On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:22:34 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

For some reason my newsreader does not always delineate my reply. We did
have warming. As my reply to Harry follows I point out my views.

Sorry dude - my bad. No worries.

I would agree to the extent that the data did show "something". The
question, as you said, was what caused the "something".

There are several "issues" that have caused me to "disbelieve" the
warming data and I'm convinced that the "warming" is totally bogus.

For example, data sets at Bradley Field, the official reporting
station for CT, has seen an annualized increase of about 1 degree F
over the past nine years. Ok, that proves what? Nothing because the
station was moved from it's former location to it's present location
when they expanded the runway - to the middle of the field which is
surrounded by tarmac.

Same thing happened at Willimantic when they expanded that runway
although the increase was smaller - about .4 degree.

Meanwhile, my own reporting station along with Pomfret, Hyde and
Rectory Schools, along with Hyde, Woodstock Academy, Nichols College
and the Audubon Society, Army Corps of Engineers at Thompson Dam and
the Forestry Service station (Thompson) reporting stations reported no
measureable increase in temperature (on an annualized basis) over that
same nine years. Willimantic and Bradley Field always show higher
temperatures (that same 1 degree) higher than our regional temps.
While the "official" stations have been reporting near normal
temperatures this year, we've been reporting lower than normal
temperatures for the same period.

That's one example from one state, but when you examine reporting
stations around the US, the story is the same, but in some cases it's
more dramatic and in some cases it's less dramatic.

The main culprit in my opinion is primarily related to solar science
and I don't believe that enough attention has been paid to the
variation in Earth's orbital mechanics (Malkovich Cycles), the solar
cycles (Hale Cycles), solar polarity and how these relate to the most
positive data set you get from dendrochronology.

It aint' CO2 that's for sure.