Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#2891
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4sc$kba$11@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bnq6np06dk@enews1.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
> >> Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to
Lloyd
> >before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
> >made such a claim. This article proves LP wrong again, it names names,
even
> >National Academy of Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From
> >Lloyd about it. He must really hate being proven wrong on every
statement
> >he makes. ;-) >
>
> Try reading some science. USA Today is your source for science? LOL!
I wish you would learn some science Lloyd, then you wouldn't come in here
spouting your left wing propaganda you heard from your Sierra Club buddies.
What peer reviewed Scientific journals do you read Lloyd, and where can I
read your published articles in peer reviewed journals? Until you answer
this your still just an individual with nutty ideas that are always proven
wrong when you post them.
>
> >
> >LOL! I remember this "new ice age" scam well, I was in Collee at the time
> >and all the Socialist faculty were flapping their gloom & doom gums about
> >it, claiming if we didn't all stsrt driving VWs we'd all freeze to death
> >come 1990.Typical hogwash, sure glad you posted the link.
> >
> >BTW, read today's USA Today. It has a prominent piece on how the gas
(bag)
> >theorists pet study from the '80's has been proven faulty and that theris
no
> >evidence global average temps of the second half of the 20th century were
> >anything but perfectly normal. (Notice how quiet Lloyd's been today?)
> >
> >
#2892
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4sc$kba$11@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bnq6np06dk@enews1.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
> >> Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to
Lloyd
> >before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
> >made such a claim. This article proves LP wrong again, it names names,
even
> >National Academy of Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From
> >Lloyd about it. He must really hate being proven wrong on every
statement
> >he makes. ;-) >
>
> Try reading some science. USA Today is your source for science? LOL!
I wish you would learn some science Lloyd, then you wouldn't come in here
spouting your left wing propaganda you heard from your Sierra Club buddies.
What peer reviewed Scientific journals do you read Lloyd, and where can I
read your published articles in peer reviewed journals? Until you answer
this your still just an individual with nutty ideas that are always proven
wrong when you post them.
>
> >
> >LOL! I remember this "new ice age" scam well, I was in Collee at the time
> >and all the Socialist faculty were flapping their gloom & doom gums about
> >it, claiming if we didn't all stsrt driving VWs we'd all freeze to death
> >come 1990.Typical hogwash, sure glad you posted the link.
> >
> >BTW, read today's USA Today. It has a prominent piece on how the gas
(bag)
> >theorists pet study from the '80's has been proven faulty and that theris
no
> >evidence global average temps of the second half of the 20th century were
> >anything but perfectly normal. (Notice how quiet Lloyd's been today?)
> >
> >
#2893
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4sc$kba$11@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bnq6np06dk@enews1.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
> >> Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to
Lloyd
> >before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
> >made such a claim. This article proves LP wrong again, it names names,
even
> >National Academy of Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From
> >Lloyd about it. He must really hate being proven wrong on every
statement
> >he makes. ;-) >
>
> Try reading some science. USA Today is your source for science? LOL!
I wish you would learn some science Lloyd, then you wouldn't come in here
spouting your left wing propaganda you heard from your Sierra Club buddies.
What peer reviewed Scientific journals do you read Lloyd, and where can I
read your published articles in peer reviewed journals? Until you answer
this your still just an individual with nutty ideas that are always proven
wrong when you post them.
>
> >
> >LOL! I remember this "new ice age" scam well, I was in Collee at the time
> >and all the Socialist faculty were flapping their gloom & doom gums about
> >it, claiming if we didn't all stsrt driving VWs we'd all freeze to death
> >come 1990.Typical hogwash, sure glad you posted the link.
> >
> >BTW, read today's USA Today. It has a prominent piece on how the gas
(bag)
> >theorists pet study from the '80's has been proven faulty and that theris
no
> >evidence global average temps of the second half of the 20th century were
> >anything but perfectly normal. (Notice how quiet Lloyd's been today?)
> >
> >
#2894
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4k9$kba$6@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vq0qtnc1m8gd45@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Same old, same old.
That's all you ever post Lloyd, I'm still waiting to hear what ariticles
you've had published in peer reviewed journals, and which ones you read for
your information. Are you really so ashamed of the journals you read that
you are afraid to post them?
>
> >
> >"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.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
#2895
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"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.
That's all you ever post Lloyd, I'm still waiting to hear what ariticles
you've had published in peer reviewed journals, and which ones you read for
your information. Are you really so ashamed of the journals you read that
you are afraid to post them?
>
> >
> >"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.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
#2896
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"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.
That's all you ever post Lloyd, I'm still waiting to hear what ariticles
you've had published in peer reviewed journals, and which ones you read for
your information. Are you really so ashamed of the journals you read that
you are afraid to post them?
>
> >
> >"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.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
#2897
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4qp$kba$10@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3F5017DD.63E0BB0E@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> CO2 traps heat. Fact. The earth is warming. Fact. CO2 is rising.
Fact.
> >
> >They could be unrelated events, or maybe, global warming causes an
> >increase in CO2.
>
> Like saying maybe death causes cancer.
More like saying if you get cancer you will die from it, ignoring all the
cancer survivors out there. But you ignore all facts that don't agree with
what you already believe. You are not a scientist, you are a parrot.
>
> >
> >I just formulated a brilliant new theory as to the cause of global
> >warming. It is the Chicago Cubs. When they win the world series, global
> >cooling will start or maybe global cooling will start and the Cubs will
> >win the world series. Hard to decide on cause and effect. However, I am
> >certain that global warming is responsible for the increase in major
> >league baseball home runs. I mean after all, we all know that warmer air
> >is thinner and offers less resistance so the baseballs can fly further.
> >Or maybe all those baseballs flying further are heating the air and
> >causing global warming. Damn, I need a good scientist to study this for
> >me. I bet with a computer model I can predict the home run totals for
> >the next 50 years based on the increase in CO2 concentration or maybe I
> >can predict the rise in global temperatures based on the number of home
> >runs. Any volunteers? I bet there is a grant in this somewhere. Bush is
> >a baseball fan, maybe he'll set up a special commission to study the
> >effects of global warming on baseball. I smell lots of pork just waiting
> >to be picked up by a clever scientist and/or politician. Heck, the
> >envirowackos can even use this as another reason for outlawing SUVs. The
> >case is clear, SUVs are destroying baseball! (and maybe golf too, the
> >superheated air is letting those golf ***** fly too d&*n far).
> >
> >Ed
#2898
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4qp$kba$10@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3F5017DD.63E0BB0E@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> CO2 traps heat. Fact. The earth is warming. Fact. CO2 is rising.
Fact.
> >
> >They could be unrelated events, or maybe, global warming causes an
> >increase in CO2.
>
> Like saying maybe death causes cancer.
More like saying if you get cancer you will die from it, ignoring all the
cancer survivors out there. But you ignore all facts that don't agree with
what you already believe. You are not a scientist, you are a parrot.
>
> >
> >I just formulated a brilliant new theory as to the cause of global
> >warming. It is the Chicago Cubs. When they win the world series, global
> >cooling will start or maybe global cooling will start and the Cubs will
> >win the world series. Hard to decide on cause and effect. However, I am
> >certain that global warming is responsible for the increase in major
> >league baseball home runs. I mean after all, we all know that warmer air
> >is thinner and offers less resistance so the baseballs can fly further.
> >Or maybe all those baseballs flying further are heating the air and
> >causing global warming. Damn, I need a good scientist to study this for
> >me. I bet with a computer model I can predict the home run totals for
> >the next 50 years based on the increase in CO2 concentration or maybe I
> >can predict the rise in global temperatures based on the number of home
> >runs. Any volunteers? I bet there is a grant in this somewhere. Bush is
> >a baseball fan, maybe he'll set up a special commission to study the
> >effects of global warming on baseball. I smell lots of pork just waiting
> >to be picked up by a clever scientist and/or politician. Heck, the
> >envirowackos can even use this as another reason for outlawing SUVs. The
> >case is clear, SUVs are destroying baseball! (and maybe golf too, the
> >superheated air is letting those golf ***** fly too d&*n far).
> >
> >Ed
#2899
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4qp$kba$10@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3F5017DD.63E0BB0E@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> CO2 traps heat. Fact. The earth is warming. Fact. CO2 is rising.
Fact.
> >
> >They could be unrelated events, or maybe, global warming causes an
> >increase in CO2.
>
> Like saying maybe death causes cancer.
More like saying if you get cancer you will die from it, ignoring all the
cancer survivors out there. But you ignore all facts that don't agree with
what you already believe. You are not a scientist, you are a parrot.
>
> >
> >I just formulated a brilliant new theory as to the cause of global
> >warming. It is the Chicago Cubs. When they win the world series, global
> >cooling will start or maybe global cooling will start and the Cubs will
> >win the world series. Hard to decide on cause and effect. However, I am
> >certain that global warming is responsible for the increase in major
> >league baseball home runs. I mean after all, we all know that warmer air
> >is thinner and offers less resistance so the baseballs can fly further.
> >Or maybe all those baseballs flying further are heating the air and
> >causing global warming. Damn, I need a good scientist to study this for
> >me. I bet with a computer model I can predict the home run totals for
> >the next 50 years based on the increase in CO2 concentration or maybe I
> >can predict the rise in global temperatures based on the number of home
> >runs. Any volunteers? I bet there is a grant in this somewhere. Bush is
> >a baseball fan, maybe he'll set up a special commission to study the
> >effects of global warming on baseball. I smell lots of pork just waiting
> >to be picked up by a clever scientist and/or politician. Heck, the
> >envirowackos can even use this as another reason for outlawing SUVs. The
> >case is clear, SUVs are destroying baseball! (and maybe golf too, the
> >superheated air is letting those golf ***** fly too d&*n far).
> >
> >Ed
#2900
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"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.
Not man enough to admit you were wrong are you LP.
That's OK, I knew you were a fraud from your first post. Now all of Usenet
knows it.
>
> >
> >"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.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >