Big Fitz
User Quit *****
- Nov 23, 2009
- 16,917
- 2,522
- 48
When you hit 10,000, you've covered Minnesota. When you reach 22,000, you've added Wisconsin to your total. I'm sure that speaks for all lakes around the world.What a ridiculous study. They surveyed 167 lakes and were able to use data from 104 of them. Of that total 41 had "statistically significant" results. That's a 39% hit rate on the lakes that were used. I wonder where they were located? Near nuclear power plants? All lakes were in the northern hemisphere and 193 square miles or larger in extent. It's amazing the level to which NASA has sunk.
Love it. Selected changes in less than 0.0001% of all lakes worldwide, and you've got global warming.
You morons are bragging about how the math proves your insanity all the time. How about we start expanding your sample?
This is like awarding an Oscar based on 2 frames of film, a song title, the names of 3 of the crew, a 30 second clip of the score, and no preview from a 20 hour mini-series.
Yeah... that'll be accurate.