"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
newsIScnae1iKxSnyHZUSdV9g@ptd.net:

> 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.

Actually, according to the show, the CO2 levels are higher than the last
200,000 - 500,000 years as presented by the gas levels forzen into the
ice core samples taken. And yes, they did prove that CO2 levels
directly correlate with the average temperatures on the earth. Did you
watch the same show I did?

> 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 .

Not sure what weather models you are referring to. The modelling
software that the NWS, and several university research departments use,
certainly do show the last "big" ice age, and one of them (I don't
remember which) does show the mini in Eurpoe.

> 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.'

The cause has been proven. Rising levels of CO2. The underlying cause
OF that increase in CO2 has not yet been proven beyond a reasonable
doubt.

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

Long-term outlooks by certain people using certain models has already
proven itself to me to be almost dead nuts accurate. I'm not talking
about the NWS, the Weather Channel or Accuweather. But several research
scientists that have been doing this there entire lives can pinpoint a
forecast with a high degree of accuracy. And just so you know how
serious I am about that, I really did plan my vacation based on my own
reading of three different reliable long-term forecasts.

> mike hunt

 

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
newsIScnae1iKxSnyHZUSdV9g@ptd.net:

> 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.

Actually, according to the show, the CO2 levels are higher than the last
200,000 - 500,000 years as presented by the gas levels forzen into the
ice core samples taken. And yes, they did prove that CO2 levels
directly correlate with the average temperatures on the earth. Did you
watch the same show I did?

> 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 .

Not sure what weather models you are referring to. The modelling
software that the NWS, and several university research departments use,
certainly do show the last "big" ice age, and one of them (I don't
remember which) does show the mini in Eurpoe.

> 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.'

The cause has been proven. Rising levels of CO2. The underlying cause
OF that increase in CO2 has not yet been proven beyond a reasonable
doubt.

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

Long-term outlooks by certain people using certain models has already
proven itself to me to be almost dead nuts accurate. I'm not talking
about the NWS, the Weather Channel or Accuweather. But several research
scientists that have been doing this there entire lives can pinpoint a
forecast with a high degree of accuracy. And just so you know how
serious I am about that, I really did plan my vacation based on my own
reading of three different reliable long-term forecasts.

> mike hunt

 

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
newsIScnae1iKxSnyHZUSdV9g@ptd.net:

> 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.

Actually, according to the show, the CO2 levels are higher than the last
200,000 - 500,000 years as presented by the gas levels forzen into the
ice core samples taken. And yes, they did prove that CO2 levels
directly correlate with the average temperatures on the earth. Did you
watch the same show I did?

> 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 .

Not sure what weather models you are referring to. The modelling
software that the NWS, and several university research departments use,
certainly do show the last "big" ice age, and one of them (I don't
remember which) does show the mini in Eurpoe.

> 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.'

The cause has been proven. Rising levels of CO2. The underlying cause
OF that increase in CO2 has not yet been proven beyond a reasonable
doubt.

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

Long-term outlooks by certain people using certain models has already
proven itself to me to be almost dead nuts accurate. I'm not talking
about the NWS, the Weather Channel or Accuweather. But several research
scientists that have been doing this there entire lives can pinpoint a
forecast with a high degree of accuracy. And just so you know how
serious I am about that, I really did plan my vacation based on my own
reading of three different reliable long-term forecasts.

> mike hunt

 

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>
> Melting glaciers don't at all mean that we are warming globally. It means
> the areas with the glaciers are warming. It could be cooler at the
> equator and more than offset this on a global scale. You can't look at
> one parameter and make such a call on a global scale. Even getting an
> accurate global average temperature isn't nearly as trivial as the global
> warming crowd would have us believe.


It could be cooler at the equator, bit it is not. Did you watch the show?
Look at the material presented? Get back to me when you do.

 

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>
> Melting glaciers don't at all mean that we are warming globally. It means
> the areas with the glaciers are warming. It could be cooler at the
> equator and more than offset this on a global scale. You can't look at
> one parameter and make such a call on a global scale. Even getting an
> accurate global average temperature isn't nearly as trivial as the global
> warming crowd would have us believe.


It could be cooler at the equator, bit it is not. Did you watch the show?
Look at the material presented? Get back to me when you do.

 

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>
> Melting glaciers don't at all mean that we are warming globally. It means
> the areas with the glaciers are warming. It could be cooler at the
> equator and more than offset this on a global scale. You can't look at
> one parameter and make such a call on a global scale. Even getting an
> accurate global average temperature isn't nearly as trivial as the global
> warming crowd would have us believe.


It could be cooler at the equator, bit it is not. Did you watch the show?
Look at the material presented? Get back to me when you do.

 

"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in
news:J2Vug.122356$H71.29242@newssvr13.news.prodigy .com:

>
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>>
>> Melting glaciers don't at all mean that we are warming globally. It
>> means the areas with the glaciers are warming. It could be cooler at
>> the equator and more than offset this on a global scale. You can't
>> look at one parameter and make such a call on a global scale. Even
>> getting an accurate global average temperature isn't nearly as
>> trivial as the global warming crowd would have us believe.
>
>
> It could be cooler at the equator, bit it is not. Did you watch the
> show? Look at the material presented? Get back to me when you do.

No, he didn't watch the show. According to him, that would be insane to
watch since Tom Brokaw is a bit liberal in his thinking and Matt doesn't
agree with any liberal ideas.

I consider myself a conservative too, but I keep an open mind. Especially
after seeing how F'd up the conservative republicans have treated this
country over the last several years. I would completely abandon the
conservative ship if it wasn't for the few good ones left out there.
Although I have to admit that there as many, or more, good liberals out
there these days too.

I'm rambling now, but you get the idea.

Eric

 

"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in
news:J2Vug.122356$H71.29242@newssvr13.news.prodigy .com:

>
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>>
>> Melting glaciers don't at all mean that we are warming globally. It
>> means the areas with the glaciers are warming. It could be cooler at
>> the equator and more than offset this on a global scale. You can't
>> look at one parameter and make such a call on a global scale. Even
>> getting an accurate global average temperature isn't nearly as
>> trivial as the global warming crowd would have us believe.
>
>
> It could be cooler at the equator, bit it is not. Did you watch the
> show? Look at the material presented? Get back to me when you do.

No, he didn't watch the show. According to him, that would be insane to
watch since Tom Brokaw is a bit liberal in his thinking and Matt doesn't
agree with any liberal ideas.

I consider myself a conservative too, but I keep an open mind. Especially
after seeing how F'd up the conservative republicans have treated this
country over the last several years. I would completely abandon the
conservative ship if it wasn't for the few good ones left out there.
Although I have to admit that there as many, or more, good liberals out
there these days too.

I'm rambling now, but you get the idea.

Eric

 

"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in
news:J2Vug.122356$H71.29242@newssvr13.news.prodigy .com:

>
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>>
>> Melting glaciers don't at all mean that we are warming globally. It
>> means the areas with the glaciers are warming. It could be cooler at
>> the equator and more than offset this on a global scale. You can't
>> look at one parameter and make such a call on a global scale. Even
>> getting an accurate global average temperature isn't nearly as
>> trivial as the global warming crowd would have us believe.
>
>
> It could be cooler at the equator, bit it is not. Did you watch the
> show? Look at the material presented? Get back to me when you do.

No, he didn't watch the show. According to him, that would be insane to
watch since Tom Brokaw is a bit liberal in his thinking and Matt doesn't
agree with any liberal ideas.

I consider myself a conservative too, but I keep an open mind. Especially
after seeing how F'd up the conservative republicans have treated this
country over the last several years. I would completely abandon the
conservative ship if it wasn't for the few good ones left out there.
Although I have to admit that there as many, or more, good liberals out
there these days too.

I'm rambling now, but you get the idea.

Eric

 

Eric G. wrote:

> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
> newsIScnae1iKxSnyHZUSdV9g@ptd.net:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Actually, according to the show, the CO2 levels are higher than the last
> 200,000 - 500,000 years as presented by the gas levels forzen into the
> ice core samples taken. And yes, they did prove that CO2 levels
> directly correlate with the average temperatures on the earth. Did you
> watch the same show I did?
>
>
>>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 .
>
>
> Not sure what weather models you are referring to. The modelling
> software that the NWS, and several university research departments use,
> certainly do show the last "big" ice age, and one of them (I don't
> remember which) does show the mini in Eurpoe.
>
>
>>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.'
>
>
> The cause has been proven. Rising levels of CO2. The underlying cause
> OF that increase in CO2 has not yet been proven beyond a reasonable
> doubt.

It hasn't been proven at all. At best there is a correlation, but there
certainly is no proof of cause and effect. The system is just way too
complex for that. It is just like medical studies that claim this or
that causes this or that. They almost always get contradicted in a few
years and than what do you believe? For years it was stated as fact
that consuming too much calcium caused kidney stones. Now it is claimed
that it is actually a calcium deficiency that causes them.

I just chuckle when folks get correlation and causation confused.


Matt

 

Eric G. wrote:

> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
> newsIScnae1iKxSnyHZUSdV9g@ptd.net:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Actually, according to the show, the CO2 levels are higher than the last
> 200,000 - 500,000 years as presented by the gas levels forzen into the
> ice core samples taken. And yes, they did prove that CO2 levels
> directly correlate with the average temperatures on the earth. Did you
> watch the same show I did?
>
>
>>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 .
>
>
> Not sure what weather models you are referring to. The modelling
> software that the NWS, and several university research departments use,
> certainly do show the last "big" ice age, and one of them (I don't
> remember which) does show the mini in Eurpoe.
>
>
>>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.'
>
>
> The cause has been proven. Rising levels of CO2. The underlying cause
> OF that increase in CO2 has not yet been proven beyond a reasonable
> doubt.

It hasn't been proven at all. At best there is a correlation, but there
certainly is no proof of cause and effect. The system is just way too
complex for that. It is just like medical studies that claim this or
that causes this or that. They almost always get contradicted in a few
years and than what do you believe? For years it was stated as fact
that consuming too much calcium caused kidney stones. Now it is claimed
that it is actually a calcium deficiency that causes them.

I just chuckle when folks get correlation and causation confused.


Matt

 

Eric G. wrote:

> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
> newsIScnae1iKxSnyHZUSdV9g@ptd.net:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Actually, according to the show, the CO2 levels are higher than the last
> 200,000 - 500,000 years as presented by the gas levels forzen into the
> ice core samples taken. And yes, they did prove that CO2 levels
> directly correlate with the average temperatures on the earth. Did you
> watch the same show I did?
>
>
>>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 .
>
>
> Not sure what weather models you are referring to. The modelling
> software that the NWS, and several university research departments use,
> certainly do show the last "big" ice age, and one of them (I don't
> remember which) does show the mini in Eurpoe.
>
>
>>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.'
>
>
> The cause has been proven. Rising levels of CO2. The underlying cause
> OF that increase in CO2 has not yet been proven beyond a reasonable
> doubt.

It hasn't been proven at all. At best there is a correlation, but there
certainly is no proof of cause and effect. The system is just way too
complex for that. It is just like medical studies that claim this or
that causes this or that. They almost always get contradicted in a few
years and than what do you believe? For years it was stated as fact
that consuming too much calcium caused kidney stones. Now it is claimed
that it is actually a calcium deficiency that causes them.

I just chuckle when folks get correlation and causation confused.


Matt

 

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 08:49:01 -0500, Bob Adkins <bobad@charter.net>
Gave us:

>On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 20:18:13 GMT, Roy L. Fuchs
><roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote:
>
>
>> Who decides what is profane, and what is not?
>
>Certainly not you Junior. I can't define profanity, but I certainly know it
>when I see it.

100% pointless. Do you always try so hard and accomplish so little?

 

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 08:49:01 -0500, Bob Adkins <bobad@charter.net>
Gave us:

>On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 20:18:13 GMT, Roy L. Fuchs
><roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote:
>
>
>> Who decides what is profane, and what is not?
>
>Certainly not you Junior. I can't define profanity, but I certainly know it
>when I see it.

100% pointless. Do you always try so hard and accomplish so little?