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