James Watson's Ordeal & The Left Control Of Discourse.

"waybackjack" Is_Yo_Momma@home? wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 00:46:13 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote:

(Way Back Jack) wrote:
Your wife's family were neo-cons, of the kike sub-species, for
instance.

You mother was army boots (after all, you are nothing but racist
slime, probably developing from something that grew between someone's
toes).

You misspelled "realist" again.

=Most= people make the same mistake......

"Way Back Jack" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:53:25 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote:
Cite please. You already misstated the hurricane forecast.

Oh come on. Weren't you an adult

Being an adult does not ensure brain function.
In this case, obviously.

1978-82 when the meteorologists and
climatologists were talking about the inception of the ice age?

Or were you still popping pimples and absorbed with whatever passed
for MTV back then?

When that didn't materialize, they blamed dust storms in Africa.

Then when a huuricane did hit the Carribean inlate August they
predicted heavy hurricane activity for Sept. and October.

Wonder what their excuse will be for ****ing up that prediction.

Here is the text from the August prediction:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2905.htm
August 9, 2007 - NOAA's Climate Prediction Center today released its
update to the 2007 Atlantic Hurricane Season Outlook, maintaining
its
expectations for an above-normal season.

As we enter the peak months (August through October) of the Atlantic
hurricane season, NOAA scientists are predicting an 85 percent
chance
of an above-normal season, with the likelihood of 13 to 16 named
storms, with seven to nine becoming hurricanes, of which three to
five could become major hurricanes (Category 3 strength or higher on
the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale). (Click NOAA image for larger
view of NOAA's 2007 Atlantic hurricane season update. Click here for
high resolution version. Please credit "NOAA.")

The development of key climate factors through early August has
increased the confidence of an above-normal season, and has also led
the NOAA team to slightly tighten the ranges that had been given in
their May outlook - due to development of La Niña-like conditions
exerting influence. In May, NOAA predicted a range of 13-17 named
storms, with seven to 10 becoming hurricanes, and three to five
becoming major hurricanes.

So far there have been 14 named storms, so that part of the forecast
is already correct, and might even turn out to be low by the end of
the season. Only 4 of them have reached hurricane strength, though
Noelle still has a 50% chance of reaching that level, and has already
caused more deaths than all but one of the hurricanes. That is indeed
below the prediction. Two have been major hurricanes (not counting
Noelle, which has had as much effect as one). They could still have
one more by the end of the season.

They predicted 85% likelihood of an above average season. Average is
8.6 named storms and 5.0 hurricanes.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib...01871-1998.pdf
p20
They are well above the named storm average, and easily could still
exceed the hurricane average.

And the average for September and Oct is 4.7 named storms and 2.7
hurricanes September alone had 8 named storms and 3 hurricanes.
October added a 9th with Noelle. So going by your erroneous version
of the prediction, the NWS was right on target.

But of course you are perfectly free to ignore NWS forecasts if you
wish. I have some nice Florida property you can buy - it only got hit
by 4 hurricanes in one year a couple years back, and there are even
still some trees standing.

Curious how you cite data then misinterpet or blatantly lie about it.

I don't see you correcting any misstatements.

The article contradicts the hurricane predictions we've been fed most
of this year.

You'll have to provide a cite. Noel is now a hurricane, BTW, so one
more by the end of the year, and that also will match the forecast.

Google "hurricane predictions for 2007." I hope Noel drenches the
drought areas, but that still wouldn't prove your misstatements.

There have been exactly two predictions this year from the NHC, one a
refinement and not a contradiction of the other. If you've read some
other prediction, then the source was apparently not the Weather
Service, or you misread it.

I'm talking about predictions from climatologists and meteorologists
throughout the country. Not restricting it to NHC.

One prediction that they didn't make concerns the drought throughout
much of the East coast and West coast.

The National Hurricane Center doesn't make predictions about droughts.
You are attempting to change the subject. None of this has much to do
with long term climatological forecasts, in any event.

lojbab

See above.

(Way Back Jack) wrote:

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:53:25 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote:

Is_Yo_Momma@home? (waybackjack) wrote:
Do they obey the law? If not, feel free to provide evidence to the
police or ATF as appropriate.

We're talikng about their hypocrisy.

It is not hypocrisy to propose laws and to obey the ones on the books.
No one is obliged to obey laws that have not been passed.

It's hypocrisy to scream bigotry when you are a bigot.

If your only point is that you are a hypocrite as well as a bigot, I
won't argue, but what does this have to due with gun control laws?

The hypocrites are the liberals who want to remove guns from society
... except for their segment of society.

What does that have to go with "bigotry". Are you capable of sticking
to one topic for more than a single post?

Apparently, you're not capable. I raised the hypocrisy issue. You
ignored it and went elsewhere with the discussion.

I don't know of any "liberals" that fit your description.

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

What else is new today?

Are you really this ****ing dumb or just trollin'?

Actually, history shows that YOU are the habitual troll. I rarely
even start threads.

If I'm trolling, why are you responding?

I love to respond insultingly to racist trolls who post in the
education newsgroup.

And it might. But in the shorter term we have to look at the trends,
and right now the world is getting warmer.

They told us that the ice age was beginning.

Cite please. You already misstated the hurricane forecast.

Oh come on. Weren't you an adult 1978-82

Yes.

when the meteorologists and climatologists were talking about the inception of the ice age?

I wasn't paying a lot of attention to such things back then. I was
playing workaholic and getting divorced. No internet, no TV, working
many nights, one tends to hear about only the important stuff.

The main thing I recall about potential ice ages is that it was a
probable outcome to a nuclear war, if anyone survived the war itself.

Having now looked it up, I found a decent and intelligent discussion:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

It appears that you were paying attention to press-hype, not to the
science. As comment 5 on the cited page shows, *eventually* there
will be an ice age that will significantly cool things off. That
prediction hasn't changed. But "eventually" may be a few thousand
years, and global warming is in the timeframe of decades.

Curious how you cite data then misinterpet or blatantly lie about it.

I don't see you correcting any misstatements.

The article contradicts the hurricane predictions we've been fed most
of this year.

You'll have to provide a cite. Noel is now a hurricane, BTW, so one
more by the end of the year, and that also will match the forecast.

Google "hurricane predictions for 2007." I hope Noel drenches the
drought areas, but that still wouldn't prove your misstatements.

You have not identified any misstatements that I made.

Noel won't even hit the US and have little effect except on beach
waves.

Seasonal hurricane predictions say nothing about whether any
hurricanes will hit the US.

There have been exactly two predictions this year from the NHC, one a
refinement and not a contradiction of the other. If you've read some
other prediction, then the source was apparently not the Weather
Service, or you misread it.

I'm talking about predictions from climatologists and meteorologists
throughout the country. Not restricting it to NHC.

Most of the ones I've seen look a lot like the NHC's forecast.

One prediction that they didn't make concerns the drought throughout
much of the East coast and West coast.

The National Hurricane Center doesn't make predictions about droughts.
You are attempting to change the subject. None of this has much to do
with long term climatological forecasts, in any event.

lojbab

See above.

I repeat: None of this has much to do with long term climatological
forecasts, in any event.

lojbab

"Jim" wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" wrote
Sorry, but you don't get to define politics - the entire citizenry
does. "Right" and "left" are always relative

No, the left established a set of ideals 100 years ago

Whose left? Attila the Hun's?

Which ideals were those?

and has steadily imposed them on virtually evcery civilized nation on eartyh, thus making US
less civilized every day.

You obviously have a strange definition of "civilized", that a
particular political system would change whether a society is
"civilized".

By most definitions, even being able to HAVE a political system means
that there is civilization.

Just because more people agree with them doesn't
suddenly make socialism normal....

You also have a strange definition of "normal" if it excludes that
which most nations and people agree with.

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 22:07:22 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote:

(Way Back Jack) wrote:

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:53:25 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote:

Is_Yo_Momma@home? (waybackjack) wrote:
Do they obey the law? If not, feel free to provide evidence to the
police or ATF as appropriate.

We're talikng about their hypocrisy.

It is not hypocrisy to propose laws and to obey the ones on the books.
No one is obliged to obey laws that have not been passed.

It's hypocrisy to scream bigotry when you are a bigot.

If your only point is that you are a hypocrite as well as a bigot, I
won't argue, but what does this have to due with gun control laws?

The hypocrites are the liberals who want to remove guns from society
... except for their segment of society.

What does that have to go with "bigotry". Are you capable of sticking
to one topic for more than a single post?

Apparently, you're not capable. I raised the hypocrisy issue. You
ignored it and went elsewhere with the discussion.

I don't know of any "liberals" that fit your description.

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

What else is new today?

Are you really this ****ing dumb or just trollin'?

Actually, history shows that YOU are the habitual troll. I rarely
even start threads.

If I'm trolling, why are you responding?

I love to respond insultingly to racist trolls who post in the
education newsgroup.

Good. I love crushing liberals, especially whiggers.

And it might. But in the shorter term we have to look at the trends,
and right now the world is getting warmer.

They told us that the ice age was beginning.

Cite please. You already misstated the hurricane forecast.

Oh come on. Weren't you an adult 1978-82

Yes.

when the meteorologists and climatologists were talking about the inception of the ice age?

I wasn't paying a lot of attention to such things back then. I was
playing workaholic and getting divorced. No internet, no TV, working
many nights, one tends to hear about only the important stuff.

The main thing I recall about potential ice ages is that it was a
probable outcome to a nuclear war, if anyone survived the war itself.

Having now looked it up, I found a decent and intelligent discussion:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

It appears that you were paying attention to press-hype, not to the
science. As comment 5 on the cited page shows, *eventually* there
will be an ice age that will significantly cool things off. That
prediction hasn't changed. But "eventually" may be a few thousand
years, and global warming is in the timeframe of decades.

Nope. About the same proportion of scientists who told us that the
Ice Age was beginning are telling us now of global warming.

Curious how you cite data then misinterpet or blatantly lie about it.

I don't see you correcting any misstatements.

The article contradicts the hurricane predictions we've been fed most
of this year.

You'll have to provide a cite. Noel is now a hurricane, BTW, so one
more by the end of the year, and that also will match the forecast.

Google "hurricane predictions for 2007." I hope Noel drenches the
drought areas, but that still wouldn't prove your misstatements.

You have not identified any misstatements that I made.

You haven't thoroughly reseached the dire hurricane predictions for
2006 and 7.

Noel won't even hit the US and have little effect except on beach
waves.

That's nice.

Seasonal hurricane predictions say nothing about whether any
hurricanes will hit the US.

Of course they do.

There have been exactly two predictions this year from the NHC, one a
refinement and not a contradiction of the other. If you've read some
other prediction, then the source was apparently not the Weather
Service, or you misread it.

I'm talking about predictions from climatologists and meteorologists
throughout the country. Not restricting it to NHC.

Most of the ones I've seen look a lot like the NHC's forecast.

Then you haven't been looking.

One prediction that they didn't make concerns the drought throughout
much of the East coast and West coast.

The National Hurricane Center doesn't make predictions about droughts.
You are attempting to change the subject. None of this has much to do
with long term climatological forecasts, in any event.

lojbab

See above.

I repeat: None of this has much to do with long term climatological
forecasts, in any event.

lojbab

If they cannot predict what will happen next week, they cannot predict
climatological catastrophe 50 years down the road.

Furthermore, they cannot prove that the 1 degree rise has been
man-made or that man can control the temperature.
_________

EXCERPT: "We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise
how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.
_______________________

Gore gets a cold shoulder

October 14, 2007

Climate crusader: Al Gore.

ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that
helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the
product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane
forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North
Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the
earth.

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr
Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global
warming.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time
professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore
movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's
ridiculous."

At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore
said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world's
consciousness about exactly what we're facing."

Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel
for their work in helping to galvanise international action against
global warming.

But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms
and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean
water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water -
was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken
place.

However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would
begin soon and last for several years.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how
foolish it was," Dr Gray said.

During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology
students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said
those who had linked global warming to the increased number of
hurricanes in recent years were in error.

He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to
1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from
1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a
major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.

He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against
something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that
they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about
grants."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environme...cold-shoulder/
2007/10/13/1191696238792.html

(Way Back Jack) wrote:
when the meteorologists and climatologists were talking about the inception of the ice age?

I wasn't paying a lot of attention to such things back then. I was
playing workaholic and getting divorced. No internet, no TV, working
many nights, one tends to hear about only the important stuff.

The main thing I recall about potential ice ages is that it was a
probable outcome to a nuclear war, if anyone survived the war itself.

Having now looked it up, I found a decent and intelligent discussion:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

It appears that you were paying attention to press-hype, not to the
science. As comment 5 on the cited page shows, *eventually* there
will be an ice age that will significantly cool things off. That
prediction hasn't changed. But "eventually" may be a few thousand
years, and global warming is in the timeframe of decades.

Nope. About the same proportion of scientists who told us that the
Ice Age was beginning are telling us now of global warming.

It looks from the page I cited that no scientists told us the Ice Age
was beginning. Some scientists said that there would likely be
another Ice Age sometime in the next many-thousand years, which isn't
close to the same thing, but the press hyped it into something that
was not claimed.

That is not the case for global warming.

Curious how you cite data then misinterpet or blatantly lie about it.

I don't see you correcting any misstatements.

The article contradicts the hurricane predictions we've been fed most
of this year.

You'll have to provide a cite. Noel is now a hurricane, BTW, so one
more by the end of the year, and that also will match the forecast.

Google "hurricane predictions for 2007." I hope Noel drenches the
drought areas, but that still wouldn't prove your misstatements.

You have not identified any misstatements that I made.

You haven't thoroughly reseached the dire hurricane predictions for
2006 and 7.

Oh, so now you are going to backpedal and try to change the subject to
2006, when indeed the predictions were wrong, after several messages
being wrong about the 2007 prediction.

Noel won't even hit the US and have little effect except on beach
waves.

That's nice.

Seasonal hurricane predictions say nothing about whether any
hurricanes will hit the US.

Of course they do.

No they don't. They only estimate the number of storms in the
Atlantic basin at each level of intensity.

I repeat: None of this has much to do with long term climatological
forecasts, in any event.

If they cannot predict what will happen next week, they cannot predict
climatological catastrophe 50 years down the road.

Doesn't follow. The prediction for next week is expected to be far
more precise than the one for 50 years down the road. If they were
predicting that there would be sunshine and 70s in Baltimore the first
week of November 2057, you would justifiably be skeptical.

Predicting that the average temperature for the whole year is likely
to be warmer than this year is much easier.

Furthermore, they cannot prove that the 1 degree rise has been
man-made

That merely takes common sense, since we know that things that man
does cause effects that raise temperatures.

or that man can control the temperature.

We might not be able to. But if we don't try, we may be in deep ****.

He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to
1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from
1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

A rather strange claim, since
http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/index.html
catalogs no less than 87 Atlantic hurricanes between 1996 and 2006.

I suspect that the reporter got the story wrong. If indeed the
scientist in question actually gave those numbers, he has a
non-standard definition of "hurricane".

lojbab

On 3 Nov, 16:58, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
(Way Back Jack) wrote:

[Snip almighty!]

Our solar system is hotting up:-

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...suvjupiter.htm
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/.../heats_up.html
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/.../heats_up.html

Read - and think!

Instead of the money going to the hard sciences, billions and billions
will go to Green mindless twits whose notion of a good night out is
mashed mango beans, dandelion wine or prune juice, and staring at a
wind-up gramophone because they cannot find the remote control and no
pictures appear on it, anyway. Buy the eyewash and the spin, and
starve science! Man is not so much a blot on the ladscape as a dot on
the landscape! The world is to be handed over to the medioc think
about it! It is a scam. A few days ago I met a student, probably 150,
who said she was 'considering environmental studies'. She and others
will be lost in Mediocrity Land, but more importantly, will not be
where they are needed. I bought a poppy for those who died in belief
of a better future; I'd pay a fiver for better fusion, or at least for
a huge, concerted attack on alternative energy resources.
--
'foolsrushin

On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 12:58:44 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote:

(Way Back Jack) wrote:
when the meteorologists and climatologists were talking about the inception of the ice age?

I wasn't paying a lot of attention to such things back then. I was
playing workaholic and getting divorced. No internet, no TV, working
many nights, one tends to hear about only the important stuff.

The main thing I recall about potential ice ages is that it was a
probable outcome to a nuclear war, if anyone survived the war itself.

Having now looked it up, I found a decent and intelligent discussion:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

It appears that you were paying attention to press-hype, not to the
science. As comment 5 on the cited page shows, *eventually* there
will be an ice age that will significantly cool things off. That
prediction hasn't changed. But "eventually" may be a few thousand
years, and global warming is in the timeframe of decades.

Nope. About the same proportion of scientists who told us that the
Ice Age was beginning are telling us now of global warming.

It looks from the page I cited that no scientists told us the Ice Age
was beginning. Some scientists said that there would likely be
another Ice Age sometime in the next many-thousand years, which isn't
close to the same thing, but the press hyped it into something that
was not claimed.

Horse****. The Ice Age was upon us, as reported by the alarmists of
the day.

That is not the case for global warming.

Yeah, that one degree is really oppressive.

Curious how you cite data then misinterpet or blatantly lie about it.

I don't see you correcting any misstatements.

The article contradicts the hurricane predictions we've been fed most
of this year.

You'll have to provide a cite. Noel is now a hurricane, BTW, so one
more by the end of the year, and that also will match the forecast.

Google "hurricane predictions for 2007." I hope Noel drenches the
drought areas, but that still wouldn't prove your misstatements.

You have not identified any misstatements that I made.

You haven't thoroughly reseached the dire hurricane predictions for
2006 and 7.

Oh, so now you are going to backpedal and try to change the subject to
2006, when indeed the predictions were wrong, after several messages
being wrong about the 2007 prediction.

2006 and 2007, not to mention the weather forecasts for next week.

Noel won't even hit the US and have little effect except on beach
waves.

That's nice.

Seasonal hurricane predictions say nothing about whether any
hurricanes will hit the US.

Of course they do.

No they don't. They only estimate the number of storms in the
Atlantic basin at each level of intensity.

Nope. The scientists put their spin on NHC and predict locations.

Everyone of 'em has an opinion

I repeat: None of this has much to do with long term climatological
forecasts, in any event.

If they cannot predict what will happen next week, they cannot predict
climatological catastrophe 50 years down the road.

Doesn't follow. The prediction for next week is expected to be far
more precise than the one for 50 years down the road. If they were
predicting that there would be sunshine and 70s in Baltimore the first
week of November 2057, you would justifiably be skeptical.

My point exactly. And they often screw up the upcoming week's
prediction so how can they tell what'll happen 50 years down the road?

Hell, I've seen them on TV using Doppler, tracking a storm down Rt. 26
and predicting when it will hit certain communities, by the minute,
when POOF, the storm falls apart.

Predicting that the average temperature for the whole year is likely
to be warmer than this year is much easier.

That's nice.

Furthermore, they cannot prove that the 1 degree rise has been
man-made

That merely takes common sense, since we know that things that man
does cause effects that raise temperatures.

Not global temps. Scientists (as opposed to left-wing
pseudoscientists) have charted global rises from the past, before homo
saps.

The past is easier to see than the future, doncha know.

or that man can control the temperature.

We might not be able to. But if we don't try, we may be in deep ****.

We're in deep **** because of resource depletion caused by
overpopulation. Population doubled from 1950-99 to 6 billion.

But even here, that is faaaarrrr less than what they predicted in
1964.

Let alone what Malthus said a coupla hundred yrs. ago.

He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to
1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from
1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

A rather strange claim, since
http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/index.html
catalogs no less than 87 Atlantic hurricanes between 1996 and 2006.

I suspect that the reporter got the story wrong. If indeed the
scientist in question actually gave those numbers, he has a
non-standard definition of "hurricane".

This shows another side to Gore's Group ... a silent side who's not
worried about politically-bestowed grants.

On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 11:05:33 -0700, "'foolsrushin.'"
wrote:

On 3 Nov, 16:58, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
(Way Back Jack) wrote:

[Snip almighty!]

Our solar system is hotting up:-

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...suvjupiter.htm
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/.../heats_up.html
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/.../heats_up.html

Read - and think!

Instead of the money going to the hard sciences, billions and billions
will go to Green mindless twits whose notion of a good night out is
mashed mango beans, dandelion wine or prune juice, and staring at a
wind-up gramophone because they cannot find the remote control and no
pictures appear on it, anyway. Buy the eyewash and the spin, and
starve science! Man is not so much a blot on the ladscape as a dot on
the landscape! The world is to be handed over to the medioc think
about it! It is a scam. A few days ago I met a student, probably 150,
who said she was 'considering environmental studies'. She and others
will be lost in Mediocrity Land, but more importantly, will not be
where they are needed. I bought a poppy for those who died in belief
of a better future; I'd pay a fiver for better fusion, or at least for
a huge, concerted attack on alternative energy resources.
--
'foolsrushin

Meanwhile, Green Al Gore'll be jetting around the world in his pvt.
plane and heating his plantation to 78 degrees in the winter.

(Way Back Jack) wrote:
On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 12:58:44 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote:

(Way Back Jack) wrote:
when the meteorologists and climatologists were talking about the inception of the ice age?

I wasn't paying a lot of attention to such things back then. I was
playing workaholic and getting divorced. No internet, no TV, working
many nights, one tends to hear about only the important stuff.

The main thing I recall about potential ice ages is that it was a
probable outcome to a nuclear war, if anyone survived the war itself.

Having now looked it up, I found a decent and intelligent discussion:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

It appears that you were paying attention to press-hype, not to the
science. As comment 5 on the cited page shows, *eventually* there
will be an ice age that will significantly cool things off. That
prediction hasn't changed. But "eventually" may be a few thousand
years, and global warming is in the timeframe of decades.

Nope. About the same proportion of scientists who told us that the
Ice Age was beginning are telling us now of global warming.

It looks from the page I cited that no scientists told us the Ice Age
was beginning. Some scientists said that there would likely be
another Ice Age sometime in the next many-thousand years, which isn't
close to the same thing, but the press hyped it into something that
was not claimed.

Horse****. The Ice Age was upon us, as reported by the alarmists of
the day.

None of which you've managed to cite, and the page I found said that
people looking for it found no such thing in the journals of the time,
only in the popular media.

That is not the case for global warming.

Yeah, that one degree is really oppressive.

It could be, if the polar ice cap melts and sea levels rise by a
couple hundred feet.

Noel won't even hit the US and have little effect except on beach
waves.

That's nice.

Seasonal hurricane predictions say nothing about whether any
hurricanes will hit the US.

Of course they do.

No they don't. They only estimate the number of storms in the
Atlantic basin at each level of intensity.

Nope. The scientists put their spin on NHC and predict locations.

Everyone of 'em has an opinion

But of course you want me to do your work for you and find them.

Sorry, but I don't believe you.

Doesn't follow. The prediction for next week is expected to be far
more precise than the one for 50 years down the road. If they were
predicting that there would be sunshine and 70s in Baltimore the first
week of November 2057, you would justifiably be skeptical.

My point exactly. And they often screw up the upcoming week's
prediction so how can they tell what'll happen 50 years down the road?

Maybe you should read the science journals and find out.

Furthermore, they cannot prove that the 1 degree rise has been
man-made

That merely takes common sense, since we know that things that man
does cause effects that raise temperatures.

Not global temps.

Unless it lowers the temperature somewhere else, raising the
temperature in some places raises the average global temperature.

lojbab