You're going to quote the NY Times? How about quoting a reputable paper? --- On Sun, 11/14/10, Nicholas Geti <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Nicholas Geti <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OT] Monkey Weather Science > To: "ProFox Email List" <[email protected]> > Date: Sunday, November 14, 2010, 11:34 PM > Then I am a jerkoffs because you are > wrong. Global warming is occurring. > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/science/earth/14ice.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a22 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Madigan" <[email protected]> > To: "ProFox Email List" <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 5:55 PM > Subject: Re: [NF] Monkey Weather Science > > > > What about all the retard global warming > jerkoffs? Remember when they > > said,. "Katrina was only the beginning". Find > those "scientists" and > > shoot them for malpractice. > > > > --- On Sun, 11/14/10, Pete Theisen <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> From: Pete Theisen <[email protected]> > >> Subject: [NF] Monkey Weather Science > >> To: "ProFox Email List" <[email protected]> > >> Date: Sunday, November 14, 2010, 12:57 PM > >> Hi Everybody, > >> > >> http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20101114/ARTICLE/11141026/-1/todayspaper?Title=Florida-insurers-rely-on-dubious-storm-model > >> > >> or > >> > >> http://tinyurl.com/3xc8tn2 > >> > >> "brought four hand-picked scientists together in a > Bermuda > >> hotel room. > >> > >> There, on a Saturday in October 2005, the company > gathered > >> the > >> justification it needed to rewrite hurricane risk. > Instead > >> of using 120 > >> years of history to calculate the average number > of storms > >> each year, > >> RMS used the scientists' work as the basis for a > new > >> crystal ball, a > >> computer model that would estimate storms for the > next five > >> years. > >> > >> "The change created an $82 billion gap between the > money > >> insurers had > >> and what they needed, a hole they spent the next > five years > >> trying to > >> fill with rate increases and policy > cancellations. > >> > >> "RMS said the change that drove Florida property > insurance > >> bills to > >> record highs was based on "scientific consensus." > >> > >> "The reality was quite different. > >> > >> "Today, two of the four scientists present that > day no > >> longer support > >> the hurricane estimates they helped generate. > Neither do > >> two other > >> scientists involved in later revisions. One says > that > >> monkeys could do > >> as well." > >> -- > >> Regards, > >> > >> Pete > >> http://pete-theisen.com/ > >> http://elect-pete-theisen.[excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
