On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:39:47 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

What am I supposed to believe when I read:
"At 237 PM this afternoon... the temperature at the Raleigh-Durham
Intl Airport reached 104 degrees. This breaks the old record of 99
set in 2001.

That it's hotter today than it was on the same date in 2001.

So?

Was it hotter in 02,03,03,05,06? How about '95 to 2000? Cooler?
What's the scale here - what exactly are you comparing to?

Here's the historical min/max for Bradely Field, Hartford, CT for
today.

Numbers are Normal, Record, Year.

MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE (F) 84 100 1949 MINIMUM TEMPERATURE
(F) 62 45 1964

It's currently 50 (F) on my handy dandy calibrated weather thingy.

Am I experiencing Global Cooling because, with the exception of last
week, it's been pretty average month of June, July and August in New
England from an historical perspective.

Also, consider this. The Raliegh/Durham Airport site, I believe, is
located at the radar site which used to be at the far end of the
runway (I can't remember which one). Have you compared the
temperatures at Raliegh/Durham to stations at Duke, NC State and UNC?
Are they generally higher/lower/match?

The official temperature in CT is recorded at Bradley Field, E.
Granby, CT. It is consistently higher than my station, the Orchard's
station, Marionapolis Prep in Thompson and Pomfret Prep in Pomfret -
all four stations are identical and calibrated. The reason is that
Bradley's station is located at the end of a runway and right next to
the parking lot at the Connecticut Fire School. Ours are located
properly on grass, in the open and away from buildings.

It's not evidence of anything - only historical trends give any
validity in historical context.

Do I believe that humanity affects the environment? Yes. Do I
believe that pollution is a problem? Yes. Do I believe in Global
Warming? No.

Everytime you turn around, there is another scientist massaging data,
or as in the case of Hansen, using a flawed program and flawed data to
reach a conclusion which everybody hails as "consensus". Even more to
the point, the very scientists who were cited in "Inconvienent Truth"
are now begining to say "wait - not so fast" or in one case "that's
not what I said".

I have no quarrel with anybody who believes in Global Warming -
nothing I say is going to convince those who believe and place all
others in Apocryphal status.

It is what it is.