Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4751
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bplcoe$njr$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
> >>
> >> Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
> >
> >No we don't!
> >
> >Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
> concentration
> >of CO2. They may be right or not.
>
> Actually, I'd say more like 99% of scientists so believe. And that's as
much
> unanimity as you'll find on anything in science.
>
You'd say. That alone proves it isn't true. Stop lying Lloyd.
>
> >Your agreement with their belief does not prove
> >it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
anything.
>
> Uh, the data does.
>
>
> >The
> >global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs. Looking
at
> one
> >input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS.
>
> No it's not. It's done all the time. It's called factor analysis.
>
>
> >As a
> >scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate research
don't
> even
> >have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last few
years.
> >They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or trying to
> infere
> >it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature. The
errors
> >associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes they
are
> >claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and then
groomed
> the
> >data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is
treated
> as a
> >loon.
>
> Simply not true. Have you read the IPCC report? The National Academy of
> Sciences report?
Have you read anything above a preschool level? Didn't think so.
>
> >
> >Ed
> >
#4752
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bplcoe$njr$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
> >>
> >> Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
> >
> >No we don't!
> >
> >Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
> concentration
> >of CO2. They may be right or not.
>
> Actually, I'd say more like 99% of scientists so believe. And that's as
much
> unanimity as you'll find on anything in science.
>
You'd say. That alone proves it isn't true. Stop lying Lloyd.
>
> >Your agreement with their belief does not prove
> >it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
anything.
>
> Uh, the data does.
>
>
> >The
> >global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs. Looking
at
> one
> >input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS.
>
> No it's not. It's done all the time. It's called factor analysis.
>
>
> >As a
> >scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate research
don't
> even
> >have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last few
years.
> >They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or trying to
> infere
> >it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature. The
errors
> >associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes they
are
> >claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and then
groomed
> the
> >data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is
treated
> as a
> >loon.
>
> Simply not true. Have you read the IPCC report? The National Academy of
> Sciences report?
Have you read anything above a preschool level? Didn't think so.
>
> >
> >Ed
> >
#4753
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bplcoe$njr$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
> >>
> >> Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
> >
> >No we don't!
> >
> >Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
> concentration
> >of CO2. They may be right or not.
>
> Actually, I'd say more like 99% of scientists so believe. And that's as
much
> unanimity as you'll find on anything in science.
>
You'd say. That alone proves it isn't true. Stop lying Lloyd.
>
> >Your agreement with their belief does not prove
> >it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
anything.
>
> Uh, the data does.
>
>
> >The
> >global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs. Looking
at
> one
> >input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS.
>
> No it's not. It's done all the time. It's called factor analysis.
>
>
> >As a
> >scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate research
don't
> even
> >have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last few
years.
> >They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or trying to
> infere
> >it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature. The
errors
> >associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes they
are
> >claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and then
groomed
> the
> >data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is
treated
> as a
> >loon.
>
> Simply not true. Have you read the IPCC report? The National Academy of
> Sciences report?
Have you read anything above a preschool level? Didn't think so.
>
> >
> >Ed
> >
#4754
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bplea8$njr$28@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FBD9137.89E09CD@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> >> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >"global warming is as established fact"
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> >Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally
credible
> >> >fact from the other (correct) side...
> >>
> >> No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA,
look at
> >> NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
> >>
> >> As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution,
etc.
> >
> >Oh, ok. So, where are the "settled" equations of global warming? With
> Atoms, we
> >have empirical data, such as the Mole, Avogadro's Number and Molar Mass's
> number
> >that we can use to predict what will happen. So tell us how many degrees
the
> >globe will warm between now and 2010 please and show us how you obtained
that
> >figure? After all, global warming is just as settled as gravity, with
its
> known
> >and quantifiable laws according to you. Gravity will accelerate mass at
> >9.8/s/s, how fast will the globe warm 2 degrees in the future?
>
> You can't predict that because you can't predict what emissions of CO2
will be
> like. That's like asking, what will be the pH of this beaker of water
after
> everybody in lab adds something to it.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >"A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's
> temperatures
> >are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing
the
> most
> >extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the
environmentalists.
> >
> >The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University [I suppose
Harvard
> >University is a real right wing hot spot, right Lloyd?], examined the
> findings of
> >studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores
and
> >historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures
> prevailing at
> >sites around the world.
> >
> >The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period
between
> the
> >ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher
even
> than
> >today.
> >
> >They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during
> which
> >the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up
> again -
> >but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.
> >
> >The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as
it
> >implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when
the
> >Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of
today's
> >temperature rise."
> > CITE:
>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...06/nclim06.xml
> >
> Again, that's one article. There are hundreds showing just the opposite.
Go
> to sci.environment and read some of the postings.
Hundreds huh? Show them to us Lloyd. For once in your life back up your
lies. I want to see hundreds of articles listed here supporting your claims
and rebunking his. You can't do it. His report is far more accurate than any
hogwash you've posted.
#4755
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bplea8$njr$28@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FBD9137.89E09CD@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> >> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >"global warming is as established fact"
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> >Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally
credible
> >> >fact from the other (correct) side...
> >>
> >> No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA,
look at
> >> NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
> >>
> >> As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution,
etc.
> >
> >Oh, ok. So, where are the "settled" equations of global warming? With
> Atoms, we
> >have empirical data, such as the Mole, Avogadro's Number and Molar Mass's
> number
> >that we can use to predict what will happen. So tell us how many degrees
the
> >globe will warm between now and 2010 please and show us how you obtained
that
> >figure? After all, global warming is just as settled as gravity, with
its
> known
> >and quantifiable laws according to you. Gravity will accelerate mass at
> >9.8/s/s, how fast will the globe warm 2 degrees in the future?
>
> You can't predict that because you can't predict what emissions of CO2
will be
> like. That's like asking, what will be the pH of this beaker of water
after
> everybody in lab adds something to it.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >"A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's
> temperatures
> >are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing
the
> most
> >extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the
environmentalists.
> >
> >The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University [I suppose
Harvard
> >University is a real right wing hot spot, right Lloyd?], examined the
> findings of
> >studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores
and
> >historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures
> prevailing at
> >sites around the world.
> >
> >The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period
between
> the
> >ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher
even
> than
> >today.
> >
> >They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during
> which
> >the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up
> again -
> >but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.
> >
> >The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as
it
> >implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when
the
> >Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of
today's
> >temperature rise."
> > CITE:
>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...06/nclim06.xml
> >
> Again, that's one article. There are hundreds showing just the opposite.
Go
> to sci.environment and read some of the postings.
Hundreds huh? Show them to us Lloyd. For once in your life back up your
lies. I want to see hundreds of articles listed here supporting your claims
and rebunking his. You can't do it. His report is far more accurate than any
hogwash you've posted.
#4756
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bplea8$njr$28@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FBD9137.89E09CD@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> >> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >"global warming is as established fact"
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> >Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally
credible
> >> >fact from the other (correct) side...
> >>
> >> No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA,
look at
> >> NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
> >>
> >> As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution,
etc.
> >
> >Oh, ok. So, where are the "settled" equations of global warming? With
> Atoms, we
> >have empirical data, such as the Mole, Avogadro's Number and Molar Mass's
> number
> >that we can use to predict what will happen. So tell us how many degrees
the
> >globe will warm between now and 2010 please and show us how you obtained
that
> >figure? After all, global warming is just as settled as gravity, with
its
> known
> >and quantifiable laws according to you. Gravity will accelerate mass at
> >9.8/s/s, how fast will the globe warm 2 degrees in the future?
>
> You can't predict that because you can't predict what emissions of CO2
will be
> like. That's like asking, what will be the pH of this beaker of water
after
> everybody in lab adds something to it.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >"A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's
> temperatures
> >are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing
the
> most
> >extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the
environmentalists.
> >
> >The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University [I suppose
Harvard
> >University is a real right wing hot spot, right Lloyd?], examined the
> findings of
> >studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores
and
> >historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures
> prevailing at
> >sites around the world.
> >
> >The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period
between
> the
> >ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher
even
> than
> >today.
> >
> >They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during
> which
> >the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up
> again -
> >but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.
> >
> >The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as
it
> >implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when
the
> >Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of
today's
> >temperature rise."
> > CITE:
>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...06/nclim06.xml
> >
> Again, that's one article. There are hundreds showing just the opposite.
Go
> to sci.environment and read some of the postings.
Hundreds huh? Show them to us Lloyd. For once in your life back up your
lies. I want to see hundreds of articles listed here supporting your claims
and rebunking his. You can't do it. His report is far more accurate than any
hogwash you've posted.
#4757
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 21 Nov 03 11:24:00 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>And there are hundreds of scientific articles saying just the opposite.
>Further, this article has been substiantially refuted in Nature recently.
Is Nature a peer-reviewed scientific journal?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>And there are hundreds of scientific articles saying just the opposite.
>Further, this article has been substiantially refuted in Nature recently.
Is Nature a peer-reviewed scientific journal?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#4758
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 21 Nov 03 11:24:00 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>And there are hundreds of scientific articles saying just the opposite.
>Further, this article has been substiantially refuted in Nature recently.
Is Nature a peer-reviewed scientific journal?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>And there are hundreds of scientific articles saying just the opposite.
>Further, this article has been substiantially refuted in Nature recently.
Is Nature a peer-reviewed scientific journal?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#4759
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 21 Nov 03 11:24:00 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>And there are hundreds of scientific articles saying just the opposite.
>Further, this article has been substiantially refuted in Nature recently.
Is Nature a peer-reviewed scientific journal?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>And there are hundreds of scientific articles saying just the opposite.
>Further, this article has been substiantially refuted in Nature recently.
Is Nature a peer-reviewed scientific journal?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#4760
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <vrqjn514krhf8b@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bpild2$rom$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <bpg9t30i20@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> >> "Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
> >> >> I wish you wouldn't get your "facts" from right-wing propaganda
> >sources.>
> >> >
> >> >As opposed to what, your lefty friends in academia, the socialist press,
> >> >looney-left websites, etc.?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> No, peer-reviewed scientific journals and groups like NASA, NOAA, EPA,
> >> National Aacdemy of Sciences, etc.
> >
> >The same groups that claimed we were heading into a new ice age in 1975.
> >
> >
> Lie. No group said that.
"Analysis of the sun's varying activity in the last two millennia indicates
that contrary to the IPCC's speculation about man-made global warming as high as
5.8° C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its
coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected. It is shown that minima in the 80
to 90-year Gleissberg cycle of solar activity, coinciding with periods of cool
climate on Earth, are consistently linked to an 83-year cycle in the change of
the rotary force driving the sun's oscillatory motion about the centre of mass
of the solar system. As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can
be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another
one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe
cooling on Earth. This forecast should prove skillful as other long-range
forecasts of climate phenomena, based on cycles in the sun's orbital motion,
have turned out correct as for instance the prediction of the last three El
Niņos years before the respective event."
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/Landscheidt-1.html
> In article <vrqjn514krhf8b@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bpild2$rom$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <bpg9t30i20@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> >> "Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
> >> >> I wish you wouldn't get your "facts" from right-wing propaganda
> >sources.>
> >> >
> >> >As opposed to what, your lefty friends in academia, the socialist press,
> >> >looney-left websites, etc.?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> No, peer-reviewed scientific journals and groups like NASA, NOAA, EPA,
> >> National Aacdemy of Sciences, etc.
> >
> >The same groups that claimed we were heading into a new ice age in 1975.
> >
> >
> Lie. No group said that.
"Analysis of the sun's varying activity in the last two millennia indicates
that contrary to the IPCC's speculation about man-made global warming as high as
5.8° C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its
coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected. It is shown that minima in the 80
to 90-year Gleissberg cycle of solar activity, coinciding with periods of cool
climate on Earth, are consistently linked to an 83-year cycle in the change of
the rotary force driving the sun's oscillatory motion about the centre of mass
of the solar system. As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can
be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another
one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe
cooling on Earth. This forecast should prove skillful as other long-range
forecasts of climate phenomena, based on cycles in the sun's orbital motion,
have turned out correct as for instance the prediction of the last three El
Niņos years before the respective event."
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/Landscheidt-1.html