Re: The CO2 Effect Is Tiny

In article <DMuVj.77015$612.854@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, 
Justice@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 says...
> 
> > On Fri, 9 May 2008 02:14:03 -0400, "V-for-Vendicar"
> > <Justice@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> sayd the following:
> >
> >>1998 14.57  *********************o*****
> >>1999 14.33  *****************=====o
> >>2000 14.33  *****************======o
> >>2001 14.48  ************************o
> >>2002 14.56  *************************o**
> >>2003 14.55  **************************o*
> >>2004 14.49  *************************==o
> >>2005 14.63  *****************************o**
> >>2006 14.54  ***************************===o
> >>2007 14.57  *****************************
> >>
> >>Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
> 
> 
> "Robert Blass" <blame@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
> > Why did you pick 1998 as a starting point for your chart?
> 
>    Because the KKKonservative Denialist Lie was that temperatures have
been 
> falling since 1998, and they chose that year because it was a local 
> maximum. - an exceptionally warm year.

What exactly are those numbers above.  I.e. what is 14.57 in 1998?

John Black
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com
**