"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bnjhqm0m1g@enews2.newsguy.com...
> I'm still waiting for these CO2 zealots to 1) prove their theories, 2)
> assuming they are correct, propose a single workable solution besides
> getting mom to sell her SUV. The entire theory is a full of holes as their
> proponents heads.
>
> Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming has a perfect
> correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity.

It has been pointed out to LP before, he dismissed it like he does any
evidence that doesn't match his preconcieved ideas.

Douglas A. Shrader

Two Danish
> scientists (Friz-Christiansen & Lassen) have proven a direct cause &
effect
> between periods of high solar activity and earth temps, going back
hundreds
> of years. How arrogant (but typical) of anti-society, socialist green
> zealots to assume the puny effect of man vs. the absolute effect of the
sun
> on global climatic norms.
>
> So, tell me oh green ones, 10,000 years ago, how many primitives driving
> gas-guzzling SUVs did it take to turn the Sahara from a lush oasis into a
> desert? (Oh, I see, you're hoping no one knows about that event, aren't
> you?)
>
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:bnjdq7$a0c$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > In article <b71opv8v0in3q2ra8l4u8fd4t6qa8p9vhb@4ax.com>,
> > Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
> > >On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:48:15 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
> > >>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
> > >>
> > >>No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
> > >
> > >Then where did all the ice go?
> > >It seems that you are denying the presence of pasdt ice ages (and the
> > >following global warmings).
> >
> > There have been warm times and cold times in the past, with different
> causes.
> > Do you think just because, say, exercise raised your body temperature
last
> > week, a virus could not be doing it today?
>
>

 

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bnjhqm0m1g@enews2.newsguy.com...
> I'm still waiting for these CO2 zealots to 1) prove their theories, 2)
> assuming they are correct, propose a single workable solution besides
> getting mom to sell her SUV. The entire theory is a full of holes as their
> proponents heads.
>
> Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming has a perfect
> correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity.

It has been pointed out to LP before, he dismissed it like he does any
evidence that doesn't match his preconcieved ideas.

Douglas A. Shrader

Two Danish
> scientists (Friz-Christiansen & Lassen) have proven a direct cause &
effect
> between periods of high solar activity and earth temps, going back
hundreds
> of years. How arrogant (but typical) of anti-society, socialist green
> zealots to assume the puny effect of man vs. the absolute effect of the
sun
> on global climatic norms.
>
> So, tell me oh green ones, 10,000 years ago, how many primitives driving
> gas-guzzling SUVs did it take to turn the Sahara from a lush oasis into a
> desert? (Oh, I see, you're hoping no one knows about that event, aren't
> you?)
>
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:bnjdq7$a0c$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > In article <b71opv8v0in3q2ra8l4u8fd4t6qa8p9vhb@4ax.com>,
> > Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
> > >On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:48:15 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
> > >>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
> > >>
> > >>No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
> > >
> > >Then where did all the ice go?
> > >It seems that you are denying the presence of pasdt ice ages (and the
> > >following global warmings).
> >
> > There have been warm times and cold times in the past, with different
> causes.
> > Do you think just because, say, exercise raised your body temperature
last
> > week, a virus could not be doing it today?
>
>

 

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bnjhqm0m1g@enews2.newsguy.com...
> I'm still waiting for these CO2 zealots to 1) prove their theories, 2)
> assuming they are correct, propose a single workable solution besides
> getting mom to sell her SUV. The entire theory is a full of holes as their
> proponents heads.
>
> Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming has a perfect
> correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity.

It has been pointed out to LP before, he dismissed it like he does any
evidence that doesn't match his preconcieved ideas.

Douglas A. Shrader

Two Danish
> scientists (Friz-Christiansen & Lassen) have proven a direct cause &
effect
> between periods of high solar activity and earth temps, going back
hundreds
> of years. How arrogant (but typical) of anti-society, socialist green
> zealots to assume the puny effect of man vs. the absolute effect of the
sun
> on global climatic norms.
>
> So, tell me oh green ones, 10,000 years ago, how many primitives driving
> gas-guzzling SUVs did it take to turn the Sahara from a lush oasis into a
> desert? (Oh, I see, you're hoping no one knows about that event, aren't
> you?)
>
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:bnjdq7$a0c$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > In article <b71opv8v0in3q2ra8l4u8fd4t6qa8p9vhb@4ax.com>,
> > Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
> > >On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:48:15 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
> > >>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
> > >>
> > >>No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
> > >
> > >Then where did all the ice go?
> > >It seems that you are denying the presence of pasdt ice ages (and the
> > >following global warmings).
> >
> > There have been warm times and cold times in the past, with different
> causes.
> > Do you think just because, say, exercise raised your body temperature
last
> > week, a virus could not be doing it today?
>
>

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnjdrf$a0c$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <rf1opv49nqcr4sem3r3f71dl1lem4a8a0s@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:57:55 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000 US
> troops
> >>haven't found them
> >
> >Let's try again:
> >Hypothetical question:
> >It's a given that you have illegal drugs in your house.
> >The police send you a notice that they will search your house, giving
> >you the dates and times. They ask you to be there as they search, in
> >fact, they ask you to help them by showing them the various places
> >within your house.
> >Are you stupid enough to let them fund any illegal drugs?
> >
> We demanded Saddam to get rid of the WMD. It appears he did.

Pretty stupid of him to hide that from US and the UN wasn't it?

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnjdrf$a0c$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <rf1opv49nqcr4sem3r3f71dl1lem4a8a0s@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:57:55 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000 US
> troops
> >>haven't found them
> >
> >Let's try again:
> >Hypothetical question:
> >It's a given that you have illegal drugs in your house.
> >The police send you a notice that they will search your house, giving
> >you the dates and times. They ask you to be there as they search, in
> >fact, they ask you to help them by showing them the various places
> >within your house.
> >Are you stupid enough to let them fund any illegal drugs?
> >
> We demanded Saddam to get rid of the WMD. It appears he did.

Pretty stupid of him to hide that from US and the UN wasn't it?

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnjdrf$a0c$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <rf1opv49nqcr4sem3r3f71dl1lem4a8a0s@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:57:55 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000 US
> troops
> >>haven't found them
> >
> >Let's try again:
> >Hypothetical question:
> >It's a given that you have illegal drugs in your house.
> >The police send you a notice that they will search your house, giving
> >you the dates and times. They ask you to be there as they search, in
> >fact, they ask you to help them by showing them the various places
> >within your house.
> >Are you stupid enough to let them fund any illegal drugs?
> >
> We demanded Saddam to get rid of the WMD. It appears he did.

Pretty stupid of him to hide that from US and the UN wasn't it?

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnjeoi$b81$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vpof02qkahoq17@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >

> >> Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000 US
> >troops
> >> haven't found them.
> >
> >Bingo, The UN couldn't find them, although it is well documented that
they
> >existed.
>
> Not in 2003.
>
>
> >That is why they were still looking, that is why we are still
> >looking. We haven't found Saddam yet either, but we know he exists as
well.
> >Or do you think that is also a lie?
>
> Is he as big as the WMD?

You do realize Saddam had twelve years in which to hide them. Where is Jimmy
Hoffa?

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnjeoi$b81$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vpof02qkahoq17@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >

> >> Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000 US
> >troops
> >> haven't found them.
> >
> >Bingo, The UN couldn't find them, although it is well documented that
they
> >existed.
>
> Not in 2003.
>
>
> >That is why they were still looking, that is why we are still
> >looking. We haven't found Saddam yet either, but we know he exists as
well.
> >Or do you think that is also a lie?
>
> Is he as big as the WMD?

You do realize Saddam had twelve years in which to hide them. Where is Jimmy
Hoffa?

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnjeoi$b81$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vpof02qkahoq17@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >

> >> Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000 US
> >troops
> >> haven't found them.
> >
> >Bingo, The UN couldn't find them, although it is well documented that
they
> >existed.
>
> Not in 2003.
>
>
> >That is why they were still looking, that is why we are still
> >looking. We haven't found Saddam yet either, but we know he exists as
well.
> >Or do you think that is also a lie?
>
> Is he as big as the WMD?

You do realize Saddam had twelve years in which to hide them. Where is Jimmy
Hoffa?

 

"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Naknb.43901$Fm2.20291@attbi_s04...
> In article <3F9DC2CD.B6BD80CF@itis.com>, Aardwolf wrote:
>
> > The work is published in scientific journals so that it is subject to
> > peer review, in order to have that criticism thrown at it, so it has
> > to stand up or fail, and also to make sure it is as unbiased as humanly
> > possible--the only way to do that is to have everything--data, methods,
> > theories, set on by a trained group of skeptical scientists. It isn't
> > perfect, ego and the cherished work of a career can get in the way of
> > rational criticism--but that is poor science, and that's why there is
> > a _group_ of peers to review the published work. People accuse
> > scientists of being skeptical, and not open to alternate ideas or
> > explanations. They _have_ to be skeptics, if they weren't they
wouldn't
> > be scientists. Again they aren't perfect; sometimes new ideas,
> > scientific as they may be, seem too radical and are missed--for a time,
> > until enough evidence is presented for the work to be deemed worth
> > publishing.
>
> You make several good points. However the problem with peer review by
> the group is that group mentality sets in where someone must believe
> X Y and Z or he isn't part of the group. And if you aren't part of the
> group you don't get published, if you don't get published you don't
> get research money, if you don't get research money you don't have
> a career, etc etc.
>
> It does lead to a church-like rigid belief system that makes it very
> difficult to get supportable radical thought heard and investigated
> by others. Evidence that indicates something other than the mainstream
> group belief gets tossed aside and ignored. Paths of investigation aren't
> followed, etc and so forth.
>
> It's something I've noticed in one area of science that I do follow
> and have had my long held theories based on the evidence. Slowly but
> surely the non-conventional evidence is piling up. Hopefully it will
> get to be so overwhelming it can no longer be ignored. But finding
> the smoking gun will be expensive, but hopefully it will be found and
> shown to the point where it is as undeniable in existance as the wreck
> of the titatic.
>
> Many lloyds of the world have alot of power in the world science, each
> one in their own little areas they have replaced the church. Their
> careers are invested in the belief that things are a certain way, as
> hard as fact. Evidence that points otherwise is unwelcome. Sad but true
> for so many things.
>

This thread is to long, I'm leaving it, but I must say it has been a
pleasure reading your posts. What group are you posting from?