On Jan 6, 2:22*pm, Loogypicker wrote:
On Jan 6, 12:54*pm, Jim wrote:



NotNow wrote:
In article ,
says...
Loogypicker wrote:
On Jan 6, 8:44 am, Frogwatch wrote:
It is friggin cold here in N. FL. *Cats and dogs are completely
confused standing at he door looking at me accusingly as they are
thinking, "OK, you can make it warm again now"
And what does that have to do with global warming? I asked in a thread
earlier when the unscientific right will say that global warming isn't
happening because an arctic front has moved south. I think I have my
answer!
Do you think he might be commenting on the weather rather than the climate?

Did you see the title of the thread?

Yes I did.

Well, then the answer is before your eyes. He was talking about
CLIMATE. The word "weather" was never in the original post. The word
"climate" was.

I admit, it was an intentional shot at Loogy. We all know (at least
we hope) it is prob not a matter of climate although the sun has been
unusually quiet so it might be.

Loogypicker wrote:
On Jan 6, 12:54 pm, Jim wrote:
NotNow wrote:
In article ,
says...
Loogypicker wrote:
On Jan 6, 8:44 am, Frogwatch wrote:
It is friggin cold here in N. FL. Cats and dogs are completely
confused standing at he door looking at me accusingly as they are
thinking, "OK, you can make it warm again now"
And what does that have to do with global warming? I asked in a thread
earlier when the unscientific right will say that global warming isn't
happening because an arctic front has moved south. I think I have my
answer!
Do you think he might be commenting on the weather rather than the climate?
Did you see the title of the thread?
Yes I did.

Well, then the answer is before your eyes. He was talking about
CLIMATE. The word "weather" was never in the original post. The word
"climate" was.

This is proof that your comprehender has gone tilt just like Harry's.

On Jan 6, 3:59*pm, Jim wrote:
Loogypicker wrote:
On Jan 6, 12:54 pm, Jim wrote:
NotNow wrote:
In article ,
says...
Loogypicker wrote:
On Jan 6, 8:44 am, Frogwatch wrote:
It is friggin cold here in N. FL. *Cats and dogs are completely
confused standing at he door looking at me accusingly as they are
thinking, "OK, you can make it warm again now"
And what does that have to do with global warming? I asked in a thread
earlier when the unscientific right will say that global warming isn't
happening because an arctic front has moved south. I think I have my
answer!
Do you think he might be commenting on the weather rather than the climate?
Did you see the title of the thread?
Yes I did.

Well, then the answer is before your eyes. He was talking about
CLIMATE. The word "weather" was never in the original post. The word
"climate" was.

This is proof that your comprehender has gone tilt just like Harry's.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, then. Comprehend for me, why does the word "climate" mean
exactly the same as "weather" to you? YOU are the one saying that Frog
meant "weather", even though he says above that he said what he said
just to get a reaction! SO, it's YOUR comprehension that needs looking
at.

Loogypicker wrote:
On Jan 6, 3:59 pm, Jim wrote:
Loogypicker wrote:
On Jan 6, 12:54 pm, Jim wrote:
NotNow wrote:
In article ,
says...
Loogypicker wrote:
On Jan 6, 8:44 am, Frogwatch wrote:
It is friggin cold here in N. FL. Cats and dogs are completely
confused standing at he door looking at me accusingly as they are
thinking, "OK, you can make it warm again now"
And what does that have to do with global warming? I asked in a thread
earlier when the unscientific right will say that global warming isn't
happening because an arctic front has moved south. I think I have my
answer!
Do you think he might be commenting on the weather rather than the climate?
Did you see the title of the thread?
Yes I did.
Well, then the answer is before your eyes. He was talking about
CLIMATE. The word "weather" was never in the original post. The word
"climate" was.
This is proof that your comprehender has gone tilt just like Harry's.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, then. Comprehend for me, why does the word "climate" mean
exactly the same as "weather" to you? YOU are the one saying that Frog
meant "weather", even though he says above that he said what he said
just to get a reaction! SO, it's YOUR comprehension that needs looking
at.


Being played like a violin.

On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 13:00:22 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Jan 6, 3:59*pm, Jim wrote:
Loogypicker wrote:
On Jan 6, 12:54 pm, Jim wrote:
NotNow wrote:
In article ,
says...
Loogypicker wrote:
On Jan 6, 8:44 am, Frogwatch wrote:
It is friggin cold here in N. FL. *Cats and dogs are completely
confused standing at he door looking at me accusingly as they are
thinking, "OK, you can make it warm again now"
And what does that have to do with global warming? I asked in a thread
earlier when the unscientific right will say that global warming isn't
happening because an arctic front has moved south. I think I have my
answer!
Do you think he might be commenting on the weather rather than the climate?
Did you see the title of the thread?
Yes I did.

Well, then the answer is before your eyes. He was talking about
CLIMATE. The word "weather" was never in the original post. The word
"climate" was.

This is proof that your comprehender has gone tilt just like Harry's.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, then. Comprehend for me, why does the word "climate" mean
exactly the same as "weather" to you? YOU are the one saying that Frog
meant "weather", even though he says above that he said what he said
just to get a reaction! SO, it's YOUR comprehension that needs looking
at.


Idioms: pull someone's chain

1. Make someone speak out of turn, as in Who pulled your chain?--It's
none of your business. [1920s]
2. Make someone angry, especially deliberately, as in Teenagers
really know how to pull their parents' chains. [c. 1960] Both usages
allude to the literal sense of chain-pulling, that is, "causing
someone to do something, as though activated by a chain."

Loogypicker wrote:
On Jan 6, 3:59 pm, Jim wrote:
Loogypicker wrote:
On Jan 6, 12:54 pm, Jim wrote:
NotNow wrote:
In article ,
says...
Loogypicker wrote:
On Jan 6, 8:44 am, Frogwatch wrote:
It is friggin cold here in N. FL. Cats and dogs are completely
confused standing at he door looking at me accusingly as they are
thinking, "OK, you can make it warm again now"
And what does that have to do with global warming? I asked in a thread
earlier when the unscientific right will say that global warming isn't
happening because an arctic front has moved south. I think I have my
answer!
Do you think he might be commenting on the weather rather than the climate?
Did you see the title of the thread?
Yes I did.
Well, then the answer is before your eyes. He was talking about
CLIMATE. The word "weather" was never in the original post. The word
"climate" was.
This is proof that your comprehender has gone tilt just like Harry's.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, then. Comprehend for me, why does the word "climate" mean
exactly the same as "weather" to you? YOU are the one saying that Frog
meant "weather", even though he says above that he said what he said
just to get a reaction! SO, it's YOUR comprehension that needs looking
at.

Now there you go again with that faulty comprehender. Show me where you
got the notion that climate and weather are the same in my mind. Do you
have any idea what the word "might" means?

In article ,
says...
Subject: Climate change
From: thunder
Newsgroups: rec.boats

On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 11:04:28 -0500, Anony Mouse wrote:

Not really. You are the only one using the term "global warming".
"Climate change" does not necessarily equate to global warming. The high
today in my location is 45 and clear, relative humidity 48%. Yesterday
it was 54 and cloudy, relative humidity 68%. That's climate change.

Not really. You are not considering the time factor. Climate generally
refers to long term weather. Short term weather, is just that, weather.


What is your definition of "long term weather?" Five years, ten years,
50 thousand years?

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 11:29:38 -0500, Anony Mouse wrote:


Now, what about correcting loogy?

What would be the point?

You are correct, again.

---
As part of continued email etiquette, please delete my name and email
address before forwarding. I personally always try to use .bcc when sending
to multiple addresses and always delete any and all email addresses in the
email I forward. This helps eliminate addresses to spam lists.

"NotNow" wrote in message
...
In article , says...

"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 11:04:28 -0500, Anony Mouse wrote:

Not really. You are the only one using the term "global warming".
"Climate change" does not necessarily equate to global warming. The
high
today in my location is 45 and clear, relative humidity 48%. Yesterday
it was 54 and cloudy, relative humidity 68%. That's climate change.

Not really. You are not considering the time factor. Climate
generally
refers to long term weather. Short term weather, is just that,
weather.

Your point is well taken, and thanks for correcting me. The term is
neutral,
I.e., not heating or cooling.

Now, what about correcting loogy?

What????? in hell are you talking about? Who in hell said that climate
is neutral?


The term identified as neutral was "climate change". Read for understanding
before making a fool of yourself.


---
As part of continued email etiquette, please delete my name and email
address before forwarding. I personally always try to use .bcc when sending
to multiple addresses and always delete any and all email addresses in the
email I forward. This helps eliminate addresses to spam lists.

On 6-Jan-2010, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

It is friggin cold here in N. FL. Cats and dogs are completely
confused standing at he door looking at me accusingly as they are
thinking, "OK, you can make it warm again now"

It is friggin cold here in S. FL also.

You can say that again.

It's cold in S. FL. also.

IT'S ALL GEORGE BUSH'S FAULT!

Thought I'd save some of you clowns the effort.