On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:38:06 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

I AM informed, and I'll bet good money I've read more scientific
papers regarding global warming than you have. ANYBODY that actually
has studied it as opposed to getting their information from the RNC,
knows full well global warming IS happening.

You need to read a few more Bill - it's not happening and in fact,
totally bogus based on schlock science.

And I suspect we're about equal in terms of reading papers, checking
the math and evolving informed opinions.

On 10/31/09 6:20 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:38:06 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

I AM informed, and I'll bet good money I've read more scientific
papers regarding global warming than you have. ANYBODY that actually
has studied it as opposed to getting their information from the RNC,
knows full well global warming IS happening.

You need to read a few more Bill - it's not happening and in fact,
totally bogus based on schlock science.

And I suspect we're about equal in terms of reading papers, checking
the math and evolving informed opinions.


Meaning, Tom, that you only read documents that support your
preconceived notions, as evidence by your postings here.

I used to think you knew something about science. Now, I realize, you
give a new meaning to the phrase "political" scientist. You're no more a
scientist than your moronic BFF, Scott Ingersoll.

"Global warming" is not happening, according to Tom

Bull****.

"H the K" wrote in message
...
On 10/31/09 6:20 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:38:06 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

I AM informed, and I'll bet good money I've read more scientific
papers regarding global warming than you have. ANYBODY that actually
has studied it as opposed to getting their information from the RNC,
knows full well global warming IS happening.

You need to read a few more Bill - it's not happening and in fact,
totally bogus based on schlock science.

And I suspect we're about equal in terms of reading papers, checking
the math and evolving informed opinions.


Meaning, Tom, that you only read documents that support your preconceived
notions, as evidence by your postings here.

I used to think you knew something about science. Now, I realize, you give
a new meaning to the phrase "political" scientist. You're no more a
scientist than your moronic BFF, Scott Ingersoll.

"Global warming" is not happening, according to Tom

Bull****.


There was a few years of warming. Big deal. The weather and climate is not
static. We are coming out of a time of relative sun spot inactivity. 10
years of cooling a degree or two, 10 years of warming a degree or 2.
Antarctic was pretty much ice free some time during man's sailing time. The
Piri Reis map proves that, unless they had alien technology and ground
penetration radar. Global warming is not happening according to lots of
scientists. Real physical science scientists, not the majority who signed
the Kyoto Agreement that had their degrees in liberal arts disciplines.

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:38:06 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

I AM informed, and I'll bet good money I've read more scientific
papers regarding global warming than you have. ANYBODY that actually
has studied it as opposed to getting their information from the RNC,
knows full well global warming IS happening.

You need to read a few more Bill - it's not happening and in fact,
totally bogus based on schlock science.

And I suspect we're about equal in terms of reading papers, checking
the math and evolving informed opinions.

My part was
"The question was what is causing the climate change. And some people, that
stand to make a lot of mony selling "carbon Credits" state it is man caused.
Can not prove that theory. Seems as if Mars was warming at the same time.
Maybe it is not man caused, and nature that caused the last major iceage,
the last mini ice age, and the warming to end the ice ages.

"
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.

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.