Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3761
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <bog9bo$44t$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> For half a million years, CO2 was around 280 ppm, without much variation. In
> the last 120 years, it's increased to 350 ppm.
Wrong.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...onnin2001.html
Levels have been varied considerably between 9,000 and 22,000 years
ago alone.
Looks like you are using political scare tatics instead of science
from the NOAA et al. Why don't you follow your own 'advice' Parker?
>>In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
>>concentration until about 10,000 years ago.
> Wrong.
They were going up until about 10,000 years ago bounced up and down
slightly and then fell slightly for a couple thousand years.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...i?artid=129389 (figure 2)
and http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...onnin2001.html
> And you're not qualified to judge any science, are you?
Stop hiding behind a PhD to justify your politics parker and start
presenting science with real cites to back your claims.
I've cited at least 3 different scientific papers on the topic in this
thread alone just to show you to be wrong, you've cited none in return.
> For half a million years, CO2 was around 280 ppm, without much variation. In
> the last 120 years, it's increased to 350 ppm.
Wrong.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...onnin2001.html
Levels have been varied considerably between 9,000 and 22,000 years
ago alone.
Looks like you are using political scare tatics instead of science
from the NOAA et al. Why don't you follow your own 'advice' Parker?
>>In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
>>concentration until about 10,000 years ago.
> Wrong.
They were going up until about 10,000 years ago bounced up and down
slightly and then fell slightly for a couple thousand years.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...i?artid=129389 (figure 2)
and http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...onnin2001.html
> And you're not qualified to judge any science, are you?
Stop hiding behind a PhD to justify your politics parker and start
presenting science with real cites to back your claims.
I've cited at least 3 different scientific papers on the topic in this
thread alone just to show you to be wrong, you've cited none in return.
#3762
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <bog9bo$44t$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> For half a million years, CO2 was around 280 ppm, without much variation. In
> the last 120 years, it's increased to 350 ppm.
Wrong.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...onnin2001.html
Levels have been varied considerably between 9,000 and 22,000 years
ago alone.
Looks like you are using political scare tatics instead of science
from the NOAA et al. Why don't you follow your own 'advice' Parker?
>>In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
>>concentration until about 10,000 years ago.
> Wrong.
They were going up until about 10,000 years ago bounced up and down
slightly and then fell slightly for a couple thousand years.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...i?artid=129389 (figure 2)
and http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...onnin2001.html
> And you're not qualified to judge any science, are you?
Stop hiding behind a PhD to justify your politics parker and start
presenting science with real cites to back your claims.
I've cited at least 3 different scientific papers on the topic in this
thread alone just to show you to be wrong, you've cited none in return.
> For half a million years, CO2 was around 280 ppm, without much variation. In
> the last 120 years, it's increased to 350 ppm.
Wrong.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...onnin2001.html
Levels have been varied considerably between 9,000 and 22,000 years
ago alone.
Looks like you are using political scare tatics instead of science
from the NOAA et al. Why don't you follow your own 'advice' Parker?
>>In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
>>concentration until about 10,000 years ago.
> Wrong.
They were going up until about 10,000 years ago bounced up and down
slightly and then fell slightly for a couple thousand years.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...i?artid=129389 (figure 2)
and http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...onnin2001.html
> And you're not qualified to judge any science, are you?
Stop hiding behind a PhD to justify your politics parker and start
presenting science with real cites to back your claims.
I've cited at least 3 different scientific papers on the topic in this
thread alone just to show you to be wrong, you've cited none in return.
#3763
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <bog9bo$44t$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> For half a million years, CO2 was around 280 ppm, without much variation. In
> the last 120 years, it's increased to 350 ppm.
Wrong.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...onnin2001.html
Levels have been varied considerably between 9,000 and 22,000 years
ago alone.
Looks like you are using political scare tatics instead of science
from the NOAA et al. Why don't you follow your own 'advice' Parker?
>>In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
>>concentration until about 10,000 years ago.
> Wrong.
They were going up until about 10,000 years ago bounced up and down
slightly and then fell slightly for a couple thousand years.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...i?artid=129389 (figure 2)
and http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...onnin2001.html
> And you're not qualified to judge any science, are you?
Stop hiding behind a PhD to justify your politics parker and start
presenting science with real cites to back your claims.
I've cited at least 3 different scientific papers on the topic in this
thread alone just to show you to be wrong, you've cited none in return.
> For half a million years, CO2 was around 280 ppm, without much variation. In
> the last 120 years, it's increased to 350 ppm.
Wrong.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...onnin2001.html
Levels have been varied considerably between 9,000 and 22,000 years
ago alone.
Looks like you are using political scare tatics instead of science
from the NOAA et al. Why don't you follow your own 'advice' Parker?
>>In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
>>concentration until about 10,000 years ago.
> Wrong.
They were going up until about 10,000 years ago bounced up and down
slightly and then fell slightly for a couple thousand years.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...i?artid=129389 (figure 2)
and http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...onnin2001.html
> And you're not qualified to judge any science, are you?
Stop hiding behind a PhD to justify your politics parker and start
presenting science with real cites to back your claims.
I've cited at least 3 different scientific papers on the topic in this
thread alone just to show you to be wrong, you've cited none in return.
#3764
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> >>
> >> >
> >No, there was ONE way of counting where Gore came out ahead. But it is
all
> >academic because it wasn't how the state law says to count ballots. (Not
> >that THAT would have stopped the Dems). Gore lost every recount
>
> No, the recount was halted.
>
You mean the ever expanding recount? The "one" that could never find enough
extra Gore votes so they kept expanding to the point of wanting to recount
the entire state using a redefined counting starndard?
>
> >and only
> >had the HOPE of finding a way to recount where he would come out ahead.
> >This is what the USSC stopped. It's amazing to hear you say that's how
Bush
> >"stole" the election!
> >
> >
> >> >
> >No, there was ONE way of counting where Gore came out ahead. But it is
all
> >academic because it wasn't how the state law says to count ballots. (Not
> >that THAT would have stopped the Dems). Gore lost every recount
>
> No, the recount was halted.
>
You mean the ever expanding recount? The "one" that could never find enough
extra Gore votes so they kept expanding to the point of wanting to recount
the entire state using a redefined counting starndard?
>
> >and only
> >had the HOPE of finding a way to recount where he would come out ahead.
> >This is what the USSC stopped. It's amazing to hear you say that's how
Bush
> >"stole" the election!
> >
> >
#3765
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> >>
> >> >
> >No, there was ONE way of counting where Gore came out ahead. But it is
all
> >academic because it wasn't how the state law says to count ballots. (Not
> >that THAT would have stopped the Dems). Gore lost every recount
>
> No, the recount was halted.
>
You mean the ever expanding recount? The "one" that could never find enough
extra Gore votes so they kept expanding to the point of wanting to recount
the entire state using a redefined counting starndard?
>
> >and only
> >had the HOPE of finding a way to recount where he would come out ahead.
> >This is what the USSC stopped. It's amazing to hear you say that's how
Bush
> >"stole" the election!
> >
> >
> >> >
> >No, there was ONE way of counting where Gore came out ahead. But it is
all
> >academic because it wasn't how the state law says to count ballots. (Not
> >that THAT would have stopped the Dems). Gore lost every recount
>
> No, the recount was halted.
>
You mean the ever expanding recount? The "one" that could never find enough
extra Gore votes so they kept expanding to the point of wanting to recount
the entire state using a redefined counting starndard?
>
> >and only
> >had the HOPE of finding a way to recount where he would come out ahead.
> >This is what the USSC stopped. It's amazing to hear you say that's how
Bush
> >"stole" the election!
> >
> >
#3766
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> >>
> >> >
> >No, there was ONE way of counting where Gore came out ahead. But it is
all
> >academic because it wasn't how the state law says to count ballots. (Not
> >that THAT would have stopped the Dems). Gore lost every recount
>
> No, the recount was halted.
>
You mean the ever expanding recount? The "one" that could never find enough
extra Gore votes so they kept expanding to the point of wanting to recount
the entire state using a redefined counting starndard?
>
> >and only
> >had the HOPE of finding a way to recount where he would come out ahead.
> >This is what the USSC stopped. It's amazing to hear you say that's how
Bush
> >"stole" the election!
> >
> >
> >> >
> >No, there was ONE way of counting where Gore came out ahead. But it is
all
> >academic because it wasn't how the state law says to count ballots. (Not
> >that THAT would have stopped the Dems). Gore lost every recount
>
> No, the recount was halted.
>
You mean the ever expanding recount? The "one" that could never find enough
extra Gore votes so they kept expanding to the point of wanting to recount
the entire state using a redefined counting starndard?
>
> >and only
> >had the HOPE of finding a way to recount where he would come out ahead.
> >This is what the USSC stopped. It's amazing to hear you say that's how
Bush
> >"stole" the election!
> >
> >
#3767
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bog8vs$44t$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <vql718crgh8be9@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>>> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.
>>Prove it.
> http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/ag...o_Peanuts.html
That's not a peer reviewed article in a scientific journal.
Try again.
> In article <vql718crgh8be9@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>>> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.
>>Prove it.
> http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/ag...o_Peanuts.html
That's not a peer reviewed article in a scientific journal.
Try again.
#3768
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bog8vs$44t$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <vql718crgh8be9@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>>> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.
>>Prove it.
> http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/ag...o_Peanuts.html
That's not a peer reviewed article in a scientific journal.
Try again.
> In article <vql718crgh8be9@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>>> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.
>>Prove it.
> http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/ag...o_Peanuts.html
That's not a peer reviewed article in a scientific journal.
Try again.
#3769
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bog8vs$44t$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <vql718crgh8be9@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>>> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.
>>Prove it.
> http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/ag...o_Peanuts.html
That's not a peer reviewed article in a scientific journal.
Try again.
> In article <vql718crgh8be9@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>>> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.
>>Prove it.
> http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/ag...o_Peanuts.html
That's not a peer reviewed article in a scientific journal.
Try again.
#3770
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bog92v$44t$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <boe695$i0q$21@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>>>>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> But I have to admit, this is the product of experience.
>><snip>
>>>>You've learned from experience, Lloyd never has. ;-)
>>> I've learned from science; you never have.
>>I've learned from science, and it's not science that you preach parker.
>>You spout political views and hide behind a PhD in chemistry as if
>>that makes your political views correct. You dismiss without discussion
>>any scientific data or analysis that challenges your beliefs. That is *NOT*
>>science.
> Science tells up CO2 absorbs heat, science tells us the earth is warming,
> science tells us CO2 has increased along with temperature, science tells us
> human activities produce CO2.
Corrolation vs. Causation Parker.
You could equally say the human population has increased and humans
exhale CO2 in your corrolation.... Doesn't mean it's a cause.
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <boe695$i0q$21@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>>>>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> But I have to admit, this is the product of experience.
>><snip>
>>>>You've learned from experience, Lloyd never has. ;-)
>>> I've learned from science; you never have.
>>I've learned from science, and it's not science that you preach parker.
>>You spout political views and hide behind a PhD in chemistry as if
>>that makes your political views correct. You dismiss without discussion
>>any scientific data or analysis that challenges your beliefs. That is *NOT*
>>science.
> Science tells up CO2 absorbs heat, science tells us the earth is warming,
> science tells us CO2 has increased along with temperature, science tells us
> human activities produce CO2.
Corrolation vs. Causation Parker.
You could equally say the human population has increased and humans
exhale CO2 in your corrolation.... Doesn't mean it's a cause.