Mike, no I have not. But I have switched to fluorescent. I don't quite like the hue it gives off though so I may try LED's in the near future. Or at least a different fluorescent.

MB, trust me. There has been plenty off warm weather saved up the last couple of months to more than make up for this short cold front. It's supposed to be in the mid 70's for the high this time of year. But it has consistently been in the 80's every day.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <Jeremy J.>,

I've ordered one led flood light to try on our patio and see how it works.

Mike, lemme know.

Hey Bill, look at this forecast for BFLO, NY today. I'll bet it has something to do with Jupiter's warming. I'll bet since Jupiter is SOOO big, that when it gets closer to Earth on it's orbit, that it affects the warming cycles of the Earth. Ya think this is an average forecast for the snowiest area in the US?

"Overnight: Cloudy, with a low around 58. South wind between 15 and 18 mph, with gusts as high as 31 mph.

Tuesday: A chance of showers, mainly before 1pm. Cloudy, with a high near 66. Breezy, with a south wind 13 to 16 mph increasing to between 21 and 24 mph. Chance of precipitation is 40%. New rainfall amounts of less than a tenth of an inch possible."

I believe you've pointed out before that we're talking about GLOBAL warming, not instances of temperatures at a particular point.

Ask someone in Georgia or the Carolinas, and they'll tell you all about the drought. Ask someone in Texas or Oklahoma, and they'll tell you about the rain and flooding.

How much is the global temperature going to rise in the next 100 years?

Since it would be an estimation, should you not ask how much it has risen from the past till present to determine change?

The man-made global warming theorists are now reduced to grasping at straws!!!!!!!!!!

well it snowed in bagdad so i guess global warming caused that too!

It was 65° in New Hampshire this week. So what's your point?

Here is some more news the non believers can chew on.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22643132/

The only global warming I believe in...

Dave

quote:

Mike, lemme know.

Got one. It works very well outside but I'm to sure how their indoor lights will work for reading. Blind guys like me need a bright light.

It's amazing the man-made global warming fanatics trumpeting the loss of ice in the Arctic never get around to mentioning the Antarctic ice shelf is thicker then it has ever been, TODAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHY??????????????????????

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Koski:
It's amazing the man-made global warming fanatics trumpeting the loss of ice in the Arctic never get around to mentioning the Antarctic ice shelf is thicker then it has ever been, TODAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHY??????????????????????

The leading U.S. climate scientist Dr. James Hansen responded via email saying "The most precise data on the mass of the ice sheets, from the gravity satellite, show that, overall, Antarctica is losing mass, as is Greenland, even though East Antarctica is gaining a small amount of mass."

"All of the models, and the observations, have the central parts of Greenland and Antarctica growing faster because of global warming. This is a consequence of warmer air holding more moisture, thus increasing snowfall. But the net effect of warming on both continental ice sheets is mass loss, the increased melting being a larger effect than the increased snowfall.

But the reason that the North Pole is melting so much faster (last years summer minimum shattering the previous record of 2005) than the South Pole is very easy to understand.

The South Polar Ice Sheet is two miles thick. That means that the ice is at an altitude of over ten thousand feet where the temperature is much colder than a mere six or so feet as at the North Pole. This makes it impossible for the slight rise in global mean temperature to have any affect at all in the south accept around the edges of the continent.

Also, it sits on a continent rather than on water that is above freezing - as in the north. The ice in the north is an average of 6 to 12 feet thick and is being warmed from beneath as well as above. This has a much larger impact on the North Polar Ice Cap.

Ole Al could fuel this baby all by himself.



Eco-boat powered by human fat










Zell/Granny 2008

Send Your Thanks To the U.S.Military

Post a Message to our Soldiers

Of all the things I've lost,
I miss my mind the most
Grandpa Bob
Professional Fence Hanger / Spectator
Former Crew Chief
Grandma's Rocking Chair

Isn't this hanson the charlatan that took thousands of dollars from soros???????
Why would soros GIVE him money out of the blue and coincidentally his views did a 180 overnight after that and he started spouting absolute poppy****, which has been cited as (FACT?) above!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Koski:
Isn't this hanson the charlatan that took thousands of dollars from soros???????
Why would soros GIVE him money out of the blue and coincidentally his views did a 180 overnight after that and he started spouting absolute poppy****, which has been cited as (FACT?) above!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In 2005, college dropout George Deutsch was appointed as a NASA press officer. He did a lot of crazy things, such as altering references to the Big Bang (which he called merely an "opinion"), and trying to prevent NASA scientist James Hansen from speaking to the media about climate change. Hansen rightfully resisted. In the process Hansen accepted pro bono legal representation from the Government Accountability Project, a non-profit and non-partisan whistleblower protection organization. GAP also offered Hansen a Ridenauer award, which included $10,000, but Hansen declined.

Therefore, the IBD editorial is flat out wrong. Hansen received $0 from George Soros (or from anyone else) in this entire exchange.

So where did the $720,000 for the "politicization of science" claim come from? Well, the non-profit GAP accepts donations from many organizations interested in protecting whistleblowers (including the Ford Foundation and Rockefeller Family Fund). One group that recently donated was the Open Society Institute (OSI), a part of the Soros Foundation, which donated $100,000 total to GAP for the purpose of protecting whistleblowers in science and engineering. IBD picked the $720,000 figure because that was OSI's total budget for combating the politicization of science. It seems like IBD just picked the biggest figure they could find in their cursory glance at all the budgets that could have possibly been involved.

Of course, this is really nothing new for IBD, which had previously incorrectly asserted that James Hansen predicted an imminent ice age.

Nonetheless, as expected, this meme has already taken off. In a recent Newsbusters article, Jake Gontesky makes the following claims about James Hansen.

Under the so-called "politicization of science" program, George Soros' (the favorite fundraiser of many democrats) has reportedly given as much as $720,000 to Hansen to help package his alarmist claims and get them pushed by the mainstream media...

So he got some big paychecks from Soros - but was there a quid pro quo? The evidence certainly indicates as much


Basically, Gontesky is trying to push the "global warming is a conspiracy by Big Environment" meme. Oh, and Brent Bozell's Media Research Center (of which Newsbusters is an arm) has accepted $202,500 from Exxon-Mobil since 2003. Nice.
http://lots-o-thoughts.blogspot.com/2007/09/new-meme-hansen-paid-by-soros.html

Oh yeah, let's believe an ultra left-wing blog covering up for some goofball that was being paid by somebody and insisted on going out and spouting off about his off-the-wall idiocy, whistle blower my a s s!!!!!!!!!!!
Somewhere not long ago I saw the story from the late 70's quoting him about the catastrophic consequences the rapidly approaching ice-age would have on humanity!

James Hansen," So it was a bit of a surprise when I began to be inundated a few days ago with reports that I had issued proclamations five years earlier, in 1971, that the Earth was headed into an ice age.

Here is how this swift-boating works. First on 19 September 2007 a Washington Times article by John McCaslin reported that a 9 July 1971 article by Victor Cohn in the Washington Post had been discovered with the title “U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming”. The scientist, S.I. Rasool, is reported as saying that the world “could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age”.

This is an old story: Rasool and (Steve) Schneider published a paper in Science on that day noting that if human-made aerosols (small particles in the air) increased by a factor of four, other things being equal, they could cause massive global cooling. At Steve’s 60th birthday celebration I argued that the Rasool and Schneider paper was a useful scientific paper, an example of hypothesis testing, in the spirit of good science. But what is the news today? Mr. McCaslin reported that Rasool and Hansen were colleagues at NASA and “Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus.”
What was that program? It was a ‘Mie scattering’ code I had written to calculate light scattering by spherical particles. Indeed, it was useful for Venus studies, as it helped determine the size and refractive index of the particles in the clouds that veil the surface of Venus. I was glad to let Rasool and Schneider use that program to calculate scattering by aerosols. But Mie scattering functions, although more complex, are like sine and cosine mathematical functions, simply a useful tool for many problems. Allowing this scattering function to be used by other people does not in any way make me responsible for a climate theory.
Yet as this story passes from one swift boater to another it gets juicier and juicier, e.g.:

Global Warming Scientist Once Warned of ‘Ice Age’
By Doug Ware — KUTV.com

[I won’t reprint the w**** piece of nonsense here]

It is little wonder that I have been getting nasty e-mails the past several days.

The lesson is — don’t believe everything you read in the press, especially the conservative press."