OT--Looks like Harry was right about the hurricanes
 

NOYB wrote:
http://www.unf-unf.de/show.php?did=664

Personally, I think it's the Clinton's doing.


It's the wrath of Hillary!

Seriously, the few analytical reports I've seen seem to tie the increase
in storms to a side effect of global warming.

It would be very decent of you and some of your wealthy professional
friends to see what you can do to help some of the least fortunate in
your state who have lost everything and have no insurance. You have a
lot of very hard working migrant agricultural workers who do the jobs no
Americans will touch, and they have been really devastated by the
storms. Clothing, food, help with temporary shelter...help your brothers
out there, Nobby...it'll make you feel warm all over.



--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:


NOYB wrote:
http://www.unf-unf.de/show.php?did=664

Personally, I think it's the Clinton's doing.


It's the wrath of Hillary!

Seriously, the few analytical reports I've seen seem to tie the increase
in storms to a side effect of global warming.

Bull****.

Two of the best-known and most-well-respected hurricane analysts (Gray being
one, *******i being another) have said that is complete bull****.

Specifically, "global warming", were it real, would tend to DIMINISH
hurricane activity since it would lessen the gradients that drive these
storms.

Second, there is a roughly 30 year cycle in hurricane activity, with 60
years for a complete "cycle".

We have been in a 30 year LOW. Now we're entering a 30 year HIGH. The last
"high" cycle ended roughly in 1970.

If you actually LOOK at the data, instead of simply trying to fit what's
happening to something you WANT to see, this becomes rather obvious.

Indeed, it requires no "hard science" - just a look at the numbers. The 40s
to 70s had more hurricanes, the 70s to 00s had less, the 10s to 40s had
more, etc.

What this means is that we're due for 30 years of this chit - and it has
nothing to do with "global anything"; its a normal cyclical weather pattern.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

Karl Denninger wrote:
In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:


NOYB wrote:
http://www.unf-unf.de/show.php?did=664

Personally, I think it's the Clinton's doing.


It's the wrath of Hillary!

Seriously, the few analytical reports I've seen seem to tie the increase
in storms to a side effect of global warming.

Bull****.

Two of the best-known and most-well-respected hurricane analysts (Gray being
one, *******i being another) have said that is complete bull****.

Well, that doesn't make it so.




--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

"Karl Denninger" wrote in message
ink.net...

In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:


NOYB wrote:
http://www.unf-unf.de/show.php?did=664

Personally, I think it's the Clinton's doing.


It's the wrath of Hillary!

Seriously, the few analytical reports I've seen seem to tie the increase
in storms to a side effect of global warming.

Bull****.

Two of the best-known and most-well-respected hurricane analysts (Gray
being
one, *******i being another) have said that is complete bull****.

Specifically, "global warming", were it real, would tend to DIMINISH
hurricane activity since it would lessen the gradients that drive these
storms.

Second, there is a roughly 30 year cycle in hurricane activity, with 60
years for a complete "cycle".

We have been in a 30 year LOW. Now we're entering a 30 year HIGH. The
last
"high" cycle ended roughly in 1970.

If you actually LOOK at the data, instead of simply trying to fit what's
happening to something you WANT to see, this becomes rather obvious.

Indeed, it requires no "hard science" - just a look at the numbers. The
40s
to 70s had more hurricanes, the 70s to 00s had less, the 10s to 40s had
more, etc.

What this means is that we're due for 30 years of this chit - and it has
nothing to do with "global anything"; its a normal cyclical weather
pattern.

Just like the water levels in the great lakes......there is a cycle from low
to high....as the water fell, it was blamed on global warming, now that it
is rising once again, no doubt, that too will be blamed on global warming.

Because global warming is based on such bad science, anything and everything
can be pinned on it.....all with no proof.



--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights
Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
http://www.unf-unf.de/show.php?did=664

Personally, I think it's the Clinton's doing.


It's the wrath of Hillary!

Seriously, the few analytical reports I've seen seem to tie the increase
in storms to a side effect of global warming.

It would be very decent of you and some of your wealthy professional
friends to see what you can do to help some of the least fortunate in
your state who have lost everything and have no insurance. You have a
lot of very hard working migrant agricultural workers who do the jobs no
Americans will touch, and they have been really devastated by the
storms. Clothing, food, help with temporary shelter...help your brothers
out there, Nobby...it'll make you feel warm all over.

I have.

BTW--You do realize that there's no law against sending checks across state
lines to the Red Cross in areas that were effected by the hurricanes? When
you write *your* check, please write "earmarked for hurricane ____ recovery
efforts in _______ county" so the money gets used for what it was meant for.
That's what I did.

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Karl Denninger" wrote in message
ink.net...

In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:


NOYB wrote:
http://www.unf-unf.de/show.php?did=664

Personally, I think it's the Clinton's doing.


It's the wrath of Hillary!

Seriously, the few analytical reports I've seen seem to tie the
increase
in storms to a side effect of global warming.

Bull****.

Two of the best-known and most-well-respected hurricane analysts (Gray
being
one, *******i being another) have said that is complete bull****.

Specifically, "global warming", were it real, would tend to DIMINISH
hurricane activity since it would lessen the gradients that drive these
storms.

Second, there is a roughly 30 year cycle in hurricane activity, with 60
years for a complete "cycle".

We have been in a 30 year LOW. Now we're entering a 30 year HIGH. The
last
"high" cycle ended roughly in 1970.

If you actually LOOK at the data, instead of simply trying to fit what's
happening to something you WANT to see, this becomes rather obvious.

Indeed, it requires no "hard science" - just a look at the numbers. The
40s
to 70s had more hurricanes, the 70s to 00s had less, the 10s to 40s had
more, etc.

What this means is that we're due for 30 years of this chit - and it has
nothing to do with "global anything"; its a normal cyclical weather
pattern.

Just like the water levels in the great lakes......there is a cycle from
low
to high....as the water fell, it was blamed on global warming, now that it
is rising once again, no doubt, that too will be blamed on global warming.

Because global warming is based on such bad science, anything and
everything
can be pinned on it.....all with no proof.


So you guys don't think that God is punishing the counties that voted for
Bush?

Good. Because if you look at that map again, you'll see a couple of
problems with it. Volusia, Orange, and Osceola counties all got nailed by
Frances and Jeanne...and all went squarely for Gore in 2000. Also, I'm
pretty sure that the Keys are part of Monroe County.

NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
http://www.unf-unf.de/show.php?did=664

Personally, I think it's the Clinton's doing.


It's the wrath of Hillary!

Seriously, the few analytical reports I've seen seem to tie the increase
in storms to a side effect of global warming.

It would be very decent of you and some of your wealthy professional
friends to see what you can do to help some of the least fortunate in
your state who have lost everything and have no insurance. You have a
lot of very hard working migrant agricultural workers who do the jobs no
Americans will touch, and they have been really devastated by the
storms. Clothing, food, help with temporary shelter...help your brothers
out there, Nobby...it'll make you feel warm all over.

I have.

BTW--You do realize that there's no law against sending checks across state
lines to the Red Cross in areas that were effected by the hurricanes? When
you write *your* check, please write "earmarked for hurricane ____ recovery
efforts in _______ county" so the money gets used for what it was meant for.
That's what I did.


We've already made a substantial contribution in this household, and we
are fundraising in our neighborhood to get more.



--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
http://www.unf-unf.de/show.php?did=664

Personally, I think it's the Clinton's doing.


It's the wrath of Hillary!

Seriously, the few analytical reports I've seen seem to tie the
increase
in storms to a side effect of global warming.

It would be very decent of you and some of your wealthy professional
friends to see what you can do to help some of the least fortunate in
your state who have lost everything and have no insurance. You have a
lot of very hard working migrant agricultural workers who do the jobs
no
Americans will touch, and they have been really devastated by the
storms. Clothing, food, help with temporary shelter...help your
brothers
out there, Nobby...it'll make you feel warm all over.

I have.

BTW--You do realize that there's no law against sending checks across
state
lines to the Red Cross in areas that were effected by the hurricanes?
When
you write *your* check, please write "earmarked for hurricane ____
recovery
efforts in _______ county" so the money gets used for what it was meant
for.
That's what I did.


We've already made a substantial contribution in this household, and we
are fundraising in our neighborhood to get more.


Good. Just checking. ;-)

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:46:31 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
http://www.unf-unf.de/show.php?did=664

Personally, I think it's the Clinton's doing.


It's the wrath of Hillary!

Seriously, the few analytical reports I've seen seem to tie the increase
in storms to a side effect of global warming.

It would be very decent of you and some of your wealthy professional
friends to see what you can do to help some of the least fortunate in
your state who have lost everything and have no insurance. You have a
lot of very hard working migrant agricultural workers who do the jobs no
Americans will touch, and they have been really devastated by the
storms. Clothing, food, help with temporary shelter...help your brothers
out there, Nobby...it'll make you feel warm all over.

I have.

BTW--You do realize that there's no law against sending checks across state
lines to the Red Cross in areas that were effected by the hurricanes? When
you write *your* check, please write "earmarked for hurricane ____ recovery
efforts in _______ county" so the money gets used for what it was meant for.
That's what I did.

Do that anyway any time you send money to a relief agency. While I
won't have anything to do with the Red Cross, there are other national
agencies working down there and the two checks we've sent are directly
earmarked to relief efforts in that area.

Later,

Tom
-----------
"Angling may be said to be so
like the mathematics that it
can never be fully learnt..."

Izaak Walton "The Compleat Angler", 1653

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 09:45:46 -0400, P.Fritz wrote:


Because global warming is based on such bad science, anything and
everything can be pinned on it.....all with no proof.

Agreed, there isn't enough oil & gas left to cause global warming.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994216