GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared? RELAX!
#601
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared? RELAX!
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?
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?
#602
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared?RELAX!
Eric G. wrote:
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in
> news:J2Vug.122356$H71.29242@newssvr13.news.prodigy .com:
>
>
>>"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>Melting glaciers don't at all mean that we are warming globally. It
>>>means the areas with the glaciers are warming. It could be cooler at
>>>the equator and more than offset this on a global scale. You can't
>>>look at one parameter and make such a call on a global scale. Even
>>>getting an accurate global average temperature isn't nearly as
>>>trivial as the global warming crowd would have us believe.
>>
>>
>>It could be cooler at the equator, bit it is not. Did you watch the
>>show? Look at the material presented? Get back to me when you do.
>
>
> No, he didn't watch the show. According to him, that would be insane to
> watch since Tom Brokaw is a bit liberal in his thinking and Matt doesn't
> agree with any liberal ideas.
>
> I consider myself a conservative too, but I keep an open mind. Especially
> after seeing how F'd up the conservative republicans have treated this
> country over the last several years. I would completely abandon the
> conservative ship if it wasn't for the few good ones left out there.
> Although I have to admit that there as many, or more, good liberals out
> there these days too.
>
> I'm rambling now, but you get the idea.
Yes, you are.
How open is your mind?
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/sto...C-RSSFeeds0312
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in
> news:J2Vug.122356$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.
Yes, you are.
How open is your mind?
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/sto...C-RSSFeeds0312
#603
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared?RELAX!
Eric G. wrote:
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in
> news:J2Vug.122356$H71.29242@newssvr13.news.prodigy .com:
>
>
>>"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>Melting glaciers don't at all mean that we are warming globally. It
>>>means the areas with the glaciers are warming. It could be cooler at
>>>the equator and more than offset this on a global scale. You can't
>>>look at one parameter and make such a call on a global scale. Even
>>>getting an accurate global average temperature isn't nearly as
>>>trivial as the global warming crowd would have us believe.
>>
>>
>>It could be cooler at the equator, bit it is not. Did you watch the
>>show? Look at the material presented? Get back to me when you do.
>
>
> No, he didn't watch the show. According to him, that would be insane to
> watch since Tom Brokaw is a bit liberal in his thinking and Matt doesn't
> agree with any liberal ideas.
>
> I consider myself a conservative too, but I keep an open mind. Especially
> after seeing how F'd up the conservative republicans have treated this
> country over the last several years. I would completely abandon the
> conservative ship if it wasn't for the few good ones left out there.
> Although I have to admit that there as many, or more, good liberals out
> there these days too.
>
> I'm rambling now, but you get the idea.
Yes, you are.
How open is your mind?
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/sto...C-RSSFeeds0312
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in
> news:J2Vug.122356$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.
Yes, you are.
How open is your mind?
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/sto...C-RSSFeeds0312
#604
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared?RELAX!
Eric G. wrote:
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in
> news:J2Vug.122356$H71.29242@newssvr13.news.prodigy .com:
>
>
>>"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>Melting glaciers don't at all mean that we are warming globally. It
>>>means the areas with the glaciers are warming. It could be cooler at
>>>the equator and more than offset this on a global scale. You can't
>>>look at one parameter and make such a call on a global scale. Even
>>>getting an accurate global average temperature isn't nearly as
>>>trivial as the global warming crowd would have us believe.
>>
>>
>>It could be cooler at the equator, bit it is not. Did you watch the
>>show? Look at the material presented? Get back to me when you do.
>
>
> No, he didn't watch the show. According to him, that would be insane to
> watch since Tom Brokaw is a bit liberal in his thinking and Matt doesn't
> agree with any liberal ideas.
>
> I consider myself a conservative too, but I keep an open mind. Especially
> after seeing how F'd up the conservative republicans have treated this
> country over the last several years. I would completely abandon the
> conservative ship if it wasn't for the few good ones left out there.
> Although I have to admit that there as many, or more, good liberals out
> there these days too.
>
> I'm rambling now, but you get the idea.
Yes, you are.
How open is your mind?
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/sto...C-RSSFeeds0312
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in
> news:J2Vug.122356$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.
Yes, you are.
How open is your mind?
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/sto...C-RSSFeeds0312
#605
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared? RELAX!
I believe that just proves how gullible you are. These are the same folks
that were telling me, when I was is college in the late forties, and my
children in the mid seventies, that these same greenhouse gases when leading
the world into another ice age. Why and when should we believe them? Have
you read anything from those that believe the changes in the earths
temperature is caused by changes in the rotation of the earth around the sun
or the angle of it axis? How about the 70% of the earths volcano's that are
under the ocean and the experts who believe they can warm the oceans and
thus the air at will? How about the expert that blame sun activity? Which
do you believe is more probable as a cause of warming?
mike hunt
Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message
news:Xns9803BED21B6A6Xz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ...
> "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
>
that were telling me, when I was is college in the late forties, and my
children in the mid seventies, that these same greenhouse gases when leading
the world into another ice age. Why and when should we believe them? Have
you read anything from those that believe the changes in the earths
temperature is caused by changes in the rotation of the earth around the sun
or the angle of it axis? How about the 70% of the earths volcano's that are
under the ocean and the experts who believe they can warm the oceans and
thus the air at will? How about the expert that blame sun activity? Which
do you believe is more probable as a cause of warming?
mike hunt
Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message
news:Xns9803BED21B6A6Xz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ...
> "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
>
#606
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared? RELAX!
I believe that just proves how gullible you are. These are the same folks
that were telling me, when I was is college in the late forties, and my
children in the mid seventies, that these same greenhouse gases when leading
the world into another ice age. Why and when should we believe them? Have
you read anything from those that believe the changes in the earths
temperature is caused by changes in the rotation of the earth around the sun
or the angle of it axis? How about the 70% of the earths volcano's that are
under the ocean and the experts who believe they can warm the oceans and
thus the air at will? How about the expert that blame sun activity? Which
do you believe is more probable as a cause of warming?
mike hunt
Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message
news:Xns9803BED21B6A6Xz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ...
> "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
>
that were telling me, when I was is college in the late forties, and my
children in the mid seventies, that these same greenhouse gases when leading
the world into another ice age. Why and when should we believe them? Have
you read anything from those that believe the changes in the earths
temperature is caused by changes in the rotation of the earth around the sun
or the angle of it axis? How about the 70% of the earths volcano's that are
under the ocean and the experts who believe they can warm the oceans and
thus the air at will? How about the expert that blame sun activity? Which
do you believe is more probable as a cause of warming?
mike hunt
Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message
news:Xns9803BED21B6A6Xz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ...
> "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
>
#607
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared? RELAX!
I believe that just proves how gullible you are. These are the same folks
that were telling me, when I was is college in the late forties, and my
children in the mid seventies, that these same greenhouse gases when leading
the world into another ice age. Why and when should we believe them? Have
you read anything from those that believe the changes in the earths
temperature is caused by changes in the rotation of the earth around the sun
or the angle of it axis? How about the 70% of the earths volcano's that are
under the ocean and the experts who believe they can warm the oceans and
thus the air at will? How about the expert that blame sun activity? Which
do you believe is more probable as a cause of warming?
mike hunt
Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message
news:Xns9803BED21B6A6Xz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ...
> "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
>
that were telling me, when I was is college in the late forties, and my
children in the mid seventies, that these same greenhouse gases when leading
the world into another ice age. Why and when should we believe them? Have
you read anything from those that believe the changes in the earths
temperature is caused by changes in the rotation of the earth around the sun
or the angle of it axis? How about the 70% of the earths volcano's that are
under the ocean and the experts who believe they can warm the oceans and
thus the air at will? How about the expert that blame sun activity? Which
do you believe is more probable as a cause of warming?
mike hunt
Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message
news:Xns9803BED21B6A6Xz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ...
> "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
>
#608
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GLOBAL WARMING? RELAX!
If we are to go by old weather records, try this. Watch a weather report
the shows the highs and lows for the day. Keep a note of the highs for two
week in summer. I defy you to find more than two days out of those two
weeks where the current high sets a record for that day in history. If the
earth is indeed warming should we not be setting new daily records, yet you
will not see more than three in two months? LOL
mike hunt
"Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message
news:Xns9803BD3105EC0Xz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ...
> "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.
the shows the highs and lows for the day. Keep a note of the highs for two
week in summer. I defy you to find more than two days out of those two
weeks where the current high sets a record for that day in history. If the
earth is indeed warming should we not be setting new daily records, yet you
will not see more than three in two months? LOL
mike hunt
"Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message
news:Xns9803BD3105EC0Xz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ...
> "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.
#609
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GLOBAL WARMING? RELAX!
If we are to go by old weather records, try this. Watch a weather report
the shows the highs and lows for the day. Keep a note of the highs for two
week in summer. I defy you to find more than two days out of those two
weeks where the current high sets a record for that day in history. If the
earth is indeed warming should we not be setting new daily records, yet you
will not see more than three in two months? LOL
mike hunt
"Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message
news:Xns9803BD3105EC0Xz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ...
> "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.
the shows the highs and lows for the day. Keep a note of the highs for two
week in summer. I defy you to find more than two days out of those two
weeks where the current high sets a record for that day in history. If the
earth is indeed warming should we not be setting new daily records, yet you
will not see more than three in two months? LOL
mike hunt
"Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message
news:Xns9803BD3105EC0Xz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ...
> "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.
#610
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GLOBAL WARMING? RELAX!
If we are to go by old weather records, try this. Watch a weather report
the shows the highs and lows for the day. Keep a note of the highs for two
week in summer. I defy you to find more than two days out of those two
weeks where the current high sets a record for that day in history. If the
earth is indeed warming should we not be setting new daily records, yet you
will not see more than three in two months? LOL
mike hunt
"Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message
news:Xns9803BD3105EC0Xz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ...
> "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.
the shows the highs and lows for the day. Keep a note of the highs for two
week in summer. I defy you to find more than two days out of those two
weeks where the current high sets a record for that day in history. If the
earth is indeed warming should we not be setting new daily records, yet you
will not see more than three in two months? LOL
mike hunt
"Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message
news:Xns9803BD3105EC0Xz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ...
> "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.
#611
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared? RELAX!
"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in message
news:tsJug.6346$2v.3067@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net ...
>
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> > I've seen data to suggest that and I've seen some dissenting data that
> > challenges it. I really don't know what the reality is with regard to
> > global warming, other than it is now more of a political issue than a
> > scientific one. Lots of politicians see a way to make hay with this, Al
> > Gore being at the forefront. They will do whatever they can, including
> > missquoting at least one fairly prominent scientist to further their
> > agenda.
>
> All you have to do is look at the photos of many regions of ice packs and
> glaciers. They are melting. There is no doubt that we are warming. The
> real question is, does this come from a natural climate cycles, or is it
man
> induced?
>
>
Global warming is happening on Mars too. I suppose we caused that with our
cars here on Earth as well?
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom..._011206-1.html
#612
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared? RELAX!
"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in message
news:tsJug.6346$2v.3067@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net ...
>
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> > I've seen data to suggest that and I've seen some dissenting data that
> > challenges it. I really don't know what the reality is with regard to
> > global warming, other than it is now more of a political issue than a
> > scientific one. Lots of politicians see a way to make hay with this, Al
> > Gore being at the forefront. They will do whatever they can, including
> > missquoting at least one fairly prominent scientist to further their
> > agenda.
>
> All you have to do is look at the photos of many regions of ice packs and
> glaciers. They are melting. There is no doubt that we are warming. The
> real question is, does this come from a natural climate cycles, or is it
man
> induced?
>
>
Global warming is happening on Mars too. I suppose we caused that with our
cars here on Earth as well?
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom..._011206-1.html
#613
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared? RELAX!
"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in message
news:tsJug.6346$2v.3067@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net ...
>
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> > I've seen data to suggest that and I've seen some dissenting data that
> > challenges it. I really don't know what the reality is with regard to
> > global warming, other than it is now more of a political issue than a
> > scientific one. Lots of politicians see a way to make hay with this, Al
> > Gore being at the forefront. They will do whatever they can, including
> > missquoting at least one fairly prominent scientist to further their
> > agenda.
>
> All you have to do is look at the photos of many regions of ice packs and
> glaciers. They are melting. There is no doubt that we are warming. The
> real question is, does this come from a natural climate cycles, or is it
man
> induced?
>
>
Global warming is happening on Mars too. I suppose we caused that with our
cars here on Earth as well?
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom..._011206-1.html
#614
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GLOBAL WARMING? RELAX!
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> I defy you to find more than two days out of those two weeks where the
> current high sets a record for that day in history. If the earth is
> indeed warming should we not be setting new daily records, yet you will
> not see more than three in two months? LOL
>
> mike hunt
Setting records has nothing to do with averages. It is possible to have
warming trends for years and never break a record.
#615
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GLOBAL WARMING? RELAX!
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> I defy you to find more than two days out of those two weeks where the
> current high sets a record for that day in history. If the earth is
> indeed warming should we not be setting new daily records, yet you will
> not see more than three in two months? LOL
>
> mike hunt
Setting records has nothing to do with averages. It is possible to have
warming trends for years and never break a record.