Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4761
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
#4762
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
#4763
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3FBD8DF2.FCB384E8@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> > global warming llogic telegraph
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> 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 review, carried out by a team from Harvard University,
>
> That's misleading. It's an independent think tank affiliated with Harvard; no
> more Harvard than the Hoover Institute is Stanford, for example.
>
> >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."
>
> And there are hundreds of scientific articles saying just the opposite.
> Further, this article has been substiantially refuted in Nature recently.
>
> > . . .
> >"Dr Philip Stott, the professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University
> of
> >London, told The Telegraph: "What has been forgotten in all the discussion
> about
> >global warming is a proper sense of history."
> >
> >According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions
> >about the effect of higher global temperatures. "During the Medieval Warm
> >Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a
> >wonderful period of plenty for everyone.""
>
> That's just not true.
Notice you can't provide any support to refute the statement, other than simply
claiming "not true." Specific support? Referring to a general newsgroup(!) or
simply some organization doesn't cut it. You couldn't even say exactly was wrong
(according to YOU) about the information above.
>
>
> >
> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...06/nclim06.xml
> >
> >
> >
> >
> In article <3FBD8DF2.FCB384E8@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> > global warming llogic telegraph
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> 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 review, carried out by a team from Harvard University,
>
> That's misleading. It's an independent think tank affiliated with Harvard; no
> more Harvard than the Hoover Institute is Stanford, for example.
>
> >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."
>
> And there are hundreds of scientific articles saying just the opposite.
> Further, this article has been substiantially refuted in Nature recently.
>
> > . . .
> >"Dr Philip Stott, the professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University
> of
> >London, told The Telegraph: "What has been forgotten in all the discussion
> about
> >global warming is a proper sense of history."
> >
> >According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions
> >about the effect of higher global temperatures. "During the Medieval Warm
> >Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a
> >wonderful period of plenty for everyone.""
>
> That's just not true.
Notice you can't provide any support to refute the statement, other than simply
claiming "not true." Specific support? Referring to a general newsgroup(!) or
simply some organization doesn't cut it. You couldn't even say exactly was wrong
(according to YOU) about the information above.
>
>
> >
> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...06/nclim06.xml
> >
> >
> >
> >
#4764
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3FBD8DF2.FCB384E8@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> > global warming llogic telegraph
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> 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 review, carried out by a team from Harvard University,
>
> That's misleading. It's an independent think tank affiliated with Harvard; no
> more Harvard than the Hoover Institute is Stanford, for example.
>
> >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."
>
> And there are hundreds of scientific articles saying just the opposite.
> Further, this article has been substiantially refuted in Nature recently.
>
> > . . .
> >"Dr Philip Stott, the professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University
> of
> >London, told The Telegraph: "What has been forgotten in all the discussion
> about
> >global warming is a proper sense of history."
> >
> >According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions
> >about the effect of higher global temperatures. "During the Medieval Warm
> >Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a
> >wonderful period of plenty for everyone.""
>
> That's just not true.
Notice you can't provide any support to refute the statement, other than simply
claiming "not true." Specific support? Referring to a general newsgroup(!) or
simply some organization doesn't cut it. You couldn't even say exactly was wrong
(according to YOU) about the information above.
>
>
> >
> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...06/nclim06.xml
> >
> >
> >
> >
> In article <3FBD8DF2.FCB384E8@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> > global warming llogic telegraph
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> 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 review, carried out by a team from Harvard University,
>
> That's misleading. It's an independent think tank affiliated with Harvard; no
> more Harvard than the Hoover Institute is Stanford, for example.
>
> >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."
>
> And there are hundreds of scientific articles saying just the opposite.
> Further, this article has been substiantially refuted in Nature recently.
>
> > . . .
> >"Dr Philip Stott, the professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University
> of
> >London, told The Telegraph: "What has been forgotten in all the discussion
> about
> >global warming is a proper sense of history."
> >
> >According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions
> >about the effect of higher global temperatures. "During the Medieval Warm
> >Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a
> >wonderful period of plenty for everyone.""
>
> That's just not true.
Notice you can't provide any support to refute the statement, other than simply
claiming "not true." Specific support? Referring to a general newsgroup(!) or
simply some organization doesn't cut it. You couldn't even say exactly was wrong
(according to YOU) about the information above.
>
>
> >
> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...06/nclim06.xml
> >
> >
> >
> >
#4765
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3FBD8DF2.FCB384E8@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> > global warming llogic telegraph
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> 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 review, carried out by a team from Harvard University,
>
> That's misleading. It's an independent think tank affiliated with Harvard; no
> more Harvard than the Hoover Institute is Stanford, for example.
>
> >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."
>
> And there are hundreds of scientific articles saying just the opposite.
> Further, this article has been substiantially refuted in Nature recently.
>
> > . . .
> >"Dr Philip Stott, the professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University
> of
> >London, told The Telegraph: "What has been forgotten in all the discussion
> about
> >global warming is a proper sense of history."
> >
> >According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions
> >about the effect of higher global temperatures. "During the Medieval Warm
> >Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a
> >wonderful period of plenty for everyone.""
>
> That's just not true.
Notice you can't provide any support to refute the statement, other than simply
claiming "not true." Specific support? Referring to a general newsgroup(!) or
simply some organization doesn't cut it. You couldn't even say exactly was wrong
(according to YOU) about the information above.
>
>
> >
> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...06/nclim06.xml
> >
> >
> >
> >
> In article <3FBD8DF2.FCB384E8@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> > global warming llogic telegraph
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> 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 review, carried out by a team from Harvard University,
>
> That's misleading. It's an independent think tank affiliated with Harvard; no
> more Harvard than the Hoover Institute is Stanford, for example.
>
> >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."
>
> And there are hundreds of scientific articles saying just the opposite.
> Further, this article has been substiantially refuted in Nature recently.
>
> > . . .
> >"Dr Philip Stott, the professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University
> of
> >London, told The Telegraph: "What has been forgotten in all the discussion
> about
> >global warming is a proper sense of history."
> >
> >According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions
> >about the effect of higher global temperatures. "During the Medieval Warm
> >Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a
> >wonderful period of plenty for everyone.""
>
> That's just not true.
Notice you can't provide any support to refute the statement, other than simply
claiming "not true." Specific support? Referring to a general newsgroup(!) or
simply some organization doesn't cut it. You couldn't even say exactly was wrong
(according to YOU) about the information above.
>
>
> >
> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...06/nclim06.xml
> >
> >
> >
> >
#4766
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> 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.
There are "hundreds" of articles out there that support racism too, but that does
not make them right. Notice that you couldn't actually dispute the information
above or how it was obtained. Citing some newsgroup doesn't provide any
credibility.
> 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.
There are "hundreds" of articles out there that support racism too, but that does
not make them right. Notice that you couldn't actually dispute the information
above or how it was obtained. Citing some newsgroup doesn't provide any
credibility.
#4767
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> 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.
There are "hundreds" of articles out there that support racism too, but that does
not make them right. Notice that you couldn't actually dispute the information
above or how it was obtained. Citing some newsgroup doesn't provide any
credibility.
> 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.
There are "hundreds" of articles out there that support racism too, but that does
not make them right. Notice that you couldn't actually dispute the information
above or how it was obtained. Citing some newsgroup doesn't provide any
credibility.
#4768
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> 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.
There are "hundreds" of articles out there that support racism too, but that does
not make them right. Notice that you couldn't actually dispute the information
above or how it was obtained. Citing some newsgroup doesn't provide any
credibility.
> 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.
There are "hundreds" of articles out there that support racism too, but that does
not make them right. Notice that you couldn't actually dispute the information
above or how it was obtained. Citing some newsgroup doesn't provide any
credibility.
#4769
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.
Wrong again, Lloyd. The NAS and NSF both worried about that.
Climate Change: The Science Isn't Settled
" At the time the U.S. Department of Energy was created in 1977, there was
wide------ concern about the cooling trend that had been observed for the
previous quarter-century. After 1940 the temperature, at least in the Northern
Hemisphere, had dropped about one-half degree Fahrenheit -- and more in the
higher latitudes. In 1974 the National Science Board, the governing body of the
National Science Foundation, stated: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world
temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last
decade." Two years earlier, the board had observed: "Judging from the record of
the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be
drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age." And in 1975 the
National Academy of Sciences stated: "The climates of the earth have always been
changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large
these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do
not know." "
CITE:
WASHINGTON POST MONDAY JULY 7, 2003 Page A17
URL:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Jul7.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.
Wrong again, Lloyd. The NAS and NSF both worried about that.
Climate Change: The Science Isn't Settled
" At the time the U.S. Department of Energy was created in 1977, there was
wide------ concern about the cooling trend that had been observed for the
previous quarter-century. After 1940 the temperature, at least in the Northern
Hemisphere, had dropped about one-half degree Fahrenheit -- and more in the
higher latitudes. In 1974 the National Science Board, the governing body of the
National Science Foundation, stated: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world
temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last
decade." Two years earlier, the board had observed: "Judging from the record of
the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be
drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age." And in 1975 the
National Academy of Sciences stated: "The climates of the earth have always been
changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large
these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do
not know." "
CITE:
WASHINGTON POST MONDAY JULY 7, 2003 Page A17
URL:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Jul7.html
#4770
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.
Wrong again, Lloyd. The NAS and NSF both worried about that.
Climate Change: The Science Isn't Settled
" At the time the U.S. Department of Energy was created in 1977, there was
wide------ concern about the cooling trend that had been observed for the
previous quarter-century. After 1940 the temperature, at least in the Northern
Hemisphere, had dropped about one-half degree Fahrenheit -- and more in the
higher latitudes. In 1974 the National Science Board, the governing body of the
National Science Foundation, stated: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world
temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last
decade." Two years earlier, the board had observed: "Judging from the record of
the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be
drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age." And in 1975 the
National Academy of Sciences stated: "The climates of the earth have always been
changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large
these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do
not know." "
CITE:
WASHINGTON POST MONDAY JULY 7, 2003 Page A17
URL:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Jul7.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.
Wrong again, Lloyd. The NAS and NSF both worried about that.
Climate Change: The Science Isn't Settled
" At the time the U.S. Department of Energy was created in 1977, there was
wide------ concern about the cooling trend that had been observed for the
previous quarter-century. After 1940 the temperature, at least in the Northern
Hemisphere, had dropped about one-half degree Fahrenheit -- and more in the
higher latitudes. In 1974 the National Science Board, the governing body of the
National Science Foundation, stated: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world
temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last
decade." Two years earlier, the board had observed: "Judging from the record of
the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be
drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age." And in 1975 the
National Academy of Sciences stated: "The climates of the earth have always been
changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large
these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do
not know." "
CITE:
WASHINGTON POST MONDAY JULY 7, 2003 Page A17
URL:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Jul7.html