Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
I drive either a V6 3.8L sedan, bigger than the majority of sedans available
in the USA, or a 2.8TD SUV. of the two I prefer the sedan for safety, ABS,
195/7-R15 tyres giving more grip per Kilo over 31x10.5-R15 tyres on the SUV,
and more manuverabilty without rollover risk. But I use the SUV more since
it has more visability and it's flat hip height rear storage can be loaded
and unloaded easier then the sedans sunken boot with a lip.
I've never owned anything like a small hot hatchback, nor even driven them,
as far as performance cars go, rather than a 1.6 turbo four in a Civic, I'd
rather have a V-8 in a serious big car.
Have a search on Google for V8 Holden Monaro, and HSV 185i Senator. Thats
what I'd like, big grunty serious cars.
rhys
"Mike Hall" <mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:BC9nb.1759$Tf.280317@news20.bellglobal.com...
> ALL vehicles are unsafe if driven past the limits of the vehicle and the
> drivers abilities.. young drivers (males especially) seem to consider
> themselves invincible whether they drive an SUV (lifted and 31" BFG's) or
a
> Civic (lowered and oversize rims and thin rubber).. moms and dads drive
> minivans.. they have become aware of their own fragility.. they carry kids
> to hockey etc.. they have nothing to prove.. the distance between A and B
is
> down to whether they will have to backtrack to pick up stuff that the kids
> have forgotten, and not how fast they can cover the distance.. quit
blaming
> the vehicles.. it is the people who sit behind the wheel that make the
> statistics what they are..
>
> --
> History is only the past if we choose to do nothing about it..
>
> <jduchock@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:ac8nb.76697$5n.33957@bignews5.bellsouth.net.. .
> > AWESOME, then my Duece and a half 6x6 should be darn safe. I just might
> > make it my daily driver instead of one of my Jeeps.
> >
> > chris
> > g1
in the USA, or a 2.8TD SUV. of the two I prefer the sedan for safety, ABS,
195/7-R15 tyres giving more grip per Kilo over 31x10.5-R15 tyres on the SUV,
and more manuverabilty without rollover risk. But I use the SUV more since
it has more visability and it's flat hip height rear storage can be loaded
and unloaded easier then the sedans sunken boot with a lip.
I've never owned anything like a small hot hatchback, nor even driven them,
as far as performance cars go, rather than a 1.6 turbo four in a Civic, I'd
rather have a V-8 in a serious big car.
Have a search on Google for V8 Holden Monaro, and HSV 185i Senator. Thats
what I'd like, big grunty serious cars.
rhys
"Mike Hall" <mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:BC9nb.1759$Tf.280317@news20.bellglobal.com...
> ALL vehicles are unsafe if driven past the limits of the vehicle and the
> drivers abilities.. young drivers (males especially) seem to consider
> themselves invincible whether they drive an SUV (lifted and 31" BFG's) or
a
> Civic (lowered and oversize rims and thin rubber).. moms and dads drive
> minivans.. they have become aware of their own fragility.. they carry kids
> to hockey etc.. they have nothing to prove.. the distance between A and B
is
> down to whether they will have to backtrack to pick up stuff that the kids
> have forgotten, and not how fast they can cover the distance.. quit
blaming
> the vehicles.. it is the people who sit behind the wheel that make the
> statistics what they are..
>
> --
> History is only the past if we choose to do nothing about it..
>
> <jduchock@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:ac8nb.76697$5n.33957@bignews5.bellsouth.net.. .
> > AWESOME, then my Duece and a half 6x6 should be darn safe. I just might
> > make it my daily driver instead of one of my Jeeps.
> >
> > chris
> > g1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bnjhqm0m1g@enews2.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>I'm still waiting for these CO2 zealots to 1) prove their theories,
Are you saying the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, EPA, NOAA, etc., have
jumped onto something that's not proven? Isn't it more likely you either have
not read the science or refuse to believe it?
> 2)
>assuming they are correct, propose a single workable solution besides
>getting mom to sell her SUV. The entire theory is a full of holes as their
>proponents heads.
The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. That means driving
less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles, using coal less, using more
renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not clear-cutting forests...
>
>Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming has a perfect
>correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity.
Funny how that's nonexistent.
>Two Danish
>scientists (Friz-Christiansen & Lassen) have proven a direct cause & effect
>between periods of high solar activity and earth temps, going back hundreds
>of years.
Which has been studied and cannot account for all the current warming.
>How arrogant (but typical) of anti-society, socialist green
>zealots to assume the puny effect of man vs. the absolute effect of the sun
>on global climatic norms.
Like we almost destroyed the ozone layer? Or don't you believe that either?
>
>So, tell me oh green ones, 10,000 years ago, how many primitives driving
>gas-guzzling SUVs did it take to turn the Sahara from a lush oasis into a
>desert? (Oh, I see, you're hoping no one knows about that event, aren't
>you?)
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bnjdq7$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:
>I'm still waiting for these CO2 zealots to 1) prove their theories,
Are you saying the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, EPA, NOAA, etc., have
jumped onto something that's not proven? Isn't it more likely you either have
not read the science or refuse to believe it?
> 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.
The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. That means driving
less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles, using coal less, using more
renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not clear-cutting forests...
>
>Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming has a perfect
>correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity.
Funny how that's nonexistent.
>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.
Which has been studied and cannot account for all the current warming.
>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.
Like we almost destroyed the ozone layer? Or don't you believe that either?
>
>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?
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bnjhqm0m1g@enews2.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>I'm still waiting for these CO2 zealots to 1) prove their theories,
Are you saying the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, EPA, NOAA, etc., have
jumped onto something that's not proven? Isn't it more likely you either have
not read the science or refuse to believe it?
> 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.
The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. That means driving
less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles, using coal less, using more
renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not clear-cutting forests...
>
>Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming has a perfect
>correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity.
Funny how that's nonexistent.
>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.
Which has been studied and cannot account for all the current warming.
>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.
Like we almost destroyed the ozone layer? Or don't you believe that either?
>
>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:
>I'm still waiting for these CO2 zealots to 1) prove their theories,
Are you saying the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, EPA, NOAA, etc., have
jumped onto something that's not proven? Isn't it more likely you either have
not read the science or refuse to believe it?
> 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.
The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. That means driving
less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles, using coal less, using more
renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not clear-cutting forests...
>
>Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming has a perfect
>correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity.
Funny how that's nonexistent.
>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.
Which has been studied and cannot account for all the current warming.
>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.
Like we almost destroyed the ozone layer? Or don't you believe that either?
>
>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?
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bnjhqm0m1g@enews2.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>I'm still waiting for these CO2 zealots to 1) prove their theories,
Are you saying the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, EPA, NOAA, etc., have
jumped onto something that's not proven? Isn't it more likely you either have
not read the science or refuse to believe it?
> 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.
The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. That means driving
less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles, using coal less, using more
renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not clear-cutting forests...
>
>Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming has a perfect
>correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity.
Funny how that's nonexistent.
>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.
Which has been studied and cannot account for all the current warming.
>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.
Like we almost destroyed the ozone layer? Or don't you believe that either?
>
>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:
>I'm still waiting for these CO2 zealots to 1) prove their theories,
Are you saying the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, EPA, NOAA, etc., have
jumped onto something that's not proven? Isn't it more likely you either have
not read the science or refuse to believe it?
> 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.
The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. That means driving
less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles, using coal less, using more
renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not clear-cutting forests...
>
>Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming has a perfect
>correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity.
Funny how that's nonexistent.
>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.
Which has been studied and cannot account for all the current warming.
>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.
Like we almost destroyed the ozone layer? Or don't you believe that either?
>
>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$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <b71opv8v0in3q2ra8l4u8fd4t6qa8p9vhb@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>> >On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:48:15 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>> >>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>> >>
>> >>No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
>> >
>> >Then where did all the ice go?
>> >It seems that you are denying the presence of pasdt ice ages (and the
>> >following global warmings).
>>
>> There have been warm times and cold times in the past, with different
>causes.
>> Do you think just because, say, exercise raised your body temperature last
>> week, a virus could not be doing it today?
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <Cecnb.41760$Tr4.86710@attbi_s03>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bnjf6q$b81$6@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <kq%mb.37513$Fm2.15080@attbi_s04>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>In article <bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> Relativity is an established fact.
>>>
>>>>>>>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
>>>>>>>behaviors.
>>>
>>>>>> No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
>>>>>That's not the same statement as the one you wrote before.
>>>
>>>> That **is** one of the central aspects of relativity -- time is relative.
>> If
>>>> time moves more slowly for some observers, by definition, that's
>> relativity.
>>>
>>>*ONE OF* Hence it is not the same as your all inclusive statement.
>>
>> I cited one property that proves relativity.
>
>ONE ASPECT OF. It's like you saying the ABS works because the rear drums
>slow the car. Connected, but one aspect of the system working doesn't
>make the whole system work.
>
>Plus, you don't seem to understand that theories like relativity and
>alot of the equations used are descriptive of what occurs.
>
>>>>>>>> Evolution is an established fact.
>>>>>>>It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.
>>>>>> No, it is a fact; there's an accompanying explanation as to how it
happens.
>
>>>>>No. It's a theory, an explanation supported with evidence. Until an
>>>>>explaination that better fits the evidence, the facts, we have evolution.
>
>>>> No, it's as much established fact as gravity. There's gravity, the fact,
and
>>>> a theory of gravity, explaining it. Similarly, there's evolution, the
fact,
>>>> and a theory of evolution, explaining it.
>
>>>Parker makes one last ditch effort with word play. You clearly ment the
later
>>>in your initial and followup statements.
>
>> Huh? Do you know what the work "theory" means in science?
>
>It's clear you don't. Hint: theory != fact.
Theory != "guess" either. A theory is an explanation for something, the
explanation accepted generally in science. Thus we have the theory of
gravity, an explanation for gravity; atomic theory, an explanation for the
behavior of atoms; quantum theory, an explanation for the behavior of
electrons and photons at the quantum level; the theory of evolution, an
explanation for evolution.
>
>It's what I said it was, an explanation based on facts and evidence, it
>is not a fact in and of itself.
It is the explanation accepted in science. And to be an explanation, it has
to explain something that does occur, like atoms, or gravity, or evolution.
>
>Some google search results for you parker:
>
>http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/theory.htm
>http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/theory
>
>What exactly do you teach in those chemistry classes? Liberal politics?
Too bad you never learned anything.
>
>>>>>>>> Global warming from (at
>>>>>>>> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
>>>>>>>Gobal warming is nebulus term that is used to describe everything that
>>>>>>>occurs with climate.
>>>>>> No, warming on a global scale.
>>>>>*sigh*. Read it again lloyd. (the climate = the climate of earth, in
>>>>>whole or in part)
>
>>>> Global warming means warming on a global scale, not "in part."
>
>>>You aren't grasping the entire context of what I wrote. With you I can't
>>>tell if it's on purpose with your typical less than honest debate style
>>>or if you really are that dumb. Go, back re-read, before you cut my initial
>>>reply up and try to grasp the meaning of it. Everything that occurs with
>>>the climate is claimed by global warming believers to be something that
>>>supports the theory. Much like that other guy's cite tried to make
>>>everything fit the bible, global warming believers try to make every bit
>>>of odd weather fit the global warming, climate change scheme.
>
>> You, sir, are lying.
>
>*hahahahahaha* Anyone who wants proof just read sci.environment for awhile.
Yes, please do.
>
>
>>>>>>>Thusly it can't be wrong. One part of the world is
>>>>>>>getting warmer? It's global warming. Another part of the world is
getting
>>>>>>>colder? It's global warming. One critter flurishes, it's global
warming.
>>>>>>>another critter is dying off, it's global warming. so on and so on. No
>>>>>>>matter what happens, it supports "global warming".
>>>>>> The world is getting warmer; that's why it's called _global_ warming.
>>>>>That's nice parker. Space aliens mutiliate cattle too...
>
>>>>>I peaked into sci.environment recently, saw people acting like the recent
>>>>>US warm spell was global warming in action.
>
>>>> You saw scientific facts and explanation.
>
>>>Yet, if someone where to post that a US cold snap was a sign of no global
>>>warming, you and others would ream that person a new ------- and say he
>>>didn't know the difference between weather and climate. When someone
>>>blames some odd weather on global warming because it's hotter than normal,
>>>true believers like you say it's "scientific facts and explanation".
>
>No response from parker.
>
>
>>>>>As usual didn't see you
>>>>>chastising them. Of course should someone suggest cold weather means
>>>>>there isn't global warming you and others jump in calling the person a
>>>>>moron with some saying that unusual cold too is proof of 'gobal warming'.
>
>>>> I see you're still too dumb to understand what "global" means.
>
>>>I see you are too stupid to grasp a simple point. The point is the behavior
>>>of global warming believers pretty much parallels creationists trying to
>>>make everything fit the bible.
>
>> As I said, you are lying. Try reading some scientific sources.
>
>*laugh* go read sci.environment, you cross post in there enough to
>know what I am saying is true.
Please do. Read the scientific chaps there -- St. John, Halpen, and others.
>Hell, if someone posts scientific evidence
>that doesn't support global warming the true believers like yourself jump
>all over them as 'conservative corporate -----s' or try to scramble and
>say it's part of the great scheme and expected by the theory of global
>warming.
Because those yahoos post without any data or evidence.
>It's rather comical watching political regilous zealots try
>and hide behind science. It's what I see you do rather frequently parker
>and it is amusing.
Yeah, I bet you believe all the creationists too then.
>
>
>>>>>>>"Global warming" isn't even well defined with regards to what it is and
>>>>>>>what it entails, let alone being an established fact. Of course it's
hard
>>>>>>>to disprove something that isn't fixed in definition.
>
>>>>>> Yes it is.
>>>>>No, global warming theory is not fixed in any shape or form.
>
>>>> It's a fact; there are theories to explain it, just like gravity and
>>>> evolution.
>
>>>Theory != fact,
>
>> yes it is. Try learning some science.
>
>I think the school that granted you anything more than a HS dipolma
>should be sued for damages. Every student you've ever taught should also
>sue for damages.
>
>Theory is BASED ON FACTS. It is NOT A FACT.
Evolution is a fact; the theory of evolution explains it. Just as gravity is
a fact and the theory of gravity is an explanation of it.
>
>More cites, in addition to the ones presented earlier:
>
>http://www.hi.is/~joner/eaps/y3_91048.htm
>http://chem.tufts.edu/science/FrankSteiger/theory.htm
>http://www.jediknight.com/~smpoole/scitheory.html
>
>From the last one:
>
>"While we're at it, let's clear up another misunderstanding. Scientists
>use the term "theory" instead of "fact" simply because they can't test
>the model against every possible condition. All they can do is derive
>suitable tests to check the model in various ways; if it passes each
>test, their confidence increases."
>
>
>You call these things facts parker, therefore you are not a scientist.
>
>
>
>>>and I am refering to the theory titled "gobal warming"
>
>> Again, you obviously do not know what "theory" means in science.
>
>I know it very well. You don't. See above.
>
>>>as you were initially. But if you want to play the same word games, wether
>>>the temperature of the earth is going up, down, staying the same depends
>>>on what measures you use.
>
>> Wrong. You need to look at the data.
>
>Read: "only look at the data that supports parker's beliefs"
>
>I have looked at "the data", I cannot conclude one way or the other.
>All I can say for certain from the data is there is change going on. Why
>that change is occuring I cannot say, there is not enough data to say for
>sure. Is it part of the natural course of the planet (earth has never been
>static as global warming true believers need it to be) or is it the result
>of too many people? A scientist does not close his mind and say it's a
>fact, he continues to ask questions and seek answers.
Too bad you're not a scientist. Scientists HAVE looked at it, and have
concluded that global warming is real, and that human activities are
responsible. If you'd read some scientific journals, or what scientific
groups say, you'd know this. You've "looked at it?" Where, right-wing web
sites?
>
>What I have read on "global warming" leaves me with more questions to
>be answered. You close the book and declare it "fact". It's you sir
>that needs to learn some science.
Still won't tell us what area your Ph.D. is in?
>
>>>> Look, pal, to tell scientists global warming isn't factual is the height
of
>>>> stupidity.
>
>>>Hey you ------- moron, why don't you sue the school the that sold you
>>>a PhD? You don't have the mindset to be a real scienist. Maybe that's why
>>>you haven't published jack ----, right parker?
>
>> Why don't you tell us what area of science your Ph.D. is in?
>
>I've told you what my graduate degree is in Parker, I can remember
>what your degree is in, you certainly could do the same. But I'm not
>the one claiming to be a "scientist" without publishing anything, you
>are.
I'm still waiting for your scientific credentials.
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bnjf6q$b81$6@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <kq%mb.37513$Fm2.15080@attbi_s04>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>In article <bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> Relativity is an established fact.
>>>
>>>>>>>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
>>>>>>>behaviors.
>>>
>>>>>> No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
>>>>>That's not the same statement as the one you wrote before.
>>>
>>>> That **is** one of the central aspects of relativity -- time is relative.
>> If
>>>> time moves more slowly for some observers, by definition, that's
>> relativity.
>>>
>>>*ONE OF* Hence it is not the same as your all inclusive statement.
>>
>> I cited one property that proves relativity.
>
>ONE ASPECT OF. It's like you saying the ABS works because the rear drums
>slow the car. Connected, but one aspect of the system working doesn't
>make the whole system work.
>
>Plus, you don't seem to understand that theories like relativity and
>alot of the equations used are descriptive of what occurs.
>
>>>>>>>> Evolution is an established fact.
>>>>>>>It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.
>>>>>> No, it is a fact; there's an accompanying explanation as to how it
happens.
>
>>>>>No. It's a theory, an explanation supported with evidence. Until an
>>>>>explaination that better fits the evidence, the facts, we have evolution.
>
>>>> No, it's as much established fact as gravity. There's gravity, the fact,
and
>>>> a theory of gravity, explaining it. Similarly, there's evolution, the
fact,
>>>> and a theory of evolution, explaining it.
>
>>>Parker makes one last ditch effort with word play. You clearly ment the
later
>>>in your initial and followup statements.
>
>> Huh? Do you know what the work "theory" means in science?
>
>It's clear you don't. Hint: theory != fact.
Theory != "guess" either. A theory is an explanation for something, the
explanation accepted generally in science. Thus we have the theory of
gravity, an explanation for gravity; atomic theory, an explanation for the
behavior of atoms; quantum theory, an explanation for the behavior of
electrons and photons at the quantum level; the theory of evolution, an
explanation for evolution.
>
>It's what I said it was, an explanation based on facts and evidence, it
>is not a fact in and of itself.
It is the explanation accepted in science. And to be an explanation, it has
to explain something that does occur, like atoms, or gravity, or evolution.
>
>Some google search results for you parker:
>
>http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/theory.htm
>http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/theory
>
>What exactly do you teach in those chemistry classes? Liberal politics?
Too bad you never learned anything.
>
>>>>>>>> Global warming from (at
>>>>>>>> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
>>>>>>>Gobal warming is nebulus term that is used to describe everything that
>>>>>>>occurs with climate.
>>>>>> No, warming on a global scale.
>>>>>*sigh*. Read it again lloyd. (the climate = the climate of earth, in
>>>>>whole or in part)
>
>>>> Global warming means warming on a global scale, not "in part."
>
>>>You aren't grasping the entire context of what I wrote. With you I can't
>>>tell if it's on purpose with your typical less than honest debate style
>>>or if you really are that dumb. Go, back re-read, before you cut my initial
>>>reply up and try to grasp the meaning of it. Everything that occurs with
>>>the climate is claimed by global warming believers to be something that
>>>supports the theory. Much like that other guy's cite tried to make
>>>everything fit the bible, global warming believers try to make every bit
>>>of odd weather fit the global warming, climate change scheme.
>
>> You, sir, are lying.
>
>*hahahahahaha* Anyone who wants proof just read sci.environment for awhile.
Yes, please do.
>
>
>>>>>>>Thusly it can't be wrong. One part of the world is
>>>>>>>getting warmer? It's global warming. Another part of the world is
getting
>>>>>>>colder? It's global warming. One critter flurishes, it's global
warming.
>>>>>>>another critter is dying off, it's global warming. so on and so on. No
>>>>>>>matter what happens, it supports "global warming".
>>>>>> The world is getting warmer; that's why it's called _global_ warming.
>>>>>That's nice parker. Space aliens mutiliate cattle too...
>
>>>>>I peaked into sci.environment recently, saw people acting like the recent
>>>>>US warm spell was global warming in action.
>
>>>> You saw scientific facts and explanation.
>
>>>Yet, if someone where to post that a US cold snap was a sign of no global
>>>warming, you and others would ream that person a new ------- and say he
>>>didn't know the difference between weather and climate. When someone
>>>blames some odd weather on global warming because it's hotter than normal,
>>>true believers like you say it's "scientific facts and explanation".
>
>No response from parker.
>
>
>>>>>As usual didn't see you
>>>>>chastising them. Of course should someone suggest cold weather means
>>>>>there isn't global warming you and others jump in calling the person a
>>>>>moron with some saying that unusual cold too is proof of 'gobal warming'.
>
>>>> I see you're still too dumb to understand what "global" means.
>
>>>I see you are too stupid to grasp a simple point. The point is the behavior
>>>of global warming believers pretty much parallels creationists trying to
>>>make everything fit the bible.
>
>> As I said, you are lying. Try reading some scientific sources.
>
>*laugh* go read sci.environment, you cross post in there enough to
>know what I am saying is true.
Please do. Read the scientific chaps there -- St. John, Halpen, and others.
>Hell, if someone posts scientific evidence
>that doesn't support global warming the true believers like yourself jump
>all over them as 'conservative corporate -----s' or try to scramble and
>say it's part of the great scheme and expected by the theory of global
>warming.
Because those yahoos post without any data or evidence.
>It's rather comical watching political regilous zealots try
>and hide behind science. It's what I see you do rather frequently parker
>and it is amusing.
Yeah, I bet you believe all the creationists too then.
>
>
>>>>>>>"Global warming" isn't even well defined with regards to what it is and
>>>>>>>what it entails, let alone being an established fact. Of course it's
hard
>>>>>>>to disprove something that isn't fixed in definition.
>
>>>>>> Yes it is.
>>>>>No, global warming theory is not fixed in any shape or form.
>
>>>> It's a fact; there are theories to explain it, just like gravity and
>>>> evolution.
>
>>>Theory != fact,
>
>> yes it is. Try learning some science.
>
>I think the school that granted you anything more than a HS dipolma
>should be sued for damages. Every student you've ever taught should also
>sue for damages.
>
>Theory is BASED ON FACTS. It is NOT A FACT.
Evolution is a fact; the theory of evolution explains it. Just as gravity is
a fact and the theory of gravity is an explanation of it.
>
>More cites, in addition to the ones presented earlier:
>
>http://www.hi.is/~joner/eaps/y3_91048.htm
>http://chem.tufts.edu/science/FrankSteiger/theory.htm
>http://www.jediknight.com/~smpoole/scitheory.html
>
>From the last one:
>
>"While we're at it, let's clear up another misunderstanding. Scientists
>use the term "theory" instead of "fact" simply because they can't test
>the model against every possible condition. All they can do is derive
>suitable tests to check the model in various ways; if it passes each
>test, their confidence increases."
>
>
>You call these things facts parker, therefore you are not a scientist.
>
>
>
>>>and I am refering to the theory titled "gobal warming"
>
>> Again, you obviously do not know what "theory" means in science.
>
>I know it very well. You don't. See above.
>
>>>as you were initially. But if you want to play the same word games, wether
>>>the temperature of the earth is going up, down, staying the same depends
>>>on what measures you use.
>
>> Wrong. You need to look at the data.
>
>Read: "only look at the data that supports parker's beliefs"
>
>I have looked at "the data", I cannot conclude one way or the other.
>All I can say for certain from the data is there is change going on. Why
>that change is occuring I cannot say, there is not enough data to say for
>sure. Is it part of the natural course of the planet (earth has never been
>static as global warming true believers need it to be) or is it the result
>of too many people? A scientist does not close his mind and say it's a
>fact, he continues to ask questions and seek answers.
Too bad you're not a scientist. Scientists HAVE looked at it, and have
concluded that global warming is real, and that human activities are
responsible. If you'd read some scientific journals, or what scientific
groups say, you'd know this. You've "looked at it?" Where, right-wing web
sites?
>
>What I have read on "global warming" leaves me with more questions to
>be answered. You close the book and declare it "fact". It's you sir
>that needs to learn some science.
Still won't tell us what area your Ph.D. is in?
>
>>>> Look, pal, to tell scientists global warming isn't factual is the height
of
>>>> stupidity.
>
>>>Hey you ------- moron, why don't you sue the school the that sold you
>>>a PhD? You don't have the mindset to be a real scienist. Maybe that's why
>>>you haven't published jack ----, right parker?
>
>> Why don't you tell us what area of science your Ph.D. is in?
>
>I've told you what my graduate degree is in Parker, I can remember
>what your degree is in, you certainly could do the same. But I'm not
>the one claiming to be a "scientist" without publishing anything, you
>are.
I'm still waiting for your scientific credentials.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <Cecnb.41760$Tr4.86710@attbi_s03>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bnjf6q$b81$6@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <kq%mb.37513$Fm2.15080@attbi_s04>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>In article <bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> Relativity is an established fact.
>>>
>>>>>>>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
>>>>>>>behaviors.
>>>
>>>>>> No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
>>>>>That's not the same statement as the one you wrote before.
>>>
>>>> That **is** one of the central aspects of relativity -- time is relative.
>> If
>>>> time moves more slowly for some observers, by definition, that's
>> relativity.
>>>
>>>*ONE OF* Hence it is not the same as your all inclusive statement.
>>
>> I cited one property that proves relativity.
>
>ONE ASPECT OF. It's like you saying the ABS works because the rear drums
>slow the car. Connected, but one aspect of the system working doesn't
>make the whole system work.
>
>Plus, you don't seem to understand that theories like relativity and
>alot of the equations used are descriptive of what occurs.
>
>>>>>>>> Evolution is an established fact.
>>>>>>>It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.
>>>>>> No, it is a fact; there's an accompanying explanation as to how it
happens.
>
>>>>>No. It's a theory, an explanation supported with evidence. Until an
>>>>>explaination that better fits the evidence, the facts, we have evolution.
>
>>>> No, it's as much established fact as gravity. There's gravity, the fact,
and
>>>> a theory of gravity, explaining it. Similarly, there's evolution, the
fact,
>>>> and a theory of evolution, explaining it.
>
>>>Parker makes one last ditch effort with word play. You clearly ment the
later
>>>in your initial and followup statements.
>
>> Huh? Do you know what the work "theory" means in science?
>
>It's clear you don't. Hint: theory != fact.
Theory != "guess" either. A theory is an explanation for something, the
explanation accepted generally in science. Thus we have the theory of
gravity, an explanation for gravity; atomic theory, an explanation for the
behavior of atoms; quantum theory, an explanation for the behavior of
electrons and photons at the quantum level; the theory of evolution, an
explanation for evolution.
>
>It's what I said it was, an explanation based on facts and evidence, it
>is not a fact in and of itself.
It is the explanation accepted in science. And to be an explanation, it has
to explain something that does occur, like atoms, or gravity, or evolution.
>
>Some google search results for you parker:
>
>http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/theory.htm
>http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/theory
>
>What exactly do you teach in those chemistry classes? Liberal politics?
Too bad you never learned anything.
>
>>>>>>>> Global warming from (at
>>>>>>>> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
>>>>>>>Gobal warming is nebulus term that is used to describe everything that
>>>>>>>occurs with climate.
>>>>>> No, warming on a global scale.
>>>>>*sigh*. Read it again lloyd. (the climate = the climate of earth, in
>>>>>whole or in part)
>
>>>> Global warming means warming on a global scale, not "in part."
>
>>>You aren't grasping the entire context of what I wrote. With you I can't
>>>tell if it's on purpose with your typical less than honest debate style
>>>or if you really are that dumb. Go, back re-read, before you cut my initial
>>>reply up and try to grasp the meaning of it. Everything that occurs with
>>>the climate is claimed by global warming believers to be something that
>>>supports the theory. Much like that other guy's cite tried to make
>>>everything fit the bible, global warming believers try to make every bit
>>>of odd weather fit the global warming, climate change scheme.
>
>> You, sir, are lying.
>
>*hahahahahaha* Anyone who wants proof just read sci.environment for awhile.
Yes, please do.
>
>
>>>>>>>Thusly it can't be wrong. One part of the world is
>>>>>>>getting warmer? It's global warming. Another part of the world is
getting
>>>>>>>colder? It's global warming. One critter flurishes, it's global
warming.
>>>>>>>another critter is dying off, it's global warming. so on and so on. No
>>>>>>>matter what happens, it supports "global warming".
>>>>>> The world is getting warmer; that's why it's called _global_ warming.
>>>>>That's nice parker. Space aliens mutiliate cattle too...
>
>>>>>I peaked into sci.environment recently, saw people acting like the recent
>>>>>US warm spell was global warming in action.
>
>>>> You saw scientific facts and explanation.
>
>>>Yet, if someone where to post that a US cold snap was a sign of no global
>>>warming, you and others would ream that person a new ------- and say he
>>>didn't know the difference between weather and climate. When someone
>>>blames some odd weather on global warming because it's hotter than normal,
>>>true believers like you say it's "scientific facts and explanation".
>
>No response from parker.
>
>
>>>>>As usual didn't see you
>>>>>chastising them. Of course should someone suggest cold weather means
>>>>>there isn't global warming you and others jump in calling the person a
>>>>>moron with some saying that unusual cold too is proof of 'gobal warming'.
>
>>>> I see you're still too dumb to understand what "global" means.
>
>>>I see you are too stupid to grasp a simple point. The point is the behavior
>>>of global warming believers pretty much parallels creationists trying to
>>>make everything fit the bible.
>
>> As I said, you are lying. Try reading some scientific sources.
>
>*laugh* go read sci.environment, you cross post in there enough to
>know what I am saying is true.
Please do. Read the scientific chaps there -- St. John, Halpen, and others.
>Hell, if someone posts scientific evidence
>that doesn't support global warming the true believers like yourself jump
>all over them as 'conservative corporate -----s' or try to scramble and
>say it's part of the great scheme and expected by the theory of global
>warming.
Because those yahoos post without any data or evidence.
>It's rather comical watching political regilous zealots try
>and hide behind science. It's what I see you do rather frequently parker
>and it is amusing.
Yeah, I bet you believe all the creationists too then.
>
>
>>>>>>>"Global warming" isn't even well defined with regards to what it is and
>>>>>>>what it entails, let alone being an established fact. Of course it's
hard
>>>>>>>to disprove something that isn't fixed in definition.
>
>>>>>> Yes it is.
>>>>>No, global warming theory is not fixed in any shape or form.
>
>>>> It's a fact; there are theories to explain it, just like gravity and
>>>> evolution.
>
>>>Theory != fact,
>
>> yes it is. Try learning some science.
>
>I think the school that granted you anything more than a HS dipolma
>should be sued for damages. Every student you've ever taught should also
>sue for damages.
>
>Theory is BASED ON FACTS. It is NOT A FACT.
Evolution is a fact; the theory of evolution explains it. Just as gravity is
a fact and the theory of gravity is an explanation of it.
>
>More cites, in addition to the ones presented earlier:
>
>http://www.hi.is/~joner/eaps/y3_91048.htm
>http://chem.tufts.edu/science/FrankSteiger/theory.htm
>http://www.jediknight.com/~smpoole/scitheory.html
>
>From the last one:
>
>"While we're at it, let's clear up another misunderstanding. Scientists
>use the term "theory" instead of "fact" simply because they can't test
>the model against every possible condition. All they can do is derive
>suitable tests to check the model in various ways; if it passes each
>test, their confidence increases."
>
>
>You call these things facts parker, therefore you are not a scientist.
>
>
>
>>>and I am refering to the theory titled "gobal warming"
>
>> Again, you obviously do not know what "theory" means in science.
>
>I know it very well. You don't. See above.
>
>>>as you were initially. But if you want to play the same word games, wether
>>>the temperature of the earth is going up, down, staying the same depends
>>>on what measures you use.
>
>> Wrong. You need to look at the data.
>
>Read: "only look at the data that supports parker's beliefs"
>
>I have looked at "the data", I cannot conclude one way or the other.
>All I can say for certain from the data is there is change going on. Why
>that change is occuring I cannot say, there is not enough data to say for
>sure. Is it part of the natural course of the planet (earth has never been
>static as global warming true believers need it to be) or is it the result
>of too many people? A scientist does not close his mind and say it's a
>fact, he continues to ask questions and seek answers.
Too bad you're not a scientist. Scientists HAVE looked at it, and have
concluded that global warming is real, and that human activities are
responsible. If you'd read some scientific journals, or what scientific
groups say, you'd know this. You've "looked at it?" Where, right-wing web
sites?
>
>What I have read on "global warming" leaves me with more questions to
>be answered. You close the book and declare it "fact". It's you sir
>that needs to learn some science.
Still won't tell us what area your Ph.D. is in?
>
>>>> Look, pal, to tell scientists global warming isn't factual is the height
of
>>>> stupidity.
>
>>>Hey you ------- moron, why don't you sue the school the that sold you
>>>a PhD? You don't have the mindset to be a real scienist. Maybe that's why
>>>you haven't published jack ----, right parker?
>
>> Why don't you tell us what area of science your Ph.D. is in?
>
>I've told you what my graduate degree is in Parker, I can remember
>what your degree is in, you certainly could do the same. But I'm not
>the one claiming to be a "scientist" without publishing anything, you
>are.
I'm still waiting for your scientific credentials.
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bnjf6q$b81$6@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <kq%mb.37513$Fm2.15080@attbi_s04>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>In article <bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> Relativity is an established fact.
>>>
>>>>>>>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
>>>>>>>behaviors.
>>>
>>>>>> No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
>>>>>That's not the same statement as the one you wrote before.
>>>
>>>> That **is** one of the central aspects of relativity -- time is relative.
>> If
>>>> time moves more slowly for some observers, by definition, that's
>> relativity.
>>>
>>>*ONE OF* Hence it is not the same as your all inclusive statement.
>>
>> I cited one property that proves relativity.
>
>ONE ASPECT OF. It's like you saying the ABS works because the rear drums
>slow the car. Connected, but one aspect of the system working doesn't
>make the whole system work.
>
>Plus, you don't seem to understand that theories like relativity and
>alot of the equations used are descriptive of what occurs.
>
>>>>>>>> Evolution is an established fact.
>>>>>>>It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.
>>>>>> No, it is a fact; there's an accompanying explanation as to how it
happens.
>
>>>>>No. It's a theory, an explanation supported with evidence. Until an
>>>>>explaination that better fits the evidence, the facts, we have evolution.
>
>>>> No, it's as much established fact as gravity. There's gravity, the fact,
and
>>>> a theory of gravity, explaining it. Similarly, there's evolution, the
fact,
>>>> and a theory of evolution, explaining it.
>
>>>Parker makes one last ditch effort with word play. You clearly ment the
later
>>>in your initial and followup statements.
>
>> Huh? Do you know what the work "theory" means in science?
>
>It's clear you don't. Hint: theory != fact.
Theory != "guess" either. A theory is an explanation for something, the
explanation accepted generally in science. Thus we have the theory of
gravity, an explanation for gravity; atomic theory, an explanation for the
behavior of atoms; quantum theory, an explanation for the behavior of
electrons and photons at the quantum level; the theory of evolution, an
explanation for evolution.
>
>It's what I said it was, an explanation based on facts and evidence, it
>is not a fact in and of itself.
It is the explanation accepted in science. And to be an explanation, it has
to explain something that does occur, like atoms, or gravity, or evolution.
>
>Some google search results for you parker:
>
>http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/theory.htm
>http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/theory
>
>What exactly do you teach in those chemistry classes? Liberal politics?
Too bad you never learned anything.
>
>>>>>>>> Global warming from (at
>>>>>>>> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
>>>>>>>Gobal warming is nebulus term that is used to describe everything that
>>>>>>>occurs with climate.
>>>>>> No, warming on a global scale.
>>>>>*sigh*. Read it again lloyd. (the climate = the climate of earth, in
>>>>>whole or in part)
>
>>>> Global warming means warming on a global scale, not "in part."
>
>>>You aren't grasping the entire context of what I wrote. With you I can't
>>>tell if it's on purpose with your typical less than honest debate style
>>>or if you really are that dumb. Go, back re-read, before you cut my initial
>>>reply up and try to grasp the meaning of it. Everything that occurs with
>>>the climate is claimed by global warming believers to be something that
>>>supports the theory. Much like that other guy's cite tried to make
>>>everything fit the bible, global warming believers try to make every bit
>>>of odd weather fit the global warming, climate change scheme.
>
>> You, sir, are lying.
>
>*hahahahahaha* Anyone who wants proof just read sci.environment for awhile.
Yes, please do.
>
>
>>>>>>>Thusly it can't be wrong. One part of the world is
>>>>>>>getting warmer? It's global warming. Another part of the world is
getting
>>>>>>>colder? It's global warming. One critter flurishes, it's global
warming.
>>>>>>>another critter is dying off, it's global warming. so on and so on. No
>>>>>>>matter what happens, it supports "global warming".
>>>>>> The world is getting warmer; that's why it's called _global_ warming.
>>>>>That's nice parker. Space aliens mutiliate cattle too...
>
>>>>>I peaked into sci.environment recently, saw people acting like the recent
>>>>>US warm spell was global warming in action.
>
>>>> You saw scientific facts and explanation.
>
>>>Yet, if someone where to post that a US cold snap was a sign of no global
>>>warming, you and others would ream that person a new ------- and say he
>>>didn't know the difference between weather and climate. When someone
>>>blames some odd weather on global warming because it's hotter than normal,
>>>true believers like you say it's "scientific facts and explanation".
>
>No response from parker.
>
>
>>>>>As usual didn't see you
>>>>>chastising them. Of course should someone suggest cold weather means
>>>>>there isn't global warming you and others jump in calling the person a
>>>>>moron with some saying that unusual cold too is proof of 'gobal warming'.
>
>>>> I see you're still too dumb to understand what "global" means.
>
>>>I see you are too stupid to grasp a simple point. The point is the behavior
>>>of global warming believers pretty much parallels creationists trying to
>>>make everything fit the bible.
>
>> As I said, you are lying. Try reading some scientific sources.
>
>*laugh* go read sci.environment, you cross post in there enough to
>know what I am saying is true.
Please do. Read the scientific chaps there -- St. John, Halpen, and others.
>Hell, if someone posts scientific evidence
>that doesn't support global warming the true believers like yourself jump
>all over them as 'conservative corporate -----s' or try to scramble and
>say it's part of the great scheme and expected by the theory of global
>warming.
Because those yahoos post without any data or evidence.
>It's rather comical watching political regilous zealots try
>and hide behind science. It's what I see you do rather frequently parker
>and it is amusing.
Yeah, I bet you believe all the creationists too then.
>
>
>>>>>>>"Global warming" isn't even well defined with regards to what it is and
>>>>>>>what it entails, let alone being an established fact. Of course it's
hard
>>>>>>>to disprove something that isn't fixed in definition.
>
>>>>>> Yes it is.
>>>>>No, global warming theory is not fixed in any shape or form.
>
>>>> It's a fact; there are theories to explain it, just like gravity and
>>>> evolution.
>
>>>Theory != fact,
>
>> yes it is. Try learning some science.
>
>I think the school that granted you anything more than a HS dipolma
>should be sued for damages. Every student you've ever taught should also
>sue for damages.
>
>Theory is BASED ON FACTS. It is NOT A FACT.
Evolution is a fact; the theory of evolution explains it. Just as gravity is
a fact and the theory of gravity is an explanation of it.
>
>More cites, in addition to the ones presented earlier:
>
>http://www.hi.is/~joner/eaps/y3_91048.htm
>http://chem.tufts.edu/science/FrankSteiger/theory.htm
>http://www.jediknight.com/~smpoole/scitheory.html
>
>From the last one:
>
>"While we're at it, let's clear up another misunderstanding. Scientists
>use the term "theory" instead of "fact" simply because they can't test
>the model against every possible condition. All they can do is derive
>suitable tests to check the model in various ways; if it passes each
>test, their confidence increases."
>
>
>You call these things facts parker, therefore you are not a scientist.
>
>
>
>>>and I am refering to the theory titled "gobal warming"
>
>> Again, you obviously do not know what "theory" means in science.
>
>I know it very well. You don't. See above.
>
>>>as you were initially. But if you want to play the same word games, wether
>>>the temperature of the earth is going up, down, staying the same depends
>>>on what measures you use.
>
>> Wrong. You need to look at the data.
>
>Read: "only look at the data that supports parker's beliefs"
>
>I have looked at "the data", I cannot conclude one way or the other.
>All I can say for certain from the data is there is change going on. Why
>that change is occuring I cannot say, there is not enough data to say for
>sure. Is it part of the natural course of the planet (earth has never been
>static as global warming true believers need it to be) or is it the result
>of too many people? A scientist does not close his mind and say it's a
>fact, he continues to ask questions and seek answers.
Too bad you're not a scientist. Scientists HAVE looked at it, and have
concluded that global warming is real, and that human activities are
responsible. If you'd read some scientific journals, or what scientific
groups say, you'd know this. You've "looked at it?" Where, right-wing web
sites?
>
>What I have read on "global warming" leaves me with more questions to
>be answered. You close the book and declare it "fact". It's you sir
>that needs to learn some science.
Still won't tell us what area your Ph.D. is in?
>
>>>> Look, pal, to tell scientists global warming isn't factual is the height
of
>>>> stupidity.
>
>>>Hey you ------- moron, why don't you sue the school the that sold you
>>>a PhD? You don't have the mindset to be a real scienist. Maybe that's why
>>>you haven't published jack ----, right parker?
>
>> Why don't you tell us what area of science your Ph.D. is in?
>
>I've told you what my graduate degree is in Parker, I can remember
>what your degree is in, you certainly could do the same. But I'm not
>the one claiming to be a "scientist" without publishing anything, you
>are.
I'm still waiting for your scientific credentials.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <Cecnb.41760$Tr4.86710@attbi_s03>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bnjf6q$b81$6@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <kq%mb.37513$Fm2.15080@attbi_s04>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>In article <bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> Relativity is an established fact.
>>>
>>>>>>>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
>>>>>>>behaviors.
>>>
>>>>>> No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
>>>>>That's not the same statement as the one you wrote before.
>>>
>>>> That **is** one of the central aspects of relativity -- time is relative.
>> If
>>>> time moves more slowly for some observers, by definition, that's
>> relativity.
>>>
>>>*ONE OF* Hence it is not the same as your all inclusive statement.
>>
>> I cited one property that proves relativity.
>
>ONE ASPECT OF. It's like you saying the ABS works because the rear drums
>slow the car. Connected, but one aspect of the system working doesn't
>make the whole system work.
>
>Plus, you don't seem to understand that theories like relativity and
>alot of the equations used are descriptive of what occurs.
>
>>>>>>>> Evolution is an established fact.
>>>>>>>It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.
>>>>>> No, it is a fact; there's an accompanying explanation as to how it
happens.
>
>>>>>No. It's a theory, an explanation supported with evidence. Until an
>>>>>explaination that better fits the evidence, the facts, we have evolution.
>
>>>> No, it's as much established fact as gravity. There's gravity, the fact,
and
>>>> a theory of gravity, explaining it. Similarly, there's evolution, the
fact,
>>>> and a theory of evolution, explaining it.
>
>>>Parker makes one last ditch effort with word play. You clearly ment the
later
>>>in your initial and followup statements.
>
>> Huh? Do you know what the work "theory" means in science?
>
>It's clear you don't. Hint: theory != fact.
Theory != "guess" either. A theory is an explanation for something, the
explanation accepted generally in science. Thus we have the theory of
gravity, an explanation for gravity; atomic theory, an explanation for the
behavior of atoms; quantum theory, an explanation for the behavior of
electrons and photons at the quantum level; the theory of evolution, an
explanation for evolution.
>
>It's what I said it was, an explanation based on facts and evidence, it
>is not a fact in and of itself.
It is the explanation accepted in science. And to be an explanation, it has
to explain something that does occur, like atoms, or gravity, or evolution.
>
>Some google search results for you parker:
>
>http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/theory.htm
>http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/theory
>
>What exactly do you teach in those chemistry classes? Liberal politics?
Too bad you never learned anything.
>
>>>>>>>> Global warming from (at
>>>>>>>> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
>>>>>>>Gobal warming is nebulus term that is used to describe everything that
>>>>>>>occurs with climate.
>>>>>> No, warming on a global scale.
>>>>>*sigh*. Read it again lloyd. (the climate = the climate of earth, in
>>>>>whole or in part)
>
>>>> Global warming means warming on a global scale, not "in part."
>
>>>You aren't grasping the entire context of what I wrote. With you I can't
>>>tell if it's on purpose with your typical less than honest debate style
>>>or if you really are that dumb. Go, back re-read, before you cut my initial
>>>reply up and try to grasp the meaning of it. Everything that occurs with
>>>the climate is claimed by global warming believers to be something that
>>>supports the theory. Much like that other guy's cite tried to make
>>>everything fit the bible, global warming believers try to make every bit
>>>of odd weather fit the global warming, climate change scheme.
>
>> You, sir, are lying.
>
>*hahahahahaha* Anyone who wants proof just read sci.environment for awhile.
Yes, please do.
>
>
>>>>>>>Thusly it can't be wrong. One part of the world is
>>>>>>>getting warmer? It's global warming. Another part of the world is
getting
>>>>>>>colder? It's global warming. One critter flurishes, it's global
warming.
>>>>>>>another critter is dying off, it's global warming. so on and so on. No
>>>>>>>matter what happens, it supports "global warming".
>>>>>> The world is getting warmer; that's why it's called _global_ warming.
>>>>>That's nice parker. Space aliens mutiliate cattle too...
>
>>>>>I peaked into sci.environment recently, saw people acting like the recent
>>>>>US warm spell was global warming in action.
>
>>>> You saw scientific facts and explanation.
>
>>>Yet, if someone where to post that a US cold snap was a sign of no global
>>>warming, you and others would ream that person a new ------- and say he
>>>didn't know the difference between weather and climate. When someone
>>>blames some odd weather on global warming because it's hotter than normal,
>>>true believers like you say it's "scientific facts and explanation".
>
>No response from parker.
>
>
>>>>>As usual didn't see you
>>>>>chastising them. Of course should someone suggest cold weather means
>>>>>there isn't global warming you and others jump in calling the person a
>>>>>moron with some saying that unusual cold too is proof of 'gobal warming'.
>
>>>> I see you're still too dumb to understand what "global" means.
>
>>>I see you are too stupid to grasp a simple point. The point is the behavior
>>>of global warming believers pretty much parallels creationists trying to
>>>make everything fit the bible.
>
>> As I said, you are lying. Try reading some scientific sources.
>
>*laugh* go read sci.environment, you cross post in there enough to
>know what I am saying is true.
Please do. Read the scientific chaps there -- St. John, Halpen, and others.
>Hell, if someone posts scientific evidence
>that doesn't support global warming the true believers like yourself jump
>all over them as 'conservative corporate -----s' or try to scramble and
>say it's part of the great scheme and expected by the theory of global
>warming.
Because those yahoos post without any data or evidence.
>It's rather comical watching political regilous zealots try
>and hide behind science. It's what I see you do rather frequently parker
>and it is amusing.
Yeah, I bet you believe all the creationists too then.
>
>
>>>>>>>"Global warming" isn't even well defined with regards to what it is and
>>>>>>>what it entails, let alone being an established fact. Of course it's
hard
>>>>>>>to disprove something that isn't fixed in definition.
>
>>>>>> Yes it is.
>>>>>No, global warming theory is not fixed in any shape or form.
>
>>>> It's a fact; there are theories to explain it, just like gravity and
>>>> evolution.
>
>>>Theory != fact,
>
>> yes it is. Try learning some science.
>
>I think the school that granted you anything more than a HS dipolma
>should be sued for damages. Every student you've ever taught should also
>sue for damages.
>
>Theory is BASED ON FACTS. It is NOT A FACT.
Evolution is a fact; the theory of evolution explains it. Just as gravity is
a fact and the theory of gravity is an explanation of it.
>
>More cites, in addition to the ones presented earlier:
>
>http://www.hi.is/~joner/eaps/y3_91048.htm
>http://chem.tufts.edu/science/FrankSteiger/theory.htm
>http://www.jediknight.com/~smpoole/scitheory.html
>
>From the last one:
>
>"While we're at it, let's clear up another misunderstanding. Scientists
>use the term "theory" instead of "fact" simply because they can't test
>the model against every possible condition. All they can do is derive
>suitable tests to check the model in various ways; if it passes each
>test, their confidence increases."
>
>
>You call these things facts parker, therefore you are not a scientist.
>
>
>
>>>and I am refering to the theory titled "gobal warming"
>
>> Again, you obviously do not know what "theory" means in science.
>
>I know it very well. You don't. See above.
>
>>>as you were initially. But if you want to play the same word games, wether
>>>the temperature of the earth is going up, down, staying the same depends
>>>on what measures you use.
>
>> Wrong. You need to look at the data.
>
>Read: "only look at the data that supports parker's beliefs"
>
>I have looked at "the data", I cannot conclude one way or the other.
>All I can say for certain from the data is there is change going on. Why
>that change is occuring I cannot say, there is not enough data to say for
>sure. Is it part of the natural course of the planet (earth has never been
>static as global warming true believers need it to be) or is it the result
>of too many people? A scientist does not close his mind and say it's a
>fact, he continues to ask questions and seek answers.
Too bad you're not a scientist. Scientists HAVE looked at it, and have
concluded that global warming is real, and that human activities are
responsible. If you'd read some scientific journals, or what scientific
groups say, you'd know this. You've "looked at it?" Where, right-wing web
sites?
>
>What I have read on "global warming" leaves me with more questions to
>be answered. You close the book and declare it "fact". It's you sir
>that needs to learn some science.
Still won't tell us what area your Ph.D. is in?
>
>>>> Look, pal, to tell scientists global warming isn't factual is the height
of
>>>> stupidity.
>
>>>Hey you ------- moron, why don't you sue the school the that sold you
>>>a PhD? You don't have the mindset to be a real scienist. Maybe that's why
>>>you haven't published jack ----, right parker?
>
>> Why don't you tell us what area of science your Ph.D. is in?
>
>I've told you what my graduate degree is in Parker, I can remember
>what your degree is in, you certainly could do the same. But I'm not
>the one claiming to be a "scientist" without publishing anything, you
>are.
I'm still waiting for your scientific credentials.
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bnjf6q$b81$6@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <kq%mb.37513$Fm2.15080@attbi_s04>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>In article <bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> Relativity is an established fact.
>>>
>>>>>>>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
>>>>>>>behaviors.
>>>
>>>>>> No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
>>>>>That's not the same statement as the one you wrote before.
>>>
>>>> That **is** one of the central aspects of relativity -- time is relative.
>> If
>>>> time moves more slowly for some observers, by definition, that's
>> relativity.
>>>
>>>*ONE OF* Hence it is not the same as your all inclusive statement.
>>
>> I cited one property that proves relativity.
>
>ONE ASPECT OF. It's like you saying the ABS works because the rear drums
>slow the car. Connected, but one aspect of the system working doesn't
>make the whole system work.
>
>Plus, you don't seem to understand that theories like relativity and
>alot of the equations used are descriptive of what occurs.
>
>>>>>>>> Evolution is an established fact.
>>>>>>>It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.
>>>>>> No, it is a fact; there's an accompanying explanation as to how it
happens.
>
>>>>>No. It's a theory, an explanation supported with evidence. Until an
>>>>>explaination that better fits the evidence, the facts, we have evolution.
>
>>>> No, it's as much established fact as gravity. There's gravity, the fact,
and
>>>> a theory of gravity, explaining it. Similarly, there's evolution, the
fact,
>>>> and a theory of evolution, explaining it.
>
>>>Parker makes one last ditch effort with word play. You clearly ment the
later
>>>in your initial and followup statements.
>
>> Huh? Do you know what the work "theory" means in science?
>
>It's clear you don't. Hint: theory != fact.
Theory != "guess" either. A theory is an explanation for something, the
explanation accepted generally in science. Thus we have the theory of
gravity, an explanation for gravity; atomic theory, an explanation for the
behavior of atoms; quantum theory, an explanation for the behavior of
electrons and photons at the quantum level; the theory of evolution, an
explanation for evolution.
>
>It's what I said it was, an explanation based on facts and evidence, it
>is not a fact in and of itself.
It is the explanation accepted in science. And to be an explanation, it has
to explain something that does occur, like atoms, or gravity, or evolution.
>
>Some google search results for you parker:
>
>http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/theory.htm
>http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/theory
>
>What exactly do you teach in those chemistry classes? Liberal politics?
Too bad you never learned anything.
>
>>>>>>>> Global warming from (at
>>>>>>>> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
>>>>>>>Gobal warming is nebulus term that is used to describe everything that
>>>>>>>occurs with climate.
>>>>>> No, warming on a global scale.
>>>>>*sigh*. Read it again lloyd. (the climate = the climate of earth, in
>>>>>whole or in part)
>
>>>> Global warming means warming on a global scale, not "in part."
>
>>>You aren't grasping the entire context of what I wrote. With you I can't
>>>tell if it's on purpose with your typical less than honest debate style
>>>or if you really are that dumb. Go, back re-read, before you cut my initial
>>>reply up and try to grasp the meaning of it. Everything that occurs with
>>>the climate is claimed by global warming believers to be something that
>>>supports the theory. Much like that other guy's cite tried to make
>>>everything fit the bible, global warming believers try to make every bit
>>>of odd weather fit the global warming, climate change scheme.
>
>> You, sir, are lying.
>
>*hahahahahaha* Anyone who wants proof just read sci.environment for awhile.
Yes, please do.
>
>
>>>>>>>Thusly it can't be wrong. One part of the world is
>>>>>>>getting warmer? It's global warming. Another part of the world is
getting
>>>>>>>colder? It's global warming. One critter flurishes, it's global
warming.
>>>>>>>another critter is dying off, it's global warming. so on and so on. No
>>>>>>>matter what happens, it supports "global warming".
>>>>>> The world is getting warmer; that's why it's called _global_ warming.
>>>>>That's nice parker. Space aliens mutiliate cattle too...
>
>>>>>I peaked into sci.environment recently, saw people acting like the recent
>>>>>US warm spell was global warming in action.
>
>>>> You saw scientific facts and explanation.
>
>>>Yet, if someone where to post that a US cold snap was a sign of no global
>>>warming, you and others would ream that person a new ------- and say he
>>>didn't know the difference between weather and climate. When someone
>>>blames some odd weather on global warming because it's hotter than normal,
>>>true believers like you say it's "scientific facts and explanation".
>
>No response from parker.
>
>
>>>>>As usual didn't see you
>>>>>chastising them. Of course should someone suggest cold weather means
>>>>>there isn't global warming you and others jump in calling the person a
>>>>>moron with some saying that unusual cold too is proof of 'gobal warming'.
>
>>>> I see you're still too dumb to understand what "global" means.
>
>>>I see you are too stupid to grasp a simple point. The point is the behavior
>>>of global warming believers pretty much parallels creationists trying to
>>>make everything fit the bible.
>
>> As I said, you are lying. Try reading some scientific sources.
>
>*laugh* go read sci.environment, you cross post in there enough to
>know what I am saying is true.
Please do. Read the scientific chaps there -- St. John, Halpen, and others.
>Hell, if someone posts scientific evidence
>that doesn't support global warming the true believers like yourself jump
>all over them as 'conservative corporate -----s' or try to scramble and
>say it's part of the great scheme and expected by the theory of global
>warming.
Because those yahoos post without any data or evidence.
>It's rather comical watching political regilous zealots try
>and hide behind science. It's what I see you do rather frequently parker
>and it is amusing.
Yeah, I bet you believe all the creationists too then.
>
>
>>>>>>>"Global warming" isn't even well defined with regards to what it is and
>>>>>>>what it entails, let alone being an established fact. Of course it's
hard
>>>>>>>to disprove something that isn't fixed in definition.
>
>>>>>> Yes it is.
>>>>>No, global warming theory is not fixed in any shape or form.
>
>>>> It's a fact; there are theories to explain it, just like gravity and
>>>> evolution.
>
>>>Theory != fact,
>
>> yes it is. Try learning some science.
>
>I think the school that granted you anything more than a HS dipolma
>should be sued for damages. Every student you've ever taught should also
>sue for damages.
>
>Theory is BASED ON FACTS. It is NOT A FACT.
Evolution is a fact; the theory of evolution explains it. Just as gravity is
a fact and the theory of gravity is an explanation of it.
>
>More cites, in addition to the ones presented earlier:
>
>http://www.hi.is/~joner/eaps/y3_91048.htm
>http://chem.tufts.edu/science/FrankSteiger/theory.htm
>http://www.jediknight.com/~smpoole/scitheory.html
>
>From the last one:
>
>"While we're at it, let's clear up another misunderstanding. Scientists
>use the term "theory" instead of "fact" simply because they can't test
>the model against every possible condition. All they can do is derive
>suitable tests to check the model in various ways; if it passes each
>test, their confidence increases."
>
>
>You call these things facts parker, therefore you are not a scientist.
>
>
>
>>>and I am refering to the theory titled "gobal warming"
>
>> Again, you obviously do not know what "theory" means in science.
>
>I know it very well. You don't. See above.
>
>>>as you were initially. But if you want to play the same word games, wether
>>>the temperature of the earth is going up, down, staying the same depends
>>>on what measures you use.
>
>> Wrong. You need to look at the data.
>
>Read: "only look at the data that supports parker's beliefs"
>
>I have looked at "the data", I cannot conclude one way or the other.
>All I can say for certain from the data is there is change going on. Why
>that change is occuring I cannot say, there is not enough data to say for
>sure. Is it part of the natural course of the planet (earth has never been
>static as global warming true believers need it to be) or is it the result
>of too many people? A scientist does not close his mind and say it's a
>fact, he continues to ask questions and seek answers.
Too bad you're not a scientist. Scientists HAVE looked at it, and have
concluded that global warming is real, and that human activities are
responsible. If you'd read some scientific journals, or what scientific
groups say, you'd know this. You've "looked at it?" Where, right-wing web
sites?
>
>What I have read on "global warming" leaves me with more questions to
>be answered. You close the book and declare it "fact". It's you sir
>that needs to learn some science.
Still won't tell us what area your Ph.D. is in?
>
>>>> Look, pal, to tell scientists global warming isn't factual is the height
of
>>>> stupidity.
>
>>>Hey you ------- moron, why don't you sue the school the that sold you
>>>a PhD? You don't have the mindset to be a real scienist. Maybe that's why
>>>you haven't published jack ----, right parker?
>
>> Why don't you tell us what area of science your Ph.D. is in?
>
>I've told you what my graduate degree is in Parker, I can remember
>what your degree is in, you certainly could do the same. But I'm not
>the one claiming to be a "scientist" without publishing anything, you
>are.
I'm still waiting for your scientific credentials.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <escnb.32938$ao4.63859@attbi_s51>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bnjf84$b81$7@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <Gs%mb.38952$e01.85589@attbi_s02>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bngqba$8h4$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>>>>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>>>>
>>>> No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
>>>
>>>It also started at the same time man started flying with heavier than
>>>air machines. A real scienist knows better than to make statements like
>>>the one above as "proof" as I demonstrate with another thing that started
>>>at the same time and has increased since.
>>
>> If you look at the data (I know that's a foreign concept to you), global
>> warming began around the middle of the 19th century, as human combustion
>> activities started picking up.
>
>And if you really had an understanding of science you wouldn't take
>corrolation as causation and then declare the causation fact.
>
>
When data is backed up by established scientific principles (CO2 traps heat),
it's a logical conclusion. Is it scientific principles or logic that's
foreign to you?
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bnjf84$b81$7@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <Gs%mb.38952$e01.85589@attbi_s02>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bngqba$8h4$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>>>>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>>>>
>>>> No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
>>>
>>>It also started at the same time man started flying with heavier than
>>>air machines. A real scienist knows better than to make statements like
>>>the one above as "proof" as I demonstrate with another thing that started
>>>at the same time and has increased since.
>>
>> If you look at the data (I know that's a foreign concept to you), global
>> warming began around the middle of the 19th century, as human combustion
>> activities started picking up.
>
>And if you really had an understanding of science you wouldn't take
>corrolation as causation and then declare the causation fact.
>
>
When data is backed up by established scientific principles (CO2 traps heat),
it's a logical conclusion. Is it scientific principles or logic that's
foreign to you?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <escnb.32938$ao4.63859@attbi_s51>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bnjf84$b81$7@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <Gs%mb.38952$e01.85589@attbi_s02>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bngqba$8h4$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>>>>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>>>>
>>>> No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
>>>
>>>It also started at the same time man started flying with heavier than
>>>air machines. A real scienist knows better than to make statements like
>>>the one above as "proof" as I demonstrate with another thing that started
>>>at the same time and has increased since.
>>
>> If you look at the data (I know that's a foreign concept to you), global
>> warming began around the middle of the 19th century, as human combustion
>> activities started picking up.
>
>And if you really had an understanding of science you wouldn't take
>corrolation as causation and then declare the causation fact.
>
>
When data is backed up by established scientific principles (CO2 traps heat),
it's a logical conclusion. Is it scientific principles or logic that's
foreign to you?
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bnjf84$b81$7@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <Gs%mb.38952$e01.85589@attbi_s02>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bngqba$8h4$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>>>>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>>>>
>>>> No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
>>>
>>>It also started at the same time man started flying with heavier than
>>>air machines. A real scienist knows better than to make statements like
>>>the one above as "proof" as I demonstrate with another thing that started
>>>at the same time and has increased since.
>>
>> If you look at the data (I know that's a foreign concept to you), global
>> warming began around the middle of the 19th century, as human combustion
>> activities started picking up.
>
>And if you really had an understanding of science you wouldn't take
>corrolation as causation and then declare the causation fact.
>
>
When data is backed up by established scientific principles (CO2 traps heat),
it's a logical conclusion. Is it scientific principles or logic that's
foreign to you?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <escnb.32938$ao4.63859@attbi_s51>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bnjf84$b81$7@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <Gs%mb.38952$e01.85589@attbi_s02>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bngqba$8h4$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>>>>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>>>>
>>>> No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
>>>
>>>It also started at the same time man started flying with heavier than
>>>air machines. A real scienist knows better than to make statements like
>>>the one above as "proof" as I demonstrate with another thing that started
>>>at the same time and has increased since.
>>
>> If you look at the data (I know that's a foreign concept to you), global
>> warming began around the middle of the 19th century, as human combustion
>> activities started picking up.
>
>And if you really had an understanding of science you wouldn't take
>corrolation as causation and then declare the causation fact.
>
>
When data is backed up by established scientific principles (CO2 traps heat),
it's a logical conclusion. Is it scientific principles or logic that's
foreign to you?
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bnjf84$b81$7@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <Gs%mb.38952$e01.85589@attbi_s02>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bngqba$8h4$2@puck.cc.emory.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.
>>>
>>>It also started at the same time man started flying with heavier than
>>>air machines. A real scienist knows better than to make statements like
>>>the one above as "proof" as I demonstrate with another thing that started
>>>at the same time and has increased since.
>>
>> If you look at the data (I know that's a foreign concept to you), global
>> warming began around the middle of the 19th century, as human combustion
>> activities started picking up.
>
>And if you really had an understanding of science you wouldn't take
>corrolation as causation and then declare the causation fact.
>
>
When data is backed up by established scientific principles (CO2 traps heat),
it's a logical conclusion. Is it scientific principles or logic that's
foreign to you?
