I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice
this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this
BS here.

Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical
levels?

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:05 GMT, "CRM" wrote:

I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice
this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this
BS here.

Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical
levels?

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834


Interesting. I wonder if it'll make the news on NBC.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:05 GMT, "CRM" wrote:

I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice
this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing
this
BS here.

Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical
levels?

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834


Interesting. I wonder if it'll make the news on NBC.

It doesn't sell, does not generate hysteria for profit. All the greenies
are asking for what do they pick on next.

On Jan 5, 12:27*pm, "CRM" wrote:
I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice
this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this
BS here.

Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical
levels?

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Did you see the reason why?:

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea
ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead,
the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly
cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to
the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And
to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly
be because of global warming.

On Jan 5, 1:32*pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 12:27*pm, "CRM" wrote:

I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice
this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this
BS here.

Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical
levels?

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Did you see the reason why?:

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea
ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead,
the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly
cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to
the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And
to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly
be because of global warming.

Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition,
it has nothing to do with GW. :-)

On Jan 5, 2:02*pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:32*pm, wrote:





On Jan 5, 12:27*pm, "CRM" wrote:

I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice
this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this
BS here.

Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical
levels?

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Did you see the reason why?:

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea
ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead,
the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly
cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to
the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And
to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly
be because of global warming.

Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition,
it has nothing to do with GW. *:-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical
weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming.
BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have
something to do with global warming.

On Jan 5, 2:12*pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:02*pm, wrote:





On Jan 5, 1:32*pm, wrote:

On Jan 5, 12:27*pm, "CRM" wrote:

I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice
this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this
BS here.

Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical
levels?

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Did you see the reason why?:

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea
ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead,
the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly
cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to
the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And
to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly
be because of global warming.

Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition,
it has nothing to do with GW. *:-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical
weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming.
BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have
something to do with global warming.

If, but, could... bottom line is that no one has proven that GW even
exists. Many of the so-called indicators are vanishing as the weather
and climate follow their natural cycles. More and more scientist are
coming out against the IPCC report and the idea of GW at all.
Including a large number that were used by name in the IPCC report
that now say they disagree with it's findings.

GW was (and is) a very successful money-making scheme. Algore is
laughing all the way to the bank in his monster house and private jet.

On Jan 5, 2:26*pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:12*pm, wrote:





On Jan 5, 2:02*pm, wrote:

On Jan 5, 1:32*pm, wrote:

On Jan 5, 12:27*pm, "CRM" wrote:

I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice
this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this
BS here.

Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical
levels?

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Did you see the reason why?:

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea
ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead,
the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly
cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to
the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And
to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly
be because of global warming.

Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition,
it has nothing to do with GW. *:-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical
weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming.
BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have
something to do with global warming.

If, but, could... *bottom line is that no one has proven that GW even
exists. *Many of the so-called indicators are vanishing as the weather
and climate follow their natural cycles. *More and more scientist are
coming out against the IPCC report and the idea of GW at all.
Including a large number that were used by name in the IPCC report
that now say they disagree with it's findings.

GW was (and is) a very successful money-making scheme. *Algore is
laughing all the way to the bank in his monster house and private jet.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The number of scientists who think that global warming IS occuring is
massive compared to the number who don't believe it. It's plain and
simple. Let's say you have a bomb sitting in your yard. A few
scientists tell you that it's okay to go hit it with a shovel, nothing
will happen, it's inert, those damned liberals think everything is
dangerous. Another much, much larger group of scientists tell you that
if you hit the bomb with a shovel, it will kill you, and everyone else
in town. Which do you do?

And here's quite a simple question. Do you think that all of the
millions of pounds of pollutants poured into the air every day,
including green house gases, poisons, etc. is good for the environment
and good for your children to breath?

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:12:46 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Jan 5, 2:02*pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:32*pm, wrote:





On Jan 5, 12:27*pm, "CRM" wrote:

I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice
this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this
BS here.

Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical
levels?

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Did you see the reason why?:

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea
ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead,
the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly
cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to
the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And
to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly
be because of global warming.

Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition,
it has nothing to do with GW. *:-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical
weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming.
BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have
something to do with global warming.

Loogy, how would you define 'cyclical' when we're talking millions of
years. Hell, Gore's stuff was only for the past couple hundred. *That* is
cyclical in the big scheme of things. No?

On Jan 5, 2:55*pm, John H wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:12:46 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:02*pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:32*pm, wrote:

On Jan 5, 12:27*pm, "CRM" wrote:

I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice
this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this
BS here.

Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical
levels?

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Did you see the reason why?:

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea
ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead,
the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly
cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to
the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And
to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly
be because of global warming.

Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition,
it has nothing to do with GW. *:-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical
weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming.
BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have
something to do with global warming.

Loogy, how would you define 'cyclical' when we're talking millions of
years. Hell, Gore's stuff was only for the past couple hundred. *That* is
cyclical in the big scheme of things. No?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Going up steadily corresponding to the industrial revolution isn't a
cycle.