In article m.com, says...

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:01:41 -0700, Tunderbar wrote:

On Sep 13, 8:53 pm, (Eric Swanson) wrote:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5128029.html --

So now it isn't the strength of the storm or the number of storms but how
quickly they develop that proves global warming. I get it now.

But I'll bet dollars to donuts that when a storm becomes very strong, that
will be proof of global warming. And when a storm is weak, that will be
proof. And when there are a lot of storms in a season, that will be proof.
And when there are no storms, that will be proof. And when a bird flies
into my living room window with a thud, the thud will be proof of global
warming. And when the bird doesn't run into my window, that will be proof
of global warming. And when ___________________ (enter naturally occurring
phenomenon) happens, that will be proof of global warming. And when
___________________ (enter naturally occurring phenomenon) doesn't happen,
that will be proof of global warming.


Anyone getting tired of this infantile and unscientific game yet?

Yeah. We should require that for anecdotal proof to be valid, it must at
least be interesting or funny.

With all the sockhead clowns posting these days, the laughter is deafening.
Where is there any mention of a connection between Humberto and AGW?
The apparent lack of reading comprehension is simply astounding.

ROTFLMHO!

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------