Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:50:51 -0000 From: Gary Fritz <fritzxxxnospamrii.com> Subject: Re: Octane ratings.....what's the truth?
"Richard" <rootnospamlhost> wrote: > first of all: > You completely mis-interpret my words, and take them to mean something > they do not say. I apologize. That's a weakness of written communication, and I'll freely admit I might have responded a bit defensively. You raise some excellent points. I don't really have any argument with anything you said. It's possible that e.g. the storm measurement criteria changed at various points in time, but I think it is equally possible that the trends indicated by the data are still valid. If you look only at the data since 1944, the data (for everything but named storms) does not look as dramatically out of norm as the named-storm chart I referenced. I think a number of sources indicate a very likely problem in many areas -- not absolute certainty of course, but a likely and disturbing trend. I also think the kinds of responses that we should take IF those trends are true (reducing wasteful energy usage, reducing pollution, etc), are sensible responses to other issues (scarce energy sources, overpopulation, ecological problems, etc). So it mystifies me why some people are so resistant to even considering the possibility that there is a threat of major climate change. > I have put the numbers from that page in a spreadsheet and made some > nice graph of it. > I want you to see it. Thanks, but I built my own spreadsheet, so I've probably already seen basically the same graph. Thanks for your sensible and reasoned comments! Gary
