Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5841
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCE332E.F20E016B@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
>> <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no
religion
>> >> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping
with its
>> >> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
>> >> people?), but why should government discriminate?
>> >
>> >I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination.
Marriage
>> >is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If there
are
>> >particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages"
beneficial
>> >and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the law,
or
>> >have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the process
by
>> >redefining the word.
>>
>> This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
>> as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
>
>It is not a marriage. I am not opposed to people of the same --- entering
into a
>commited relationship, but that is not the same thing as a traditional
marriage. If
>there are benefits related to a traditional marriage that same --- couple
feel they
>are entitled to, then they should petition their representatives to pass laws
to
>extend these benefits to them and not try to duck the process by redefining
an
>establishment that has long been in place.
>
>Ed
>
Slavery was an instutition that was "long in place" too. Just because a form
of discrimination has lasted a long time isn't any reason to resist changing
it.
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
>> <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no
religion
>> >> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping
with its
>> >> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
>> >> people?), but why should government discriminate?
>> >
>> >I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination.
Marriage
>> >is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If there
are
>> >particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages"
beneficial
>> >and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the law,
or
>> >have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the process
by
>> >redefining the word.
>>
>> This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
>> as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
>
>It is not a marriage. I am not opposed to people of the same --- entering
into a
>commited relationship, but that is not the same thing as a traditional
marriage. If
>there are benefits related to a traditional marriage that same --- couple
feel they
>are entitled to, then they should petition their representatives to pass laws
to
>extend these benefits to them and not try to duck the process by redefining
an
>establishment that has long been in place.
>
>Ed
>
Slavery was an instutition that was "long in place" too. Just because a form
of discrimination has lasted a long time isn't any reason to resist changing
it.
#5842
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCE332E.F20E016B@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
>> <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no
religion
>> >> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping
with its
>> >> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
>> >> people?), but why should government discriminate?
>> >
>> >I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination.
Marriage
>> >is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If there
are
>> >particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages"
beneficial
>> >and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the law,
or
>> >have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the process
by
>> >redefining the word.
>>
>> This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
>> as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
>
>It is not a marriage. I am not opposed to people of the same --- entering
into a
>commited relationship, but that is not the same thing as a traditional
marriage. If
>there are benefits related to a traditional marriage that same --- couple
feel they
>are entitled to, then they should petition their representatives to pass laws
to
>extend these benefits to them and not try to duck the process by redefining
an
>establishment that has long been in place.
>
>Ed
>
Slavery was an instutition that was "long in place" too. Just because a form
of discrimination has lasted a long time isn't any reason to resist changing
it.
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
>> <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no
religion
>> >> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping
with its
>> >> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
>> >> people?), but why should government discriminate?
>> >
>> >I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination.
Marriage
>> >is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If there
are
>> >particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages"
beneficial
>> >and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the law,
or
>> >have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the process
by
>> >redefining the word.
>>
>> This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
>> as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
>
>It is not a marriage. I am not opposed to people of the same --- entering
into a
>commited relationship, but that is not the same thing as a traditional
marriage. If
>there are benefits related to a traditional marriage that same --- couple
feel they
>are entitled to, then they should petition their representatives to pass laws
to
>extend these benefits to them and not try to duck the process by redefining
an
>establishment that has long been in place.
>
>Ed
>
Slavery was an instutition that was "long in place" too. Just because a form
of discrimination has lasted a long time isn't any reason to resist changing
it.
#5843
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <oBqzb.32141$vb1.20125@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com> ,
"Larry St. Regis" <lstregis@DONT_SPAM_HEREi4putt.com> wrote:
>
>"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3FCE332E.F20E016B@mindspring.com...
>>
>>
>> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
>> > <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no
>religion
>> > >> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping
>with its
>> > >> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by
>divorced
>> > >> people?), but why should government discriminate?
>> > >
>> > >I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize
>discrimination. Marriage
>> > >is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If
>there are
>> > >particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages"
>beneficial
>> > >and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the
>law, or
>> > >have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the
>process by
>> > >redefining the word.
>> >
>> > This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
>> > as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
>>
>> It is not a marriage. I am not opposed to people of the same --- entering
>into a
>> commited relationship, but that is not the same thing as a traditional
>marriage. If
>> there are benefits related to a traditional marriage that same --- couple
>feel they
>> are entitled to, then they should petition their representatives to pass
>laws to
>> extend these benefits to them and not try to duck the process by
>redefining an
>> establishment that has long been in place.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
>Out here in Ahnold's Kalifonia, we have a "domestic partners" registry that
>allows partners OF THE SAME --- to register their relationship. In most
>"progressive" companies, mine included, registered domestic partners are
>eligible for the same benefits that married couples enjoy.
>
>The problem I have with the situation is that OPPOSITE --- partners do not
>get the same consideration! My wife and I lived together for five years
>before getting married. We were denied the ability to register as domestic
>partners, with the cited reason being "you are eligible to be legally
>married". Hmmph.
>
The rationale behind that is opposite --- partners CAN get married; same ---
partners cannot.
>Larry
>
"Larry St. Regis" <lstregis@DONT_SPAM_HEREi4putt.com> wrote:
>
>"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3FCE332E.F20E016B@mindspring.com...
>>
>>
>> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
>> > <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no
>religion
>> > >> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping
>with its
>> > >> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by
>divorced
>> > >> people?), but why should government discriminate?
>> > >
>> > >I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize
>discrimination. Marriage
>> > >is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If
>there are
>> > >particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages"
>beneficial
>> > >and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the
>law, or
>> > >have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the
>process by
>> > >redefining the word.
>> >
>> > This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
>> > as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
>>
>> It is not a marriage. I am not opposed to people of the same --- entering
>into a
>> commited relationship, but that is not the same thing as a traditional
>marriage. If
>> there are benefits related to a traditional marriage that same --- couple
>feel they
>> are entitled to, then they should petition their representatives to pass
>laws to
>> extend these benefits to them and not try to duck the process by
>redefining an
>> establishment that has long been in place.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
>Out here in Ahnold's Kalifonia, we have a "domestic partners" registry that
>allows partners OF THE SAME --- to register their relationship. In most
>"progressive" companies, mine included, registered domestic partners are
>eligible for the same benefits that married couples enjoy.
>
>The problem I have with the situation is that OPPOSITE --- partners do not
>get the same consideration! My wife and I lived together for five years
>before getting married. We were denied the ability to register as domestic
>partners, with the cited reason being "you are eligible to be legally
>married". Hmmph.
>
The rationale behind that is opposite --- partners CAN get married; same ---
partners cannot.
>Larry
>
#5844
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <oBqzb.32141$vb1.20125@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com> ,
"Larry St. Regis" <lstregis@DONT_SPAM_HEREi4putt.com> wrote:
>
>"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3FCE332E.F20E016B@mindspring.com...
>>
>>
>> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
>> > <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no
>religion
>> > >> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping
>with its
>> > >> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by
>divorced
>> > >> people?), but why should government discriminate?
>> > >
>> > >I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize
>discrimination. Marriage
>> > >is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If
>there are
>> > >particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages"
>beneficial
>> > >and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the
>law, or
>> > >have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the
>process by
>> > >redefining the word.
>> >
>> > This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
>> > as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
>>
>> It is not a marriage. I am not opposed to people of the same --- entering
>into a
>> commited relationship, but that is not the same thing as a traditional
>marriage. If
>> there are benefits related to a traditional marriage that same --- couple
>feel they
>> are entitled to, then they should petition their representatives to pass
>laws to
>> extend these benefits to them and not try to duck the process by
>redefining an
>> establishment that has long been in place.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
>Out here in Ahnold's Kalifonia, we have a "domestic partners" registry that
>allows partners OF THE SAME --- to register their relationship. In most
>"progressive" companies, mine included, registered domestic partners are
>eligible for the same benefits that married couples enjoy.
>
>The problem I have with the situation is that OPPOSITE --- partners do not
>get the same consideration! My wife and I lived together for five years
>before getting married. We were denied the ability to register as domestic
>partners, with the cited reason being "you are eligible to be legally
>married". Hmmph.
>
The rationale behind that is opposite --- partners CAN get married; same ---
partners cannot.
>Larry
>
"Larry St. Regis" <lstregis@DONT_SPAM_HEREi4putt.com> wrote:
>
>"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3FCE332E.F20E016B@mindspring.com...
>>
>>
>> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
>> > <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no
>religion
>> > >> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping
>with its
>> > >> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by
>divorced
>> > >> people?), but why should government discriminate?
>> > >
>> > >I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize
>discrimination. Marriage
>> > >is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If
>there are
>> > >particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages"
>beneficial
>> > >and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the
>law, or
>> > >have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the
>process by
>> > >redefining the word.
>> >
>> > This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
>> > as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
>>
>> It is not a marriage. I am not opposed to people of the same --- entering
>into a
>> commited relationship, but that is not the same thing as a traditional
>marriage. If
>> there are benefits related to a traditional marriage that same --- couple
>feel they
>> are entitled to, then they should petition their representatives to pass
>laws to
>> extend these benefits to them and not try to duck the process by
>redefining an
>> establishment that has long been in place.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
>Out here in Ahnold's Kalifonia, we have a "domestic partners" registry that
>allows partners OF THE SAME --- to register their relationship. In most
>"progressive" companies, mine included, registered domestic partners are
>eligible for the same benefits that married couples enjoy.
>
>The problem I have with the situation is that OPPOSITE --- partners do not
>get the same consideration! My wife and I lived together for five years
>before getting married. We were denied the ability to register as domestic
>partners, with the cited reason being "you are eligible to be legally
>married". Hmmph.
>
The rationale behind that is opposite --- partners CAN get married; same ---
partners cannot.
>Larry
>
#5845
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <oBqzb.32141$vb1.20125@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com> ,
"Larry St. Regis" <lstregis@DONT_SPAM_HEREi4putt.com> wrote:
>
>"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3FCE332E.F20E016B@mindspring.com...
>>
>>
>> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
>> > <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no
>religion
>> > >> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping
>with its
>> > >> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by
>divorced
>> > >> people?), but why should government discriminate?
>> > >
>> > >I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize
>discrimination. Marriage
>> > >is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If
>there are
>> > >particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages"
>beneficial
>> > >and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the
>law, or
>> > >have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the
>process by
>> > >redefining the word.
>> >
>> > This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
>> > as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
>>
>> It is not a marriage. I am not opposed to people of the same --- entering
>into a
>> commited relationship, but that is not the same thing as a traditional
>marriage. If
>> there are benefits related to a traditional marriage that same --- couple
>feel they
>> are entitled to, then they should petition their representatives to pass
>laws to
>> extend these benefits to them and not try to duck the process by
>redefining an
>> establishment that has long been in place.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
>Out here in Ahnold's Kalifonia, we have a "domestic partners" registry that
>allows partners OF THE SAME --- to register their relationship. In most
>"progressive" companies, mine included, registered domestic partners are
>eligible for the same benefits that married couples enjoy.
>
>The problem I have with the situation is that OPPOSITE --- partners do not
>get the same consideration! My wife and I lived together for five years
>before getting married. We were denied the ability to register as domestic
>partners, with the cited reason being "you are eligible to be legally
>married". Hmmph.
>
The rationale behind that is opposite --- partners CAN get married; same ---
partners cannot.
>Larry
>
"Larry St. Regis" <lstregis@DONT_SPAM_HEREi4putt.com> wrote:
>
>"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3FCE332E.F20E016B@mindspring.com...
>>
>>
>> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
>> > <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no
>religion
>> > >> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping
>with its
>> > >> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by
>divorced
>> > >> people?), but why should government discriminate?
>> > >
>> > >I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize
>discrimination. Marriage
>> > >is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If
>there are
>> > >particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages"
>beneficial
>> > >and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the
>law, or
>> > >have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the
>process by
>> > >redefining the word.
>> >
>> > This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
>> > as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
>>
>> It is not a marriage. I am not opposed to people of the same --- entering
>into a
>> commited relationship, but that is not the same thing as a traditional
>marriage. If
>> there are benefits related to a traditional marriage that same --- couple
>feel they
>> are entitled to, then they should petition their representatives to pass
>laws to
>> extend these benefits to them and not try to duck the process by
>redefining an
>> establishment that has long been in place.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
>Out here in Ahnold's Kalifonia, we have a "domestic partners" registry that
>allows partners OF THE SAME --- to register their relationship. In most
>"progressive" companies, mine included, registered domestic partners are
>eligible for the same benefits that married couples enjoy.
>
>The problem I have with the situation is that OPPOSITE --- partners do not
>get the same consideration! My wife and I lived together for five years
>before getting married. We were denied the ability to register as domestic
>partners, with the cited reason being "you are eligible to be legally
>married". Hmmph.
>
The rationale behind that is opposite --- partners CAN get married; same ---
partners cannot.
>Larry
>
#5846
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <vssqfu1m3bce6e@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bql23n$c29$23@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <nLjzb.86$uE6.60@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
>> "OrygunGuy" <orygun.guy@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >A technical paper that appeared in July, 2003 in GSA Today, a journal of
>the
>> >Geological Society of America, gave evidence that the periodic cooling
>and
>> >warming of the planet over the past millions of years is cyclical and is
>> >caused by a complex interplay between solar activity and cosmic rays. It
>> >concluded that carbon dioxide emissions are not the main "driver" of
>climate
>> >change.
>> >
>> >Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist from the Racah Institute of Physics of
>the
>> >Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Prof. Jan Veiser a geochemist at the
>> >University of Ottawa in Canada, say that temperature variations are due
>more
>> >to cosmic forces than to the actions of man.
>> >
>> >In the article, Shaviv and Veiser tell of their studies illustrating a
>> >correlation between past cosmic ray flux - the high-energy particles
>> >reaching us from stellar explosions - and long-term climate variability,
>as
>> >recorded by oxygen isotopes trapped in rocks formed by ancient marine
>> >fossils. The level of cosmic ray activity reaching the earth and its
>> >atmosphere was reconstructed using another isotopic record in meteorites.
>> >
>> >The study showed that peak periods of cosmic rays reaching the earth over
>> >the past 550 million years coincided with lower global temperatures,
>> >apparently due to the way that the cosmic rays promote low-level cloud
>> >formation, hence blocking out the sun. No correlation was obtained,
>> >however, with the changing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
>> >
>> >The conclusion of the two scientists is that celestial processes seem to
>be
>> >the dominant influence on climate change, and that increased carbon
>dioxide
>> >release, while certainly not beneficial, is only secondary to those
>forces
>> >which are beyond our control.
>>
>> But we know that the warming TODAY is due to CO2.
>
>No, we don't.
Sorry, when I said "we" I meant "we who are in the field of science."
>
> It doesn't matter that
>> warmings in the past may have had other causes. That's like arguing that
>> since exercise raised your body temp. yesterday, a virus cannot be the
>cause
>> of your fever today.
>
>
>Still using the same feeble arguments I see.
Sorry if the concept of an "analogy" confused you. Bet you bombed the SATs.
>
>>
>> >
>> >For me I think I'll do what I see Frank say all of the time...
>> >
>> >
>> >yeah see if you can find out some thing about the trails
>> >
>> >
>> >Frank. Sling some mud for me!!!!!!!
>> >Braille trail 4 wheelers
>> >we wheel by feel
>> >79 chev 3/4 bb
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:b5b4685f.0312020814.750e4869@posting.google. com...
>> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> >news:<vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>...
>> >> > "z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google.c om...
>> >> > > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
>> >> > > > 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. Your agreement with their
>belief
>> >does
>> >> > not prove
>> >> > > > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
>> >> > anything. 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.
>> >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.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input
>and
>> >> > > one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
>> >> > > inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered,
>and
>> >> > > the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
>> >> > > confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
>> >> > > reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
>> >> > > declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they
>"decided
>> >> > > on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there
>some
>> >> > > kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
>> >> > > climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw
>the
>> >> > > economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
>> >> > > warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et
>al
>> >> > > have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
>> >> > > operation?
>> >> > > And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the
>establishment
>> >> > > who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
>> >> >
>> >> > I believe they are wrong. They discount solar influence when IMHO it
>is
>> >a
>> >> > far more likely cause. WE know solar output is variable, we know how
>> >great a
>> >> > temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating
>> >(think
>> >> > seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force
>> >behind
>> >> > global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
>> >>
>> >> Well, here are the estimated magnitudes of the components in the IPCC
>> >> model, with confidence limits <pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/warming.jpg>.
>> >> Compare the magnitude of the solar component, though large, with the
>> >> magnitude of the CO2 component, even with the max end of the solar
>> >> confidence limit and the min end of the CO2 confidence limit. The
>> >> thing being, that the reasons for the IPCC adopting these estimates
>> >> are given in the report along with references to the published
>> >> studies, etc. A far cry from just saying they 'discount' solar
>> >> warming. So do you have any such evidence for your more solar
>> >> position? (This wan't meant to be as hostile a challenge as it sounds
>> >> on reading it, just a conversational inquiry tone).
>> >
>> >
>
>
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bql23n$c29$23@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <nLjzb.86$uE6.60@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
>> "OrygunGuy" <orygun.guy@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >A technical paper that appeared in July, 2003 in GSA Today, a journal of
>the
>> >Geological Society of America, gave evidence that the periodic cooling
>and
>> >warming of the planet over the past millions of years is cyclical and is
>> >caused by a complex interplay between solar activity and cosmic rays. It
>> >concluded that carbon dioxide emissions are not the main "driver" of
>climate
>> >change.
>> >
>> >Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist from the Racah Institute of Physics of
>the
>> >Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Prof. Jan Veiser a geochemist at the
>> >University of Ottawa in Canada, say that temperature variations are due
>more
>> >to cosmic forces than to the actions of man.
>> >
>> >In the article, Shaviv and Veiser tell of their studies illustrating a
>> >correlation between past cosmic ray flux - the high-energy particles
>> >reaching us from stellar explosions - and long-term climate variability,
>as
>> >recorded by oxygen isotopes trapped in rocks formed by ancient marine
>> >fossils. The level of cosmic ray activity reaching the earth and its
>> >atmosphere was reconstructed using another isotopic record in meteorites.
>> >
>> >The study showed that peak periods of cosmic rays reaching the earth over
>> >the past 550 million years coincided with lower global temperatures,
>> >apparently due to the way that the cosmic rays promote low-level cloud
>> >formation, hence blocking out the sun. No correlation was obtained,
>> >however, with the changing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
>> >
>> >The conclusion of the two scientists is that celestial processes seem to
>be
>> >the dominant influence on climate change, and that increased carbon
>dioxide
>> >release, while certainly not beneficial, is only secondary to those
>forces
>> >which are beyond our control.
>>
>> But we know that the warming TODAY is due to CO2.
>
>No, we don't.
Sorry, when I said "we" I meant "we who are in the field of science."
>
> It doesn't matter that
>> warmings in the past may have had other causes. That's like arguing that
>> since exercise raised your body temp. yesterday, a virus cannot be the
>cause
>> of your fever today.
>
>
>Still using the same feeble arguments I see.
Sorry if the concept of an "analogy" confused you. Bet you bombed the SATs.
>
>>
>> >
>> >For me I think I'll do what I see Frank say all of the time...
>> >
>> >
>> >yeah see if you can find out some thing about the trails
>> >
>> >
>> >Frank. Sling some mud for me!!!!!!!
>> >Braille trail 4 wheelers
>> >we wheel by feel
>> >79 chev 3/4 bb
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:b5b4685f.0312020814.750e4869@posting.google. com...
>> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> >news:<vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>...
>> >> > "z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google.c om...
>> >> > > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
>> >> > > > 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. Your agreement with their
>belief
>> >does
>> >> > not prove
>> >> > > > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
>> >> > anything. 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.
>> >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.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input
>and
>> >> > > one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
>> >> > > inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered,
>and
>> >> > > the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
>> >> > > confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
>> >> > > reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
>> >> > > declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they
>"decided
>> >> > > on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there
>some
>> >> > > kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
>> >> > > climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw
>the
>> >> > > economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
>> >> > > warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et
>al
>> >> > > have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
>> >> > > operation?
>> >> > > And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the
>establishment
>> >> > > who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
>> >> >
>> >> > I believe they are wrong. They discount solar influence when IMHO it
>is
>> >a
>> >> > far more likely cause. WE know solar output is variable, we know how
>> >great a
>> >> > temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating
>> >(think
>> >> > seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force
>> >behind
>> >> > global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
>> >>
>> >> Well, here are the estimated magnitudes of the components in the IPCC
>> >> model, with confidence limits <pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/warming.jpg>.
>> >> Compare the magnitude of the solar component, though large, with the
>> >> magnitude of the CO2 component, even with the max end of the solar
>> >> confidence limit and the min end of the CO2 confidence limit. The
>> >> thing being, that the reasons for the IPCC adopting these estimates
>> >> are given in the report along with references to the published
>> >> studies, etc. A far cry from just saying they 'discount' solar
>> >> warming. So do you have any such evidence for your more solar
>> >> position? (This wan't meant to be as hostile a challenge as it sounds
>> >> on reading it, just a conversational inquiry tone).
>> >
>> >
>
>
#5847
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <vssqfu1m3bce6e@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bql23n$c29$23@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <nLjzb.86$uE6.60@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
>> "OrygunGuy" <orygun.guy@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >A technical paper that appeared in July, 2003 in GSA Today, a journal of
>the
>> >Geological Society of America, gave evidence that the periodic cooling
>and
>> >warming of the planet over the past millions of years is cyclical and is
>> >caused by a complex interplay between solar activity and cosmic rays. It
>> >concluded that carbon dioxide emissions are not the main "driver" of
>climate
>> >change.
>> >
>> >Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist from the Racah Institute of Physics of
>the
>> >Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Prof. Jan Veiser a geochemist at the
>> >University of Ottawa in Canada, say that temperature variations are due
>more
>> >to cosmic forces than to the actions of man.
>> >
>> >In the article, Shaviv and Veiser tell of their studies illustrating a
>> >correlation between past cosmic ray flux - the high-energy particles
>> >reaching us from stellar explosions - and long-term climate variability,
>as
>> >recorded by oxygen isotopes trapped in rocks formed by ancient marine
>> >fossils. The level of cosmic ray activity reaching the earth and its
>> >atmosphere was reconstructed using another isotopic record in meteorites.
>> >
>> >The study showed that peak periods of cosmic rays reaching the earth over
>> >the past 550 million years coincided with lower global temperatures,
>> >apparently due to the way that the cosmic rays promote low-level cloud
>> >formation, hence blocking out the sun. No correlation was obtained,
>> >however, with the changing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
>> >
>> >The conclusion of the two scientists is that celestial processes seem to
>be
>> >the dominant influence on climate change, and that increased carbon
>dioxide
>> >release, while certainly not beneficial, is only secondary to those
>forces
>> >which are beyond our control.
>>
>> But we know that the warming TODAY is due to CO2.
>
>No, we don't.
Sorry, when I said "we" I meant "we who are in the field of science."
>
> It doesn't matter that
>> warmings in the past may have had other causes. That's like arguing that
>> since exercise raised your body temp. yesterday, a virus cannot be the
>cause
>> of your fever today.
>
>
>Still using the same feeble arguments I see.
Sorry if the concept of an "analogy" confused you. Bet you bombed the SATs.
>
>>
>> >
>> >For me I think I'll do what I see Frank say all of the time...
>> >
>> >
>> >yeah see if you can find out some thing about the trails
>> >
>> >
>> >Frank. Sling some mud for me!!!!!!!
>> >Braille trail 4 wheelers
>> >we wheel by feel
>> >79 chev 3/4 bb
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:b5b4685f.0312020814.750e4869@posting.google. com...
>> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> >news:<vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>...
>> >> > "z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google.c om...
>> >> > > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
>> >> > > > 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. Your agreement with their
>belief
>> >does
>> >> > not prove
>> >> > > > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
>> >> > anything. 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.
>> >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.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input
>and
>> >> > > one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
>> >> > > inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered,
>and
>> >> > > the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
>> >> > > confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
>> >> > > reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
>> >> > > declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they
>"decided
>> >> > > on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there
>some
>> >> > > kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
>> >> > > climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw
>the
>> >> > > economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
>> >> > > warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et
>al
>> >> > > have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
>> >> > > operation?
>> >> > > And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the
>establishment
>> >> > > who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
>> >> >
>> >> > I believe they are wrong. They discount solar influence when IMHO it
>is
>> >a
>> >> > far more likely cause. WE know solar output is variable, we know how
>> >great a
>> >> > temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating
>> >(think
>> >> > seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force
>> >behind
>> >> > global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
>> >>
>> >> Well, here are the estimated magnitudes of the components in the IPCC
>> >> model, with confidence limits <pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/warming.jpg>.
>> >> Compare the magnitude of the solar component, though large, with the
>> >> magnitude of the CO2 component, even with the max end of the solar
>> >> confidence limit and the min end of the CO2 confidence limit. The
>> >> thing being, that the reasons for the IPCC adopting these estimates
>> >> are given in the report along with references to the published
>> >> studies, etc. A far cry from just saying they 'discount' solar
>> >> warming. So do you have any such evidence for your more solar
>> >> position? (This wan't meant to be as hostile a challenge as it sounds
>> >> on reading it, just a conversational inquiry tone).
>> >
>> >
>
>
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bql23n$c29$23@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <nLjzb.86$uE6.60@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
>> "OrygunGuy" <orygun.guy@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >A technical paper that appeared in July, 2003 in GSA Today, a journal of
>the
>> >Geological Society of America, gave evidence that the periodic cooling
>and
>> >warming of the planet over the past millions of years is cyclical and is
>> >caused by a complex interplay between solar activity and cosmic rays. It
>> >concluded that carbon dioxide emissions are not the main "driver" of
>climate
>> >change.
>> >
>> >Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist from the Racah Institute of Physics of
>the
>> >Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Prof. Jan Veiser a geochemist at the
>> >University of Ottawa in Canada, say that temperature variations are due
>more
>> >to cosmic forces than to the actions of man.
>> >
>> >In the article, Shaviv and Veiser tell of their studies illustrating a
>> >correlation between past cosmic ray flux - the high-energy particles
>> >reaching us from stellar explosions - and long-term climate variability,
>as
>> >recorded by oxygen isotopes trapped in rocks formed by ancient marine
>> >fossils. The level of cosmic ray activity reaching the earth and its
>> >atmosphere was reconstructed using another isotopic record in meteorites.
>> >
>> >The study showed that peak periods of cosmic rays reaching the earth over
>> >the past 550 million years coincided with lower global temperatures,
>> >apparently due to the way that the cosmic rays promote low-level cloud
>> >formation, hence blocking out the sun. No correlation was obtained,
>> >however, with the changing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
>> >
>> >The conclusion of the two scientists is that celestial processes seem to
>be
>> >the dominant influence on climate change, and that increased carbon
>dioxide
>> >release, while certainly not beneficial, is only secondary to those
>forces
>> >which are beyond our control.
>>
>> But we know that the warming TODAY is due to CO2.
>
>No, we don't.
Sorry, when I said "we" I meant "we who are in the field of science."
>
> It doesn't matter that
>> warmings in the past may have had other causes. That's like arguing that
>> since exercise raised your body temp. yesterday, a virus cannot be the
>cause
>> of your fever today.
>
>
>Still using the same feeble arguments I see.
Sorry if the concept of an "analogy" confused you. Bet you bombed the SATs.
>
>>
>> >
>> >For me I think I'll do what I see Frank say all of the time...
>> >
>> >
>> >yeah see if you can find out some thing about the trails
>> >
>> >
>> >Frank. Sling some mud for me!!!!!!!
>> >Braille trail 4 wheelers
>> >we wheel by feel
>> >79 chev 3/4 bb
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:b5b4685f.0312020814.750e4869@posting.google. com...
>> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> >news:<vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>...
>> >> > "z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google.c om...
>> >> > > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
>> >> > > > 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. Your agreement with their
>belief
>> >does
>> >> > not prove
>> >> > > > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
>> >> > anything. 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.
>> >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.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input
>and
>> >> > > one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
>> >> > > inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered,
>and
>> >> > > the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
>> >> > > confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
>> >> > > reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
>> >> > > declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they
>"decided
>> >> > > on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there
>some
>> >> > > kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
>> >> > > climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw
>the
>> >> > > economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
>> >> > > warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et
>al
>> >> > > have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
>> >> > > operation?
>> >> > > And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the
>establishment
>> >> > > who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
>> >> >
>> >> > I believe they are wrong. They discount solar influence when IMHO it
>is
>> >a
>> >> > far more likely cause. WE know solar output is variable, we know how
>> >great a
>> >> > temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating
>> >(think
>> >> > seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force
>> >behind
>> >> > global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
>> >>
>> >> Well, here are the estimated magnitudes of the components in the IPCC
>> >> model, with confidence limits <pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/warming.jpg>.
>> >> Compare the magnitude of the solar component, though large, with the
>> >> magnitude of the CO2 component, even with the max end of the solar
>> >> confidence limit and the min end of the CO2 confidence limit. The
>> >> thing being, that the reasons for the IPCC adopting these estimates
>> >> are given in the report along with references to the published
>> >> studies, etc. A far cry from just saying they 'discount' solar
>> >> warming. So do you have any such evidence for your more solar
>> >> position? (This wan't meant to be as hostile a challenge as it sounds
>> >> on reading it, just a conversational inquiry tone).
>> >
>> >
>
>
#5848
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <vssqfu1m3bce6e@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bql23n$c29$23@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <nLjzb.86$uE6.60@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
>> "OrygunGuy" <orygun.guy@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >A technical paper that appeared in July, 2003 in GSA Today, a journal of
>the
>> >Geological Society of America, gave evidence that the periodic cooling
>and
>> >warming of the planet over the past millions of years is cyclical and is
>> >caused by a complex interplay between solar activity and cosmic rays. It
>> >concluded that carbon dioxide emissions are not the main "driver" of
>climate
>> >change.
>> >
>> >Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist from the Racah Institute of Physics of
>the
>> >Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Prof. Jan Veiser a geochemist at the
>> >University of Ottawa in Canada, say that temperature variations are due
>more
>> >to cosmic forces than to the actions of man.
>> >
>> >In the article, Shaviv and Veiser tell of their studies illustrating a
>> >correlation between past cosmic ray flux - the high-energy particles
>> >reaching us from stellar explosions - and long-term climate variability,
>as
>> >recorded by oxygen isotopes trapped in rocks formed by ancient marine
>> >fossils. The level of cosmic ray activity reaching the earth and its
>> >atmosphere was reconstructed using another isotopic record in meteorites.
>> >
>> >The study showed that peak periods of cosmic rays reaching the earth over
>> >the past 550 million years coincided with lower global temperatures,
>> >apparently due to the way that the cosmic rays promote low-level cloud
>> >formation, hence blocking out the sun. No correlation was obtained,
>> >however, with the changing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
>> >
>> >The conclusion of the two scientists is that celestial processes seem to
>be
>> >the dominant influence on climate change, and that increased carbon
>dioxide
>> >release, while certainly not beneficial, is only secondary to those
>forces
>> >which are beyond our control.
>>
>> But we know that the warming TODAY is due to CO2.
>
>No, we don't.
Sorry, when I said "we" I meant "we who are in the field of science."
>
> It doesn't matter that
>> warmings in the past may have had other causes. That's like arguing that
>> since exercise raised your body temp. yesterday, a virus cannot be the
>cause
>> of your fever today.
>
>
>Still using the same feeble arguments I see.
Sorry if the concept of an "analogy" confused you. Bet you bombed the SATs.
>
>>
>> >
>> >For me I think I'll do what I see Frank say all of the time...
>> >
>> >
>> >yeah see if you can find out some thing about the trails
>> >
>> >
>> >Frank. Sling some mud for me!!!!!!!
>> >Braille trail 4 wheelers
>> >we wheel by feel
>> >79 chev 3/4 bb
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:b5b4685f.0312020814.750e4869@posting.google. com...
>> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> >news:<vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>...
>> >> > "z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google.c om...
>> >> > > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
>> >> > > > 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. Your agreement with their
>belief
>> >does
>> >> > not prove
>> >> > > > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
>> >> > anything. 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.
>> >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.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input
>and
>> >> > > one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
>> >> > > inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered,
>and
>> >> > > the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
>> >> > > confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
>> >> > > reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
>> >> > > declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they
>"decided
>> >> > > on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there
>some
>> >> > > kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
>> >> > > climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw
>the
>> >> > > economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
>> >> > > warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et
>al
>> >> > > have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
>> >> > > operation?
>> >> > > And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the
>establishment
>> >> > > who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
>> >> >
>> >> > I believe they are wrong. They discount solar influence when IMHO it
>is
>> >a
>> >> > far more likely cause. WE know solar output is variable, we know how
>> >great a
>> >> > temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating
>> >(think
>> >> > seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force
>> >behind
>> >> > global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
>> >>
>> >> Well, here are the estimated magnitudes of the components in the IPCC
>> >> model, with confidence limits <pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/warming.jpg>.
>> >> Compare the magnitude of the solar component, though large, with the
>> >> magnitude of the CO2 component, even with the max end of the solar
>> >> confidence limit and the min end of the CO2 confidence limit. The
>> >> thing being, that the reasons for the IPCC adopting these estimates
>> >> are given in the report along with references to the published
>> >> studies, etc. A far cry from just saying they 'discount' solar
>> >> warming. So do you have any such evidence for your more solar
>> >> position? (This wan't meant to be as hostile a challenge as it sounds
>> >> on reading it, just a conversational inquiry tone).
>> >
>> >
>
>
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bql23n$c29$23@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <nLjzb.86$uE6.60@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
>> "OrygunGuy" <orygun.guy@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >A technical paper that appeared in July, 2003 in GSA Today, a journal of
>the
>> >Geological Society of America, gave evidence that the periodic cooling
>and
>> >warming of the planet over the past millions of years is cyclical and is
>> >caused by a complex interplay between solar activity and cosmic rays. It
>> >concluded that carbon dioxide emissions are not the main "driver" of
>climate
>> >change.
>> >
>> >Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist from the Racah Institute of Physics of
>the
>> >Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Prof. Jan Veiser a geochemist at the
>> >University of Ottawa in Canada, say that temperature variations are due
>more
>> >to cosmic forces than to the actions of man.
>> >
>> >In the article, Shaviv and Veiser tell of their studies illustrating a
>> >correlation between past cosmic ray flux - the high-energy particles
>> >reaching us from stellar explosions - and long-term climate variability,
>as
>> >recorded by oxygen isotopes trapped in rocks formed by ancient marine
>> >fossils. The level of cosmic ray activity reaching the earth and its
>> >atmosphere was reconstructed using another isotopic record in meteorites.
>> >
>> >The study showed that peak periods of cosmic rays reaching the earth over
>> >the past 550 million years coincided with lower global temperatures,
>> >apparently due to the way that the cosmic rays promote low-level cloud
>> >formation, hence blocking out the sun. No correlation was obtained,
>> >however, with the changing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
>> >
>> >The conclusion of the two scientists is that celestial processes seem to
>be
>> >the dominant influence on climate change, and that increased carbon
>dioxide
>> >release, while certainly not beneficial, is only secondary to those
>forces
>> >which are beyond our control.
>>
>> But we know that the warming TODAY is due to CO2.
>
>No, we don't.
Sorry, when I said "we" I meant "we who are in the field of science."
>
> It doesn't matter that
>> warmings in the past may have had other causes. That's like arguing that
>> since exercise raised your body temp. yesterday, a virus cannot be the
>cause
>> of your fever today.
>
>
>Still using the same feeble arguments I see.
Sorry if the concept of an "analogy" confused you. Bet you bombed the SATs.
>
>>
>> >
>> >For me I think I'll do what I see Frank say all of the time...
>> >
>> >
>> >yeah see if you can find out some thing about the trails
>> >
>> >
>> >Frank. Sling some mud for me!!!!!!!
>> >Braille trail 4 wheelers
>> >we wheel by feel
>> >79 chev 3/4 bb
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:b5b4685f.0312020814.750e4869@posting.google. com...
>> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> >news:<vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>...
>> >> > "z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google.c om...
>> >> > > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
>> >> > > > 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. Your agreement with their
>belief
>> >does
>> >> > not prove
>> >> > > > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
>> >> > anything. 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.
>> >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.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input
>and
>> >> > > one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
>> >> > > inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered,
>and
>> >> > > the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
>> >> > > confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
>> >> > > reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
>> >> > > declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they
>"decided
>> >> > > on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there
>some
>> >> > > kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
>> >> > > climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw
>the
>> >> > > economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
>> >> > > warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et
>al
>> >> > > have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
>> >> > > operation?
>> >> > > And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the
>establishment
>> >> > > who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
>> >> >
>> >> > I believe they are wrong. They discount solar influence when IMHO it
>is
>> >a
>> >> > far more likely cause. WE know solar output is variable, we know how
>> >great a
>> >> > temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating
>> >(think
>> >> > seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force
>> >behind
>> >> > global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
>> >>
>> >> Well, here are the estimated magnitudes of the components in the IPCC
>> >> model, with confidence limits <pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/warming.jpg>.
>> >> Compare the magnitude of the solar component, though large, with the
>> >> magnitude of the CO2 component, even with the max end of the solar
>> >> confidence limit and the min end of the CO2 confidence limit. The
>> >> thing being, that the reasons for the IPCC adopting these estimates
>> >> are given in the report along with references to the published
>> >> studies, etc. A far cry from just saying they 'discount' solar
>> >> warming. So do you have any such evidence for your more solar
>> >> position? (This wan't meant to be as hostile a challenge as it sounds
>> >> on reading it, just a conversational inquiry tone).
>> >
>> >
>
>
#5849
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <vssrf65q72uc7f@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bql0t8$c29$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vsq6jtru8cnd96@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bqitfk$of5$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <3FCCEA4D.9F9665EC@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less
>on
>> >> health
>> >> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>> >insurance
>> >> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >> >
>> >> >Many HMOs are not even for profit.
>> >>
>> >> Huh? They're all run by insurance companies, and they sure are for
>> >profit.
>> >> In most states, even Blue Cross is now for profit.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > And let's attack drug companies and put them
>> >> >out of business.
>> >>
>> >> 1. They earn a greater return on capital than any other industry.
>> >> 2. They take drugs discovered and tested with tax-funded research and
>make
>> >> huge profits on them.
>> >> 3. They do fine in other countries where they aren't allowed such
>> >exorbitant
>> >> profits.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs,
>> >>
>> >> Most are -- most new drugs come out of government-funded university
>> >research.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >so who
>> >> >needs pharmecutical companies? I'm sure you've contributed even more
>> >useful
>> >> drugs
>> >> >than average given your superior chemistry background. Finally,
>having
>> >the
>> >> >government do as a monopoly what the private sector can do is
>socialism
>> >you'd
>> >> end
>> >> >up spending far more under your socialism plan.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have
>> >national
>> >> >> health care, just national health insurance.
>> >> >
>> >> >Huh? Even HillaryClintonCare was forecast to cost in double digit
>> >TRILLIONS
>> >> of
>> >> >dollars.
>> >>
>> >> And what do you think we spend now on health care?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to
>get
>> >> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality.
>> >>
>> >> Totally false.
>> >
>> >Totally true, reported many times in the news. Stop lying Parker, it
>doesn't
>> >work, we are all smarter than you, even my dog.
>>
>> It's false. Totally, absolutely false. Read:
>
>Oh great, more of your left wing propaganda.
>It's true Lloyd, learn to read, watch the news, open your mind. Consumer
>Reports, give me a break, what a sorry source of left wing lies.
I see your IQ is still below room temperature.
>>
>>
>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e...cs/HealthCare/
>Co
>> nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>>
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bql0t8$c29$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vsq6jtru8cnd96@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bqitfk$of5$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <3FCCEA4D.9F9665EC@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less
>on
>> >> health
>> >> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>> >insurance
>> >> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >> >
>> >> >Many HMOs are not even for profit.
>> >>
>> >> Huh? They're all run by insurance companies, and they sure are for
>> >profit.
>> >> In most states, even Blue Cross is now for profit.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > And let's attack drug companies and put them
>> >> >out of business.
>> >>
>> >> 1. They earn a greater return on capital than any other industry.
>> >> 2. They take drugs discovered and tested with tax-funded research and
>make
>> >> huge profits on them.
>> >> 3. They do fine in other countries where they aren't allowed such
>> >exorbitant
>> >> profits.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs,
>> >>
>> >> Most are -- most new drugs come out of government-funded university
>> >research.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >so who
>> >> >needs pharmecutical companies? I'm sure you've contributed even more
>> >useful
>> >> drugs
>> >> >than average given your superior chemistry background. Finally,
>having
>> >the
>> >> >government do as a monopoly what the private sector can do is
>socialism
>> >you'd
>> >> end
>> >> >up spending far more under your socialism plan.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have
>> >national
>> >> >> health care, just national health insurance.
>> >> >
>> >> >Huh? Even HillaryClintonCare was forecast to cost in double digit
>> >TRILLIONS
>> >> of
>> >> >dollars.
>> >>
>> >> And what do you think we spend now on health care?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to
>get
>> >> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality.
>> >>
>> >> Totally false.
>> >
>> >Totally true, reported many times in the news. Stop lying Parker, it
>doesn't
>> >work, we are all smarter than you, even my dog.
>>
>> It's false. Totally, absolutely false. Read:
>
>Oh great, more of your left wing propaganda.
>It's true Lloyd, learn to read, watch the news, open your mind. Consumer
>Reports, give me a break, what a sorry source of left wing lies.
I see your IQ is still below room temperature.
>>
>>
>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e...cs/HealthCare/
>Co
>> nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>>
#5850
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <vssrf65q72uc7f@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bql0t8$c29$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vsq6jtru8cnd96@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bqitfk$of5$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <3FCCEA4D.9F9665EC@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less
>on
>> >> health
>> >> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>> >insurance
>> >> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >> >
>> >> >Many HMOs are not even for profit.
>> >>
>> >> Huh? They're all run by insurance companies, and they sure are for
>> >profit.
>> >> In most states, even Blue Cross is now for profit.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > And let's attack drug companies and put them
>> >> >out of business.
>> >>
>> >> 1. They earn a greater return on capital than any other industry.
>> >> 2. They take drugs discovered and tested with tax-funded research and
>make
>> >> huge profits on them.
>> >> 3. They do fine in other countries where they aren't allowed such
>> >exorbitant
>> >> profits.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs,
>> >>
>> >> Most are -- most new drugs come out of government-funded university
>> >research.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >so who
>> >> >needs pharmecutical companies? I'm sure you've contributed even more
>> >useful
>> >> drugs
>> >> >than average given your superior chemistry background. Finally,
>having
>> >the
>> >> >government do as a monopoly what the private sector can do is
>socialism
>> >you'd
>> >> end
>> >> >up spending far more under your socialism plan.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have
>> >national
>> >> >> health care, just national health insurance.
>> >> >
>> >> >Huh? Even HillaryClintonCare was forecast to cost in double digit
>> >TRILLIONS
>> >> of
>> >> >dollars.
>> >>
>> >> And what do you think we spend now on health care?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to
>get
>> >> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality.
>> >>
>> >> Totally false.
>> >
>> >Totally true, reported many times in the news. Stop lying Parker, it
>doesn't
>> >work, we are all smarter than you, even my dog.
>>
>> It's false. Totally, absolutely false. Read:
>
>Oh great, more of your left wing propaganda.
>It's true Lloyd, learn to read, watch the news, open your mind. Consumer
>Reports, give me a break, what a sorry source of left wing lies.
I see your IQ is still below room temperature.
>>
>>
>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e...cs/HealthCare/
>Co
>> nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>>
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bql0t8$c29$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vsq6jtru8cnd96@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bqitfk$of5$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <3FCCEA4D.9F9665EC@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less
>on
>> >> health
>> >> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>> >insurance
>> >> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >> >
>> >> >Many HMOs are not even for profit.
>> >>
>> >> Huh? They're all run by insurance companies, and they sure are for
>> >profit.
>> >> In most states, even Blue Cross is now for profit.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > And let's attack drug companies and put them
>> >> >out of business.
>> >>
>> >> 1. They earn a greater return on capital than any other industry.
>> >> 2. They take drugs discovered and tested with tax-funded research and
>make
>> >> huge profits on them.
>> >> 3. They do fine in other countries where they aren't allowed such
>> >exorbitant
>> >> profits.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs,
>> >>
>> >> Most are -- most new drugs come out of government-funded university
>> >research.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >so who
>> >> >needs pharmecutical companies? I'm sure you've contributed even more
>> >useful
>> >> drugs
>> >> >than average given your superior chemistry background. Finally,
>having
>> >the
>> >> >government do as a monopoly what the private sector can do is
>socialism
>> >you'd
>> >> end
>> >> >up spending far more under your socialism plan.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have
>> >national
>> >> >> health care, just national health insurance.
>> >> >
>> >> >Huh? Even HillaryClintonCare was forecast to cost in double digit
>> >TRILLIONS
>> >> of
>> >> >dollars.
>> >>
>> >> And what do you think we spend now on health care?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to
>get
>> >> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality.
>> >>
>> >> Totally false.
>> >
>> >Totally true, reported many times in the news. Stop lying Parker, it
>doesn't
>> >work, we are all smarter than you, even my dog.
>>
>> It's false. Totally, absolutely false. Read:
>
>Oh great, more of your left wing propaganda.
>It's true Lloyd, learn to read, watch the news, open your mind. Consumer
>Reports, give me a break, what a sorry source of left wing lies.
I see your IQ is still below room temperature.
>>
>>
>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e...cs/HealthCare/
>Co
>> nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>>