Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#2371
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vpogh8jrve7529@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
>news:b71opv8v0in3q2ra8l4u8fd4t6qa8p9vhb@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:48:15 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>> >>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>> >
>> >No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
>>
>> Then where did all the ice go?
>> It seems that you are denying the presence of pasdt ice ages (and the
>> following global warmings).
>
>Only an idiot would believe the climate we have now is stable. It has never
>remained stable for long, regardless of whether man were here or not the
>climate would still warm for awhile, then cool off again, then warm again,
>just as it always has. Lloyds claim is that the current global warming is
>man made.
Mine, and NASA, IPCC, NOAA, EPA, National Academy of Sciences, American
Geophysical Union, American Chemical Society...
>He ignores all the evidence which contradicts his claim.
There is none.
>He is a
>joke, a self delusional wannabe scientist grasping for any fame he can find.
>He is actually prety pathetic, but not so much I won't laugh at his stone
>age beliefs.
>
Yeah, and you're such a scientist, right? Tell us your degree.
>
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
>news:b71opv8v0in3q2ra8l4u8fd4t6qa8p9vhb@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:48:15 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>> >>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>> >
>> >No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
>>
>> Then where did all the ice go?
>> It seems that you are denying the presence of pasdt ice ages (and the
>> following global warmings).
>
>Only an idiot would believe the climate we have now is stable. It has never
>remained stable for long, regardless of whether man were here or not the
>climate would still warm for awhile, then cool off again, then warm again,
>just as it always has. Lloyds claim is that the current global warming is
>man made.
Mine, and NASA, IPCC, NOAA, EPA, National Academy of Sciences, American
Geophysical Union, American Chemical Society...
>He ignores all the evidence which contradicts his claim.
There is none.
>He is a
>joke, a self delusional wannabe scientist grasping for any fame he can find.
>He is actually prety pathetic, but not so much I won't laugh at his stone
>age beliefs.
>
Yeah, and you're such a scientist, right? Tell us your degree.
>
#2372
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3f9c7206.401144467@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com >,
mielkman@excite.com (John Mielke) wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:53:08 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3f99929f.212852660@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com >,
>> mielkman@excite.com (John Mielke) wrote:
>>>On Fri, 24 Oct 03 16:07:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <bn94sb$u9r3o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>>>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>>>>>"CO2 is produced by human activities"
>>>>>and nothing else.
>>>>
>>>>Liar. Noone has ever said that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??
>>>>
>>>>There was around 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, until the mid
>>>>19th century. Now there's 350 ppm, over a 25% increase.
>>>
>>>What test equipment did they use a hundred thousand years ago?
>>
>>We measure air trapped in artic ice cores.
>
>
>So you're saying that increased CO levels are NOT the sole reason for
>"global warming" - because if they were, the earth would only now be
>emerging from the ice age. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Lloyd.
>
No, they're the reason NOW. Do you suppose things may have different causes
from time to time? Do you suppose your computer might not work today because
of a virus whereas it might not have worked last week because of a faulty
chip?
>
mielkman@excite.com (John Mielke) wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:53:08 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3f99929f.212852660@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com >,
>> mielkman@excite.com (John Mielke) wrote:
>>>On Fri, 24 Oct 03 16:07:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <bn94sb$u9r3o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>>>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>>>>>"CO2 is produced by human activities"
>>>>>and nothing else.
>>>>
>>>>Liar. Noone has ever said that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??
>>>>
>>>>There was around 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, until the mid
>>>>19th century. Now there's 350 ppm, over a 25% increase.
>>>
>>>What test equipment did they use a hundred thousand years ago?
>>
>>We measure air trapped in artic ice cores.
>
>
>So you're saying that increased CO levels are NOT the sole reason for
>"global warming" - because if they were, the earth would only now be
>emerging from the ice age. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Lloyd.
>
No, they're the reason NOW. Do you suppose things may have different causes
from time to time? Do you suppose your computer might not work today because
of a virus whereas it might not have worked last week because of a faulty
chip?
>
#2373
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3f9c7206.401144467@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com >,
mielkman@excite.com (John Mielke) wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:53:08 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3f99929f.212852660@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com >,
>> mielkman@excite.com (John Mielke) wrote:
>>>On Fri, 24 Oct 03 16:07:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <bn94sb$u9r3o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>>>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>>>>>"CO2 is produced by human activities"
>>>>>and nothing else.
>>>>
>>>>Liar. Noone has ever said that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??
>>>>
>>>>There was around 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, until the mid
>>>>19th century. Now there's 350 ppm, over a 25% increase.
>>>
>>>What test equipment did they use a hundred thousand years ago?
>>
>>We measure air trapped in artic ice cores.
>
>
>So you're saying that increased CO levels are NOT the sole reason for
>"global warming" - because if they were, the earth would only now be
>emerging from the ice age. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Lloyd.
>
No, they're the reason NOW. Do you suppose things may have different causes
from time to time? Do you suppose your computer might not work today because
of a virus whereas it might not have worked last week because of a faulty
chip?
>
mielkman@excite.com (John Mielke) wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:53:08 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3f99929f.212852660@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com >,
>> mielkman@excite.com (John Mielke) wrote:
>>>On Fri, 24 Oct 03 16:07:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <bn94sb$u9r3o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>>>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>>>>>"CO2 is produced by human activities"
>>>>>and nothing else.
>>>>
>>>>Liar. Noone has ever said that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??
>>>>
>>>>There was around 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, until the mid
>>>>19th century. Now there's 350 ppm, over a 25% increase.
>>>
>>>What test equipment did they use a hundred thousand years ago?
>>
>>We measure air trapped in artic ice cores.
>
>
>So you're saying that increased CO levels are NOT the sole reason for
>"global warming" - because if they were, the earth would only now be
>emerging from the ice age. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Lloyd.
>
No, they're the reason NOW. Do you suppose things may have different causes
from time to time? Do you suppose your computer might not work today because
of a virus whereas it might not have worked last week because of a faulty
chip?
>
#2374
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3f9c7206.401144467@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com >,
mielkman@excite.com (John Mielke) wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:53:08 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3f99929f.212852660@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com >,
>> mielkman@excite.com (John Mielke) wrote:
>>>On Fri, 24 Oct 03 16:07:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <bn94sb$u9r3o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>>>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>>>>>"CO2 is produced by human activities"
>>>>>and nothing else.
>>>>
>>>>Liar. Noone has ever said that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??
>>>>
>>>>There was around 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, until the mid
>>>>19th century. Now there's 350 ppm, over a 25% increase.
>>>
>>>What test equipment did they use a hundred thousand years ago?
>>
>>We measure air trapped in artic ice cores.
>
>
>So you're saying that increased CO levels are NOT the sole reason for
>"global warming" - because if they were, the earth would only now be
>emerging from the ice age. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Lloyd.
>
No, they're the reason NOW. Do you suppose things may have different causes
from time to time? Do you suppose your computer might not work today because
of a virus whereas it might not have worked last week because of a faulty
chip?
>
mielkman@excite.com (John Mielke) wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:53:08 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3f99929f.212852660@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com >,
>> mielkman@excite.com (John Mielke) wrote:
>>>On Fri, 24 Oct 03 16:07:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <bn94sb$u9r3o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>>>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>>>>>"CO2 is produced by human activities"
>>>>>and nothing else.
>>>>
>>>>Liar. Noone has ever said that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??
>>>>
>>>>There was around 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, until the mid
>>>>19th century. Now there's 350 ppm, over a 25% increase.
>>>
>>>What test equipment did they use a hundred thousand years ago?
>>
>>We measure air trapped in artic ice cores.
>
>
>So you're saying that increased CO levels are NOT the sole reason for
>"global warming" - because if they were, the earth would only now be
>emerging from the ice age. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Lloyd.
>
No, they're the reason NOW. Do you suppose things may have different causes
from time to time? Do you suppose your computer might not work today because
of a virus whereas it might not have worked last week because of a faulty
chip?
>
#2375
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <kq%mb.37513$Fm2.15080@attbi_s04>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>>>>> Relativity is an established fact.
>
>>>>>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
>>>>>behaviors.
>
>>>> No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
>>>That's not the same statement as the one you wrote before.
>
>> That **is** one of the central aspects of relativity -- time is relative.
If
>> time moves more slowly for some observers, by definition, that's
relativity.
>
>*ONE OF* Hence it is not the same as your all inclusive statement.
I cited one property that proves relativity.
>
>>>>>> Evolution is an established fact.
>>>>>It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.
>>>> No, it is a fact; there's an accompanying explanation as to how it
happens.
>
>>>No. It's a theory, an explanation supported with evidence. Until an
>>>explaination that better fits the evidence, the facts, we have evolution.
>
>> No, it's as much established fact as gravity. There's gravity, the fact,
and
>> a theory of gravity, explaining it. Similarly, there's evolution, the
fact,
>> and a theory of evolution, explaining it.
>
>Parker makes one last ditch effort with word play. You clearly ment the later
>in your initial and followup statements.
Huh? Do you know what the work "theory" means in science?
>
>>>>>> Global warming from (at
>>>>>> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
>
>>>>>Gobal warming is nebulus term that is used to describe everything that
>>>>>occurs with climate.
>>>
>>>> No, warming on a global scale.
>>>
>>>*sigh*. Read it again lloyd. (the climate = the climate of earth, in
>>>whole or in part)
>
>> Global warming means warming on a global scale, not "in part."
>
>You aren't grasping the entire context of what I wrote. With you I can't
>tell if it's on purpose with your typical less than honest debate style
>or if you really are that dumb. Go, back re-read, before you cut my initial
>reply up and try to grasp the meaning of it. Everything that occurs with
>the climate is claimed by global warming believers to be something that
>supports the theory.
You, sir, are lying.
>Much like that other guy's cite tried to make
>everything fit the bible, global warming believers try to make every bit
>of odd weather fit the global warming, climate change scheme.
>
>>>>>Thusly it can't be wrong. One part of the world is
>>>>>getting warmer? It's global warming. Another part of the world is getting
>>>>>colder? It's global warming. One critter flurishes, it's global warming.
>>>>>another critter is dying off, it's global warming. so on and so on. No
>>>>>matter what happens, it supports "global warming".
>>>
>>>> The world is getting warmer; that's why it's called _global_ warming.
>>>
>>>That's nice parker. Space aliens mutiliate cattle too...
>>>
>>>I peaked into sci.environment recently, saw people acting like the recent
>>>US warm spell was global warming in action.
>
>> You saw scientific facts and explanation.
>
>Yet, if someone where to post that a US cold snap was a sign of no global
>warming, you and others would ream that person a new ------- and say he
>didn't know the difference between weather and climate. When someone
>blames some odd weather on global warming because it's hotter than normal,
>true believers like you say it's "scientific facts and explanation".
>
>>>As usual didn't see you
>>>chastising them. Of course should someone suggest cold weather means
>>>there isn't global warming you and others jump in calling the person a
>>>moron with some saying that unusual cold too is proof of 'gobal warming'.
>
>> I see you're still too dumb to understand what "global" means.
>
>I see you are too stupid to grasp a simple point. The point is the behavior
>of global warming believers pretty much parallels creationists trying to
>make everything fit the bible.
As I said, you are lying. Try reading some scientific sources.
>
>>>>>"Global warming" isn't even well defined with regards to what it is and
>>>>>what it entails, let alone being an established fact. Of course it's hard
>>>>>to disprove something that isn't fixed in definition.
>
>>>> Yes it is.
>>>No, global warming theory is not fixed in any shape or form.
>
>> It's a fact; there are theories to explain it, just like gravity and
>> evolution.
>
>Theory != fact,
yes it is. Try learning some science.
>and I am refering to the theory titled "gobal warming"
Again, you obviously do not know what "theory" means in science.
>as you were initially. But if you want to play the same word games, wether
>the temperature of the earth is going up, down, staying the same depends
>on what measures you use.
>
Wrong. You need to look at the data.
>> Look, pal, to tell scientists global warming isn't factual is the height of
>> stupidity.
>
>Hey you ------- moron, why don't you sue the school the that sold you
>a PhD? You don't have the mindset to be a real scienist. Maybe that's why
>you haven't published jack ----, right parker?
Why don't you tell us what area of science your Ph.D. is in?
>
>>>>>> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
>
>>>>>I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.
>
>>>> So which journals do you read? What area of science is your graduate
degree
>>>> in?
>
>>>I told you long ago what my graduate degree is in.
>
>> Then tell us again.
>
>Parker, we've been going back and forth for years. If you don't remember
>then you're too stupid to even use google.
>
>>>> You're the church here.
>
>>>How so parker? I'm the one with the open mind. The one who could be
>>>convinced that say the theory of evolution is wrong provided suitable
>>>evidence was presented. Can you say the same? I don't think so.
>
>> The open mind? Do you keep an open mind that creationism could be correct?
>> That the earth might be 6000 years old? That evil spirits could be the
cause
>> of disease?
>
>Do you believe that the greys are mind controlling Bill Clinton? Do you
>beat your wife?
>
>Is that the kind of lame -------- you want to play with parker? I can play
>that game too and play it better than you if I need to.
>
>> Try learning some science.
>
>I know alot more than you already parker. Try playing some catch up.
>
Yeah, sure. Not if you believe evolution isn't factual. You're just another
creationist, pretending to be a scientist.
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>>>>> Relativity is an established fact.
>
>>>>>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
>>>>>behaviors.
>
>>>> No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
>>>That's not the same statement as the one you wrote before.
>
>> That **is** one of the central aspects of relativity -- time is relative.
If
>> time moves more slowly for some observers, by definition, that's
relativity.
>
>*ONE OF* Hence it is not the same as your all inclusive statement.
I cited one property that proves relativity.
>
>>>>>> Evolution is an established fact.
>>>>>It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.
>>>> No, it is a fact; there's an accompanying explanation as to how it
happens.
>
>>>No. It's a theory, an explanation supported with evidence. Until an
>>>explaination that better fits the evidence, the facts, we have evolution.
>
>> No, it's as much established fact as gravity. There's gravity, the fact,
and
>> a theory of gravity, explaining it. Similarly, there's evolution, the
fact,
>> and a theory of evolution, explaining it.
>
>Parker makes one last ditch effort with word play. You clearly ment the later
>in your initial and followup statements.
Huh? Do you know what the work "theory" means in science?
>
>>>>>> Global warming from (at
>>>>>> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
>
>>>>>Gobal warming is nebulus term that is used to describe everything that
>>>>>occurs with climate.
>>>
>>>> No, warming on a global scale.
>>>
>>>*sigh*. Read it again lloyd. (the climate = the climate of earth, in
>>>whole or in part)
>
>> Global warming means warming on a global scale, not "in part."
>
>You aren't grasping the entire context of what I wrote. With you I can't
>tell if it's on purpose with your typical less than honest debate style
>or if you really are that dumb. Go, back re-read, before you cut my initial
>reply up and try to grasp the meaning of it. Everything that occurs with
>the climate is claimed by global warming believers to be something that
>supports the theory.
You, sir, are lying.
>Much like that other guy's cite tried to make
>everything fit the bible, global warming believers try to make every bit
>of odd weather fit the global warming, climate change scheme.
>
>>>>>Thusly it can't be wrong. One part of the world is
>>>>>getting warmer? It's global warming. Another part of the world is getting
>>>>>colder? It's global warming. One critter flurishes, it's global warming.
>>>>>another critter is dying off, it's global warming. so on and so on. No
>>>>>matter what happens, it supports "global warming".
>>>
>>>> The world is getting warmer; that's why it's called _global_ warming.
>>>
>>>That's nice parker. Space aliens mutiliate cattle too...
>>>
>>>I peaked into sci.environment recently, saw people acting like the recent
>>>US warm spell was global warming in action.
>
>> You saw scientific facts and explanation.
>
>Yet, if someone where to post that a US cold snap was a sign of no global
>warming, you and others would ream that person a new ------- and say he
>didn't know the difference between weather and climate. When someone
>blames some odd weather on global warming because it's hotter than normal,
>true believers like you say it's "scientific facts and explanation".
>
>>>As usual didn't see you
>>>chastising them. Of course should someone suggest cold weather means
>>>there isn't global warming you and others jump in calling the person a
>>>moron with some saying that unusual cold too is proof of 'gobal warming'.
>
>> I see you're still too dumb to understand what "global" means.
>
>I see you are too stupid to grasp a simple point. The point is the behavior
>of global warming believers pretty much parallels creationists trying to
>make everything fit the bible.
As I said, you are lying. Try reading some scientific sources.
>
>>>>>"Global warming" isn't even well defined with regards to what it is and
>>>>>what it entails, let alone being an established fact. Of course it's hard
>>>>>to disprove something that isn't fixed in definition.
>
>>>> Yes it is.
>>>No, global warming theory is not fixed in any shape or form.
>
>> It's a fact; there are theories to explain it, just like gravity and
>> evolution.
>
>Theory != fact,
yes it is. Try learning some science.
>and I am refering to the theory titled "gobal warming"
Again, you obviously do not know what "theory" means in science.
>as you were initially. But if you want to play the same word games, wether
>the temperature of the earth is going up, down, staying the same depends
>on what measures you use.
>
Wrong. You need to look at the data.
>> Look, pal, to tell scientists global warming isn't factual is the height of
>> stupidity.
>
>Hey you ------- moron, why don't you sue the school the that sold you
>a PhD? You don't have the mindset to be a real scienist. Maybe that's why
>you haven't published jack ----, right parker?
Why don't you tell us what area of science your Ph.D. is in?
>
>>>>>> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
>
>>>>>I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.
>
>>>> So which journals do you read? What area of science is your graduate
degree
>>>> in?
>
>>>I told you long ago what my graduate degree is in.
>
>> Then tell us again.
>
>Parker, we've been going back and forth for years. If you don't remember
>then you're too stupid to even use google.
>
>>>> You're the church here.
>
>>>How so parker? I'm the one with the open mind. The one who could be
>>>convinced that say the theory of evolution is wrong provided suitable
>>>evidence was presented. Can you say the same? I don't think so.
>
>> The open mind? Do you keep an open mind that creationism could be correct?
>> That the earth might be 6000 years old? That evil spirits could be the
cause
>> of disease?
>
>Do you believe that the greys are mind controlling Bill Clinton? Do you
>beat your wife?
>
>Is that the kind of lame -------- you want to play with parker? I can play
>that game too and play it better than you if I need to.
>
>> Try learning some science.
>
>I know alot more than you already parker. Try playing some catch up.
>
Yeah, sure. Not if you believe evolution isn't factual. You're just another
creationist, pretending to be a scientist.
#2376
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <kq%mb.37513$Fm2.15080@attbi_s04>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>>>>> Relativity is an established fact.
>
>>>>>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
>>>>>behaviors.
>
>>>> No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
>>>That's not the same statement as the one you wrote before.
>
>> That **is** one of the central aspects of relativity -- time is relative.
If
>> time moves more slowly for some observers, by definition, that's
relativity.
>
>*ONE OF* Hence it is not the same as your all inclusive statement.
I cited one property that proves relativity.
>
>>>>>> Evolution is an established fact.
>>>>>It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.
>>>> No, it is a fact; there's an accompanying explanation as to how it
happens.
>
>>>No. It's a theory, an explanation supported with evidence. Until an
>>>explaination that better fits the evidence, the facts, we have evolution.
>
>> No, it's as much established fact as gravity. There's gravity, the fact,
and
>> a theory of gravity, explaining it. Similarly, there's evolution, the
fact,
>> and a theory of evolution, explaining it.
>
>Parker makes one last ditch effort with word play. You clearly ment the later
>in your initial and followup statements.
Huh? Do you know what the work "theory" means in science?
>
>>>>>> Global warming from (at
>>>>>> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
>
>>>>>Gobal warming is nebulus term that is used to describe everything that
>>>>>occurs with climate.
>>>
>>>> No, warming on a global scale.
>>>
>>>*sigh*. Read it again lloyd. (the climate = the climate of earth, in
>>>whole or in part)
>
>> Global warming means warming on a global scale, not "in part."
>
>You aren't grasping the entire context of what I wrote. With you I can't
>tell if it's on purpose with your typical less than honest debate style
>or if you really are that dumb. Go, back re-read, before you cut my initial
>reply up and try to grasp the meaning of it. Everything that occurs with
>the climate is claimed by global warming believers to be something that
>supports the theory.
You, sir, are lying.
>Much like that other guy's cite tried to make
>everything fit the bible, global warming believers try to make every bit
>of odd weather fit the global warming, climate change scheme.
>
>>>>>Thusly it can't be wrong. One part of the world is
>>>>>getting warmer? It's global warming. Another part of the world is getting
>>>>>colder? It's global warming. One critter flurishes, it's global warming.
>>>>>another critter is dying off, it's global warming. so on and so on. No
>>>>>matter what happens, it supports "global warming".
>>>
>>>> The world is getting warmer; that's why it's called _global_ warming.
>>>
>>>That's nice parker. Space aliens mutiliate cattle too...
>>>
>>>I peaked into sci.environment recently, saw people acting like the recent
>>>US warm spell was global warming in action.
>
>> You saw scientific facts and explanation.
>
>Yet, if someone where to post that a US cold snap was a sign of no global
>warming, you and others would ream that person a new ------- and say he
>didn't know the difference between weather and climate. When someone
>blames some odd weather on global warming because it's hotter than normal,
>true believers like you say it's "scientific facts and explanation".
>
>>>As usual didn't see you
>>>chastising them. Of course should someone suggest cold weather means
>>>there isn't global warming you and others jump in calling the person a
>>>moron with some saying that unusual cold too is proof of 'gobal warming'.
>
>> I see you're still too dumb to understand what "global" means.
>
>I see you are too stupid to grasp a simple point. The point is the behavior
>of global warming believers pretty much parallels creationists trying to
>make everything fit the bible.
As I said, you are lying. Try reading some scientific sources.
>
>>>>>"Global warming" isn't even well defined with regards to what it is and
>>>>>what it entails, let alone being an established fact. Of course it's hard
>>>>>to disprove something that isn't fixed in definition.
>
>>>> Yes it is.
>>>No, global warming theory is not fixed in any shape or form.
>
>> It's a fact; there are theories to explain it, just like gravity and
>> evolution.
>
>Theory != fact,
yes it is. Try learning some science.
>and I am refering to the theory titled "gobal warming"
Again, you obviously do not know what "theory" means in science.
>as you were initially. But if you want to play the same word games, wether
>the temperature of the earth is going up, down, staying the same depends
>on what measures you use.
>
Wrong. You need to look at the data.
>> Look, pal, to tell scientists global warming isn't factual is the height of
>> stupidity.
>
>Hey you ------- moron, why don't you sue the school the that sold you
>a PhD? You don't have the mindset to be a real scienist. Maybe that's why
>you haven't published jack ----, right parker?
Why don't you tell us what area of science your Ph.D. is in?
>
>>>>>> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
>
>>>>>I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.
>
>>>> So which journals do you read? What area of science is your graduate
degree
>>>> in?
>
>>>I told you long ago what my graduate degree is in.
>
>> Then tell us again.
>
>Parker, we've been going back and forth for years. If you don't remember
>then you're too stupid to even use google.
>
>>>> You're the church here.
>
>>>How so parker? I'm the one with the open mind. The one who could be
>>>convinced that say the theory of evolution is wrong provided suitable
>>>evidence was presented. Can you say the same? I don't think so.
>
>> The open mind? Do you keep an open mind that creationism could be correct?
>> That the earth might be 6000 years old? That evil spirits could be the
cause
>> of disease?
>
>Do you believe that the greys are mind controlling Bill Clinton? Do you
>beat your wife?
>
>Is that the kind of lame -------- you want to play with parker? I can play
>that game too and play it better than you if I need to.
>
>> Try learning some science.
>
>I know alot more than you already parker. Try playing some catch up.
>
Yeah, sure. Not if you believe evolution isn't factual. You're just another
creationist, pretending to be a scientist.
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>>>>> Relativity is an established fact.
>
>>>>>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
>>>>>behaviors.
>
>>>> No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
>>>That's not the same statement as the one you wrote before.
>
>> That **is** one of the central aspects of relativity -- time is relative.
If
>> time moves more slowly for some observers, by definition, that's
relativity.
>
>*ONE OF* Hence it is not the same as your all inclusive statement.
I cited one property that proves relativity.
>
>>>>>> Evolution is an established fact.
>>>>>It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.
>>>> No, it is a fact; there's an accompanying explanation as to how it
happens.
>
>>>No. It's a theory, an explanation supported with evidence. Until an
>>>explaination that better fits the evidence, the facts, we have evolution.
>
>> No, it's as much established fact as gravity. There's gravity, the fact,
and
>> a theory of gravity, explaining it. Similarly, there's evolution, the
fact,
>> and a theory of evolution, explaining it.
>
>Parker makes one last ditch effort with word play. You clearly ment the later
>in your initial and followup statements.
Huh? Do you know what the work "theory" means in science?
>
>>>>>> Global warming from (at
>>>>>> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
>
>>>>>Gobal warming is nebulus term that is used to describe everything that
>>>>>occurs with climate.
>>>
>>>> No, warming on a global scale.
>>>
>>>*sigh*. Read it again lloyd. (the climate = the climate of earth, in
>>>whole or in part)
>
>> Global warming means warming on a global scale, not "in part."
>
>You aren't grasping the entire context of what I wrote. With you I can't
>tell if it's on purpose with your typical less than honest debate style
>or if you really are that dumb. Go, back re-read, before you cut my initial
>reply up and try to grasp the meaning of it. Everything that occurs with
>the climate is claimed by global warming believers to be something that
>supports the theory.
You, sir, are lying.
>Much like that other guy's cite tried to make
>everything fit the bible, global warming believers try to make every bit
>of odd weather fit the global warming, climate change scheme.
>
>>>>>Thusly it can't be wrong. One part of the world is
>>>>>getting warmer? It's global warming. Another part of the world is getting
>>>>>colder? It's global warming. One critter flurishes, it's global warming.
>>>>>another critter is dying off, it's global warming. so on and so on. No
>>>>>matter what happens, it supports "global warming".
>>>
>>>> The world is getting warmer; that's why it's called _global_ warming.
>>>
>>>That's nice parker. Space aliens mutiliate cattle too...
>>>
>>>I peaked into sci.environment recently, saw people acting like the recent
>>>US warm spell was global warming in action.
>
>> You saw scientific facts and explanation.
>
>Yet, if someone where to post that a US cold snap was a sign of no global
>warming, you and others would ream that person a new ------- and say he
>didn't know the difference between weather and climate. When someone
>blames some odd weather on global warming because it's hotter than normal,
>true believers like you say it's "scientific facts and explanation".
>
>>>As usual didn't see you
>>>chastising them. Of course should someone suggest cold weather means
>>>there isn't global warming you and others jump in calling the person a
>>>moron with some saying that unusual cold too is proof of 'gobal warming'.
>
>> I see you're still too dumb to understand what "global" means.
>
>I see you are too stupid to grasp a simple point. The point is the behavior
>of global warming believers pretty much parallels creationists trying to
>make everything fit the bible.
As I said, you are lying. Try reading some scientific sources.
>
>>>>>"Global warming" isn't even well defined with regards to what it is and
>>>>>what it entails, let alone being an established fact. Of course it's hard
>>>>>to disprove something that isn't fixed in definition.
>
>>>> Yes it is.
>>>No, global warming theory is not fixed in any shape or form.
>
>> It's a fact; there are theories to explain it, just like gravity and
>> evolution.
>
>Theory != fact,
yes it is. Try learning some science.
>and I am refering to the theory titled "gobal warming"
Again, you obviously do not know what "theory" means in science.
>as you were initially. But if you want to play the same word games, wether
>the temperature of the earth is going up, down, staying the same depends
>on what measures you use.
>
Wrong. You need to look at the data.
>> Look, pal, to tell scientists global warming isn't factual is the height of
>> stupidity.
>
>Hey you ------- moron, why don't you sue the school the that sold you
>a PhD? You don't have the mindset to be a real scienist. Maybe that's why
>you haven't published jack ----, right parker?
Why don't you tell us what area of science your Ph.D. is in?
>
>>>>>> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
>
>>>>>I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.
>
>>>> So which journals do you read? What area of science is your graduate
degree
>>>> in?
>
>>>I told you long ago what my graduate degree is in.
>
>> Then tell us again.
>
>Parker, we've been going back and forth for years. If you don't remember
>then you're too stupid to even use google.
>
>>>> You're the church here.
>
>>>How so parker? I'm the one with the open mind. The one who could be
>>>convinced that say the theory of evolution is wrong provided suitable
>>>evidence was presented. Can you say the same? I don't think so.
>
>> The open mind? Do you keep an open mind that creationism could be correct?
>> That the earth might be 6000 years old? That evil spirits could be the
cause
>> of disease?
>
>Do you believe that the greys are mind controlling Bill Clinton? Do you
>beat your wife?
>
>Is that the kind of lame -------- you want to play with parker? I can play
>that game too and play it better than you if I need to.
>
>> Try learning some science.
>
>I know alot more than you already parker. Try playing some catch up.
>
Yeah, sure. Not if you believe evolution isn't factual. You're just another
creationist, pretending to be a scientist.
#2377
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <kq%mb.37513$Fm2.15080@attbi_s04>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>>>>> Relativity is an established fact.
>
>>>>>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
>>>>>behaviors.
>
>>>> No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
>>>That's not the same statement as the one you wrote before.
>
>> That **is** one of the central aspects of relativity -- time is relative.
If
>> time moves more slowly for some observers, by definition, that's
relativity.
>
>*ONE OF* Hence it is not the same as your all inclusive statement.
I cited one property that proves relativity.
>
>>>>>> Evolution is an established fact.
>>>>>It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.
>>>> No, it is a fact; there's an accompanying explanation as to how it
happens.
>
>>>No. It's a theory, an explanation supported with evidence. Until an
>>>explaination that better fits the evidence, the facts, we have evolution.
>
>> No, it's as much established fact as gravity. There's gravity, the fact,
and
>> a theory of gravity, explaining it. Similarly, there's evolution, the
fact,
>> and a theory of evolution, explaining it.
>
>Parker makes one last ditch effort with word play. You clearly ment the later
>in your initial and followup statements.
Huh? Do you know what the work "theory" means in science?
>
>>>>>> Global warming from (at
>>>>>> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
>
>>>>>Gobal warming is nebulus term that is used to describe everything that
>>>>>occurs with climate.
>>>
>>>> No, warming on a global scale.
>>>
>>>*sigh*. Read it again lloyd. (the climate = the climate of earth, in
>>>whole or in part)
>
>> Global warming means warming on a global scale, not "in part."
>
>You aren't grasping the entire context of what I wrote. With you I can't
>tell if it's on purpose with your typical less than honest debate style
>or if you really are that dumb. Go, back re-read, before you cut my initial
>reply up and try to grasp the meaning of it. Everything that occurs with
>the climate is claimed by global warming believers to be something that
>supports the theory.
You, sir, are lying.
>Much like that other guy's cite tried to make
>everything fit the bible, global warming believers try to make every bit
>of odd weather fit the global warming, climate change scheme.
>
>>>>>Thusly it can't be wrong. One part of the world is
>>>>>getting warmer? It's global warming. Another part of the world is getting
>>>>>colder? It's global warming. One critter flurishes, it's global warming.
>>>>>another critter is dying off, it's global warming. so on and so on. No
>>>>>matter what happens, it supports "global warming".
>>>
>>>> The world is getting warmer; that's why it's called _global_ warming.
>>>
>>>That's nice parker. Space aliens mutiliate cattle too...
>>>
>>>I peaked into sci.environment recently, saw people acting like the recent
>>>US warm spell was global warming in action.
>
>> You saw scientific facts and explanation.
>
>Yet, if someone where to post that a US cold snap was a sign of no global
>warming, you and others would ream that person a new ------- and say he
>didn't know the difference between weather and climate. When someone
>blames some odd weather on global warming because it's hotter than normal,
>true believers like you say it's "scientific facts and explanation".
>
>>>As usual didn't see you
>>>chastising them. Of course should someone suggest cold weather means
>>>there isn't global warming you and others jump in calling the person a
>>>moron with some saying that unusual cold too is proof of 'gobal warming'.
>
>> I see you're still too dumb to understand what "global" means.
>
>I see you are too stupid to grasp a simple point. The point is the behavior
>of global warming believers pretty much parallels creationists trying to
>make everything fit the bible.
As I said, you are lying. Try reading some scientific sources.
>
>>>>>"Global warming" isn't even well defined with regards to what it is and
>>>>>what it entails, let alone being an established fact. Of course it's hard
>>>>>to disprove something that isn't fixed in definition.
>
>>>> Yes it is.
>>>No, global warming theory is not fixed in any shape or form.
>
>> It's a fact; there are theories to explain it, just like gravity and
>> evolution.
>
>Theory != fact,
yes it is. Try learning some science.
>and I am refering to the theory titled "gobal warming"
Again, you obviously do not know what "theory" means in science.
>as you were initially. But if you want to play the same word games, wether
>the temperature of the earth is going up, down, staying the same depends
>on what measures you use.
>
Wrong. You need to look at the data.
>> Look, pal, to tell scientists global warming isn't factual is the height of
>> stupidity.
>
>Hey you ------- moron, why don't you sue the school the that sold you
>a PhD? You don't have the mindset to be a real scienist. Maybe that's why
>you haven't published jack ----, right parker?
Why don't you tell us what area of science your Ph.D. is in?
>
>>>>>> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
>
>>>>>I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.
>
>>>> So which journals do you read? What area of science is your graduate
degree
>>>> in?
>
>>>I told you long ago what my graduate degree is in.
>
>> Then tell us again.
>
>Parker, we've been going back and forth for years. If you don't remember
>then you're too stupid to even use google.
>
>>>> You're the church here.
>
>>>How so parker? I'm the one with the open mind. The one who could be
>>>convinced that say the theory of evolution is wrong provided suitable
>>>evidence was presented. Can you say the same? I don't think so.
>
>> The open mind? Do you keep an open mind that creationism could be correct?
>> That the earth might be 6000 years old? That evil spirits could be the
cause
>> of disease?
>
>Do you believe that the greys are mind controlling Bill Clinton? Do you
>beat your wife?
>
>Is that the kind of lame -------- you want to play with parker? I can play
>that game too and play it better than you if I need to.
>
>> Try learning some science.
>
>I know alot more than you already parker. Try playing some catch up.
>
Yeah, sure. Not if you believe evolution isn't factual. You're just another
creationist, pretending to be a scientist.
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>>>>> Relativity is an established fact.
>
>>>>>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
>>>>>behaviors.
>
>>>> No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
>>>That's not the same statement as the one you wrote before.
>
>> That **is** one of the central aspects of relativity -- time is relative.
If
>> time moves more slowly for some observers, by definition, that's
relativity.
>
>*ONE OF* Hence it is not the same as your all inclusive statement.
I cited one property that proves relativity.
>
>>>>>> Evolution is an established fact.
>>>>>It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.
>>>> No, it is a fact; there's an accompanying explanation as to how it
happens.
>
>>>No. It's a theory, an explanation supported with evidence. Until an
>>>explaination that better fits the evidence, the facts, we have evolution.
>
>> No, it's as much established fact as gravity. There's gravity, the fact,
and
>> a theory of gravity, explaining it. Similarly, there's evolution, the
fact,
>> and a theory of evolution, explaining it.
>
>Parker makes one last ditch effort with word play. You clearly ment the later
>in your initial and followup statements.
Huh? Do you know what the work "theory" means in science?
>
>>>>>> Global warming from (at
>>>>>> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
>
>>>>>Gobal warming is nebulus term that is used to describe everything that
>>>>>occurs with climate.
>>>
>>>> No, warming on a global scale.
>>>
>>>*sigh*. Read it again lloyd. (the climate = the climate of earth, in
>>>whole or in part)
>
>> Global warming means warming on a global scale, not "in part."
>
>You aren't grasping the entire context of what I wrote. With you I can't
>tell if it's on purpose with your typical less than honest debate style
>or if you really are that dumb. Go, back re-read, before you cut my initial
>reply up and try to grasp the meaning of it. Everything that occurs with
>the climate is claimed by global warming believers to be something that
>supports the theory.
You, sir, are lying.
>Much like that other guy's cite tried to make
>everything fit the bible, global warming believers try to make every bit
>of odd weather fit the global warming, climate change scheme.
>
>>>>>Thusly it can't be wrong. One part of the world is
>>>>>getting warmer? It's global warming. Another part of the world is getting
>>>>>colder? It's global warming. One critter flurishes, it's global warming.
>>>>>another critter is dying off, it's global warming. so on and so on. No
>>>>>matter what happens, it supports "global warming".
>>>
>>>> The world is getting warmer; that's why it's called _global_ warming.
>>>
>>>That's nice parker. Space aliens mutiliate cattle too...
>>>
>>>I peaked into sci.environment recently, saw people acting like the recent
>>>US warm spell was global warming in action.
>
>> You saw scientific facts and explanation.
>
>Yet, if someone where to post that a US cold snap was a sign of no global
>warming, you and others would ream that person a new ------- and say he
>didn't know the difference between weather and climate. When someone
>blames some odd weather on global warming because it's hotter than normal,
>true believers like you say it's "scientific facts and explanation".
>
>>>As usual didn't see you
>>>chastising them. Of course should someone suggest cold weather means
>>>there isn't global warming you and others jump in calling the person a
>>>moron with some saying that unusual cold too is proof of 'gobal warming'.
>
>> I see you're still too dumb to understand what "global" means.
>
>I see you are too stupid to grasp a simple point. The point is the behavior
>of global warming believers pretty much parallels creationists trying to
>make everything fit the bible.
As I said, you are lying. Try reading some scientific sources.
>
>>>>>"Global warming" isn't even well defined with regards to what it is and
>>>>>what it entails, let alone being an established fact. Of course it's hard
>>>>>to disprove something that isn't fixed in definition.
>
>>>> Yes it is.
>>>No, global warming theory is not fixed in any shape or form.
>
>> It's a fact; there are theories to explain it, just like gravity and
>> evolution.
>
>Theory != fact,
yes it is. Try learning some science.
>and I am refering to the theory titled "gobal warming"
Again, you obviously do not know what "theory" means in science.
>as you were initially. But if you want to play the same word games, wether
>the temperature of the earth is going up, down, staying the same depends
>on what measures you use.
>
Wrong. You need to look at the data.
>> Look, pal, to tell scientists global warming isn't factual is the height of
>> stupidity.
>
>Hey you ------- moron, why don't you sue the school the that sold you
>a PhD? You don't have the mindset to be a real scienist. Maybe that's why
>you haven't published jack ----, right parker?
Why don't you tell us what area of science your Ph.D. is in?
>
>>>>>> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
>
>>>>>I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.
>
>>>> So which journals do you read? What area of science is your graduate
degree
>>>> in?
>
>>>I told you long ago what my graduate degree is in.
>
>> Then tell us again.
>
>Parker, we've been going back and forth for years. If you don't remember
>then you're too stupid to even use google.
>
>>>> You're the church here.
>
>>>How so parker? I'm the one with the open mind. The one who could be
>>>convinced that say the theory of evolution is wrong provided suitable
>>>evidence was presented. Can you say the same? I don't think so.
>
>> The open mind? Do you keep an open mind that creationism could be correct?
>> That the earth might be 6000 years old? That evil spirits could be the
cause
>> of disease?
>
>Do you believe that the greys are mind controlling Bill Clinton? Do you
>beat your wife?
>
>Is that the kind of lame -------- you want to play with parker? I can play
>that game too and play it better than you if I need to.
>
>> Try learning some science.
>
>I know alot more than you already parker. Try playing some catch up.
>
Yeah, sure. Not if you believe evolution isn't factual. You're just another
creationist, pretending to be a scientist.
#2378
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <Gs%mb.38952$e01.85589@attbi_s02>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bngqba$8h4$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>>
>> No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
>
>It also started at the same time man started flying with heavier than
>air machines. A real scienist knows better than to make statements like
>the one above as "proof" as I demonstrate with another thing that started
>at the same time and has increased since.
If you look at the data (I know that's a foreign concept to you), global
warming began around the middle of the 19th century, as human combustion
activities started picking up.
>
>
>
>
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bngqba$8h4$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>>
>> No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
>
>It also started at the same time man started flying with heavier than
>air machines. A real scienist knows better than to make statements like
>the one above as "proof" as I demonstrate with another thing that started
>at the same time and has increased since.
If you look at the data (I know that's a foreign concept to you), global
warming began around the middle of the 19th century, as human combustion
activities started picking up.
>
>
>
>
#2379
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <Gs%mb.38952$e01.85589@attbi_s02>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bngqba$8h4$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>>
>> No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
>
>It also started at the same time man started flying with heavier than
>air machines. A real scienist knows better than to make statements like
>the one above as "proof" as I demonstrate with another thing that started
>at the same time and has increased since.
If you look at the data (I know that's a foreign concept to you), global
warming began around the middle of the 19th century, as human combustion
activities started picking up.
>
>
>
>
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bngqba$8h4$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>>
>> No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
>
>It also started at the same time man started flying with heavier than
>air machines. A real scienist knows better than to make statements like
>the one above as "proof" as I demonstrate with another thing that started
>at the same time and has increased since.
If you look at the data (I know that's a foreign concept to you), global
warming began around the middle of the 19th century, as human combustion
activities started picking up.
>
>
>
>
#2380
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <Gs%mb.38952$e01.85589@attbi_s02>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bngqba$8h4$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>>
>> No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
>
>It also started at the same time man started flying with heavier than
>air machines. A real scienist knows better than to make statements like
>the one above as "proof" as I demonstrate with another thing that started
>at the same time and has increased since.
If you look at the data (I know that's a foreign concept to you), global
warming began around the middle of the 19th century, as human combustion
activities started picking up.
>
>
>
>
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bngqba$8h4$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>>
>> No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
>
>It also started at the same time man started flying with heavier than
>air machines. A real scienist knows better than to make statements like
>the one above as "proof" as I demonstrate with another thing that started
>at the same time and has increased since.
If you look at the data (I know that's a foreign concept to you), global
warming began around the middle of the 19th century, as human combustion
activities started picking up.
>
>
>
>