> You should first read the article before you presume to know what it's
> about.
Sorry, I'm sooo misunderstood...
I did read the article. I responded to the article in the following manner:
1. The 'whack-a-mole' article, although accurate, was also misleading
in that it used a very narrow set of data to prove a point.
2. The climate-change hysteria and the desire to blame everything on
climate-change is misguided.*
3. I gave an example of how a 'storm of the century' can form which
has nothing to do with climate change, but has everything to do with
where the lobes and eddies are at any given point in time.
Bad science is bad science no matter which side of an issue a person lands.
* As was the ozone hole, acid rain...
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|