Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#2811
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Whatsa matter, Lloyd, logic get your tongue? You were spouting all the green
tripe like an advocate a few days ago until contrary info and logic showed
up, now all you can say is "More BS"? No Greenpeace awards for YOU!
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4e8$kba$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FA03D91.3080807@computer.org>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
> >Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>
> More BS:
>
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
> >
> >http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
> >
> >They still can't shake the ingrained notion that man has caused this,
> >but they'll come around eventually and likely add new "causes" as well.
> > Trouble is, it is very hard to separate causes from correlation,
> >especially in areas like this where it is pretty hard to run controlled
> >experiments. Simple observation of data can easily lead to such
> >confusion. I suspect many other things can be found to correlate with
> >global climate changes, but I'll also bet that few of them are causes.
> >
> >
> >Matt
> >
tripe like an advocate a few days ago until contrary info and logic showed
up, now all you can say is "More BS"? No Greenpeace awards for YOU!
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4e8$kba$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FA03D91.3080807@computer.org>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
> >Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>
> More BS:
>
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
> >
> >http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
> >
> >They still can't shake the ingrained notion that man has caused this,
> >but they'll come around eventually and likely add new "causes" as well.
> > Trouble is, it is very hard to separate causes from correlation,
> >especially in areas like this where it is pretty hard to run controlled
> >experiments. Simple observation of data can easily lead to such
> >confusion. I suspect many other things can be found to correlate with
> >global climate changes, but I'll also bet that few of them are causes.
> >
> >
> >Matt
> >
#2812
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Whatsa matter, Lloyd, logic get your tongue? You were spouting all the green
tripe like an advocate a few days ago until contrary info and logic showed
up, now all you can say is "More BS"? No Greenpeace awards for YOU!
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4e8$kba$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FA03D91.3080807@computer.org>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
> >Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>
> More BS:
>
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
> >
> >http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
> >
> >They still can't shake the ingrained notion that man has caused this,
> >but they'll come around eventually and likely add new "causes" as well.
> > Trouble is, it is very hard to separate causes from correlation,
> >especially in areas like this where it is pretty hard to run controlled
> >experiments. Simple observation of data can easily lead to such
> >confusion. I suspect many other things can be found to correlate with
> >global climate changes, but I'll also bet that few of them are causes.
> >
> >
> >Matt
> >
tripe like an advocate a few days ago until contrary info and logic showed
up, now all you can say is "More BS"? No Greenpeace awards for YOU!
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4e8$kba$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FA03D91.3080807@computer.org>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
> >Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>
> More BS:
>
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
> >
> >http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
> >
> >They still can't shake the ingrained notion that man has caused this,
> >but they'll come around eventually and likely add new "causes" as well.
> > Trouble is, it is very hard to separate causes from correlation,
> >especially in areas like this where it is pretty hard to run controlled
> >experiments. Simple observation of data can easily lead to such
> >confusion. I suspect many other things can be found to correlate with
> >global climate changes, but I'll also bet that few of them are causes.
> >
> >
> >Matt
> >
#2813
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
More logic, eh Lloyd?
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4bt$kba$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>
> Here's one of the fools:
>
> >Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
> >
> >These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
> >masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll
use
> >any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
> >gain political control.
> >
> >The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
> >morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
> >When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
> >had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2
emissions
> >are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
> >caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
> >housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse
for
> >wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
> >"communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
> >paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
> >sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
think
> >I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
> >
> >
> >> 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. <
> >
> >
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4bt$kba$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>
> Here's one of the fools:
>
> >Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
> >
> >These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
> >masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll
use
> >any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
> >gain political control.
> >
> >The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
> >morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
> >When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
> >had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2
emissions
> >are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
> >caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
> >housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse
for
> >wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
> >"communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
> >paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
> >sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
think
> >I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
> >
> >
> >> 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. <
> >
> >
#2814
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
More logic, eh Lloyd?
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4bt$kba$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>
> Here's one of the fools:
>
> >Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
> >
> >These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
> >masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll
use
> >any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
> >gain political control.
> >
> >The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
> >morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
> >When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
> >had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2
emissions
> >are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
> >caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
> >housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse
for
> >wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
> >"communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
> >paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
> >sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
think
> >I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
> >
> >
> >> 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. <
> >
> >
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4bt$kba$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>
> Here's one of the fools:
>
> >Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
> >
> >These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
> >masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll
use
> >any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
> >gain political control.
> >
> >The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
> >morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
> >When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
> >had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2
emissions
> >are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
> >caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
> >housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse
for
> >wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
> >"communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
> >paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
> >sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
think
> >I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
> >
> >
> >> 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. <
> >
> >
#2815
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
More logic, eh Lloyd?
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4bt$kba$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>
> Here's one of the fools:
>
> >Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
> >
> >These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
> >masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll
use
> >any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
> >gain political control.
> >
> >The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
> >morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
> >When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
> >had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2
emissions
> >are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
> >caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
> >housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse
for
> >wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
> >"communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
> >paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
> >sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
think
> >I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
> >
> >
> >> 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. <
> >
> >
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4bt$kba$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>
> Here's one of the fools:
>
> >Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
> >
> >These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
> >masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll
use
> >any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
> >gain political control.
> >
> >The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
> >morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
> >When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
> >had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2
emissions
> >are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
> >caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
> >housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse
for
> >wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
> >"communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
> >paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
> >sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
think
> >I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
> >
> >
> >> 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. <
> >
> >
#2816
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
We're waiting for a lucid response Lloyd? (Hey, how come you can't explain
for us the creation of the Sahara, huh? How many coal-fired powerplants did
that take?)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4di$kba$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <aBWnb.57501$Fm2.35469@attbi_s04>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> And another fool:
>
> >In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> >> Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >> These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control
the
> >> masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll
use
> >> any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt
to
> >> gain political control.
> >
> >I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
> >seems to be a favoring of China IMO.
> >
> >> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
> >> morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's &
70's.
> >> When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily,
they
> >> had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2
emissions
> >> are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into
the
> >> caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
> >> housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse
for
> >> wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
> >> "communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
> >> paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
> >> sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
> think
> >> I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
> >
> >There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
> >all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
> >it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
> >environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
> >different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
> >This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.
> >
> >CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
> >Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
> >for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
> >released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
> >however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
> >environment second. It's the only explaination.
> >
> >Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
> >chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
> >releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
> >CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
> >global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
> >and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
> >made.
> >
> >On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
> >about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
> >things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
> >hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
> >also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
> >'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?
> >
> >To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
> >any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
> >do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
> >when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
> >See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
> >even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
> >the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
> >combustion. ;)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
for us the creation of the Sahara, huh? How many coal-fired powerplants did
that take?)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4di$kba$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <aBWnb.57501$Fm2.35469@attbi_s04>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> And another fool:
>
> >In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> >> Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >> These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control
the
> >> masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll
use
> >> any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt
to
> >> gain political control.
> >
> >I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
> >seems to be a favoring of China IMO.
> >
> >> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
> >> morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's &
70's.
> >> When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily,
they
> >> had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2
emissions
> >> are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into
the
> >> caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
> >> housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse
for
> >> wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
> >> "communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
> >> paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
> >> sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
> think
> >> I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
> >
> >There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
> >all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
> >it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
> >environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
> >different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
> >This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.
> >
> >CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
> >Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
> >for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
> >released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
> >however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
> >environment second. It's the only explaination.
> >
> >Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
> >chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
> >releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
> >CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
> >global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
> >and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
> >made.
> >
> >On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
> >about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
> >things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
> >hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
> >also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
> >'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?
> >
> >To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
> >any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
> >do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
> >when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
> >See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
> >even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
> >the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
> >combustion. ;)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
#2817
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
We're waiting for a lucid response Lloyd? (Hey, how come you can't explain
for us the creation of the Sahara, huh? How many coal-fired powerplants did
that take?)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4di$kba$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <aBWnb.57501$Fm2.35469@attbi_s04>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> And another fool:
>
> >In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> >> Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >> These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control
the
> >> masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll
use
> >> any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt
to
> >> gain political control.
> >
> >I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
> >seems to be a favoring of China IMO.
> >
> >> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
> >> morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's &
70's.
> >> When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily,
they
> >> had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2
emissions
> >> are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into
the
> >> caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
> >> housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse
for
> >> wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
> >> "communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
> >> paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
> >> sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
> think
> >> I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
> >
> >There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
> >all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
> >it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
> >environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
> >different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
> >This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.
> >
> >CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
> >Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
> >for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
> >released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
> >however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
> >environment second. It's the only explaination.
> >
> >Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
> >chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
> >releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
> >CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
> >global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
> >and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
> >made.
> >
> >On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
> >about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
> >things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
> >hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
> >also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
> >'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?
> >
> >To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
> >any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
> >do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
> >when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
> >See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
> >even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
> >the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
> >combustion. ;)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
for us the creation of the Sahara, huh? How many coal-fired powerplants did
that take?)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4di$kba$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <aBWnb.57501$Fm2.35469@attbi_s04>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> And another fool:
>
> >In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> >> Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >> These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control
the
> >> masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll
use
> >> any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt
to
> >> gain political control.
> >
> >I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
> >seems to be a favoring of China IMO.
> >
> >> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
> >> morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's &
70's.
> >> When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily,
they
> >> had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2
emissions
> >> are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into
the
> >> caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
> >> housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse
for
> >> wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
> >> "communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
> >> paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
> >> sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
> think
> >> I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
> >
> >There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
> >all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
> >it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
> >environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
> >different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
> >This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.
> >
> >CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
> >Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
> >for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
> >released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
> >however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
> >environment second. It's the only explaination.
> >
> >Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
> >chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
> >releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
> >CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
> >global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
> >and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
> >made.
> >
> >On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
> >about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
> >things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
> >hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
> >also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
> >'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?
> >
> >To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
> >any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
> >do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
> >when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
> >See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
> >even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
> >the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
> >combustion. ;)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
#2818
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
We're waiting for a lucid response Lloyd? (Hey, how come you can't explain
for us the creation of the Sahara, huh? How many coal-fired powerplants did
that take?)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4di$kba$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <aBWnb.57501$Fm2.35469@attbi_s04>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> And another fool:
>
> >In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> >> Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >> These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control
the
> >> masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll
use
> >> any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt
to
> >> gain political control.
> >
> >I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
> >seems to be a favoring of China IMO.
> >
> >> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
> >> morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's &
70's.
> >> When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily,
they
> >> had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2
emissions
> >> are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into
the
> >> caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
> >> housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse
for
> >> wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
> >> "communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
> >> paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
> >> sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
> think
> >> I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
> >
> >There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
> >all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
> >it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
> >environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
> >different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
> >This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.
> >
> >CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
> >Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
> >for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
> >released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
> >however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
> >environment second. It's the only explaination.
> >
> >Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
> >chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
> >releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
> >CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
> >global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
> >and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
> >made.
> >
> >On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
> >about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
> >things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
> >hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
> >also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
> >'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?
> >
> >To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
> >any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
> >do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
> >when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
> >See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
> >even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
> >the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
> >combustion. ;)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
for us the creation of the Sahara, huh? How many coal-fired powerplants did
that take?)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4di$kba$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <aBWnb.57501$Fm2.35469@attbi_s04>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> And another fool:
>
> >In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> >> Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >> These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control
the
> >> masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll
use
> >> any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt
to
> >> gain political control.
> >
> >I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
> >seems to be a favoring of China IMO.
> >
> >> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
> >> morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's &
70's.
> >> When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily,
they
> >> had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2
emissions
> >> are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into
the
> >> caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
> >> housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse
for
> >> wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
> >> "communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
> >> paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
> >> sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
> think
> >> I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
> >
> >There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
> >all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
> >it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
> >environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
> >different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
> >This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.
> >
> >CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
> >Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
> >for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
> >released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
> >however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
> >environment second. It's the only explaination.
> >
> >Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
> >chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
> >releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
> >CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
> >global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
> >and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
> >made.
> >
> >On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
> >about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
> >things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
> >hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
> >also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
> >'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?
> >
> >To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
> >any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
> >do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
> >when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
> >See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
> >even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
> >the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
> >combustion. ;)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
#2819
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd, the world trembles at the searing intellect behind your pithy
posts....
Hey, don't worry, one of those 9 morons the Democrats have out there wagging
their tax & spend, cut & run gums might get elected and save your whole
little comfy green peer group from further humiliation.
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4k9$kba$6@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vq0qtnc1m8gd45@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Same old, same old.
>
> >
> >"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
> >news:bnnein02qe3@enews4.newsguy.com...
> >> Thanks for posting the link & text, Doug. Indeed, back in the mid-70's
> >> theses same looney greens took all the "global cooling" crap just as
> >> seriously as they do all the hand wringing carbon dioxide theories now.
> >>
> >
> >Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
> >before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
> >made such a claim.
> >This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even National Academy
of
> >Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From Lloyd about it. He
must
> >really hate being proven wrong on every statement he makes. ;-)
> >
> >
> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >> news:vpu8qml6qbn381@corp.supernews.com...
> >> >
> >> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:bnn0hd01qbc@enews4.newsguy.com...
> >> > > Mr. Parker:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Are you saying the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, EPA, NOAA,
> >> etc.,
> >> > > have jumped onto something that's not proven? <
> >> > >
> >> > > Yes, and despite the bleatings of certain mavens of socialist dogma
> >(for
> >> > > whom this entire theory has become a convenint mantra) those
agencies
> >> look
> >> > > upon the greenhouse gas theory as just that, a THEORY among others.
No
> >> one
> >> > > has conclusiely proven that "global warming" even exists. Indeed,
the
> >> temp
> >> > > fluctuations gas (bag) theorists espouse aren't even significant
> >within
> >> > the
> >> > > margin of error of their measuiring techniques.
> >> > >
> >> > > Might I remind you, my over zealous, green friend, 25 years ago
these
> >> same
> >> > > social and scientific radicals were predicting the dawn of a NEW
ICE
> >> AGE,
> >> > > becuase, they theorized, global temps were falling due to man made
> >gases
> >> > > blocking the sun. Funny how it turned out that at that same time we
> >were
> >> > in
> >> > > a period of low solar activity....
> >> >
> >> > Just for Lloyd:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm
> >> >
> >> > For those who don't use links, here it is, but it is a little long:
> >> >
> >> > FROM
> >> > Newsweek
> >> > April 28, 1975 Studies
> >> > Facts & Figures
> >> > Selected Links
> >> > Weather
> >> > Health
> >> >
> >> > The Cooling World
> >> > There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather
patterns
> >> > have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend
a
> >> > drastic decline in food production- with serious political
implications
> >> for
> >> > just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin
> >> quite
> >> > soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel
its
> >> > impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R.
in
> >> the
> >> > North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical
> >areas -
> >> > parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where
> >the
> >> > growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
> >> >
> >> > The evidence in support of these predictions has now
> >begun
> >> to
> >> > accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep
up
> >> with
> >> > it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by
about
> >> two
> >> > weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production
> >> > estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the
> >> average
> >> > temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree -
a
> >> > fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last
April,
> >> in
> >> > the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148
twisters
> >> > killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth
of
> >> > damage in 13 U.S. states.
> >> >
> >> > To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents
> >> represent
> >> > the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather.
> >> > Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as
well
> >
> >> as
> >> > over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are
> >almost
> >> > unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural
> >productivity
> >> > for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as
> >some
> >> > of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.
"A
> >> > major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on
a
> >> > worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of
> >> Sciences,
> >> > "because the global patterns of food production and population that
have
> >> > evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present
century."
> >> >
> >> > A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of
> >the
> >> > National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of
half a
> >> > degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere
between
> >> > 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University,
> >satellite
> >> > photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow
> >> cover
> >> > in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA
> >> > scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in
the
> >> > continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
> >> >
> >> > To the layman, the relatively small changes in
> >temperature
> >> > and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University
of
> >> > Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the
> >great
> >> > Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest
> >eras -
> >> > and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of
the
> >way
> >> > toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion
to
> >> the
> >> > "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of
> >Europe
> >> > and northern America between 1600 and 1900 - years when the Thames
used
> >to
> >> > freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when
> >iceboats
> >> > sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
> >> >
> >> > Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages
> >> > remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic
change
> >is
> >> at
> >> > least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of
> >> Sciences
> >> > report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely
unanswered,
> >> but
> >> > in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."
> >> >
> >> > Meteorologists think that they can forecast the
> >short-term
> >> > results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by
> >> noting
> >> > the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of
> >> > pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth
flow
> >> of
> >> > westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in
this
> >way
> >> > causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts,
> >floods,
> >> > extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local
> >> > temperature increases - all of which have a direct impact on food
> >> supplies.
> >> >
> >> > "The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James
D.
> >> > McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment,
"is
> >> much
> >> > more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years
ago."
> >> > Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new
national
> >> > boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from
their
> >> > devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
> >> >
> >> > Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders
> >will
> >> > take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or
even
> >to
> >> > allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular
> >> solutions
> >> > proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with
black
> >> soot
> >> > or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than
those
> >> > they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders
> >> > anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling
> >food
> >> > or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic
> >> > projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay,
the
> >> more
> >> > difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the
> >results
> >> > become grim reality.
> >> >
> >> > Reprinted from Financial Post - Canada, Jun 21, 2000
> >> >
> >> > All Material Subject to Copyright.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > > The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. <
> >> > >
> >> > > How about this: there is NO solution, because 1) there may not even
be
> >a
> >> > > problem, 2) if it is actually occuring, then natural forces, such
as
> >> > > geothermal and solar activity, may be the primary, indeed the only
> >> source.
> >> > >
> >> > > > That means driving less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles,
> >using
> >> > coal
> >> > > less, using more renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not
> >> > > clear-cutting forests... <
> >> > >
> >> > > On, and how convenient all of those solutions will be in making the
> >> > > Draconian, confiscatory dreams of social radicals come true!
> >> > >
> >> > > > >GGM: Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent
warming
> >has
> >> a
> >> > > perfect correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity. <
> >> > >
> >> > > > Parker: Funny how that's nonexistent. <
> >> > >
> >> > > Might I refer you, my science-spouting, but ill-informed friend,
to
> >all
> >> > of
> >> > > the studies being done that show we are just leaving a period of
high
> >> > solar
> >> > > activity, which began in the early '80's. Funny how this activty
> >> PRECISLY
> >> > > parallels data showing a rise in global temps. (Look it up, if you
can
> >> > stand
> >> > > the truth.)
> >> > >
> >> > > > GGM: Two Danish scientists (Friz-Christiansen & Lassen) have
proven
> >a
> >> > > direct cause & effect between periods of high solar activity and
earth
> >> > > temps, going back hundreds of years. <
> >> > >
> >> > > > Parker: Which has been studied and cannot account for all the
> >current
> >> > > warming. <
> >> > >
> >> > > It has NOT been studied by the gas (bag) theorists, they even tried
to
> >> > quash
> >> > > the two scientists findings because it was too shocking to their
pet
> >> > > theories. However, objective greehouse gas theorists has been
forced
> >to
> >> > > admit the accuracy of their findings and they cannot explain away
> >their
> >> > > findings of a direct correlation between periods of high solar
> >activity
> >> /
> >> > > low cloud formation and vice versa. Tree ring data, etc. have all
been
> >> > > studied and the correlation has been proven...the gas (bag)
theorists
> >> just
> >> > > don't want to accept it because it puts the lie to all of their
> >carping.
> >> > >
> >> > > > GGM: How arrogant (but typical) of anti-society, socialist green
> >> zealots
> >> > > to assume the puny effect of man vs. the absolute effect of the sun
on
> >> > > global climatic norms.
> >> > >
> >> > > > Parker: Like we almost destroyed the ozone layer? Or don't you
> >> believe
> >> > > that either? <
> >> > >
> >> > > You again hope the world will ignore recent findings that the
entire
> >> scare
> >> > > was over blown and more likely caused by naturally occuring events.
> >> > >
> >> > > > GGM: So, tell me oh green ones, 10,000 years ago, how many
> >primitives
> >> > > driving gas-guzzling SUVs did it take to turn the Sahara from a
lush
> >> oasis
> >> > > into a desert? (Oh, I see, you're hoping no one knows about that
> >event,
> >> > > aren't you?) <<
> >> > >
> >> > > > Parker: No answer ....what a surprise. <
> >> > >
> >> > > I will point out that Mr Parker has conveniently ignored my point
re:
> >> the
> >> > > Sahara's transformation from a lush, green oasis into a desert some
> >7 -
> >> > 10k
> >> > > years ago. The Sahara was created by totally naturally occuring
> >changes
> >> in
> >> > > weather patterns that had NOTHING to do with the insignificant
effects
> >> of
> >> > > man. It just must be really hard for people like this to grasp that
in
> >> the
> >> > > total scheme of things, man and his puny, insignificant activities
> >> really
> >> > > don't matter at all.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
posts....
Hey, don't worry, one of those 9 morons the Democrats have out there wagging
their tax & spend, cut & run gums might get elected and save your whole
little comfy green peer group from further humiliation.
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4k9$kba$6@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vq0qtnc1m8gd45@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Same old, same old.
>
> >
> >"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
> >news:bnnein02qe3@enews4.newsguy.com...
> >> Thanks for posting the link & text, Doug. Indeed, back in the mid-70's
> >> theses same looney greens took all the "global cooling" crap just as
> >> seriously as they do all the hand wringing carbon dioxide theories now.
> >>
> >
> >Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
> >before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
> >made such a claim.
> >This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even National Academy
of
> >Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From Lloyd about it. He
must
> >really hate being proven wrong on every statement he makes. ;-)
> >
> >
> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >> news:vpu8qml6qbn381@corp.supernews.com...
> >> >
> >> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:bnn0hd01qbc@enews4.newsguy.com...
> >> > > Mr. Parker:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Are you saying the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, EPA, NOAA,
> >> etc.,
> >> > > have jumped onto something that's not proven? <
> >> > >
> >> > > Yes, and despite the bleatings of certain mavens of socialist dogma
> >(for
> >> > > whom this entire theory has become a convenint mantra) those
agencies
> >> look
> >> > > upon the greenhouse gas theory as just that, a THEORY among others.
No
> >> one
> >> > > has conclusiely proven that "global warming" even exists. Indeed,
the
> >> temp
> >> > > fluctuations gas (bag) theorists espouse aren't even significant
> >within
> >> > the
> >> > > margin of error of their measuiring techniques.
> >> > >
> >> > > Might I remind you, my over zealous, green friend, 25 years ago
these
> >> same
> >> > > social and scientific radicals were predicting the dawn of a NEW
ICE
> >> AGE,
> >> > > becuase, they theorized, global temps were falling due to man made
> >gases
> >> > > blocking the sun. Funny how it turned out that at that same time we
> >were
> >> > in
> >> > > a period of low solar activity....
> >> >
> >> > Just for Lloyd:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm
> >> >
> >> > For those who don't use links, here it is, but it is a little long:
> >> >
> >> > FROM
> >> > Newsweek
> >> > April 28, 1975 Studies
> >> > Facts & Figures
> >> > Selected Links
> >> > Weather
> >> > Health
> >> >
> >> > The Cooling World
> >> > There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather
patterns
> >> > have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend
a
> >> > drastic decline in food production- with serious political
implications
> >> for
> >> > just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin
> >> quite
> >> > soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel
its
> >> > impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R.
in
> >> the
> >> > North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical
> >areas -
> >> > parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where
> >the
> >> > growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
> >> >
> >> > The evidence in support of these predictions has now
> >begun
> >> to
> >> > accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep
up
> >> with
> >> > it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by
about
> >> two
> >> > weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production
> >> > estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the
> >> average
> >> > temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree -
a
> >> > fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last
April,
> >> in
> >> > the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148
twisters
> >> > killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth
of
> >> > damage in 13 U.S. states.
> >> >
> >> > To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents
> >> represent
> >> > the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather.
> >> > Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as
well
> >
> >> as
> >> > over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are
> >almost
> >> > unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural
> >productivity
> >> > for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as
> >some
> >> > of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.
"A
> >> > major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on
a
> >> > worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of
> >> Sciences,
> >> > "because the global patterns of food production and population that
have
> >> > evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present
century."
> >> >
> >> > A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of
> >the
> >> > National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of
half a
> >> > degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere
between
> >> > 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University,
> >satellite
> >> > photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow
> >> cover
> >> > in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA
> >> > scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in
the
> >> > continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
> >> >
> >> > To the layman, the relatively small changes in
> >temperature
> >> > and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University
of
> >> > Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the
> >great
> >> > Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest
> >eras -
> >> > and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of
the
> >way
> >> > toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion
to
> >> the
> >> > "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of
> >Europe
> >> > and northern America between 1600 and 1900 - years when the Thames
used
> >to
> >> > freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when
> >iceboats
> >> > sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
> >> >
> >> > Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages
> >> > remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic
change
> >is
> >> at
> >> > least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of
> >> Sciences
> >> > report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely
unanswered,
> >> but
> >> > in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."
> >> >
> >> > Meteorologists think that they can forecast the
> >short-term
> >> > results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by
> >> noting
> >> > the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of
> >> > pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth
flow
> >> of
> >> > westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in
this
> >way
> >> > causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts,
> >floods,
> >> > extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local
> >> > temperature increases - all of which have a direct impact on food
> >> supplies.
> >> >
> >> > "The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James
D.
> >> > McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment,
"is
> >> much
> >> > more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years
ago."
> >> > Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new
national
> >> > boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from
their
> >> > devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
> >> >
> >> > Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders
> >will
> >> > take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or
even
> >to
> >> > allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular
> >> solutions
> >> > proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with
black
> >> soot
> >> > or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than
those
> >> > they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders
> >> > anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling
> >food
> >> > or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic
> >> > projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay,
the
> >> more
> >> > difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the
> >results
> >> > become grim reality.
> >> >
> >> > Reprinted from Financial Post - Canada, Jun 21, 2000
> >> >
> >> > All Material Subject to Copyright.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > > The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. <
> >> > >
> >> > > How about this: there is NO solution, because 1) there may not even
be
> >a
> >> > > problem, 2) if it is actually occuring, then natural forces, such
as
> >> > > geothermal and solar activity, may be the primary, indeed the only
> >> source.
> >> > >
> >> > > > That means driving less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles,
> >using
> >> > coal
> >> > > less, using more renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not
> >> > > clear-cutting forests... <
> >> > >
> >> > > On, and how convenient all of those solutions will be in making the
> >> > > Draconian, confiscatory dreams of social radicals come true!
> >> > >
> >> > > > >GGM: Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent
warming
> >has
> >> a
> >> > > perfect correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity. <
> >> > >
> >> > > > Parker: Funny how that's nonexistent. <
> >> > >
> >> > > Might I refer you, my science-spouting, but ill-informed friend,
to
> >all
> >> > of
> >> > > the studies being done that show we are just leaving a period of
high
> >> > solar
> >> > > activity, which began in the early '80's. Funny how this activty
> >> PRECISLY
> >> > > parallels data showing a rise in global temps. (Look it up, if you
can
> >> > stand
> >> > > the truth.)
> >> > >
> >> > > > GGM: Two Danish scientists (Friz-Christiansen & Lassen) have
proven
> >a
> >> > > direct cause & effect between periods of high solar activity and
earth
> >> > > temps, going back hundreds of years. <
> >> > >
> >> > > > Parker: Which has been studied and cannot account for all the
> >current
> >> > > warming. <
> >> > >
> >> > > It has NOT been studied by the gas (bag) theorists, they even tried
to
> >> > quash
> >> > > the two scientists findings because it was too shocking to their
pet
> >> > > theories. However, objective greehouse gas theorists has been
forced
> >to
> >> > > admit the accuracy of their findings and they cannot explain away
> >their
> >> > > findings of a direct correlation between periods of high solar
> >activity
> >> /
> >> > > low cloud formation and vice versa. Tree ring data, etc. have all
been
> >> > > studied and the correlation has been proven...the gas (bag)
theorists
> >> just
> >> > > don't want to accept it because it puts the lie to all of their
> >carping.
> >> > >
> >> > > > GGM: How arrogant (but typical) of anti-society, socialist green
> >> zealots
> >> > > to assume the puny effect of man vs. the absolute effect of the sun
on
> >> > > global climatic norms.
> >> > >
> >> > > > Parker: Like we almost destroyed the ozone layer? Or don't you
> >> believe
> >> > > that either? <
> >> > >
> >> > > You again hope the world will ignore recent findings that the
entire
> >> scare
> >> > > was over blown and more likely caused by naturally occuring events.
> >> > >
> >> > > > GGM: So, tell me oh green ones, 10,000 years ago, how many
> >primitives
> >> > > driving gas-guzzling SUVs did it take to turn the Sahara from a
lush
> >> oasis
> >> > > into a desert? (Oh, I see, you're hoping no one knows about that
> >event,
> >> > > aren't you?) <<
> >> > >
> >> > > > Parker: No answer ....what a surprise. <
> >> > >
> >> > > I will point out that Mr Parker has conveniently ignored my point
re:
> >> the
> >> > > Sahara's transformation from a lush, green oasis into a desert some
> >7 -
> >> > 10k
> >> > > years ago. The Sahara was created by totally naturally occuring
> >changes
> >> in
> >> > > weather patterns that had NOTHING to do with the insignificant
effects
> >> of
> >> > > man. It just must be really hard for people like this to grasp that
in
> >> the
> >> > > total scheme of things, man and his puny, insignificant activities
> >> really
> >> > > don't matter at all.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
#2820
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd, the world trembles at the searing intellect behind your pithy
posts....
Hey, don't worry, one of those 9 morons the Democrats have out there wagging
their tax & spend, cut & run gums might get elected and save your whole
little comfy green peer group from further humiliation.
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4k9$kba$6@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vq0qtnc1m8gd45@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Same old, same old.
>
> >
> >"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
> >news:bnnein02qe3@enews4.newsguy.com...
> >> Thanks for posting the link & text, Doug. Indeed, back in the mid-70's
> >> theses same looney greens took all the "global cooling" crap just as
> >> seriously as they do all the hand wringing carbon dioxide theories now.
> >>
> >
> >Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
> >before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
> >made such a claim.
> >This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even National Academy
of
> >Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From Lloyd about it. He
must
> >really hate being proven wrong on every statement he makes. ;-)
> >
> >
> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >> news:vpu8qml6qbn381@corp.supernews.com...
> >> >
> >> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:bnn0hd01qbc@enews4.newsguy.com...
> >> > > Mr. Parker:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Are you saying the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, EPA, NOAA,
> >> etc.,
> >> > > have jumped onto something that's not proven? <
> >> > >
> >> > > Yes, and despite the bleatings of certain mavens of socialist dogma
> >(for
> >> > > whom this entire theory has become a convenint mantra) those
agencies
> >> look
> >> > > upon the greenhouse gas theory as just that, a THEORY among others.
No
> >> one
> >> > > has conclusiely proven that "global warming" even exists. Indeed,
the
> >> temp
> >> > > fluctuations gas (bag) theorists espouse aren't even significant
> >within
> >> > the
> >> > > margin of error of their measuiring techniques.
> >> > >
> >> > > Might I remind you, my over zealous, green friend, 25 years ago
these
> >> same
> >> > > social and scientific radicals were predicting the dawn of a NEW
ICE
> >> AGE,
> >> > > becuase, they theorized, global temps were falling due to man made
> >gases
> >> > > blocking the sun. Funny how it turned out that at that same time we
> >were
> >> > in
> >> > > a period of low solar activity....
> >> >
> >> > Just for Lloyd:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm
> >> >
> >> > For those who don't use links, here it is, but it is a little long:
> >> >
> >> > FROM
> >> > Newsweek
> >> > April 28, 1975 Studies
> >> > Facts & Figures
> >> > Selected Links
> >> > Weather
> >> > Health
> >> >
> >> > The Cooling World
> >> > There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather
patterns
> >> > have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend
a
> >> > drastic decline in food production- with serious political
implications
> >> for
> >> > just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin
> >> quite
> >> > soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel
its
> >> > impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R.
in
> >> the
> >> > North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical
> >areas -
> >> > parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where
> >the
> >> > growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
> >> >
> >> > The evidence in support of these predictions has now
> >begun
> >> to
> >> > accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep
up
> >> with
> >> > it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by
about
> >> two
> >> > weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production
> >> > estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the
> >> average
> >> > temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree -
a
> >> > fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last
April,
> >> in
> >> > the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148
twisters
> >> > killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth
of
> >> > damage in 13 U.S. states.
> >> >
> >> > To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents
> >> represent
> >> > the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather.
> >> > Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as
well
> >
> >> as
> >> > over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are
> >almost
> >> > unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural
> >productivity
> >> > for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as
> >some
> >> > of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.
"A
> >> > major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on
a
> >> > worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of
> >> Sciences,
> >> > "because the global patterns of food production and population that
have
> >> > evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present
century."
> >> >
> >> > A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of
> >the
> >> > National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of
half a
> >> > degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere
between
> >> > 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University,
> >satellite
> >> > photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow
> >> cover
> >> > in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA
> >> > scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in
the
> >> > continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
> >> >
> >> > To the layman, the relatively small changes in
> >temperature
> >> > and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University
of
> >> > Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the
> >great
> >> > Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest
> >eras -
> >> > and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of
the
> >way
> >> > toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion
to
> >> the
> >> > "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of
> >Europe
> >> > and northern America between 1600 and 1900 - years when the Thames
used
> >to
> >> > freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when
> >iceboats
> >> > sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
> >> >
> >> > Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages
> >> > remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic
change
> >is
> >> at
> >> > least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of
> >> Sciences
> >> > report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely
unanswered,
> >> but
> >> > in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."
> >> >
> >> > Meteorologists think that they can forecast the
> >short-term
> >> > results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by
> >> noting
> >> > the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of
> >> > pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth
flow
> >> of
> >> > westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in
this
> >way
> >> > causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts,
> >floods,
> >> > extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local
> >> > temperature increases - all of which have a direct impact on food
> >> supplies.
> >> >
> >> > "The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James
D.
> >> > McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment,
"is
> >> much
> >> > more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years
ago."
> >> > Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new
national
> >> > boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from
their
> >> > devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
> >> >
> >> > Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders
> >will
> >> > take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or
even
> >to
> >> > allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular
> >> solutions
> >> > proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with
black
> >> soot
> >> > or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than
those
> >> > they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders
> >> > anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling
> >food
> >> > or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic
> >> > projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay,
the
> >> more
> >> > difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the
> >results
> >> > become grim reality.
> >> >
> >> > Reprinted from Financial Post - Canada, Jun 21, 2000
> >> >
> >> > All Material Subject to Copyright.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > > The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. <
> >> > >
> >> > > How about this: there is NO solution, because 1) there may not even
be
> >a
> >> > > problem, 2) if it is actually occuring, then natural forces, such
as
> >> > > geothermal and solar activity, may be the primary, indeed the only
> >> source.
> >> > >
> >> > > > That means driving less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles,
> >using
> >> > coal
> >> > > less, using more renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not
> >> > > clear-cutting forests... <
> >> > >
> >> > > On, and how convenient all of those solutions will be in making the
> >> > > Draconian, confiscatory dreams of social radicals come true!
> >> > >
> >> > > > >GGM: Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent
warming
> >has
> >> a
> >> > > perfect correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity. <
> >> > >
> >> > > > Parker: Funny how that's nonexistent. <
> >> > >
> >> > > Might I refer you, my science-spouting, but ill-informed friend,
to
> >all
> >> > of
> >> > > the studies being done that show we are just leaving a period of
high
> >> > solar
> >> > > activity, which began in the early '80's. Funny how this activty
> >> PRECISLY
> >> > > parallels data showing a rise in global temps. (Look it up, if you
can
> >> > stand
> >> > > the truth.)
> >> > >
> >> > > > GGM: Two Danish scientists (Friz-Christiansen & Lassen) have
proven
> >a
> >> > > direct cause & effect between periods of high solar activity and
earth
> >> > > temps, going back hundreds of years. <
> >> > >
> >> > > > Parker: Which has been studied and cannot account for all the
> >current
> >> > > warming. <
> >> > >
> >> > > It has NOT been studied by the gas (bag) theorists, they even tried
to
> >> > quash
> >> > > the two scientists findings because it was too shocking to their
pet
> >> > > theories. However, objective greehouse gas theorists has been
forced
> >to
> >> > > admit the accuracy of their findings and they cannot explain away
> >their
> >> > > findings of a direct correlation between periods of high solar
> >activity
> >> /
> >> > > low cloud formation and vice versa. Tree ring data, etc. have all
been
> >> > > studied and the correlation has been proven...the gas (bag)
theorists
> >> just
> >> > > don't want to accept it because it puts the lie to all of their
> >carping.
> >> > >
> >> > > > GGM: How arrogant (but typical) of anti-society, socialist green
> >> zealots
> >> > > to assume the puny effect of man vs. the absolute effect of the sun
on
> >> > > global climatic norms.
> >> > >
> >> > > > Parker: Like we almost destroyed the ozone layer? Or don't you
> >> believe
> >> > > that either? <
> >> > >
> >> > > You again hope the world will ignore recent findings that the
entire
> >> scare
> >> > > was over blown and more likely caused by naturally occuring events.
> >> > >
> >> > > > GGM: So, tell me oh green ones, 10,000 years ago, how many
> >primitives
> >> > > driving gas-guzzling SUVs did it take to turn the Sahara from a
lush
> >> oasis
> >> > > into a desert? (Oh, I see, you're hoping no one knows about that
> >event,
> >> > > aren't you?) <<
> >> > >
> >> > > > Parker: No answer ....what a surprise. <
> >> > >
> >> > > I will point out that Mr Parker has conveniently ignored my point
re:
> >> the
> >> > > Sahara's transformation from a lush, green oasis into a desert some
> >7 -
> >> > 10k
> >> > > years ago. The Sahara was created by totally naturally occuring
> >changes
> >> in
> >> > > weather patterns that had NOTHING to do with the insignificant
effects
> >> of
> >> > > man. It just must be really hard for people like this to grasp that
in
> >> the
> >> > > total scheme of things, man and his puny, insignificant activities
> >> really
> >> > > don't matter at all.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
posts....
Hey, don't worry, one of those 9 morons the Democrats have out there wagging
their tax & spend, cut & run gums might get elected and save your whole
little comfy green peer group from further humiliation.
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4k9$kba$6@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vq0qtnc1m8gd45@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Same old, same old.
>
> >
> >"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
> >news:bnnein02qe3@enews4.newsguy.com...
> >> Thanks for posting the link & text, Doug. Indeed, back in the mid-70's
> >> theses same looney greens took all the "global cooling" crap just as
> >> seriously as they do all the hand wringing carbon dioxide theories now.
> >>
> >
> >Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
> >before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
> >made such a claim.
> >This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even National Academy
of
> >Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From Lloyd about it. He
must
> >really hate being proven wrong on every statement he makes. ;-)
> >
> >
> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >> news:vpu8qml6qbn381@corp.supernews.com...
> >> >
> >> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:bnn0hd01qbc@enews4.newsguy.com...
> >> > > Mr. Parker:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Are you saying the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, EPA, NOAA,
> >> etc.,
> >> > > have jumped onto something that's not proven? <
> >> > >
> >> > > Yes, and despite the bleatings of certain mavens of socialist dogma
> >(for
> >> > > whom this entire theory has become a convenint mantra) those
agencies
> >> look
> >> > > upon the greenhouse gas theory as just that, a THEORY among others.
No
> >> one
> >> > > has conclusiely proven that "global warming" even exists. Indeed,
the
> >> temp
> >> > > fluctuations gas (bag) theorists espouse aren't even significant
> >within
> >> > the
> >> > > margin of error of their measuiring techniques.
> >> > >
> >> > > Might I remind you, my over zealous, green friend, 25 years ago
these
> >> same
> >> > > social and scientific radicals were predicting the dawn of a NEW
ICE
> >> AGE,
> >> > > becuase, they theorized, global temps were falling due to man made
> >gases
> >> > > blocking the sun. Funny how it turned out that at that same time we
> >were
> >> > in
> >> > > a period of low solar activity....
> >> >
> >> > Just for Lloyd:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm
> >> >
> >> > For those who don't use links, here it is, but it is a little long:
> >> >
> >> > FROM
> >> > Newsweek
> >> > April 28, 1975 Studies
> >> > Facts & Figures
> >> > Selected Links
> >> > Weather
> >> > Health
> >> >
> >> > The Cooling World
> >> > There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather
patterns
> >> > have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend
a
> >> > drastic decline in food production- with serious political
implications
> >> for
> >> > just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin
> >> quite
> >> > soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel
its
> >> > impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R.
in
> >> the
> >> > North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical
> >areas -
> >> > parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where
> >the
> >> > growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
> >> >
> >> > The evidence in support of these predictions has now
> >begun
> >> to
> >> > accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep
up
> >> with
> >> > it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by
about
> >> two
> >> > weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production
> >> > estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the
> >> average
> >> > temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree -
a
> >> > fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last
April,
> >> in
> >> > the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148
twisters
> >> > killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth
of
> >> > damage in 13 U.S. states.
> >> >
> >> > To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents
> >> represent
> >> > the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather.
> >> > Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as
well
> >
> >> as
> >> > over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are
> >almost
> >> > unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural
> >productivity
> >> > for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as
> >some
> >> > of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.
"A
> >> > major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on
a
> >> > worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of
> >> Sciences,
> >> > "because the global patterns of food production and population that
have
> >> > evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present
century."
> >> >
> >> > A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of
> >the
> >> > National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of
half a
> >> > degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere
between
> >> > 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University,
> >satellite
> >> > photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow
> >> cover
> >> > in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA
> >> > scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in
the
> >> > continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
> >> >
> >> > To the layman, the relatively small changes in
> >temperature
> >> > and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University
of
> >> > Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the
> >great
> >> > Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest
> >eras -
> >> > and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of
the
> >way
> >> > toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion
to
> >> the
> >> > "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of
> >Europe
> >> > and northern America between 1600 and 1900 - years when the Thames
used
> >to
> >> > freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when
> >iceboats
> >> > sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
> >> >
> >> > Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages
> >> > remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic
change
> >is
> >> at
> >> > least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of
> >> Sciences
> >> > report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely
unanswered,
> >> but
> >> > in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."
> >> >
> >> > Meteorologists think that they can forecast the
> >short-term
> >> > results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by
> >> noting
> >> > the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of
> >> > pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth
flow
> >> of
> >> > westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in
this
> >way
> >> > causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts,
> >floods,
> >> > extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local
> >> > temperature increases - all of which have a direct impact on food
> >> supplies.
> >> >
> >> > "The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James
D.
> >> > McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment,
"is
> >> much
> >> > more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years
ago."
> >> > Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new
national
> >> > boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from
their
> >> > devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
> >> >
> >> > Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders
> >will
> >> > take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or
even
> >to
> >> > allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular
> >> solutions
> >> > proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with
black
> >> soot
> >> > or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than
those
> >> > they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders
> >> > anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling
> >food
> >> > or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic
> >> > projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay,
the
> >> more
> >> > difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the
> >results
> >> > become grim reality.
> >> >
> >> > Reprinted from Financial Post - Canada, Jun 21, 2000
> >> >
> >> > All Material Subject to Copyright.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > > The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. <
> >> > >
> >> > > How about this: there is NO solution, because 1) there may not even
be
> >a
> >> > > problem, 2) if it is actually occuring, then natural forces, such
as
> >> > > geothermal and solar activity, may be the primary, indeed the only
> >> source.
> >> > >
> >> > > > That means driving less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles,
> >using
> >> > coal
> >> > > less, using more renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not
> >> > > clear-cutting forests... <
> >> > >
> >> > > On, and how convenient all of those solutions will be in making the
> >> > > Draconian, confiscatory dreams of social radicals come true!
> >> > >
> >> > > > >GGM: Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent
warming
> >has
> >> a
> >> > > perfect correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity. <
> >> > >
> >> > > > Parker: Funny how that's nonexistent. <
> >> > >
> >> > > Might I refer you, my science-spouting, but ill-informed friend,
to
> >all
> >> > of
> >> > > the studies being done that show we are just leaving a period of
high
> >> > solar
> >> > > activity, which began in the early '80's. Funny how this activty
> >> PRECISLY
> >> > > parallels data showing a rise in global temps. (Look it up, if you
can
> >> > stand
> >> > > the truth.)
> >> > >
> >> > > > GGM: Two Danish scientists (Friz-Christiansen & Lassen) have
proven
> >a
> >> > > direct cause & effect between periods of high solar activity and
earth
> >> > > temps, going back hundreds of years. <
> >> > >
> >> > > > Parker: Which has been studied and cannot account for all the
> >current
> >> > > warming. <
> >> > >
> >> > > It has NOT been studied by the gas (bag) theorists, they even tried
to
> >> > quash
> >> > > the two scientists findings because it was too shocking to their
pet
> >> > > theories. However, objective greehouse gas theorists has been
forced
> >to
> >> > > admit the accuracy of their findings and they cannot explain away
> >their
> >> > > findings of a direct correlation between periods of high solar
> >activity
> >> /
> >> > > low cloud formation and vice versa. Tree ring data, etc. have all
been
> >> > > studied and the correlation has been proven...the gas (bag)
theorists
> >> just
> >> > > don't want to accept it because it puts the lie to all of their
> >carping.
> >> > >
> >> > > > GGM: How arrogant (but typical) of anti-society, socialist green
> >> zealots
> >> > > to assume the puny effect of man vs. the absolute effect of the sun
on
> >> > > global climatic norms.
> >> > >
> >> > > > Parker: Like we almost destroyed the ozone layer? Or don't you
> >> believe
> >> > > that either? <
> >> > >
> >> > > You again hope the world will ignore recent findings that the
entire
> >> scare
> >> > > was over blown and more likely caused by naturally occuring events.
> >> > >
> >> > > > GGM: So, tell me oh green ones, 10,000 years ago, how many
> >primitives
> >> > > driving gas-guzzling SUVs did it take to turn the Sahara from a
lush
> >> oasis
> >> > > into a desert? (Oh, I see, you're hoping no one knows about that
> >event,
> >> > > aren't you?) <<
> >> > >
> >> > > > Parker: No answer ....what a surprise. <
> >> > >
> >> > > I will point out that Mr Parker has conveniently ignored my point
re:
> >> the
> >> > > Sahara's transformation from a lush, green oasis into a desert some
> >7 -
> >> > 10k
> >> > > years ago. The Sahara was created by totally naturally occuring
> >changes
> >> in
> >> > > weather patterns that had NOTHING to do with the insignificant
effects
> >> of
> >> > > man. It just must be really hard for people like this to grasp that
in
> >> the
> >> > > total scheme of things, man and his puny, insignificant activities
> >> really
> >> > > don't matter at all.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >