http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7574603.stm

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:18:48 -0700, Calif Bill wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7574603.stm

Did you read that link? "This year appears set to be the coolest
globally this century." This century started in *2000*.

And, "Even so, 2008 is set to be about the 10th warmest year since
1850".

The article is about the La Nina/El Nino temperature swing.

wrote in message
t...
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:18:48 -0700, Calif Bill wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7574603.stm

Did you read that link? "This year appears set to be the coolest
globally this century." This century started in *2000*.

And, "Even so, 2008 is set to be about the 10th warmest year since
1850".

The article is about the La Nina/El Nino temperature swing.

Yup, and the century is 8 years old. The GW worshipers keep telling us it
is man caused. So why a cooling year?

wrote:
Did you read that link? "This year appears set to be the coolest
globally this century." This century started in *2000*.


That's a popular misconception. This century actually began on January
1, 2001. The first century started with year 1 and ended on the *end* of
year 100. 100 years. That is the reason we call this the 21st century,
because it ends with 2100. Now, if you can show me where the first
century started with year 0, I'll concede your point.

TJ

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:49:29 -0400, TJ wrote:


That's a popular misconception. This century actually began on January
1, 2001. The first century started with year 1 and ended on the *end* of
year 100. 100 years. That is the reason we call this the 21st century,
because it ends with 2100. Now, if you can show me where the first
century started with year 0, I'll concede your point.

TJ

You mean the hangover I had on January 1, 2000, was all for naught?

wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:49:29 -0400, TJ wrote:


That's a popular misconception. This century actually began on January
1, 2001. The first century started with year 1 and ended on the *end* of
year 100. 100 years. That is the reason we call this the 21st century,
because it ends with 2100. Now, if you can show me where the first
century started with year 0, I'll concede your point.

TJ

You mean the hangover I had on January 1, 2000, was all for naught?

It should have been practice.

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:49:29 -0400, TJ wrote:

Now, if you can show me where the first
century started with year 0, I'll concede your point.

Why wouldn't it. I believe the calender is based on the work of one
man. What did he necessarily know?

Casady

wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:49:29 -0400, TJ wrote:

Now, if you can show me where the first
century started with year 0, I'll concede your point.

There wasn't ever a year 1 either, what's your point.?
The calendar we use was invented in the 15th century and missed the
birth of Jesus by about 4 1/2 years by the current best guess

It doesn't matter when it was invented, or whether they got the dates of
specific events correct. What does matter is how they started counting.
If they started with 1, then 2000 was the end of the 20th century. If
they started with 0, then 1999 was the end of the 20th century. I think
they started with 1, since only mathematicians, computer programmers,
and engineers start counting with 0.

However, if you can show me where they started counting with the January
1 that *followed* the date when they *believed* Christ was born, then I
will also concede the point.

The truth is, nobody really knows. I don't think Pope Gregory ever
thought he would be questioned on the matter. After all, you just don't
question the Pope's edicts.

TJ

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:15:30 -0400, TJ wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:49:29 -0400, TJ wrote:

Now, if you can show me where the first
century started with year 0, I'll concede your point.

There wasn't ever a year 1 either, what's your point.?
The calendar we use was invented in the 15th century and missed the
birth of Jesus by about 4 1/2 years by the current best guess

It doesn't matter when it was invented, or whether they got the dates of
specific events correct. What does matter is how they started counting.
If they started with 1, then 2000 was the end of the 20th century. If
they started with 0, then 1999 was the end of the 20th century. I think
they started with 1, since only mathematicians, computer programmers,
and engineers start counting with 0.

However, if you can show me where they started counting with the January
1 that *followed* the date when they *believed* Christ was born, then I
will also concede the point.

The truth is, nobody really knows. I don't think Pope Gregory ever
thought he would be questioned on the matter. After all, you just don't
question the Pope's edicts.

TJ

Go down to the store and buy a dozen eggs - do you get 11 eggs - 0 -
11?? a loaf of bread - you get "0" loaves maybe?

The whole arguement is not even rediculas, it is simply stupid.

John wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:15:30 -0400, TJ wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:49:29 -0400, TJ wrote:

Now, if you can show me where the first
century started with year 0, I'll concede your point.
There wasn't ever a year 1 either, what's your point.?
The calendar we use was invented in the 15th century and missed the
birth of Jesus by about 4 1/2 years by the current best guess
It doesn't matter when it was invented, or whether they got the dates of
specific events correct. What does matter is how they started counting.
If they started with 1, then 2000 was the end of the 20th century. If
they started with 0, then 1999 was the end of the 20th century. I think
they started with 1, since only mathematicians, computer programmers,
and engineers start counting with 0.

However, if you can show me where they started counting with the January
1 that *followed* the date when they *believed* Christ was born, then I
will also concede the point.

The truth is, nobody really knows. I don't think Pope Gregory ever
thought he would be questioned on the matter. After all, you just don't
question the Pope's edicts.

TJ

Go down to the store and buy a dozen eggs - do you get 11 eggs - 0 -
11?? a loaf of bread - you get "0" loaves maybe?

The whole arguement is not even rediculas, it is simply stupid.



Besides, if you wanted to know when "Christ" allegedly was born, you'd
have to consult a Hebrew calendar. :)