What? You mean 1998 wasn't.....
 

the HOTTEST YEAR EVER!?!?!?!?!

NASA/GISS data was manipulated - by none other than the guy in charge
of the data - you know - this guy?

"James Hansen, who accused Bush of politicizing global warming
science, is responsible for bugged algorithms that produced erroneous
figures. Furthermore, he refused to release his algorithms so that
they could be peer reviewed. The bug was discovered by someone who
took the time to reverse-engineer Hansen's flawed algorithm, and then,
having accurately done so, proved NASA's numbers were wrong. Thus
causing the revision.

Hansen, who claimed Bush was politicizing Global Warming, refused to
provide his algorithms to other researchers so they could simply check
his work, hiding his own errors from them and distorting the science
he claims to care about oh-so-much until some persistent researchers
went to the great trouble of reconstructing his algorithms
themselves."

You know James Hansen - the guy hailed as the "world's leading
researcher on global warming" - consultant to "Inconvienent Truth"?

Heh, heh, heh...NASA/GISS is very, very quietly revising the numbers.

Here's a good discussion.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blo...al-us-cli.html

What? You mean 1998 wasn't.....
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
the HOTTEST YEAR EVER!?!?!?!?!

NASA/GISS data was manipulated - by none other than the guy in charge
of the data - you know - this guy?

"James Hansen, who accused Bush of politicizing global warming
science, is responsible for bugged algorithms that produced erroneous
figures. Furthermore, he refused to release his algorithms so that
they could be peer reviewed. The bug was discovered by someone who
took the time to reverse-engineer Hansen's flawed algorithm, and then,
having accurately done so, proved NASA's numbers were wrong. Thus
causing the revision.

Hansen, who claimed Bush was politicizing Global Warming, refused to
provide his algorithms to other researchers so they could simply check
his work, hiding his own errors from them and distorting the science
he claims to care about oh-so-much until some persistent researchers
went to the great trouble of reconstructing his algorithms
themselves."

You know James Hansen - the guy hailed as the "world's leading
researcher on global warming" - consultant to "Inconvienent Truth"?

Heh, heh, heh...NASA/GISS is very, very quietly revising the numbers.

Here's a good discussion.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blo...al-us-cli.html

Read the current issue of Newsweek for a pov.

What? You mean 1998 wasn't.....
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
the HOTTEST YEAR EVER!?!?!?!?!

NASA/GISS data was manipulated - by none other than the guy in charge
of the data - you know - this guy?

"James Hansen, who accused Bush of politicizing global warming
science, is responsible for bugged algorithms that produced erroneous
figures. Furthermore, he refused to release his algorithms so that
they could be peer reviewed. The bug was discovered by someone who
took the time to reverse-engineer Hansen's flawed algorithm, and then,
having accurately done so, proved NASA's numbers were wrong. Thus
causing the revision.

Hansen, who claimed Bush was politicizing Global Warming, refused to
provide his algorithms to other researchers so they could simply check
his work, hiding his own errors from them and distorting the science
he claims to care about oh-so-much until some persistent researchers
went to the great trouble of reconstructing his algorithms
themselves."

You know James Hansen - the guy hailed as the "world's leading
researcher on global warming" - consultant to "Inconvienent Truth"?

Heh, heh, heh...NASA/GISS is very, very quietly revising the numbers.

Here's a good discussion.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blo...al-us-cli.html


How can you argue against global warming when temperatures and rainfalls
over half of the US and in the UK are reaching or surprising record highs?

I am not convinced but I have to admit that something is indeed happening
with our climate.

Cyclical? Perhaps.

We need more research.

What? You mean 1998 wasn't.....
 

"tak" wrote
Read the current issue of Newsweek for a pov.

Plethora of vacuousness?

What? You mean 1998 wasn't.....
 

On Aug 9, 10:49 pm, "JimH" ask wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in messagenews:64inb314t3k3epqnauv1gg443iga3e5g8a@4ax .com...





the HOTTEST YEAR EVER!?!?!?!?!

NASA/GISS data was manipulated - by none other than the guy in charge
of the data - you know - this guy?

"James Hansen, who accused Bush of politicizing global warming
science, is responsible for bugged algorithms that produced erroneous
figures. Furthermore, he refused to release his algorithms so that
they could be peer reviewed. The bug was discovered by someone who
took the time to reverse-engineer Hansen's flawed algorithm, and then,
having accurately done so, proved NASA's numbers were wrong. Thus
causing the revision.

Hansen, who claimed Bush was politicizing Global Warming, refused to
provide his algorithms to other researchers so they could simply check
his work, hiding his own errors from them and distorting the science
he claims to care about oh-so-much until some persistent researchers
went to the great trouble of reconstructing his algorithms
themselves."

You know James Hansen - the guy hailed as the "world's leading
researcher on global warming" - consultant to "Inconvienent Truth"?

Heh, heh, heh...NASA/GISS is very, very quietly revising the numbers.

Here's a good discussion.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blo...al-us-cli.html

How can you argue against global warming when temperatures and rainfalls
over half of the US and in the UK are reaching or surprising record highs?

I am not convinced but I have to admit that something is indeed happening
with our climate.

Cyclical? Perhaps.

We need more research.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think a lot of the focus is starting to converge on the figures
about temp and climate etc, that we are being fed. It is turning out
that much of it is false, maybe even intenionally manipulated. There
is a huge amount of money to be made, a lot of grants to be awarded.
All gone if this science is allowed to be challenged.

What? You mean 1998 wasn't.....
 

On Aug 10, 9:20 am, Gene Kearns
wrote:

Here's a good discussion.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blo...ial-us-cli.hml

I don't think I'd waste any more time on the coyoteblog.com... they
must not do *any* fact checking! McIntyre (whose experience is mineral
exploration) and McKitrick (an economist) published their works in a
Non-Peer-Reviewed Social Science Journal because they were turned down
for publication by more appropriate venues.

McIntyre and McKitrick's shaky position was debunked nearly 3 years
ago..http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepagehttp://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Seems all the comments on the article question its reliablility.
Personally I beleive it goes beyond weather weather man is causing
global warming, to weather GW as it is being described even exists.
When you have people like Al Gore making tons of money and working
toward his socialistic view of "wealth redistribution" (which is
probably the driving factor behind the GW scam) , to weather channel
reporters calling for the silence and expulsion of any critics, I
smell a big frekin' rat. If we accept GW, we must accept the
tremendous taxation and political fallout that will come with it.
Listen folks, the numbers are being fudged across the board, critics
are being expelled from the conversation, the rest is based on
assumptions and predictions, doesn't this make you suspicious?

What? You mean 1998 wasn't.....
 

"Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message
et...
"tak" wrote
Read the current issue of Newsweek for a pov.

Plethora of vacuousness?

Point/counterpoint till it is last man standing. The claims and theories
have to stand up to scientific scrutiny by peers, not politicians and
business.

What? You mean 1998 wasn't.....
 

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:55:18 GMT, "tak"
wrote:


"Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message
news:JbydnUxtSJmJ_yHbnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@wvfibernet. net...
"tak" wrote
Read the current issue of Newsweek for a pov.

Plethora of vacuousness?

Point/counterpoint till it is last man standing. The claims and theories
have to stand up to scientific scrutiny by peers, not politicians and
business.

So fudging sciencitic data is a theory?

Wow...

What? You mean 1998 wasn't.....
 

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:08:33 -0000,
wrote:

I think a lot of the focus is starting to converge on the figures
about temp and climate etc, that we are being fed. It is turning out
that much of it is false, maybe even intenionally manipulated. There
is a huge amount of money to be made, a lot of grants to be awarded.
All gone if this science is allowed to be challenged.

It gets even better than that.

The placement of the measuring devices are also suspect.

As in placing a est of instruments in the middle of an asphalt parking
lot.

Think it's going to be hotter there? :)

What? You mean 1998 wasn't.....
 

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:20:58 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:20:42 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

the HOTTEST YEAR EVER!?!?!?!?!

NASA/GISS data was manipulated - by none other than the guy in charge
of the data - you know - this guy?

"James Hansen, who accused Bush of politicizing global warming
science, is responsible for bugged algorithms that produced erroneous
figures. Furthermore, he refused to release his algorithms so that
they could be peer reviewed. The bug was discovered by someone who
took the time to reverse-engineer Hansen's flawed algorithm, and then,
having accurately done so, proved NASA's numbers were wrong. Thus
causing the revision.

Hansen, who claimed Bush was politicizing Global Warming, refused to
provide his algorithms to other researchers so they could simply check
his work, hiding his own errors from them and distorting the science
he claims to care about oh-so-much until some persistent researchers
went to the great trouble of reconstructing his algorithms
themselves."

You know James Hansen - the guy hailed as the "world's leading
researcher on global warming" - consultant to "Inconvienent Truth"?

Heh, heh, heh...NASA/GISS is very, very quietly revising the numbers.

Here's a good discussion.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blo...ial-us-cli.hml

I don't think I'd waste any more time on the coyoteblog.com... they
must not do *any* fact checking! McIntyre (whose experience is mineral
exploration) and McKitrick (an economist) published their works in a
Non-Peer-Reviewed Social Science Journal because they were turned down
for publication by more appropriate venues.

McIntyre and McKitrick's shaky position was debunked nearly 3 years
ago..
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

Really?

Then why is NASA/GISS publically acknowledging that, in fact - not
theory - Hansen manipulated the data set knowingly and specifically
to manipulate the data to prove his theory.

And that Hansen would not allow anybody to examine his programs or his
data set. It had to be reverse engineered.

Hmmm?

What? You mean 1998 wasn't.....
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:55:18 GMT, "tak"
wrote:


"Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message
news:JbydnUxtSJmJ_yHbnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@wvfibernet .net...
"tak" wrote
Read the current issue of Newsweek for a pov.

Plethora of vacuousness?

Point/counterpoint till it is last man standing. The claims and theories
have to stand up to scientific scrutiny by peers, not politicians and
business.

So fudging sciencitic data is a theory?

Wow...
If it is fudged, that should be outed by being tested by other qualified
scientists. WOW back to you

What? You mean 1998 wasn't.....
 

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:17:45 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

. and the whole of this is a lot like
trying to nail jello to a tree.

Good point and I will use that.

Love the analogy.

Just read the article, follow the links.

I can't add more than that.

What? You mean 1998 wasn't.....
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 9, 10:49 pm, "JimH" ask wrote:

How can you argue against global warming when temperatures and rainfalls
over half of the US and in the UK are reaching or surpassing record
highs?

I am not convinced about the human intervention factor but I have to
admit that something is indeed happening
with our climate.

Cyclical? Perhaps.

We need more research.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think a lot of the focus is starting to converge on the figures
about temp and climate etc, that we are being fed. It is turning out
that much of it is false, maybe even intenionally manipulated. There
is a huge amount of money to be made, a lot of grants to be awarded.
All gone if this science is allowed to be challenged.


All I know is what I see. It has been hot and just recently.....wet.

Global warming? Yes. Man made? Not enough proof.

One has to admit that the carbon footprint of China over recent years is
indeed disturbing and has to have an impact on the weather.

What? You mean 1998 wasn't.....
 

On Aug 10, 5:07 pm, "JimH" ask wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...





On Aug 9, 10:49 pm, "JimH" ask wrote:
How can you argue against global warming when temperatures and rainfalls
over half of the US and in the UK are reaching or surpassing record
highs?

I am not convinced about the human intervention factor but I have to
admit that something is indeed happening
with our climate.

Cyclical? Perhaps.

We need more research.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think a lot of the focus is starting to converge on the figures
about temp and climate etc, that we are being fed. It is turning out
that much of it is false, maybe even intenionally manipulated. There
is a huge amount of money to be made, a lot of grants to be awarded.
All gone if this science is allowed to be challenged.

All I know is what I see. It has been hot and just recently.....wet.

Global warming? Yes. Man made? Not enough proof.

One has to admit that the carbon footprint of China over recent years is
indeed disturbing and has to have an impact on the weather.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So your suggesting you "feel" the what point five degrees your weather
may have risen in the last what, 50 years?? I grew up here where I am
now, and personally I can't notice the extra half degree? People are
freezing in Peru but the news is not covering that. So many of the
temp gathering mechanism has been altered, moved or tampered with, I
don't think anyone really knows if it is even getting hotter, relative
to the age of the earth.

What? You mean 1998 wasn't.....
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 10, 5:07 pm, "JimH" ask wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...





On Aug 9, 10:49 pm, "JimH" ask wrote:
How can you argue against global warming when temperatures and
rainfalls
over half of the US and in the UK are reaching or surpassing record
highs?

I am not convinced about the human intervention factor but I have to
admit that something is indeed happening
with our climate.

Cyclical? Perhaps.

We need more research.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think a lot of the focus is starting to converge on the figures
about temp and climate etc, that we are being fed. It is turning out
that much of it is false, maybe even intenionally manipulated. There
is a huge amount of money to be made, a lot of grants to be awarded.
All gone if this science is allowed to be challenged.

All I know is what I see. It has been hot and just recently.....wet.

Global warming? Yes. Man made? Not enough proof.

One has to admit that the carbon footprint of China over recent years is
indeed disturbing and has to have an impact on the weather.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

So your suggesting you "feel" the what point five degrees your weather
may have risen in the last what, 50 years?? I grew up here where I am
now, and personally I can't notice the extra half degree? People are
freezing in Peru but the news is not covering that. So many of the
temp gathering mechanism has been altered, moved or tampered with, I
don't think anyone really knows if it is even getting hotter, relative
to the age of the earth.


Yes, I feel the hot and humid summer we are experiencing this year. No
offence but you have to be constantly numb not to realize that global
warming is happening. Whether or not it is caused by man or just cylical is
the question.

China's industrial growth over the past decade or so cannot be dismissed in
the discussion.

What? You mean 1998 wasn't.....
 

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:03:59 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:08:33 -0000,
wrote:

I think a lot of the focus is starting to converge on the figures
about temp and climate etc, that we are being fed. It is turning out
that much of it is false, maybe even intenionally manipulated. There
is a huge amount of money to be made, a lot of grants to be awarded.
All gone if this science is allowed to be challenged.

It gets even better than that.

The placement of the measuring devices are also suspect.

As in placing a est of instruments in the middle of an asphalt parking
lot.

Think it's going to be hotter there? :)

Now, that's not at all fair. It's much more fair to say the measuring
devices were placed in the middle of cornfields. Then, the cornfields
became asphalt parking lots or runways.
--
John H

What? You mean 1998 wasn't.....
 

On Aug 10, 6:39 pm, Gene Kearns
wrote:

This is not the time to talk to me about this, anyway..... been
working on the boat today.... making up some cables and moving a
battery..... heat index of 117F.

What am I supposed to believe when I read:
"At 237 PM this afternoon... the temperature at the Raleigh-Durham
Intl Airport reached 104 degrees. This breaks the old record of 99
set in 2001.
101 degrees sets a record maximum at Danville Virginia for todays
date... breaking the old record of 99 in 1987.
99 degrees sets a record maximum at Roanoke Virginia for todays
date... breaking the old record of 97 in 1977.
92 degrees ties the record maximum at Blacksburg Virginia for todays
date set in 1983
a record high temperature of 98 degrees was set at Wilmington today.
This breaks the old record of 97 set in 1979.
A record high temperature of 105 degrees was set at Florence today.
This breaks the old record of 98 set in 1963."


I wonder if that is for the season, or just the date. I wonder if it
is a trend, or just a fluke as we know we really don't know if we are
just in a normal cycle. But at the same time, I think although kind of
trolling, I have pretty much stated my opinion (if not overstated for
fun) on GW. I also agree it is time to go work on the boat, it rained
here all day, coldest weather I remember in August in a while;) But it
is clearing and me and the family are heading for the water in the
morning. Good boating to everyone this weekend.

What? You mean 1998 wasn't.....
 

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:39:47 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:



What am I supposed to believe when I read:
"At 237 PM this afternoon... the temperature at the Raleigh-Durham
Intl Airport reached 104 degrees. This breaks the old record of 99
set in 2001.
101 degrees sets a record maximum at Danville Virginia for todays
date... breaking the old record of 99 in 1987.
99 degrees sets a record maximum at Roanoke Virginia for todays
date... breaking the old record of 97 in 1977.
92 degrees ties the record maximum at Blacksburg Virginia for todays
date set in 1983
a record high temperature of 98 degrees was set at Wilmington today.
This breaks the old record of 97 set in 1979.
A record high temperature of 105 degrees was set at Florence today.
This breaks the old record of 98 set in 1963."

Believe that it's all Al Gore's doing. Then you can just accept the
posts saying the same, and get on with your boat.

--Vic

What? You mean 1998 wasn't.....
 

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:39:47 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

What am I supposed to believe when I read:
"At 237 PM this afternoon... the temperature at the Raleigh-Durham
Intl Airport reached 104 degrees. This breaks the old record of 99
set in 2001.

That it's hotter today than it was on the same date in 2001.

So?

Was it hotter in 02,03,03,05,06? How about '95 to 2000? Cooler?
What's the scale here - what exactly are you comparing to?

Here's the historical min/max for Bradely Field, Hartford, CT for
today.

Numbers are Normal, Record, Year.

MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE (F) 84 100 1949 MINIMUM TEMPERATURE
(F) 62 45 1964

It's currently 50 (F) on my handy dandy calibrated weather thingy.

Am I experiencing Global Cooling because, with the exception of last
week, it's been pretty average month of June, July and August in New
England from an historical perspective.

Also, consider this. The Raliegh/Durham Airport site, I believe, is
located at the radar site which used to be at the far end of the
runway (I can't remember which one). Have you compared the
temperatures at Raliegh/Durham to stations at Duke, NC State and UNC?
Are they generally higher/lower/match?

The official temperature in CT is recorded at Bradley Field, E.
Granby, CT. It is consistently higher than my station, the Orchard's
station, Marionapolis Prep in Thompson and Pomfret Prep in Pomfret -
all four stations are identical and calibrated. The reason is that
Bradley's station is located at the end of a runway and right next to
the parking lot at the Connecticut Fire School. Ours are located
properly on grass, in the open and away from buildings.

It's not evidence of anything - only historical trends give any
validity in historical context.

Do I believe that humanity affects the environment? Yes. Do I
believe that pollution is a problem? Yes. Do I believe in Global
Warming? No.

Everytime you turn around, there is another scientist massaging data,
or as in the case of Hansen, using a flawed program and flawed data to
reach a conclusion which everybody hails as "consensus". Even more to
the point, the very scientists who were cited in "Inconvienent Truth"
are now begining to say "wait - not so fast" or in one case "that's
not what I said".

I have no quarrel with anybody who believes in Global Warming -
nothing I say is going to convince those who believe and place all
others in Apocryphal status.

It is what it is.

What? You mean 1998 wasn't.....
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:39:47 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

What am I supposed to believe when I read:
"At 237 PM this afternoon... the temperature at the Raleigh-Durham
Intl Airport reached 104 degrees. This breaks the old record of 99
set in 2001.



I have no quarrel with anybody who believes in Global Warming -
nothing I say is going to convince those who believe and place all
others in Apocryphal status.

It is what it is.


No one is seeking your approval or disapproval on this Tom, especially
considering that nothing that is posted here will change your mind........or
anyone else's for that matter.

Like Gene said...........you would have better luck nailing Jello on a wall.

Believe what you want...........it is only important..............to you.
;-)

What? You mean 1998 wasn't.....
 

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 20:13:20 -0400, "JimH" ask wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:39:47 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

What am I supposed to believe when I read:
"At 237 PM this afternoon... the temperature at the Raleigh-Durham
Intl Airport reached 104 degrees. This breaks the old record of 99
set in 2001.

I have no quarrel with anybody who believes in Global Warming -
nothing I say is going to convince those who believe and place all
others in Apocryphal status.

It is what it is.

No one is seeking your approval or disapproval on this Tom, especially
considering that nothing that is posted here will change your mind........or
anyone else's for that matter.

Like Gene said...........you would have better luck nailing Jello on a wall.

Believe what you want...........it is only important..............to you.
;-)

As usual you missed the point.

It is what it is means that you can't prove anything pro or con - it's
all a matter of faith for those who believe.

Let me repeat - it's faith, not science that drives Global Warming.

Got it now?

What? You mean 1998 wasn't.....
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 20:13:20 -0400, "JimH" ask wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:39:47 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

What am I supposed to believe when I read:
"At 237 PM this afternoon... the temperature at the Raleigh-Durham
Intl Airport reached 104 degrees. This breaks the old record of 99
set in 2001.

I have no quarrel with anybody who believes in Global Warming -
nothing I say is going to convince those who believe and place all
others in Apocryphal status.

It is what it is.

No one is seeking your approval or disapproval on this Tom, especially
considering that nothing that is posted here will change your
mind........or
anyone else's for that matter.

Like Gene said...........you would have better luck nailing Jello on a
wall.

Believe what you want...........it is only important..............to you.
;-)

As usual you missed the point.

It is what it is means that you can't prove anything pro or con - it's
all a matter of faith for those who believe.

Let me repeat - it's faith, not science that drives Global Warming.

Got it now?

I missed nothing Tom. Understand?

What? You mean 1998 wasn't.....
 

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 10:24:44 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

Nothing wrong with going green when it saves money and makes a better
product. I'm installing a ZPM in the Grady, today.....

ROTFL!!!!

10-4....

What? You mean 1998 wasn't.....
 

Let me repeat - it's faith, not science that drives Global Warming.

Got it now?-

WOW What is the paenut gallery going to do about the pending earths
"MAGNETIC FLIP", the tetonic plate reversal SE of Mexico City, Solar
flares, and sun spots, (the actual cause of global temperature
variations). SO many things to control, and so few strings.
Hmmm now where did I put that can of worms? I'm outta here!
Den
48YF
http://www.densnet.com

What? You mean 1998 wasn't.....
 

"JimH" ask wrote in message
...
How can you argue against global warming when temperatures and rainfalls
over half of the US and in the UK are reaching or surprising record highs?

The point is that the data used to determine whether or not we are
experiencing "record highs" is suspect.

What? You mean 1998 wasn't.....
 

"JimH" ask wrote in message
...
No offence but you have to be constantly numb not to realize that global
warming is happening.

Yes, that would certainly explain the first snow in Buenos Aires since 1918.

Or the record cold temperatures in Tazmania these past few months. In fact,
they're now blaming coral bleaching off of Queensland on the record cold
snap.

The Southern hemisphere is experiencing a colder than usual climate as of
late, but the news fails to focus on that. I wonder why?

What? You mean 1998 wasn't.....
 

The northern hemisphere must be serving as a heat sink for the southern
hemisphere.

Have you been reading about the record cold temps in Tasmania, and the first
snow in Buenos Aires since 1918?



"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 21:20:54 -0000,
penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of
rec.boats:

On Aug 10, 5:07 pm, "JimH" ask wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...





On Aug 9, 10:49 pm, "JimH" ask wrote:
How can you argue against global warming when temperatures and
rainfalls
over half of the US and in the UK are reaching or surpassing record
highs?

I am not convinced about the human intervention factor but I have to
admit that something is indeed happening
with our climate.

Cyclical? Perhaps.

We need more research.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think a lot of the focus is starting to converge on the figures
about temp and climate etc, that we are being fed. It is turning out
that much of it is false, maybe even intenionally manipulated. There
is a huge amount of money to be made, a lot of grants to be awarded.
All gone if this science is allowed to be challenged.

All I know is what I see. It has been hot and just recently.....wet.

Global warming? Yes. Man made? Not enough proof.

One has to admit that the carbon footprint of China over recent years is
indeed disturbing and has to have an impact on the weather.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

So your suggesting you "feel" the what point five degrees your weather
may have risen in the last what, 50 years?? I grew up here where I am
now, and personally I can't notice the extra half degree?

And I grew up where I am living... and so did my Dad and his
parents.... and parents.... and parents... way back.

All of the older relatives I have known remarked about how, "it didn't
get as cold as it used to." Their descriptions of how high the snow
got every winter was on the order of 2.5 - 4 feet, based on landmarks
that they remembered covered.... and I have seen the landmarks myself.

My son is 22 and, in his life, has seen enough snow to go sledding
only one year. He has never seen the pipes freeze. He has never seen
an ice storm that makes it nearly impossible to walk or open the car
door. He has never seen minus temperatures. He has never seen the
electricity go off for a week while they put up new lines.

Fifty years ago, all of my winters included some, if not most, of the
above.

If you get past the Al Gore/Jerry Springer version of the theory of
global warming, you will find that it speaks in terms of averages and
expects hotter highs in some places and colder lows in others. It is
this unpredictable CLIMATE CHANGE that is, in part, worrisome.

This is not the time to talk to me about this, anyway..... been
working on the boat today.... making up some cables and moving a
battery..... heat index of 117F.

What am I supposed to believe when I read:
"At 237 PM this afternoon... the temperature at the Raleigh-Durham
Intl Airport reached 104 degrees. This breaks the old record of 99
set in 2001.
101 degrees sets a record maximum at Danville Virginia for todays
date... breaking the old record of 99 in 1987.
99 degrees sets a record maximum at Roanoke Virginia for todays
date... breaking the old record of 97 in 1977.
92 degrees ties the record maximum at Blacksburg Virginia for todays
date set in 1983
a record high temperature of 98 degrees was set at Wilmington today.
This breaks the old record of 97 set in 1979.
A record high temperature of 105 degrees was set at Florence today.
This breaks the old record of 98 set in 1963."

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000764-5, 08/10/2007
Tested on: 8/10/2007 6:39:47 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com