Lloyd Parker

In article <bnm69q$12d4h3$1@ID-147790.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Earle Horton" <enfermero_diabolico@registerednurses.com> wrote:
>"A senile incontinent old fool named Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu>
>wrote in message news:bnm57i$ord$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>---snippy---
>> Perhaps if you knew some science, we could have an intelligent
>> discussion about science. But to claim, as some have here, that
>> evolution is not a fact is as UNintelligent as claiming atoms aren't
>> factual.
>>
>Evolution is not a fact Lloyd. It is a theory.

Bzzzt. Again, someone does not know what "theory" means in science. We have
something called "atomic theory." Does that mean atoms are not factual?


>It happens to be a good
>theory which explains much of the observed data, but it is still a theory.
>If you were a real scientist you would know this.
>
>Earle
>
>
It is a fact. It is as factual as atoms. It is as much a cornerstone of
biology as atoms are of chemistry.

Gerald G. McGeorge

Bravo!

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F4ECCD1.AB1C303@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > Perhaps if you knew some science, we could have an intelligent
discussion
> > about science.
>
> Explain to me the methods being used to measure the average global
> temperature that are both precise enough and consistent enough to
> separate a 0.4 degree C temperature rise out of the normal background
> variation over the past 1000 years. Explain to me any computer model
> that can predict 1 degree C average global temperature rises with any
> certainty when they can't even predict tomorrow's temperatures with 3
> degrees on a consistent basis.
>
> I assume you don't know any scientist who adjust their data to fit their
> preconceived notions.
>
> Weren't those cold fusion guys "scientist"? Heck I think they were even
> honest scientist.
>
> Do you honestly think the Earth's environment has ever been static and
> unchanging? Can you say with any certainty that global warming is worse
> than the environmental changes that would occur in its absence?
>
> Literally billions of tons of carbon have been effectively removed from
> the atmosphere over the last few billion years. At some point, might me
> have too little CO2?
>
> History is full of widely accepted theories that turned out to be wrong.
> Why are you so sure that Global Warming isn't one of these?
>
> I assume you believe that all scientist and government agency are
> completely honest and that they would never jump on a popular bandwagon
> as means of securing funding to support their careers/agencies? It has
> been my experience that people who say things are OK tend not to secure
> funding and soon need to find something else to do.
>
> Even if you are 100% right about global warming, might not the fixes be
> worse than doing nothing?
>
> Ed
>
> None of us is as dumb as all of us

Gerald G. McGeorge

Bravo!

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F4ECCD1.AB1C303@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > Perhaps if you knew some science, we could have an intelligent
discussion
> > about science.
>
> Explain to me the methods being used to measure the average global
> temperature that are both precise enough and consistent enough to
> separate a 0.4 degree C temperature rise out of the normal background
> variation over the past 1000 years. Explain to me any computer model
> that can predict 1 degree C average global temperature rises with any
> certainty when they can't even predict tomorrow's temperatures with 3
> degrees on a consistent basis.
>
> I assume you don't know any scientist who adjust their data to fit their
> preconceived notions.
>
> Weren't those cold fusion guys "scientist"? Heck I think they were even
> honest scientist.
>
> Do you honestly think the Earth's environment has ever been static and
> unchanging? Can you say with any certainty that global warming is worse
> than the environmental changes that would occur in its absence?
>
> Literally billions of tons of carbon have been effectively removed from
> the atmosphere over the last few billion years. At some point, might me
> have too little CO2?
>
> History is full of widely accepted theories that turned out to be wrong.
> Why are you so sure that Global Warming isn't one of these?
>
> I assume you believe that all scientist and government agency are
> completely honest and that they would never jump on a popular bandwagon
> as means of securing funding to support their careers/agencies? It has
> been my experience that people who say things are OK tend not to secure
> funding and soon need to find something else to do.
>
> Even if you are 100% right about global warming, might not the fixes be
> worse than doing nothing?
>
> Ed
>
> None of us is as dumb as all of us

Gerald G. McGeorge

Bravo!

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F4ECCD1.AB1C303@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > Perhaps if you knew some science, we could have an intelligent
discussion
> > about science.
>
> Explain to me the methods being used to measure the average global
> temperature that are both precise enough and consistent enough to
> separate a 0.4 degree C temperature rise out of the normal background
> variation over the past 1000 years. Explain to me any computer model
> that can predict 1 degree C average global temperature rises with any
> certainty when they can't even predict tomorrow's temperatures with 3
> degrees on a consistent basis.
>
> I assume you don't know any scientist who adjust their data to fit their
> preconceived notions.
>
> Weren't those cold fusion guys "scientist"? Heck I think they were even
> honest scientist.
>
> Do you honestly think the Earth's environment has ever been static and
> unchanging? Can you say with any certainty that global warming is worse
> than the environmental changes that would occur in its absence?
>
> Literally billions of tons of carbon have been effectively removed from
> the atmosphere over the last few billion years. At some point, might me
> have too little CO2?
>
> History is full of widely accepted theories that turned out to be wrong.
> Why are you so sure that Global Warming isn't one of these?
>
> I assume you believe that all scientist and government agency are
> completely honest and that they would never jump on a popular bandwagon
> as means of securing funding to support their careers/agencies? It has
> been my experience that people who say things are OK tend not to secure
> funding and soon need to find something else to do.
>
> Even if you are 100% right about global warming, might not the fixes be
> worse than doing nothing?
>
> Ed
>
> None of us is as dumb as all of us

Gerald G. McGeorge

> Personally I think global warming has been latched onto my modern Ludites
as a justification for their desire to smash everything and return to the
non-existent pristine past.
>

Precisely, the entire theory, and it's purported solutions, concur with the
anti-society philosophies of these green gadflies. Some of the scientific
community falls into line just to be on the wine & cheese party guest lists.

Gerald G. McGeorge

> Personally I think global warming has been latched onto my modern Ludites
as a justification for their desire to smash everything and return to the
non-existent pristine past.
>

Precisely, the entire theory, and it's purported solutions, concur with the
anti-society philosophies of these green gadflies. Some of the scientific
community falls into line just to be on the wine & cheese party guest lists.

Gerald G. McGeorge

> Personally I think global warming has been latched onto my modern Ludites
as a justification for their desire to smash everything and return to the
non-existent pristine past.
>

Precisely, the entire theory, and it's purported solutions, concur with the
anti-society philosophies of these green gadflies. Some of the scientific
community falls into line just to be on the wine & cheese party guest lists.

Brent P

In article <newscache$uekinh$o61$1@news.ipinc.net>, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> The problem is that in order to force the polluters to clean up their air
> pollution to the extent that acid rain disappears, we have to bring pressure
> to bear on them. If just the existence of acid rain itself was enough to
> get the public riled up enough to bring sufficient pressure, then there
> would be no problem. Unfortunately the public is unable to grasp
> complex ideas (well the majority of people are it seems) so loses
> interest in this whole acid rain thing rather quickly.

> So, the politicians picked global warming, which is ill defined but a
> simplistic concept, and serves the purpose of grabbing the public
> attention, getting them to apply pressure to their elected officials,
> who apply pressure to the polluters, who eventually when this goes on
> long enough, finally buckle and pay the money to install the scrubbers
> needed to clean the smokestack emissions so that the acid rain problem
> finally gets fixed. In the last analysis, neither side really gives a
> danm about global warming, the argument is really over acid rain. Only
> the general public is being manipulated by the image of global warming.

The concept of acid rain is relatively simple compared to the computer
climate models and everything else being used to try and 'prove' global
warming theories. If anything just put acid rain into a computer model
and the same folks should be made to follow along.

Global warming theory is being used for a political agenda because it
allows for _control_ of the population, control of economies, central
control by self appointed elites. It allows them to micro manage
everyone's life for the good of the planet. Meanwhile they get to
continue living the way they want. Note how dr. parker screams about
putting too much CO2 into the air yet drives a mercedes benz. This
is rather typical. There'd be alot more credibility if drove an insight
or a metro.

Then there are all the environmental policies designed to constrain
developed western nations while allowing 'developing' nations to
make all the same mistakes that were made in the west. We know better
now. If it were about the environment the policies would not be
structured this way. Needless harm to the environment simply would
not be allowed.

Brent P

In article <newscache$uekinh$o61$1@news.ipinc.net>, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> The problem is that in order to force the polluters to clean up their air
> pollution to the extent that acid rain disappears, we have to bring pressure
> to bear on them. If just the existence of acid rain itself was enough to
> get the public riled up enough to bring sufficient pressure, then there
> would be no problem. Unfortunately the public is unable to grasp
> complex ideas (well the majority of people are it seems) so loses
> interest in this whole acid rain thing rather quickly.

> So, the politicians picked global warming, which is ill defined but a
> simplistic concept, and serves the purpose of grabbing the public
> attention, getting them to apply pressure to their elected officials,
> who apply pressure to the polluters, who eventually when this goes on
> long enough, finally buckle and pay the money to install the scrubbers
> needed to clean the smokestack emissions so that the acid rain problem
> finally gets fixed. In the last analysis, neither side really gives a
> danm about global warming, the argument is really over acid rain. Only
> the general public is being manipulated by the image of global warming.

The concept of acid rain is relatively simple compared to the computer
climate models and everything else being used to try and 'prove' global
warming theories. If anything just put acid rain into a computer model
and the same folks should be made to follow along.

Global warming theory is being used for a political agenda because it
allows for _control_ of the population, control of economies, central
control by self appointed elites. It allows them to micro manage
everyone's life for the good of the planet. Meanwhile they get to
continue living the way they want. Note how dr. parker screams about
putting too much CO2 into the air yet drives a mercedes benz. This
is rather typical. There'd be alot more credibility if drove an insight
or a metro.

Then there are all the environmental policies designed to constrain
developed western nations while allowing 'developing' nations to
make all the same mistakes that were made in the west. We know better
now. If it were about the environment the policies would not be
structured this way. Needless harm to the environment simply would
not be allowed.

Brent P

In article <newscache$uekinh$o61$1@news.ipinc.net>, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> The problem is that in order to force the polluters to clean up their air
> pollution to the extent that acid rain disappears, we have to bring pressure
> to bear on them. If just the existence of acid rain itself was enough to
> get the public riled up enough to bring sufficient pressure, then there
> would be no problem. Unfortunately the public is unable to grasp
> complex ideas (well the majority of people are it seems) so loses
> interest in this whole acid rain thing rather quickly.

> So, the politicians picked global warming, which is ill defined but a
> simplistic concept, and serves the purpose of grabbing the public
> attention, getting them to apply pressure to their elected officials,
> who apply pressure to the polluters, who eventually when this goes on
> long enough, finally buckle and pay the money to install the scrubbers
> needed to clean the smokestack emissions so that the acid rain problem
> finally gets fixed. In the last analysis, neither side really gives a
> danm about global warming, the argument is really over acid rain. Only
> the general public is being manipulated by the image of global warming.

The concept of acid rain is relatively simple compared to the computer
climate models and everything else being used to try and 'prove' global
warming theories. If anything just put acid rain into a computer model
and the same folks should be made to follow along.

Global warming theory is being used for a political agenda because it
allows for _control_ of the population, control of economies, central
control by self appointed elites. It allows them to micro manage
everyone's life for the good of the planet. Meanwhile they get to
continue living the way they want. Note how dr. parker screams about
putting too much CO2 into the air yet drives a mercedes benz. This
is rather typical. There'd be alot more credibility if drove an insight
or a metro.

Then there are all the environmental policies designed to constrain
developed western nations while allowing 'developing' nations to
make all the same mistakes that were made in the west. We know better
now. If it were about the environment the policies would not be
structured this way. Needless harm to the environment simply would
not be allowed.