad, if the world is ACTUALLY warming we should know
>> the actual causes before we know if we can even try to 'do something.'
>>
>>
>> mike hunt
>
> I am all for it be a bit biased in one direction, as they NEVER showed
> any of the conflicting research and scientists that claim the exact
> opposite of what the show was claiming, but I am a little confused about
> what you are writing above. You claim you really LISTENED to the show.
>
> They did PROVE the ice caps, and other glaciers are melting at an
> accelerated pace. The did PROVE that CO2 levels are higher than they
> have ever been. They did show that the ocean levels have risen, albeit
> only slightly.
>
> What they did not prove is that it will have any permanent or seriously
> detrimental effect to life as we know it.
>
> However, the ex-NASA scientist (sorry, I forgot his name) does seem to
> have the most credibility on the global warming side of the coin. He
> created a computer model 20 years ago that showed exaclty where we would
> be, and are, today. His models show where we will be in another 20
> years, and it doesn't look good.
>
> Although they did try to show that man has had a large impact on the
> contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere, I really think that part of it
> was at least partially propoganda based, although some of it is probably
> true.
>
> I guess the debate will continue for the next 20-50 years and then we'll
> see where we are at again. I think by then at least PART of the South
> Pacific will be under water.
>
> Eric
>

 

Alas that show did nothing to prove, nor can they PROVE that although CO2
levels may higher than 150 years ago that it alone is the cause of the earth
temperature rising one degree over that time period, as they want us to
believe. That is the point I raised.

An interesting fact about computer weather models used today. If they look
BACK the do not show the last ice age or evn the mini ice age in Europe
during the sixteenth century .

Again I suggest, if the world is ACTUALLY warming we should know the actual
causes before we know if we can even try to 'do something.'

Ask yourself, would you plan a vacation based on a weather forecast for next
month?

mike hunt



"Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message
news:Xns9803ACB853A5BXz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ...
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
> news:0ZGcnVq1c5TVaybZUSdV9g@ptd.net:
>
>> If one really LISTENED to what was said on that program last night it
>> was obvious that they started with a premise then tried to convince
>> you it was a correct assumption. Everything was based on the increase
>> in Caron dioxide over the rears. The 'suggestion' was it was that and
>> that alone that was leading to a increase in temperature over the past
>> 150 years!!! Lots of theory's, as does a good lawyer, were put forth
>> as questions but were presented few definitive answers to those
>> questions. 'If' it continues. Melting ice caps 'may' lead to, 'could
>> result' etc. At one point they even suggest Florida and NYC 'Could'
>> be under water, 'If' the ice caps ALL melted etc. 'We don't know if
>> El Ninio will shift south but if it DID it could etc. Volcanoes, the
>> sun, moon and tectonic plate movement were mentioned but not one
>> suggest that they even 'might' be related to the warming trend. Many
>> thinks were closed over. The admit there is no proof to show the
>> oceans are rising, not mentioning the fact there IS a record in
>> ant-Attica that the ocean there has dropped one and one half feet
>> since Americans first went there. Mention was made to recent
>> hurricanes and the fact they were more sever in 2005 than at any time
>> in the past ten years. No mention of the fact many period in the
>> past, as recent as 1955 they were far more severe. I tuned it off
>> after an hour and a half as just one more outlet for those vested in
>> global warming. Sad, if the world is ACTUALLY warming we should know
>> the actual causes before we know if we can even try to 'do something.'
>>
>>
>> mike hunt
>
> I am all for it be a bit biased in one direction, as they NEVER showed
> any of the conflicting research and scientists that claim the exact
> opposite of what the show was claiming, but I am a little confused about
> what you are writing above. You claim you really LISTENED to the show.
>
> They did PROVE the ice caps, and other glaciers are melting at an
> accelerated pace. The did PROVE that CO2 levels are higher than they
> have ever been. They did show that the ocean levels have risen, albeit
> only slightly.
>
> What they did not prove is that it will have any permanent or seriously
> detrimental effect to life as we know it.
>
> However, the ex-NASA scientist (sorry, I forgot his name) does seem to
> have the most credibility on the global warming side of the coin. He
> created a computer model 20 years ago that showed exaclty where we would
> be, and are, today. His models show where we will be in another 20
> years, and it doesn't look good.
>
> Although they did try to show that man has had a large impact on the
> contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere, I really think that part of it
> was at least partially propoganda based, although some of it is probably
> true.
>
> I guess the debate will continue for the next 20-50 years and then we'll
> see where we are at again. I think by then at least PART of the South
> Pacific will be under water.
>
> Eric
>

 

Alas that show did nothing to prove, nor can they PROVE that although CO2
levels may higher than 150 years ago that it alone is the cause of the earth
temperature rising one degree over that time period, as they want us to
believe. That is the point I raised.

An interesting fact about computer weather models used today. If they look
BACK the do not show the last ice age or evn the mini ice age in Europe
during the sixteenth century .

Again I suggest, if the world is ACTUALLY warming we should know the actual
causes before we know if we can even try to 'do something.'

Ask yourself, would you plan a vacation based on a weather forecast for next
month?

mike hunt



"Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message
news:Xns9803ACB853A5BXz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ...
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
> news:0ZGcnVq1c5TVaybZUSdV9g@ptd.net:
>
>> If one really LISTENED to what was said on that program last night it
>> was obvious that they started with a premise then tried to convince
>> you it was a correct assumption. Everything was based on the increase
>> in Caron dioxide over the rears. The 'suggestion' was it was that and
>> that alone that was leading to a increase in temperature over the past
>> 150 years!!! Lots of theory's, as does a good lawyer, were put forth
>> as questions but were presented few definitive answers to those
>> questions. 'If' it continues. Melting ice caps 'may' lead to, 'could
>> result' etc. At one point they even suggest Florida and NYC 'Could'
>> be under water, 'If' the ice caps ALL melted etc. 'We don't know if
>> El Ninio will shift south but if it DID it could etc. Volcanoes, the
>> sun, moon and tectonic plate movement were mentioned but not one
>> suggest that they even 'might' be related to the warming trend. Many
>> thinks were closed over. The admit there is no proof to show the
>> oceans are rising, not mentioning the fact there IS a record in
>> ant-Attica that the ocean there has dropped one and one half feet
>> since Americans first went there. Mention was made to recent
>> hurricanes and the fact they were more sever in 2005 than at any time
>> in the past ten years. No mention of the fact many period in the
>> past, as recent as 1955 they were far more severe. I tuned it off
>> after an hour and a half as just one more outlet for those vested in
>> global warming. Sad, if the world is ACTUALLY warming we should know
>> the actual causes before we know if we can even try to 'do something.'
>>
>>
>> mike hunt
>
> I am all for it be a bit biased in one direction, as they NEVER showed
> any of the conflicting research and scientists that claim the exact
> opposite of what the show was claiming, but I am a little confused about
> what you are writing above. You claim you really LISTENED to the show.
>
> They did PROVE the ice caps, and other glaciers are melting at an
> accelerated pace. The did PROVE that CO2 levels are higher than they
> have ever been. They did show that the ocean levels have risen, albeit
> only slightly.
>
> What they did not prove is that it will have any permanent or seriously
> detrimental effect to life as we know it.
>
> However, the ex-NASA scientist (sorry, I forgot his name) does seem to
> have the most credibility on the global warming side of the coin. He
> created a computer model 20 years ago that showed exaclty where we would
> be, and are, today. His models show where we will be in another 20
> years, and it doesn't look good.
>
> Although they did try to show that man has had a large impact on the
> contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere, I really think that part of it
> was at least partially propoganda based, although some of it is probably
> true.
>
> I guess the debate will continue for the next 20-50 years and then we'll
> see where we are at again. I think by then at least PART of the South
> Pacific will be under water.
>
> Eric
>

 

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
news:UYicnT2dfOLDYibZUSdV9g@ptd.net:

> You are kidding, right? Do you actually believe '20% chance of
> widely scattered showers in the evening.' equates to 3.8 inches of
> rain in five hours in the morning and the afternoon? 20% chance of
> widely scattered showers in the evening mean there is a 20% change
> there will be scattered showers in the evening. LOL
>
>
> mike hunt

Sorry, didn't see the "evening" part there. You've got to admit though
that over the last 25 years the forecasting has gotten much better than it
was then.

 

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
news:UYicnT2dfOLDYibZUSdV9g@ptd.net:

> You are kidding, right? Do you actually believe '20% chance of
> widely scattered showers in the evening.' equates to 3.8 inches of
> rain in five hours in the morning and the afternoon? 20% chance of
> widely scattered showers in the evening mean there is a 20% change
> there will be scattered showers in the evening. LOL
>
>
> mike hunt

Sorry, didn't see the "evening" part there. You've got to admit though
that over the last 25 years the forecasting has gotten much better than it
was then.