Bonzo wrote:
> "Phil." wrote in message
> news:1187147479.762489.288320@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> John F. C. wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:20:41 -0700, Roger Coppock
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Aug 13, 5:40 pm, "Green Turtle"
> > >wrote:
> > >[ . . . ]
> > >> Any ideas as to why NASA not made an announcement here on this change in
> > >> numbers?
> > >
> > >Because, the statement already appeared in reports.
> > >(Where do you think the fossil fools found it?)
> > >Because, it didn't change the global numbers significantly.
> > =================================================================
> > I've been listening to the debate over the last couple of days and,
> > one thing jumps out at me. For quite a few years now we've heard many
> > times about 1998 being the warmest year on record. Through all those
> > years, not once did I ever hear someone say "yes, it was the warmest,
> > but. keep in mind, only by a fraction of degree over 1934".
> > Now, we're going to umpteen decimal places to show that the difference
> > between 1998 and 1934 is really negligible.
> Well I guess you don't read much!
> http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2001/Hansen_etal.html
> Note published in 2001:
> "The U.S. mean temperature has now reached a level comparable to that
> of the 1930s, while the global temperature is now far above the levels
> earlier in the century."
>
>
>
>
> What do you mean by "far above", a small fraction of a degree??
> ROTFLMAO
You do know what quotation marks mean don't you?
|