To: Grampa Dave
A downward revision of 288 acres is news?
A 0.06% change?
Somebody got paid our tax money to run the numbers again, write a press release, contact the reporters, and for what?
To: Carry_Okie
As usual you are right on target. When I saw that refigured acres to drop the total burned by 288 acres, (I didn't even bother to calculate the 0.06% change that you did), I had the same questions that you did.
There has too be some reason for trying to keep this fire below 500,000 acres, so they are recalculating or skewering the data.
I guess that 499,780 acres burnt is Politically and probably diversity correct. If it gets over 500,000 acres, some Americans might pay attention to it for a minute or two.
To: Carry_Okie; Grampa Dave
Just imagine how much smaller it'll be if we get hammered with rainfall this winter!
The whole mess may just ooz into the big pond on the left.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson