In article <uAcnb.8112$FI2.2516@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink. net>,
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bnjfa3$b81$9@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <5q2nb.4730$X22.88@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.ne t>,
>> "FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >>
>> >> Try learning some science.<CLICK>Try learning some science.<CLICK>Try
>> >learning some science.<CLICK>Try learning some science.<CLICK>Try
>learning
>> >some science.<CLICK>...........
>> >
>> >Will somebody please kick the jukebox, somebody's playing that broken
>Parker
>> >record on there again. ;-D
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Would someone please tell the 6th-grade drop-outs here to stop arguing
>science
>> with scientists? As Pogo said, I refuse to engage in a battle of wits
>with an
>> unarmed opponent.
>
>Better a 6th grade drop out than an elitist know-it-all that blindly follows
>anything that comes out of the DNC, CR, or any UN based org. who replies to
>any differing opinion with "Learn some science.", "idiot", "****", "right
>winger", etc.......
>You sound like a broken record after a while Lloyd. Try having an open mind
>it might be a new experiance for you.
>
>
Does that mean embracing creationism? That evil spirits cause disease? That
the earth is 6000 years old?

Open minds are fine until the data is in. Then it's foolish.

 

In article <uAcnb.8112$FI2.2516@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink. net>,
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bnjfa3$b81$9@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <5q2nb.4730$X22.88@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.ne t>,
>> "FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >>
>> >> Try learning some science.<CLICK>Try learning some science.<CLICK>Try
>> >learning some science.<CLICK>Try learning some science.<CLICK>Try
>learning
>> >some science.<CLICK>...........
>> >
>> >Will somebody please kick the jukebox, somebody's playing that broken
>Parker
>> >record on there again. ;-D
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Would someone please tell the 6th-grade drop-outs here to stop arguing
>science
>> with scientists? As Pogo said, I refuse to engage in a battle of wits
>with an
>> unarmed opponent.
>
>Better a 6th grade drop out than an elitist know-it-all that blindly follows
>anything that comes out of the DNC, CR, or any UN based org. who replies to
>any differing opinion with "Learn some science.", "idiot", "****", "right
>winger", etc.......
>You sound like a broken record after a while Lloyd. Try having an open mind
>it might be a new experiance for you.
>
>
Does that mean embracing creationism? That evil spirits cause disease? That
the earth is 6000 years old?

Open minds are fine until the data is in. Then it's foolish.

 

In article <uAcnb.8112$FI2.2516@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink. net>,
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bnjfa3$b81$9@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <5q2nb.4730$X22.88@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.ne t>,
>> "FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >>
>> >> Try learning some science.<CLICK>Try learning some science.<CLICK>Try
>> >learning some science.<CLICK>Try learning some science.<CLICK>Try
>learning
>> >some science.<CLICK>...........
>> >
>> >Will somebody please kick the jukebox, somebody's playing that broken
>Parker
>> >record on there again. ;-D
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Would someone please tell the 6th-grade drop-outs here to stop arguing
>science
>> with scientists? As Pogo said, I refuse to engage in a battle of wits
>with an
>> unarmed opponent.
>
>Better a 6th grade drop out than an elitist know-it-all that blindly follows
>anything that comes out of the DNC, CR, or any UN based org. who replies to
>any differing opinion with "Learn some science.", "idiot", "****", "right
>winger", etc.......
>You sound like a broken record after a while Lloyd. Try having an open mind
>it might be a new experiance for you.
>
>
Does that mean embracing creationism? That evil spirits cause disease? That
the earth is 6000 years old?

Open minds are fine until the data is in. Then it's foolish.

 

In article <4b6d2dd6.0310271121.6288f89b@posting.google.com >,
njnagel@hotmail.com (Nate Nagel) wrote:
>lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote in message
news:<bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>...
>> In article <wngmb.20534$HS4.71116@attbi_s01>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >In article <bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >> In article <bfSlb.3517$275.9363@attbi_s53>,
>> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >>>In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Gravity is an established fact.
>>
>> >>>Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
>> >>>remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
>> >>>than other basic forces.
>>
>> >> The explanation may be unsettled; the fact that gravity is, is not.
>> >
>> >Hence the first sentance I wrote above. But your statement above means
>> >much more.
>> >
>> >>>> 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.
>
>True. However, relativity is simply a theory - the best one we have
>at the moment - to describe the observations that we are capable of
>making at this time.

But we have factual evidence -- time going slower in a gravity well or at high
speeds, for example. Those are the predictions of relativity. A theory is an
explanation of something. Time being relative to an observer IS relativity,
pretty much by definition, and that's fact.


> By your Llogic, way back thousands of years ago,
>the geocentric model of the universe was a "fact" and then later
>Newtonian mechanics was a collection of "facts." We now know those
>concepts to be false and approximations respectively.

No, the geocentric model was FAITH, demanded by the church.

>
><snip>
>
>> >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.
>>
>
>So what is gravity, the fact? Can you state authoritatively that
>gravity ALWAYS follows the inverse square rule or is there perhaps
>some fine tuning to be done regarding interactions under conditions we
>haven't thought of yet? For crying out loud, we still don't know
>*why* objects with mass attract each other, simply that they appear to
>do so.
>
><snip moronic abuse>
>
>>
>> Try learning some science.
>
>Science is not a collection of facts to be parroted by rote, it is a
>process by which we refine our understanding of how various aspects of
>the Universe work. It's the height of arrogance to proclaim that one
>can authoritatively state that something is the TRVTH especially in
>light of the amazing changes that have come in our understanding of
>almost every scientific field over only the last few centuries. Of
>course, you appear to be no stranger to arrogance, beginning with your
>assertion that you are actually a scientist. At best you are an
>engineer, one who makes use of the discoveries of scientists for
>practical applications, however as an engineer I'd be ashamed to claim
>you in that rank even. Quite simply, at best you are a walking
>encyclopedia - and a rather annoying one, at that.
>
>nate
>
>ObWeirdness - I appear to be watching a scientist arguing with a
>creationist, and the creationist appears to be the more reasonable of
>the two. When was the last time you saw that happen?
>
>ObYesIKnow - this is the last you'll hear from me on this topic; it is
>true what they say about arguing with an idiot. I'm bowing out now in
>the interest of preserving what IQ points I have left.

 

In article <4b6d2dd6.0310271121.6288f89b@posting.google.com >,
njnagel@hotmail.com (Nate Nagel) wrote:
>lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote in message
news:<bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>...
>> In article <wngmb.20534$HS4.71116@attbi_s01>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >In article <bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >> In article <bfSlb.3517$275.9363@attbi_s53>,
>> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >>>In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Gravity is an established fact.
>>
>> >>>Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
>> >>>remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
>> >>>than other basic forces.
>>
>> >> The explanation may be unsettled; the fact that gravity is, is not.
>> >
>> >Hence the first sentance I wrote above. But your statement above means
>> >much more.
>> >
>> >>>> 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.
>
>True. However, relativity is simply a theory - the best one we have
>at the moment - to describe the observations that we are capable of
>making at this time.

But we have factual evidence -- time going slower in a gravity well or at high
speeds, for example. Those are the predictions of relativity. A theory is an
explanation of something. Time being relative to an observer IS relativity,
pretty much by definition, and that's fact.


> By your Llogic, way back thousands of years ago,
>the geocentric model of the universe was a "fact" and then later
>Newtonian mechanics was a collection of "facts." We now know those
>concepts to be false and approximations respectively.

No, the geocentric model was FAITH, demanded by the church.

>
><snip>
>
>> >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.
>>
>
>So what is gravity, the fact? Can you state authoritatively that
>gravity ALWAYS follows the inverse square rule or is there perhaps
>some fine tuning to be done regarding interactions under conditions we
>haven't thought of yet? For crying out loud, we still don't know
>*why* objects with mass attract each other, simply that they appear to
>do so.
>
><snip moronic abuse>
>
>>
>> Try learning some science.
>
>Science is not a collection of facts to be parroted by rote, it is a
>process by which we refine our understanding of how various aspects of
>the Universe work. It's the height of arrogance to proclaim that one
>can authoritatively state that something is the TRVTH especially in
>light of the amazing changes that have come in our understanding of
>almost every scientific field over only the last few centuries. Of
>course, you appear to be no stranger to arrogance, beginning with your
>assertion that you are actually a scientist. At best you are an
>engineer, one who makes use of the discoveries of scientists for
>practical applications, however as an engineer I'd be ashamed to claim
>you in that rank even. Quite simply, at best you are a walking
>encyclopedia - and a rather annoying one, at that.
>
>nate
>
>ObWeirdness - I appear to be watching a scientist arguing with a
>creationist, and the creationist appears to be the more reasonable of
>the two. When was the last time you saw that happen?
>
>ObYesIKnow - this is the last you'll hear from me on this topic; it is
>true what they say about arguing with an idiot. I'm bowing out now in
>the interest of preserving what IQ points I have left.

 

In article <4b6d2dd6.0310271121.6288f89b@posting.google.com >,
njnagel@hotmail.com (Nate Nagel) wrote:
>lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote in message
news:<bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>...
>> In article <wngmb.20534$HS4.71116@attbi_s01>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >In article <bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >> In article <bfSlb.3517$275.9363@attbi_s53>,
>> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >>>In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Gravity is an established fact.
>>
>> >>>Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
>> >>>remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
>> >>>than other basic forces.
>>
>> >> The explanation may be unsettled; the fact that gravity is, is not.
>> >
>> >Hence the first sentance I wrote above. But your statement above means
>> >much more.
>> >
>> >>>> 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.
>
>True. However, relativity is simply a theory - the best one we have
>at the moment - to describe the observations that we are capable of
>making at this time.

But we have factual evidence -- time going slower in a gravity well or at high
speeds, for example. Those are the predictions of relativity. A theory is an
explanation of something. Time being relative to an observer IS relativity,
pretty much by definition, and that's fact.


> By your Llogic, way back thousands of years ago,
>the geocentric model of the universe was a "fact" and then later
>Newtonian mechanics was a collection of "facts." We now know those
>concepts to be false and approximations respectively.

No, the geocentric model was FAITH, demanded by the church.

>
><snip>
>
>> >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.
>>
>
>So what is gravity, the fact? Can you state authoritatively that
>gravity ALWAYS follows the inverse square rule or is there perhaps
>some fine tuning to be done regarding interactions under conditions we
>haven't thought of yet? For crying out loud, we still don't know
>*why* objects with mass attract each other, simply that they appear to
>do so.
>
><snip moronic abuse>
>
>>
>> Try learning some science.
>
>Science is not a collection of facts to be parroted by rote, it is a
>process by which we refine our understanding of how various aspects of
>the Universe work. It's the height of arrogance to proclaim that one
>can authoritatively state that something is the TRVTH especially in
>light of the amazing changes that have come in our understanding of
>almost every scientific field over only the last few centuries. Of
>course, you appear to be no stranger to arrogance, beginning with your
>assertion that you are actually a scientist. At best you are an
>engineer, one who makes use of the discoveries of scientists for
>practical applications, however as an engineer I'd be ashamed to claim
>you in that rank even. Quite simply, at best you are a walking
>encyclopedia - and a rather annoying one, at that.
>
>nate
>
>ObWeirdness - I appear to be watching a scientist arguing with a
>creationist, and the creationist appears to be the more reasonable of
>the two. When was the last time you saw that happen?
>
>ObYesIKnow - this is the last you'll hear from me on this topic; it is
>true what they say about arguing with an idiot. I'm bowing out now in
>the interest of preserving what IQ points I have left.

 

In article <vpr7cutepp2qe4@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bnjeug$b81$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vpogh8jrve7529@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
>> >news:b71opv8v0in3q2ra8l4u8fd4t6qa8p9vhb@4ax.com.. .
>> >> 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).
>> >
>> >Only an idiot would believe the climate we have now is stable. It has
>never
>> >remained stable for long, regardless of whether man were here or not the
>> >climate would still warm for awhile, then cool off again, then warm
>again,
>> >just as it always has. Lloyds claim is that the current global warming is
>> >man made.
>>
>> Mine, and NASA, IPCC, NOAA, EPA, National Academy of Sciences, American
>> Geophysical Union, American Chemical Society...
>>
>>
>> >He ignores all the evidence which contradicts his claim.
>>
>> There is none.
>>
>>
>> >He is a
>> >joke, a self delusional wannabe scientist grasping for any fame he can
>find.
>> >He is actually prety pathetic, but not so much I won't laugh at his stone
>> >age beliefs.
>> >
>>
>> Yeah, and you're such a scientist, right? Tell us your degree.
>>
>> >
>
>Hell Lloyd it was even on CNN last night, the story about the ice in the
>Arctic melting, which, as they put it, is caused by warmer temperatures,
>possible because of Global warming, although (their words) The CAUSE of the
>Global warming is still UNKNOWN.
>For someone claiming to be a scientist you sure don't know much science.
>Better learn some before you post here claiming to be one you lying wannabe.
>
>
CNN is your scientific source? LOL!

Ever hear of, oh, a science class? A science book? A scientific journal?

Tell you what, go to NASA's web site. Or EPA's. Or NOAA's.

 

In article <vpr7cutepp2qe4@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bnjeug$b81$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vpogh8jrve7529@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
>> >news:b71opv8v0in3q2ra8l4u8fd4t6qa8p9vhb@4ax.com.. .
>> >> 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).
>> >
>> >Only an idiot would believe the climate we have now is stable. It has
>never
>> >remained stable for long, regardless of whether man were here or not the
>> >climate would still warm for awhile, then cool off again, then warm
>again,
>> >just as it always has. Lloyds claim is that the current global warming is
>> >man made.
>>
>> Mine, and NASA, IPCC, NOAA, EPA, National Academy of Sciences, American
>> Geophysical Union, American Chemical Society...
>>
>>
>> >He ignores all the evidence which contradicts his claim.
>>
>> There is none.
>>
>>
>> >He is a
>> >joke, a self delusional wannabe scientist grasping for any fame he can
>find.
>> >He is actually prety pathetic, but not so much I won't laugh at his stone
>> >age beliefs.
>> >
>>
>> Yeah, and you're such a scientist, right? Tell us your degree.
>>
>> >
>
>Hell Lloyd it was even on CNN last night, the story about the ice in the
>Arctic melting, which, as they put it, is caused by warmer temperatures,
>possible because of Global warming, although (their words) The CAUSE of the
>Global warming is still UNKNOWN.
>For someone claiming to be a scientist you sure don't know much science.
>Better learn some before you post here claiming to be one you lying wannabe.
>
>
CNN is your scientific source? LOL!

Ever hear of, oh, a science class? A science book? A scientific journal?

Tell you what, go to NASA's web site. Or EPA's. Or NOAA's.

 

In article <vpr7cutepp2qe4@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bnjeug$b81$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vpogh8jrve7529@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
>> >news:b71opv8v0in3q2ra8l4u8fd4t6qa8p9vhb@4ax.com.. .
>> >> 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).
>> >
>> >Only an idiot would believe the climate we have now is stable. It has
>never
>> >remained stable for long, regardless of whether man were here or not the
>> >climate would still warm for awhile, then cool off again, then warm
>again,
>> >just as it always has. Lloyds claim is that the current global warming is
>> >man made.
>>
>> Mine, and NASA, IPCC, NOAA, EPA, National Academy of Sciences, American
>> Geophysical Union, American Chemical Society...
>>
>>
>> >He ignores all the evidence which contradicts his claim.
>>
>> There is none.
>>
>>
>> >He is a
>> >joke, a self delusional wannabe scientist grasping for any fame he can
>find.
>> >He is actually prety pathetic, but not so much I won't laugh at his stone
>> >age beliefs.
>> >
>>
>> Yeah, and you're such a scientist, right? Tell us your degree.
>>
>> >
>
>Hell Lloyd it was even on CNN last night, the story about the ice in the
>Arctic melting, which, as they put it, is caused by warmer temperatures,
>possible because of Global warming, although (their words) The CAUSE of the
>Global warming is still UNKNOWN.
>For someone claiming to be a scientist you sure don't know much science.
>Better learn some before you post here claiming to be one you lying wannabe.
>
>
CNN is your scientific source? LOL!

Ever hear of, oh, a science class? A science book? A scientific journal?

Tell you what, go to NASA's web site. Or EPA's. Or NOAA's.

 

In article <vpr7k4sc7eeb07@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bnjf84$b81$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <Gs%mb.38952$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.
>
>Actually it began around 11,000 years ago, when the last ice age ended.
>
>
Wrong. Why do the scientific ignorant rage?