|
OT--Looks like Harry was right about the hurricanes
NOYB wrote:
http://www.unf-unf.de/show.php?did=664 Personally, I think it's the Clinton's doing. It's the wrath of Hillary! Seriously, the few analytical reports I've seen seem to tie the increase in storms to a side effect of global warming. It would be very decent of you and some of your wealthy professional friends to see what you can do to help some of the least fortunate in your state who have lost everything and have no insurance. You have a lot of very hard working migrant agricultural workers who do the jobs no Americans will touch, and they have been really devastated by the storms. Clothing, food, help with temporary shelter...help your brothers out there, Nobby...it'll make you feel warm all over. -- We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah. What, me worry? |
In article , Harry Krause wrote: NOYB wrote: http://www.unf-unf.de/show.php?did=664 Personally, I think it's the Clinton's doing. It's the wrath of Hillary! Seriously, the few analytical reports I've seen seem to tie the increase in storms to a side effect of global warming. Bull****. Two of the best-known and most-well-respected hurricane analysts (Gray being one, *******i being another) have said that is complete bull****. Specifically, "global warming", were it real, would tend to DIMINISH hurricane activity since it would lessen the gradients that drive these storms. Second, there is a roughly 30 year cycle in hurricane activity, with 60 years for a complete "cycle". We have been in a 30 year LOW. Now we're entering a 30 year HIGH. The last "high" cycle ended roughly in 1970. If you actually LOOK at the data, instead of simply trying to fit what's happening to something you WANT to see, this becomes rather obvious. Indeed, it requires no "hard science" - just a look at the numbers. The 40s to 70s had more hurricanes, the 70s to 00s had less, the 10s to 40s had more, etc. What this means is that we're due for 30 years of this chit - and it has nothing to do with "global anything"; its a normal cyclical weather pattern. -- -- Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do! http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING! http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME! http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind |
Karl Denninger wrote:
In article , Harry Krause wrote: NOYB wrote: http://www.unf-unf.de/show.php?did=664 Personally, I think it's the Clinton's doing. It's the wrath of Hillary! Seriously, the few analytical reports I've seen seem to tie the increase in storms to a side effect of global warming. Bull****. Two of the best-known and most-well-respected hurricane analysts (Gray being one, *******i being another) have said that is complete bull****. Well, that doesn't make it so. -- We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah. What, me worry? |
"Karl Denninger" wrote in message ink.net... In article , Harry Krause wrote: NOYB wrote: http://www.unf-unf.de/show.php?did=664 Personally, I think it's the Clinton's doing. It's the wrath of Hillary! Seriously, the few analytical reports I've seen seem to tie the increase in storms to a side effect of global warming. Bull****. Two of the best-known and most-well-respected hurricane analysts (Gray being one, *******i being another) have said that is complete bull****. Specifically, "global warming", were it real, would tend to DIMINISH hurricane activity since it would lessen the gradients that drive these storms. Second, there is a roughly 30 year cycle in hurricane activity, with 60 years for a complete "cycle". We have been in a 30 year LOW. Now we're entering a 30 year HIGH. The last "high" cycle ended roughly in 1970. If you actually LOOK at the data, instead of simply trying to fit what's happening to something you WANT to see, this becomes rather obvious. Indeed, it requires no "hard science" - just a look at the numbers. The 40s to 70s had more hurricanes, the 70s to 00s had less, the 10s to 40s had more, etc. What this means is that we're due for 30 years of this chit - and it has nothing to do with "global anything"; its a normal cyclical weather pattern. Just like the water levels in the great lakes......there is a cycle from low to high....as the water fell, it was blamed on global warming, now that it is rising once again, no doubt, that too will be blamed on global warming. Because global warming is based on such bad science, anything and everything can be pinned on it.....all with no proof. -- -- Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do! http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING! http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME! http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: http://www.unf-unf.de/show.php?did=664 Personally, I think it's the Clinton's doing. It's the wrath of Hillary! Seriously, the few analytical reports I've seen seem to tie the increase in storms to a side effect of global warming. It would be very decent of you and some of your wealthy professional friends to see what you can do to help some of the least fortunate in your state who have lost everything and have no insurance. You have a lot of very hard working migrant agricultural workers who do the jobs no Americans will touch, and they have been really devastated by the storms. Clothing, food, help with temporary shelter...help your brothers out there, Nobby...it'll make you feel warm all over. I have. BTW--You do realize that there's no law against sending checks across state lines to the Red Cross in areas that were effected by the hurricanes? When you write *your* check, please write "earmarked for hurricane ____ recovery efforts in _______ county" so the money gets used for what it was meant for. That's what I did. |
"P.Fritz" wrote in message ... "Karl Denninger" wrote in message ink.net... In article , Harry Krause wrote: NOYB wrote: http://www.unf-unf.de/show.php?did=664 Personally, I think it's the Clinton's doing. It's the wrath of Hillary! Seriously, the few analytical reports I've seen seem to tie the increase in storms to a side effect of global warming. Bull****. Two of the best-known and most-well-respected hurricane analysts (Gray being one, *******i being another) have said that is complete bull****. Specifically, "global warming", were it real, would tend to DIMINISH hurricane activity since it would lessen the gradients that drive these storms. Second, there is a roughly 30 year cycle in hurricane activity, with 60 years for a complete "cycle". We have been in a 30 year LOW. Now we're entering a 30 year HIGH. The last "high" cycle ended roughly in 1970. If you actually LOOK at the data, instead of simply trying to fit what's happening to something you WANT to see, this becomes rather obvious. Indeed, it requires no "hard science" - just a look at the numbers. The 40s to 70s had more hurricanes, the 70s to 00s had less, the 10s to 40s had more, etc. What this means is that we're due for 30 years of this chit - and it has nothing to do with "global anything"; its a normal cyclical weather pattern. Just like the water levels in the great lakes......there is a cycle from low to high....as the water fell, it was blamed on global warming, now that it is rising once again, no doubt, that too will be blamed on global warming. Because global warming is based on such bad science, anything and everything can be pinned on it.....all with no proof. So you guys don't think that God is punishing the counties that voted for Bush? Good. Because if you look at that map again, you'll see a couple of problems with it. Volusia, Orange, and Osceola counties all got nailed by Frances and Jeanne...and all went squarely for Gore in 2000. Also, I'm pretty sure that the Keys are part of Monroe County. |
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: http://www.unf-unf.de/show.php?did=664 Personally, I think it's the Clinton's doing. It's the wrath of Hillary! Seriously, the few analytical reports I've seen seem to tie the increase in storms to a side effect of global warming. It would be very decent of you and some of your wealthy professional friends to see what you can do to help some of the least fortunate in your state who have lost everything and have no insurance. You have a lot of very hard working migrant agricultural workers who do the jobs no Americans will touch, and they have been really devastated by the storms. Clothing, food, help with temporary shelter...help your brothers out there, Nobby...it'll make you feel warm all over. I have. BTW--You do realize that there's no law against sending checks across state lines to the Red Cross in areas that were effected by the hurricanes? When you write *your* check, please write "earmarked for hurricane ____ recovery efforts in _______ county" so the money gets used for what it was meant for. That's what I did. We've already made a substantial contribution in this household, and we are fundraising in our neighborhood to get more. -- We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah. What, me worry? |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: http://www.unf-unf.de/show.php?did=664 Personally, I think it's the Clinton's doing. It's the wrath of Hillary! Seriously, the few analytical reports I've seen seem to tie the increase in storms to a side effect of global warming. It would be very decent of you and some of your wealthy professional friends to see what you can do to help some of the least fortunate in your state who have lost everything and have no insurance. You have a lot of very hard working migrant agricultural workers who do the jobs no Americans will touch, and they have been really devastated by the storms. Clothing, food, help with temporary shelter...help your brothers out there, Nobby...it'll make you feel warm all over. I have. BTW--You do realize that there's no law against sending checks across state lines to the Red Cross in areas that were effected by the hurricanes? When you write *your* check, please write "earmarked for hurricane ____ recovery efforts in _______ county" so the money gets used for what it was meant for. That's what I did. We've already made a substantial contribution in this household, and we are fundraising in our neighborhood to get more. Good. Just checking. ;-) |
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:46:31 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: http://www.unf-unf.de/show.php?did=664 Personally, I think it's the Clinton's doing. It's the wrath of Hillary! Seriously, the few analytical reports I've seen seem to tie the increase in storms to a side effect of global warming. It would be very decent of you and some of your wealthy professional friends to see what you can do to help some of the least fortunate in your state who have lost everything and have no insurance. You have a lot of very hard working migrant agricultural workers who do the jobs no Americans will touch, and they have been really devastated by the storms. Clothing, food, help with temporary shelter...help your brothers out there, Nobby...it'll make you feel warm all over. I have. BTW--You do realize that there's no law against sending checks across state lines to the Red Cross in areas that were effected by the hurricanes? When you write *your* check, please write "earmarked for hurricane ____ recovery efforts in _______ county" so the money gets used for what it was meant for. That's what I did. Do that anyway any time you send money to a relief agency. While I won't have anything to do with the Red Cross, there are other national agencies working down there and the two checks we've sent are directly earmarked to relief efforts in that area. Later, Tom ----------- "Angling may be said to be so like the mathematics that it can never be fully learnt..." Izaak Walton "The Compleat Angler", 1653 |
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 09:45:46 -0400, P.Fritz wrote:
Because global warming is based on such bad science, anything and everything can be pinned on it.....all with no proof. Agreed, there isn't enough oil & gas left to cause global warming. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994216 |
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 09:20:55 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: NOYB wrote: http://www.unf-unf.de/show.php?did=664 Personally, I think it's the Clinton's doing. It's the wrath of Hillary! Seriously, the few analytical reports I've seen seem to tie the increase in storms to a side effect of global warming. Atmospheric scientists of major repuration will tell you that it's the current activity of the normal eleven year sun cycle in concert with the effects of mid-latitude Pacific warming currents that cause storm cycles like this. In fact, it has happened before - around the mid-19th century in Texas I believe - four big hurricanes in a row all spawned in the same area as the current bunch. Oddly enough, it was a pretty similar sun/warming current cycle to this one. That does not dismiss "global warming" as having some minor impact on what is happening in the atmosphere, but it has always amused me that blame is placed on glabal warming. Based on actual geophysical evidence, there have been major cycles of warming, cooling, temperate cycles throughout the history of the earth. Now, does that mean that pollution isn't a problem for those of us who live here, absolutely not - it is a big concern and it should be given major consideration as it impacts everyone's life on the planet. The important thing is that evidence for this being an entirely normal part of the atmospheric storm cycle is solid - the evidence of it being caused by global warming is purely anecdotal and unproven. Take care. Tom "The beatings will stop when morale improves." E. Teach, 1717 |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Harry, It would be very decent if you and some of your weathy friends helped too. It would be very decent of you and some of your wealthy professional friends to see what you can do to help some of the least fortunate in your state who have lost everything and have no insurance. You have a lot of very hard working migrant agricultural workers who do the jobs no Americans will touch, and they have been really devastated by the storms. Clothing, food, help with temporary shelter...help your brothers out there, Nobby...it'll make you feel warm all over. -- We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah. What, me worry? |
There are lots of problems with the map, it just isn't true.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/hurricane.asp "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "P.Fritz" wrote in message ... "Karl Denninger" wrote in message ink.net... In article , Harry Krause wrote: NOYB wrote: http://www.unf-unf.de/show.php?did=664 Personally, I think it's the Clinton's doing. It's the wrath of Hillary! Seriously, the few analytical reports I've seen seem to tie the increase in storms to a side effect of global warming. Bull****. Two of the best-known and most-well-respected hurricane analysts (Gray being one, *******i being another) have said that is complete bull****. Specifically, "global warming", were it real, would tend to DIMINISH hurricane activity since it would lessen the gradients that drive these storms. Second, there is a roughly 30 year cycle in hurricane activity, with 60 years for a complete "cycle". We have been in a 30 year LOW. Now we're entering a 30 year HIGH. The last "high" cycle ended roughly in 1970. If you actually LOOK at the data, instead of simply trying to fit what's happening to something you WANT to see, this becomes rather obvious. Indeed, it requires no "hard science" - just a look at the numbers. The 40s to 70s had more hurricanes, the 70s to 00s had less, the 10s to 40s had more, etc. What this means is that we're due for 30 years of this chit - and it has nothing to do with "global anything"; its a normal cyclical weather pattern. Just like the water levels in the great lakes......there is a cycle from low to high....as the water fell, it was blamed on global warming, now that it is rising once again, no doubt, that too will be blamed on global warming. Because global warming is based on such bad science, anything and everything can be pinned on it.....all with no proof. So you guys don't think that God is punishing the counties that voted for Bush? Good. Because if you look at that map again, you'll see a couple of problems with it. Volusia, Orange, and Osceola counties all got nailed by Frances and Jeanne...and all went squarely for Gore in 2000. Also, I'm pretty sure that the Keys are part of Monroe County. |
|
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Karl Denninger wrote: In article , Harry Krause wrote: NOYB wrote: http://www.unf-unf.de/show.php?did=664 Personally, I think it's the Clinton's doing. It's the wrath of Hillary! Seriously, the few analytical reports I've seen seem to tie the increase in storms to a side effect of global warming. Bull****. Two of the best-known and most-well-respected hurricane analysts (Gray being one, *******i being another) have said that is complete bull****. Well, that doesn't make it so. Did you stick your tounge out after you said that. |
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net...
http://www.unf-unf.de/show.php?did=664 Personally, I think it's the Clinton's doing. That's because you're stupid. |
"NOYB" wrote in message news:VYU5d.3994 Also, I'm pretty sure that the Keys are part of Monroe County. I don't know, nobbie. My wife and I lived there for a time some years ago. I'm not convinced that the Keys are part of anything on this planet. :-) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:59 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com