On 8 Apr 2007 21:34:29 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

On Apr 8, 12:25?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 8 Apr 2007 09:27:31 -0700, "Chuck Gould"

wrote:
You won't catch me out on some limb claiming that it's all the
fault of mankind, but just because you've got snow in Ohio 1/4 of the
way through April doesn't mean that there's no global warming.

Here's the thing about global warming.

There is no such thing as mean global temperature - any such term is
meaningless because of the temperature extremes from
climate-to-climate and natural cycles of heating and cooling. ot to
mention night and day.

From what I've read, the method used is to take the data sets, add
them together then divide by the number of data sets used. hile that
is a valid way to gather an "average", it doesn't account for
variations in climate.
nd as far as I know, and I could be wrong,
that is how the "average" is developed and that doesn't prove
anything.

The general average method does not account for climate. f you take
a climate that has a night time temperature of 10 and daytime of 40
that averages to 25.

If the night time and day time temperatures are 25, the average is
still 25. It's totally meaningless because the climates are different.
You can only evaluate change in context of it's environment.

In my opinion, I think that the most cynical aspect of the whole
Church of Global Warming, Al Gore Synod is that they've take one
problem, pollution (which is real and much more of a threat in my
opinion) and cross-pollinated it to Global Warming.

I'm much more worrid about pollution than I am about Glocal Warming.
One is real, one is a myth.

Then riddle me this, Shortwave;

What's happening to all the polar ice if there is no global warming?

I'm not sure that they are "melting" - it may be part of a long term
cycle which some scientists are now beginning to think happens on a
600 to 700 year cycle. And it's not like it hasn't happened before -
remember Greenland? You know - the Vikings who discovered China,
India and colonized Kansas? And it's Spring - ice melts in the
Spring.

Why are the inner and nearer outer planets warming up? Why is Pluto
(or whatever it's called now) brighter? Think it might have anything
to do with the sun?

I think you'd find plenty of company among people who aren't quite
ready to blame it all on man's activities; but there are darn few
people who insist it isn't happening at all.

I'm firmly in the camp of it may have some effect, but it is not a
total cause. I'm also noticing that this scientific "consensus" that
the members of the Church of Global Warming, Al Gore Synod claim to
enjoy is seemingly falling apart as more scientists are beginning to
jump off the wagon and listen to those who never climbed on.

And I still think that the whole pollution fight, one that needs to be
fought, has been co-opted by the global warming crowd.

I might also point out that these kinds of popular crisis predictions
have been around for a long time. Anybody remember Global Cooling
because of all the pollution would increase the albedo of the
atmosphere resulting in lower temperatures and a new Ice Age? Or the
population crisis ZPG maniacs who predicted, quite logically and with
mathematical certainty that we'd all be standing hip deep in people by
now with no room to move or breathe?

Apocalyptic visions of the future are as old as man. Global Warming
is just another version of the same old same old.

On Apr 8, 12:25�pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 8 Apr 2007 09:27:31 -0700, "Chuck Gould"

wrote:
You won't catch me out on some limb claiming that it's all the
fault of mankind, but just because you've got snow in Ohio 1/4 of the
way through April doesn't mean that there's no global warming.

Here's the thing about global warming.

There is no such thing as mean global temperature - any such term is
meaningless because of the temperature extremes from
climate-to-climate and natural cycles of heating and cooling. *Not to
mention night and day.

From what I've read, the method used is to take the data sets, add
them together then divide by the number of data sets used. *While that
is a valid way to gather an "average", it doesn't account for
variations in climate. *And as far as I know, and I could be wrong,
that is how the "average" is developed and that doesn't prove
anything.

The general average method does not account for climate. *If you take
a climate that has a night time temperature of 10 and daytime of 40
that averages to 25.

If the night time and day time temperatures are 25, the average is
still 25. It's totally meaningless because the climates are different.
You can only evaluate change in context of it's environment.

In my opinion, I think that the most cynical aspect of the whole
Church of Global Warming, Al Gore Synod is that they've take one
problem, pollution (which is real and much more of a threat in my
opinion) and cross-pollinated it to Global Warming.

I'm much more worrid about pollution than I am about Glocal Warming.
One is real, one is a myth.

You might enjoy reading the EPA's page on the subject. The item
"Uncertainties" somewhat agrees with your position- but essentially
concludes that while there is some uncertainty about the relationship
between atmospheric compostion and climate change it is primarily
based on the *amount* of human influence on the climate, not whether
any human inflence exists.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...rtainties.html

On 8 Apr 2007 23:33:13 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

On Apr 8, 12:25?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 8 Apr 2007 09:27:31 -0700, "Chuck Gould"

wrote:
You won't catch me out on some limb claiming that it's all the
fault of mankind, but just because you've got snow in Ohio 1/4 of the
way through April doesn't mean that there's no global warming.

Here's the thing about global warming.

There is no such thing as mean global temperature - any such term is
meaningless because of the temperature extremes from
climate-to-climate and natural cycles of heating and cooling. ot to
mention night and day.

From what I've read, the method used is to take the data sets, add
them together then divide by the number of data sets used. hile that
is a valid way to gather an "average", it doesn't account for
variations in climate.
nd as far as I know, and I could be wrong,
that is how the "average" is developed and that doesn't prove
anything.

The general average method does not account for climate. f you take
a climate that has a night time temperature of 10 and daytime of 40
that averages to 25.

If the night time and day time temperatures are 25, the average is
still 25. It's totally meaningless because the climates are different.
You can only evaluate change in context of it's environment.

In my opinion, I think that the most cynical aspect of the whole
Church of Global Warming, Al Gore Synod is that they've take one
problem, pollution (which is real and much more of a threat in my
opinion) and cross-pollinated it to Global Warming.

I'm much more worrid about pollution than I am about Glocal Warming.
One is real, one is a myth.

You might enjoy reading the EPA's page on the subject. The item
"Uncertainties" somewhat agrees with your position- but essentially
concludes that while there is some uncertainty about the relationship
between atmospheric compostion and climate change it is primarily
based on the *amount* of human influence on the climate, not whether
any human inflence exists.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...rtainties.html


Given the lack of knowledge the 'amount' of human influence, and given
that trillions of dollars will, at best, have a small overall effect,
wouldn't it be better to use a few billion to eradicate HIV-AIDS?
--
*****Have a Spectacular Day!*****

John H

On Apr 9, 8:18 am, John H. wrote:
On 8 Apr 2007 23:33:13 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:





On Apr 8, 12:25?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 8 Apr 2007 09:27:31 -0700, "Chuck Gould"

wrote:
You won't catch me out on some limb claiming that it's all the
fault of mankind, but just because you've got snow in Ohio 1/4 of the
way through April doesn't mean that there's no global warming.

Here's the thing about global warming.

There is no such thing as mean global temperature - any such term is
meaningless because of the temperature extremes from
climate-to-climate and natural cycles of heating and cooling. ot to
mention night and day.

From what I've read, the method used is to take the data sets, add
them together then divide by the number of data sets used. hile that
is a valid way to gather an "average", it doesn't account for
variations in climate.

nd as far as I know, and I could be wrong,





that is how the "average" is developed and that doesn't prove
anything.

The general average method does not account for climate. f you take
a climate that has a night time temperature of 10 and daytime of 40
that averages to 25.

If the night time and day time temperatures are 25, the average is
still 25. It's totally meaningless because the climates are different.
You can only evaluate change in context of it's environment.

In my opinion, I think that the most cynical aspect of the whole
Church of Global Warming, Al Gore Synod is that they've take one
problem, pollution (which is real and much more of a threat in my
opinion) and cross-pollinated it to Global Warming.

I'm much more worrid about pollution than I am about Glocal Warming.
One is real, one is a myth.

You might enjoy reading the EPA's page on the subject. The item
"Uncertainties" somewhat agrees with your position- but essentially
concludes that while there is some uncertainty about the relationship
between atmospheric compostion and climate change it is primarily
based on the *amount* of human influence on the climate, not whether
any human inflence exists.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...limateUncertai...

Given the lack of knowledge the 'amount' of human influence, and given
that trillions of dollars will, at best, have a small overall effect,
wouldn't it be better to use a few billion to eradicateHIV-AIDS?
--
*****Have a Spectacular Day!*****

John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/8/805

Presenting Plasma HIV RNA Level and Rate of CD4 T-Cell Decline

To the Editor: The study by Dr Rodriguez and colleagues1 concludes
that presenting human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) plasma RNA viral
load only minimally predicts the rate of CD4 cell decline in
individuals with HIV infection and hypothesizes that a significant
(90%) amount of HIV disease progression and pathogenesis is
*****due to factors other than viral load.******

The results are portrayed as casting doubt on the utility of an early
viral load measurement to predict disease outcome in individuals.

CONCLUSIONS: Presenting HIV RNA level predicts the rate of CD4 cell
decline only minimally in untreated persons. Other factors, as yet
undefined, likely drive CD4 cell losses in HIV infection.

http://www.aidsfraudvideo.com
Important video relating to HIV and AIDS.

rocketscience

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On 8 Apr 2007 09:27:31 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

You won't catch me out on some limb claiming that it's all the
fault of mankind, but just because you've got snow in Ohio 1/4 of the
way through April doesn't mean that there's no global warming.

Here's the thing about global warming.

There is no such thing as mean global temperature - any such term is
meaningless because of the temperature extremes from
climate-to-climate and natural cycles of heating and cooling. Not to
mention night and day.

From what I've read, the method used is to take the data sets, add
them together then divide by the number of data sets used. While that
is a valid way to gather an "average", it doesn't account for
variations in climate. And as far as I know, and I could be wrong,
that is how the "average" is developed and that doesn't prove
anything.

The general average method does not account for climate. If you take
a climate that has a night time temperature of 10 and daytime of 40
that averages to 25.

If the night time and day time temperatures are 25, the average is
still 25. It's totally meaningless because the climates are different.
You can only evaluate change in context of it's environment.

In my opinion, I think that the most cynical aspect of the whole
Church of Global Warming, Al Gore Synod is that they've take one
problem, pollution (which is real and much more of a threat in my
opinion) and cross-pollinated it to Global Warming.

I'm much more worrid about pollution than I am about Glocal Warming.
One is real, one is a myth.

It's caused by Haliburton. Those secret mines on the Sun.

Calif Bill wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

On 8 Apr 2007 09:27:31 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:


You won't catch me out on some limb claiming that it's all the
fault of mankind, but just because you've got snow in Ohio 1/4 of the
way through April doesn't mean that there's no global warming.

Here's the thing about global warming.

There is no such thing as mean global temperature - any such term is
meaningless because of the temperature extremes from
climate-to-climate and natural cycles of heating and cooling. Not to
mention night and day.

From what I've read, the method used is to take the data sets, add
them together then divide by the number of data sets used. While that
is a valid way to gather an "average", it doesn't account for
variations in climate. And as far as I know, and I could be wrong,
that is how the "average" is developed and that doesn't prove
anything.

The general average method does not account for climate. If you take
a climate that has a night time temperature of 10 and daytime of 40
that averages to 25.

If the night time and day time temperatures are 25, the average is
still 25. It's totally meaningless because the climates are different.
You can only evaluate change in context of it's environment.

In my opinion, I think that the most cynical aspect of the whole
Church of Global Warming, Al Gore Synod is that they've take one
problem, pollution (which is real and much more of a threat in my
opinion) and cross-pollinated it to Global Warming.

I'm much more worrid about pollution than I am about Glocal Warming.
One is real, one is a myth.


It's caused by Haliburton. Those secret mines on the Sun.



On the pollution issue I think we have alot of work to do as well. One
topic I would like to learn more about is the fertilizer concentrations
that are claimed to be building in the Gulf of Mex and other areas of
the worlds oceans. These should be easly measured concentrations that
appear to be lifeless. Why we looking into this and trying to curb the
discharges into rivers of these chemicals is a mystery to me.

On the radio in the past few weeks I ran across some folks talking about
this subject and that they expected it to increase with the use of
biofuels. Apparently the effect of using biofuels have increased the
cost of corn products with Mexico's poor. Fears that increased
deforestation in South America and increased use of fertilizers may have
increasing effects on our Oceans as well.

Shrimpers in the Gulf are having to stay closer to shore to get their
catches. This is causing shrimpers who use to go far off shore to
compete more directly with those who stay in close. The guy on the radio
where I picked up this story reported.

Can't recall where I was when I heard this. But most likely it was NPR
since that is what I listen to in my car when not listening to music.

Capt Jack R..

On Apr 9, 4:11�pm, Jack Redington wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .

On 8 Apr 2007 09:27:31 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

You won't catch me out on some limb claiming that it's all the
fault of mankind, but just because you've got snow in Ohio 1/4 of the
way through April doesn't mean that there's no global warming.

Here's the thing about global warming.

There is no such thing as mean global temperature - any such term is
meaningless because of the temperature extremes from
climate-to-climate and natural cycles of heating and cooling. *Not to
mention night and day.

From what I've read, the method used is to take the data sets, add
them together then divide by the number of data sets used. *While that
is a valid way to gather an "average", it doesn't account for
variations in climate. *And as far as I know, and I could be wrong,
that is how the "average" is developed and that doesn't prove
anything.

The general average method does not account for climate. *If you take
a climate that has a night time temperature of 10 and daytime of 40
that averages to 25.

If the night time and day time temperatures are 25, the average is
still 25. It's totally meaningless because the climates are different.
You can only evaluate change in context of it's environment.

In my opinion, I think that the most cynical aspect of the whole
Church of Global Warming, Al Gore Synod is that they've take one
problem, pollution (which is real and much more of a threat in my
opinion) and cross-pollinated it to Global Warming.

I'm much more worrid about pollution than I am about Glocal Warming.
One is real, one is a myth.

It's caused by Haliburton. *Those secret mines on the Sun.

On the pollution issue I think we have alot of work to do as well. One
topic I would like to learn more about is the fertilizer concentrations
that are claimed to be building in the Gulf of Mex and other areas of
the worlds oceans. These should be easly measured concentrations that
appear to be lifeless. Why we looking into this and trying to curb the
discharges into rivers of these chemicals is a mystery to me.

On the radio in the past few weeks I ran across some folks talking about
* this subject and that they expected it to increase with the use of
biofuels. Apparently the effect of using biofuels have increased the
cost of corn products with Mexico's poor. Fears that increased
deforestation in South America and increased use of fertilizers may have
increasing effects on our Oceans as well.

Shrimpers in the Gulf are having to stay closer to shore to get their
catches. This is causing shrimpers who use to go far off shore to
compete more directly with those who stay in close. The guy on the radio
where I picked up this story reported.

Can't recall where I was when I heard this. But most likely it was NPR
since that is what I listen to in my car when not listening to music.

Capt Jack R..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Soaps. fertilizers, pesticides, septic tank runoff- all of those
factors affect a waterway. Hood Canal is a "dead end" arm of Puget
Sound, and where there were once thriving fisheries for salmon and a
wide array of shellfish the pickings have become pretty slim.
Biologists say there is a lack of oxygen in the water. The politically
correct thing to do is to blame it on recreational boaters, but the
unique aspect of Hood Canal is that it just might be the most *under*
utilized cruising ground in the area. Not that many facilities except
for
very small boats, and there's that pesky dead end. (OTOH, the scenery
is beautiful, with the Olympic Mts appearing to rise up almost
immediately beyond the shoreline).

Most of the stuff running into Hood Canal isn't originating aboard a
boat. As the number, size, and complexity of the former "beach cabins"
all along the canal continues to increase, so does the load on the
environment. Perhaps the most environmentally polluting thing the
average family does, aside from running internal combustion engines,
is to grow grass. Enormous amounts of
fertilizer get washed into the watershed by equally enormous amounts
of wasted water. The enriched runoff water fosters a lot of microbes
that die off and use oxygen when they decompose.

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 23:11:53 GMT, Jack Redington
wrote:

Can't recall where I was when I heard this. But most likely it was NPR
since that is what I listen to in my car when not listening to music.

It's been around for a while on various news outlets. I think the NYT
did a short series on the corn shortage in Mexico which is driving up
the price of tortillas so high that the average schmuck can't afford
to buy them.

And I just read this morning about the economic impact on Third World
countries where instead of food, they are changing over to marginal
crops that are good for ethanol but not for food.

Weird.

On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 08:36:07 -0400, "JimH"
wrote:

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/3...2007002aa1.jpg

Easter Sunday, 2007.

I thought I saw that photo in a link posted here. The link had a
bunch of snow pictures taken in upstate NY last winter when they
were buried with snow. But I can't find the link.
What's the who/what/when/where on this photo?
And who is on first?

--Vic