HI Mark,   
      
   On Mon 2011-Dec-26 22:32, Mark Hofmann (1:261/1304) wrote to Nancy Backus:   
      
   NB> Maybe... On the other hand, there are also weather cycles that usually   
   NB> get forgotten in the rhetoric.  Just takes a couple of odd ones to show   
   NB> up at the same time to make for very strange weather...   
      
   MH> The earth has been changing since the planet was formed.  We can't   
   MH> forget that at one time there were glaciers in the middle of the   
   MH> United States.  Taking the past 100 years of data and making a   
   MH> conclusion on that tiny fragment of time is not going to be   
   MH> accurate.     
      
   This is true, and I make the same argument when the guys   
   trying to interpret radio propagation, etc. do their black   
   art thing, because we don't have enough info to really   
   decipher long term patterns with it, radio is barely a   
   century old, or our use of it anyway.   
      
   What gives some weight to the climate change arguments imho   
   is some of the reading I"ve done on core samplings taken   
   from peat bogs in Europe, the polar ice at both poles, etc.   
   Growth rings on trees can provide some valuable data for   
   this as well.  The cyclic thing can be accounted for in   
   these growth rings and core samplings, but data indicates   
   that this recent changing is more rapid than others.   
      
   Some interesting reading if one's so inclined.  They're a   
   much more reliable historical record than man's historical   
   records of weather data, as we've only had capability to   
   measure a lot of parameters for a century or so, and records before then   
   weren't real reliable.   
      
   Regards,   
              Richard   
   ---   
    * Origin:  (1:116/901)