Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Wildly OT: why is anyone still Llistening was Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vpri9bmi6sqff7@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Aardwolf" <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote in message
>news:3F9DC2CD.B6BD80CF@itis.com...
>>
>>
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> This is the only post I will send out in this thread. However people need
>to know what science is
>> and what it is not. Science is the only tool we have for actually
>understanding how the world
>> around us works, because it is done by making rational, logical deductions
>based on unbiased
>> observations, _not_ by simply making up just-so stories and asserting that
>they are correct--nothing
>> can be learned that way, only proclaimed.
>>
>> For science to work, the intent behind the making of observations must be
>to _find out_ how a
>> phenomenon of nature works, _not_ to support a preconceived notion. The
>observations must be made
>> with an open mind. Only after the observations are done is a hypothesis
>formed to explain the facts
>> that these observations have yielded. Experiments are done to test the
>hypothesis. If successful
>> (or even if not) the results and conclusion are submitted for publication.
>Additionally, everything
>> must be documented--the initial observations, and the exact methodology
>used for the experiments, so
>> the work can be repeated by others to test it. Also the hypothesis must be
>constructed so that it is
>> potentially falsifiable.
>>
>> Those are the three most important aspects of the scientific
>process--verification, repeatability,
>> and falsifiability. The work must be able to be repeated by anyone with
>access to similar equipment
>> so that its honesty can be tested, as well as to find out if the process
>was somehow flawed (if
>> everyone else's results come out the same, but differently than those of
>the original researchers),
>> or if the hypothesis was too simple (differing results caused by
>additional variables not accounted
>> for by the original researchers), etc. Falsifiability is extremely
>important as well. The
>> hypothesis _must_ be potentially able to be disproved, otherwise nothing
>can be learned from the
>> research. In order for it to be regarded as correct, it must be able to
>stand up to the most severe
>> criticism that can be thrown at it, for as long as it exists. Scientific
>theories are designed so
>> that it is always possible for them to be proven wrong, and replaced with
>a better theory that can
>> stand up to the criticism that broke the older one. That is the only way
>knowledge can really be
>> advanced--by trying, and succeeding (or continually failing) to pull down
>other's ideas, with
>> _scientific_ work of your own. It also means that nothing in science can
>be absolutely proved, but
>> here's where a misunderstanding occurs: It doesn't mean that the
>scientific community in general
>> can't have a pretty good idea, maybe 99.9999999etc. %, that they are
>indeed correct in their
>> reasoning. There might always be a _chance_ that even the most concrete
>theory or law is incorrect,
>> but at some point the evidence becomes so overwhelmingly supportive (say,
>the Second Law of
>> Thermodynamics, and the ability to accurately predict (engineer) and build
>things like internal
>> combustion engines) that the chance of being wrong, sans any new
>information, which itself must pass
>> the same rigorous tests and inbuilt skepticism, becomes so small it isn't
>worth worrying about. Only
>> the best explanations survive, there is no room for the weak. And if it
>is not falsifiable it is
>> _not_ science.
>>
>> The work is published in scientific journals so that it is subject to peer
>review, in order to have
>> that criticism thrown at it, so it has to stand up or fail, and also to
>make sure it is as unbiased
>> as humanly possible--the only way to do that is to have everything--data,
>methods, theories, set on
>> by a trained group of skeptical scientists. It isn't perfect, ego and the
>cherished work of a career
>> can get in the way of rational criticism--but that is poor science, and
>that's why there is a
>> _group_ of peers to review the published work. People accuse scientists
>of being skeptical, and not
>> open to alternate ideas or explanations. They _have_ to be skeptics, if
>they weren't they wouldn't
>> be scientists. Again they aren't perfect; sometimes new ideas, scientific
>as they may be, seem too
>> radical and are missed--for a time, until enough evidence is presented for
>the work to be deemed
>> worth publishing.
>>
>>
>> What science is _NOT_ is an explanation in the form of a just-so story
>asserted to be true by its
>> author. Nothing can be learned from that, it's just a fancy way of
>saying "because I said so, and
>> all who disagree with me are wrong". Science is also _NOT_ done by
>attempting to "prove" just so
>> stories _OR_ preconceived notions by gathering supporting data. That's
>particularly dishonest in
>> fact, because it ignores all of the data that doesn't support it, which it
>needs if it is to be
>> discussed scientifically. That makes it the _opposite_ of science,
>nonetheless people who don't
>> know any better can't tell the difference, and it is deliberately dressed
>up to make people think it
>> _is_ scientific, where science is not a tool used to _prove_ anything, but
>to _discover_, to get as
>> close as _rationally_ possible to the truth of, what actually goes on.
>>
>> If you choose to accept an _idea_ over and above, if need be even contrary
>to, certain _established
>> facts_, than it is a belief, _not_ science. And it cannot be either
>proved or disproved, nothing
>> can be learned from it, and it can't be argued to any conclusion, because
>it simply is what you
>> decide it is, completely disconnected from the influence of anything else.
>This is not an attempt
>> to pass a moral judgment on it either (that also is outside the realm of
>science), however a belief
>> cannot be used to argue against science because no matter the truth of it,
>no matter how competent
>> the explanation it provides, it is designed so that it cannot be critiqued
>or even rationally argued
>> against, and thus nothing can be learned from it.
>>
>> --Aardwolf.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Very good explanation. It is also the reason I say Lloyd is no scientist, he
>fails on every level.
>
>
Excuse me, fool, science is what is saying GW is real and caused by CO2 levels
increasing. You are the yahoo claiming it's not, and you've no evidence, no
proof, nothing to back you up. You are a creationist, and you're too stupid
to realize it.
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Aardwolf" <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote in message
>news:3F9DC2CD.B6BD80CF@itis.com...
>>
>>
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> This is the only post I will send out in this thread. However people need
>to know what science is
>> and what it is not. Science is the only tool we have for actually
>understanding how the world
>> around us works, because it is done by making rational, logical deductions
>based on unbiased
>> observations, _not_ by simply making up just-so stories and asserting that
>they are correct--nothing
>> can be learned that way, only proclaimed.
>>
>> For science to work, the intent behind the making of observations must be
>to _find out_ how a
>> phenomenon of nature works, _not_ to support a preconceived notion. The
>observations must be made
>> with an open mind. Only after the observations are done is a hypothesis
>formed to explain the facts
>> that these observations have yielded. Experiments are done to test the
>hypothesis. If successful
>> (or even if not) the results and conclusion are submitted for publication.
>Additionally, everything
>> must be documented--the initial observations, and the exact methodology
>used for the experiments, so
>> the work can be repeated by others to test it. Also the hypothesis must be
>constructed so that it is
>> potentially falsifiable.
>>
>> Those are the three most important aspects of the scientific
>process--verification, repeatability,
>> and falsifiability. The work must be able to be repeated by anyone with
>access to similar equipment
>> so that its honesty can be tested, as well as to find out if the process
>was somehow flawed (if
>> everyone else's results come out the same, but differently than those of
>the original researchers),
>> or if the hypothesis was too simple (differing results caused by
>additional variables not accounted
>> for by the original researchers), etc. Falsifiability is extremely
>important as well. The
>> hypothesis _must_ be potentially able to be disproved, otherwise nothing
>can be learned from the
>> research. In order for it to be regarded as correct, it must be able to
>stand up to the most severe
>> criticism that can be thrown at it, for as long as it exists. Scientific
>theories are designed so
>> that it is always possible for them to be proven wrong, and replaced with
>a better theory that can
>> stand up to the criticism that broke the older one. That is the only way
>knowledge can really be
>> advanced--by trying, and succeeding (or continually failing) to pull down
>other's ideas, with
>> _scientific_ work of your own. It also means that nothing in science can
>be absolutely proved, but
>> here's where a misunderstanding occurs: It doesn't mean that the
>scientific community in general
>> can't have a pretty good idea, maybe 99.9999999etc. %, that they are
>indeed correct in their
>> reasoning. There might always be a _chance_ that even the most concrete
>theory or law is incorrect,
>> but at some point the evidence becomes so overwhelmingly supportive (say,
>the Second Law of
>> Thermodynamics, and the ability to accurately predict (engineer) and build
>things like internal
>> combustion engines) that the chance of being wrong, sans any new
>information, which itself must pass
>> the same rigorous tests and inbuilt skepticism, becomes so small it isn't
>worth worrying about. Only
>> the best explanations survive, there is no room for the weak. And if it
>is not falsifiable it is
>> _not_ science.
>>
>> The work is published in scientific journals so that it is subject to peer
>review, in order to have
>> that criticism thrown at it, so it has to stand up or fail, and also to
>make sure it is as unbiased
>> as humanly possible--the only way to do that is to have everything--data,
>methods, theories, set on
>> by a trained group of skeptical scientists. It isn't perfect, ego and the
>cherished work of a career
>> can get in the way of rational criticism--but that is poor science, and
>that's why there is a
>> _group_ of peers to review the published work. People accuse scientists
>of being skeptical, and not
>> open to alternate ideas or explanations. They _have_ to be skeptics, if
>they weren't they wouldn't
>> be scientists. Again they aren't perfect; sometimes new ideas, scientific
>as they may be, seem too
>> radical and are missed--for a time, until enough evidence is presented for
>the work to be deemed
>> worth publishing.
>>
>>
>> What science is _NOT_ is an explanation in the form of a just-so story
>asserted to be true by its
>> author. Nothing can be learned from that, it's just a fancy way of
>saying "because I said so, and
>> all who disagree with me are wrong". Science is also _NOT_ done by
>attempting to "prove" just so
>> stories _OR_ preconceived notions by gathering supporting data. That's
>particularly dishonest in
>> fact, because it ignores all of the data that doesn't support it, which it
>needs if it is to be
>> discussed scientifically. That makes it the _opposite_ of science,
>nonetheless people who don't
>> know any better can't tell the difference, and it is deliberately dressed
>up to make people think it
>> _is_ scientific, where science is not a tool used to _prove_ anything, but
>to _discover_, to get as
>> close as _rationally_ possible to the truth of, what actually goes on.
>>
>> If you choose to accept an _idea_ over and above, if need be even contrary
>to, certain _established
>> facts_, than it is a belief, _not_ science. And it cannot be either
>proved or disproved, nothing
>> can be learned from it, and it can't be argued to any conclusion, because
>it simply is what you
>> decide it is, completely disconnected from the influence of anything else.
>This is not an attempt
>> to pass a moral judgment on it either (that also is outside the realm of
>science), however a belief
>> cannot be used to argue against science because no matter the truth of it,
>no matter how competent
>> the explanation it provides, it is designed so that it cannot be critiqued
>or even rationally argued
>> against, and thus nothing can be learned from it.
>>
>> --Aardwolf.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Very good explanation. It is also the reason I say Lloyd is no scientist, he
>fails on every level.
>
>
Excuse me, fool, science is what is saying GW is real and caused by CO2 levels
increasing. You are the yahoo claiming it's not, and you've no evidence, no
proof, nothing to back you up. You are a creationist, and you're too stupid
to realize it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Wildly OT: why is anyone still Llistening was Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <Naknb.43901$Fm2.20291@attbi_s04>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <3F9DC2CD.B6BD80CF@itis.com>, Aardwolf wrote:
>
>> The work is published in scientific journals so that it is subject to
>> peer review, in order to have that criticism thrown at it, so it has
>> to stand up or fail, and also to make sure it is as unbiased as humanly
>> possible--the only way to do that is to have everything--data, methods,
>> theories, set on by a trained group of skeptical scientists. It isn't
>> perfect, ego and the cherished work of a career can get in the way of
>> rational criticism--but that is poor science, and that's why there is
>> a _group_ of peers to review the published work. People accuse
>> scientists of being skeptical, and not open to alternate ideas or
>> explanations. They _have_ to be skeptics, if they weren't they wouldn't
>> be scientists. Again they aren't perfect; sometimes new ideas,
>> scientific as they may be, seem too radical and are missed--for a time,
>> until enough evidence is presented for the work to be deemed worth
>> publishing.
>
>You make several good points. However
Brent is going to rave about conspiracies, because he knows the peer-reviewed
work goes against his biases.
> the problem with peer review by
>the group is that group mentality sets in where someone must believe
>X Y and Z or he isn't part of the group. And if you aren't part of the
>group you don't get published, if you don't get published you don't
>get research money, if you don't get research money you don't have
>a career, etc etc.
>
>It does lead to a church-like rigid belief system that makes it very
>difficult to get supportable radical thought heard and investigated
>by others. Evidence that indicates something other than the mainstream
>group belief gets tossed aside and ignored. Paths of investigation aren't
>followed, etc and so forth.
>
>It's something I've noticed in one area of science that I do follow
>and have had my long held theories based on the evidence. Slowly but
>surely the non-conventional evidence is piling up. Hopefully it will
>get to be so overwhelming it can no longer be ignored. But finding
>the smoking gun will be expensive, but hopefully it will be found and
>shown to the point where it is as undeniable in existance as the wreck
>of the titatic.
>
>Many lloyds of the world have alot of power in the world science, each
>one in their own little areas they have replaced the church. Their
>careers are invested in the belief that things are a certain way, as
>hard as fact. Evidence that points otherwise is unwelcome. Sad but true
>for so many things.
>
>
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <3F9DC2CD.B6BD80CF@itis.com>, Aardwolf wrote:
>
>> The work is published in scientific journals so that it is subject to
>> peer review, in order to have that criticism thrown at it, so it has
>> to stand up or fail, and also to make sure it is as unbiased as humanly
>> possible--the only way to do that is to have everything--data, methods,
>> theories, set on by a trained group of skeptical scientists. It isn't
>> perfect, ego and the cherished work of a career can get in the way of
>> rational criticism--but that is poor science, and that's why there is
>> a _group_ of peers to review the published work. People accuse
>> scientists of being skeptical, and not open to alternate ideas or
>> explanations. They _have_ to be skeptics, if they weren't they wouldn't
>> be scientists. Again they aren't perfect; sometimes new ideas,
>> scientific as they may be, seem too radical and are missed--for a time,
>> until enough evidence is presented for the work to be deemed worth
>> publishing.
>
>You make several good points. However
Brent is going to rave about conspiracies, because he knows the peer-reviewed
work goes against his biases.
> the problem with peer review by
>the group is that group mentality sets in where someone must believe
>X Y and Z or he isn't part of the group. And if you aren't part of the
>group you don't get published, if you don't get published you don't
>get research money, if you don't get research money you don't have
>a career, etc etc.
>
>It does lead to a church-like rigid belief system that makes it very
>difficult to get supportable radical thought heard and investigated
>by others. Evidence that indicates something other than the mainstream
>group belief gets tossed aside and ignored. Paths of investigation aren't
>followed, etc and so forth.
>
>It's something I've noticed in one area of science that I do follow
>and have had my long held theories based on the evidence. Slowly but
>surely the non-conventional evidence is piling up. Hopefully it will
>get to be so overwhelming it can no longer be ignored. But finding
>the smoking gun will be expensive, but hopefully it will be found and
>shown to the point where it is as undeniable in existance as the wreck
>of the titatic.
>
>Many lloyds of the world have alot of power in the world science, each
>one in their own little areas they have replaced the church. Their
>careers are invested in the belief that things are a certain way, as
>hard as fact. Evidence that points otherwise is unwelcome. Sad but true
>for so many things.
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Wildly OT: why is anyone still Llistening was Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <Naknb.43901$Fm2.20291@attbi_s04>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <3F9DC2CD.B6BD80CF@itis.com>, Aardwolf wrote:
>
>> The work is published in scientific journals so that it is subject to
>> peer review, in order to have that criticism thrown at it, so it has
>> to stand up or fail, and also to make sure it is as unbiased as humanly
>> possible--the only way to do that is to have everything--data, methods,
>> theories, set on by a trained group of skeptical scientists. It isn't
>> perfect, ego and the cherished work of a career can get in the way of
>> rational criticism--but that is poor science, and that's why there is
>> a _group_ of peers to review the published work. People accuse
>> scientists of being skeptical, and not open to alternate ideas or
>> explanations. They _have_ to be skeptics, if they weren't they wouldn't
>> be scientists. Again they aren't perfect; sometimes new ideas,
>> scientific as they may be, seem too radical and are missed--for a time,
>> until enough evidence is presented for the work to be deemed worth
>> publishing.
>
>You make several good points. However
Brent is going to rave about conspiracies, because he knows the peer-reviewed
work goes against his biases.
> the problem with peer review by
>the group is that group mentality sets in where someone must believe
>X Y and Z or he isn't part of the group. And if you aren't part of the
>group you don't get published, if you don't get published you don't
>get research money, if you don't get research money you don't have
>a career, etc etc.
>
>It does lead to a church-like rigid belief system that makes it very
>difficult to get supportable radical thought heard and investigated
>by others. Evidence that indicates something other than the mainstream
>group belief gets tossed aside and ignored. Paths of investigation aren't
>followed, etc and so forth.
>
>It's something I've noticed in one area of science that I do follow
>and have had my long held theories based on the evidence. Slowly but
>surely the non-conventional evidence is piling up. Hopefully it will
>get to be so overwhelming it can no longer be ignored. But finding
>the smoking gun will be expensive, but hopefully it will be found and
>shown to the point where it is as undeniable in existance as the wreck
>of the titatic.
>
>Many lloyds of the world have alot of power in the world science, each
>one in their own little areas they have replaced the church. Their
>careers are invested in the belief that things are a certain way, as
>hard as fact. Evidence that points otherwise is unwelcome. Sad but true
>for so many things.
>
>
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <3F9DC2CD.B6BD80CF@itis.com>, Aardwolf wrote:
>
>> The work is published in scientific journals so that it is subject to
>> peer review, in order to have that criticism thrown at it, so it has
>> to stand up or fail, and also to make sure it is as unbiased as humanly
>> possible--the only way to do that is to have everything--data, methods,
>> theories, set on by a trained group of skeptical scientists. It isn't
>> perfect, ego and the cherished work of a career can get in the way of
>> rational criticism--but that is poor science, and that's why there is
>> a _group_ of peers to review the published work. People accuse
>> scientists of being skeptical, and not open to alternate ideas or
>> explanations. They _have_ to be skeptics, if they weren't they wouldn't
>> be scientists. Again they aren't perfect; sometimes new ideas,
>> scientific as they may be, seem too radical and are missed--for a time,
>> until enough evidence is presented for the work to be deemed worth
>> publishing.
>
>You make several good points. However
Brent is going to rave about conspiracies, because he knows the peer-reviewed
work goes against his biases.
> the problem with peer review by
>the group is that group mentality sets in where someone must believe
>X Y and Z or he isn't part of the group. And if you aren't part of the
>group you don't get published, if you don't get published you don't
>get research money, if you don't get research money you don't have
>a career, etc etc.
>
>It does lead to a church-like rigid belief system that makes it very
>difficult to get supportable radical thought heard and investigated
>by others. Evidence that indicates something other than the mainstream
>group belief gets tossed aside and ignored. Paths of investigation aren't
>followed, etc and so forth.
>
>It's something I've noticed in one area of science that I do follow
>and have had my long held theories based on the evidence. Slowly but
>surely the non-conventional evidence is piling up. Hopefully it will
>get to be so overwhelming it can no longer be ignored. But finding
>the smoking gun will be expensive, but hopefully it will be found and
>shown to the point where it is as undeniable in existance as the wreck
>of the titatic.
>
>Many lloyds of the world have alot of power in the world science, each
>one in their own little areas they have replaced the church. Their
>careers are invested in the belief that things are a certain way, as
>hard as fact. Evidence that points otherwise is unwelcome. Sad but true
>for so many things.
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Wildly OT: why is anyone still Llistening was Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <Naknb.43901$Fm2.20291@attbi_s04>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <3F9DC2CD.B6BD80CF@itis.com>, Aardwolf wrote:
>
>> The work is published in scientific journals so that it is subject to
>> peer review, in order to have that criticism thrown at it, so it has
>> to stand up or fail, and also to make sure it is as unbiased as humanly
>> possible--the only way to do that is to have everything--data, methods,
>> theories, set on by a trained group of skeptical scientists. It isn't
>> perfect, ego and the cherished work of a career can get in the way of
>> rational criticism--but that is poor science, and that's why there is
>> a _group_ of peers to review the published work. People accuse
>> scientists of being skeptical, and not open to alternate ideas or
>> explanations. They _have_ to be skeptics, if they weren't they wouldn't
>> be scientists. Again they aren't perfect; sometimes new ideas,
>> scientific as they may be, seem too radical and are missed--for a time,
>> until enough evidence is presented for the work to be deemed worth
>> publishing.
>
>You make several good points. However
Brent is going to rave about conspiracies, because he knows the peer-reviewed
work goes against his biases.
> the problem with peer review by
>the group is that group mentality sets in where someone must believe
>X Y and Z or he isn't part of the group. And if you aren't part of the
>group you don't get published, if you don't get published you don't
>get research money, if you don't get research money you don't have
>a career, etc etc.
>
>It does lead to a church-like rigid belief system that makes it very
>difficult to get supportable radical thought heard and investigated
>by others. Evidence that indicates something other than the mainstream
>group belief gets tossed aside and ignored. Paths of investigation aren't
>followed, etc and so forth.
>
>It's something I've noticed in one area of science that I do follow
>and have had my long held theories based on the evidence. Slowly but
>surely the non-conventional evidence is piling up. Hopefully it will
>get to be so overwhelming it can no longer be ignored. But finding
>the smoking gun will be expensive, but hopefully it will be found and
>shown to the point where it is as undeniable in existance as the wreck
>of the titatic.
>
>Many lloyds of the world have alot of power in the world science, each
>one in their own little areas they have replaced the church. Their
>careers are invested in the belief that things are a certain way, as
>hard as fact. Evidence that points otherwise is unwelcome. Sad but true
>for so many things.
>
>
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <3F9DC2CD.B6BD80CF@itis.com>, Aardwolf wrote:
>
>> The work is published in scientific journals so that it is subject to
>> peer review, in order to have that criticism thrown at it, so it has
>> to stand up or fail, and also to make sure it is as unbiased as humanly
>> possible--the only way to do that is to have everything--data, methods,
>> theories, set on by a trained group of skeptical scientists. It isn't
>> perfect, ego and the cherished work of a career can get in the way of
>> rational criticism--but that is poor science, and that's why there is
>> a _group_ of peers to review the published work. People accuse
>> scientists of being skeptical, and not open to alternate ideas or
>> explanations. They _have_ to be skeptics, if they weren't they wouldn't
>> be scientists. Again they aren't perfect; sometimes new ideas,
>> scientific as they may be, seem too radical and are missed--for a time,
>> until enough evidence is presented for the work to be deemed worth
>> publishing.
>
>You make several good points. However
Brent is going to rave about conspiracies, because he knows the peer-reviewed
work goes against his biases.
> the problem with peer review by
>the group is that group mentality sets in where someone must believe
>X Y and Z or he isn't part of the group. And if you aren't part of the
>group you don't get published, if you don't get published you don't
>get research money, if you don't get research money you don't have
>a career, etc etc.
>
>It does lead to a church-like rigid belief system that makes it very
>difficult to get supportable radical thought heard and investigated
>by others. Evidence that indicates something other than the mainstream
>group belief gets tossed aside and ignored. Paths of investigation aren't
>followed, etc and so forth.
>
>It's something I've noticed in one area of science that I do follow
>and have had my long held theories based on the evidence. Slowly but
>surely the non-conventional evidence is piling up. Hopefully it will
>get to be so overwhelming it can no longer be ignored. But finding
>the smoking gun will be expensive, but hopefully it will be found and
>shown to the point where it is as undeniable in existance as the wreck
>of the titatic.
>
>Many lloyds of the world have alot of power in the world science, each
>one in their own little areas they have replaced the church. Their
>careers are invested in the belief that things are a certain way, as
>hard as fact. Evidence that points otherwise is unwelcome. Sad but true
>for so many things.
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vprjqlkeu0u40e@corp.supernews.com>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>news:bnjhqm0m1g@enews2.newsguy.com...
>> I'm still waiting for these CO2 zealots to 1) prove their theories, 2)
>> assuming they are correct, propose a single workable solution besides
>> getting mom to sell her SUV. The entire theory is a full of holes as their
>> proponents heads.
>>
>> Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming has a perfect
>> correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity.
>
>It has been pointed out to LP before, he dismissed it like he does any
>evidence that doesn't match his preconcieved ideas.
Your body temperature correlates to time of day too, but that doesn't mean a
fever can't be caused by a virus, now does it?
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>news:bnjhqm0m1g@enews2.newsguy.com...
>> I'm still waiting for these CO2 zealots to 1) prove their theories, 2)
>> assuming they are correct, propose a single workable solution besides
>> getting mom to sell her SUV. The entire theory is a full of holes as their
>> proponents heads.
>>
>> Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming has a perfect
>> correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity.
>
>It has been pointed out to LP before, he dismissed it like he does any
>evidence that doesn't match his preconcieved ideas.
Your body temperature correlates to time of day too, but that doesn't mean a
fever can't be caused by a virus, now does it?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vprjqlkeu0u40e@corp.supernews.com>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>news:bnjhqm0m1g@enews2.newsguy.com...
>> I'm still waiting for these CO2 zealots to 1) prove their theories, 2)
>> assuming they are correct, propose a single workable solution besides
>> getting mom to sell her SUV. The entire theory is a full of holes as their
>> proponents heads.
>>
>> Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming has a perfect
>> correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity.
>
>It has been pointed out to LP before, he dismissed it like he does any
>evidence that doesn't match his preconcieved ideas.
Your body temperature correlates to time of day too, but that doesn't mean a
fever can't be caused by a virus, now does it?
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>news:bnjhqm0m1g@enews2.newsguy.com...
>> I'm still waiting for these CO2 zealots to 1) prove their theories, 2)
>> assuming they are correct, propose a single workable solution besides
>> getting mom to sell her SUV. The entire theory is a full of holes as their
>> proponents heads.
>>
>> Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming has a perfect
>> correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity.
>
>It has been pointed out to LP before, he dismissed it like he does any
>evidence that doesn't match his preconcieved ideas.
Your body temperature correlates to time of day too, but that doesn't mean a
fever can't be caused by a virus, now does it?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vprjqlkeu0u40e@corp.supernews.com>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>news:bnjhqm0m1g@enews2.newsguy.com...
>> I'm still waiting for these CO2 zealots to 1) prove their theories, 2)
>> assuming they are correct, propose a single workable solution besides
>> getting mom to sell her SUV. The entire theory is a full of holes as their
>> proponents heads.
>>
>> Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming has a perfect
>> correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity.
>
>It has been pointed out to LP before, he dismissed it like he does any
>evidence that doesn't match his preconcieved ideas.
Your body temperature correlates to time of day too, but that doesn't mean a
fever can't be caused by a virus, now does it?
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>news:bnjhqm0m1g@enews2.newsguy.com...
>> I'm still waiting for these CO2 zealots to 1) prove their theories, 2)
>> assuming they are correct, propose a single workable solution besides
>> getting mom to sell her SUV. The entire theory is a full of holes as their
>> proponents heads.
>>
>> Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming has a perfect
>> correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity.
>
>It has been pointed out to LP before, he dismissed it like he does any
>evidence that doesn't match his preconcieved ideas.
Your body temperature correlates to time of day too, but that doesn't mean a
fever can't be caused by a virus, now does it?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vprkhgchpgi642@corp.supernews.com>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bnjeoi$b81$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vpof02qkahoq17@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>
>> >> Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000 US
>> >troops
>> >> haven't found them.
>> >
>> >Bingo, The UN couldn't find them, although it is well documented that
>they
>> >existed.
>>
>> Not in 2003.
>>
>>
>> >That is why they were still looking, that is why we are still
>> >looking. We haven't found Saddam yet either, but we know he exists as
>well.
>> >Or do you think that is also a lie?
>>
>> Is he as big as the WMD?
>
>You do realize Saddam had twelve years in which to hide them. Where is Jimmy
>Hoffa?
>
>
>
We claimed direct evidence and knowledge that WMD were there in 2003.
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bnjeoi$b81$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vpof02qkahoq17@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>
>> >> Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000 US
>> >troops
>> >> haven't found them.
>> >
>> >Bingo, The UN couldn't find them, although it is well documented that
>they
>> >existed.
>>
>> Not in 2003.
>>
>>
>> >That is why they were still looking, that is why we are still
>> >looking. We haven't found Saddam yet either, but we know he exists as
>well.
>> >Or do you think that is also a lie?
>>
>> Is he as big as the WMD?
>
>You do realize Saddam had twelve years in which to hide them. Where is Jimmy
>Hoffa?
>
>
>
We claimed direct evidence and knowledge that WMD were there in 2003.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vprkhgchpgi642@corp.supernews.com>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bnjeoi$b81$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vpof02qkahoq17@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>
>> >> Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000 US
>> >troops
>> >> haven't found them.
>> >
>> >Bingo, The UN couldn't find them, although it is well documented that
>they
>> >existed.
>>
>> Not in 2003.
>>
>>
>> >That is why they were still looking, that is why we are still
>> >looking. We haven't found Saddam yet either, but we know he exists as
>well.
>> >Or do you think that is also a lie?
>>
>> Is he as big as the WMD?
>
>You do realize Saddam had twelve years in which to hide them. Where is Jimmy
>Hoffa?
>
>
>
We claimed direct evidence and knowledge that WMD were there in 2003.
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bnjeoi$b81$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vpof02qkahoq17@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>
>> >> Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000 US
>> >troops
>> >> haven't found them.
>> >
>> >Bingo, The UN couldn't find them, although it is well documented that
>they
>> >existed.
>>
>> Not in 2003.
>>
>>
>> >That is why they were still looking, that is why we are still
>> >looking. We haven't found Saddam yet either, but we know he exists as
>well.
>> >Or do you think that is also a lie?
>>
>> Is he as big as the WMD?
>
>You do realize Saddam had twelve years in which to hide them. Where is Jimmy
>Hoffa?
>
>
>
We claimed direct evidence and knowledge that WMD were there in 2003.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vprkhgchpgi642@corp.supernews.com>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bnjeoi$b81$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vpof02qkahoq17@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>
>> >> Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000 US
>> >troops
>> >> haven't found them.
>> >
>> >Bingo, The UN couldn't find them, although it is well documented that
>they
>> >existed.
>>
>> Not in 2003.
>>
>>
>> >That is why they were still looking, that is why we are still
>> >looking. We haven't found Saddam yet either, but we know he exists as
>well.
>> >Or do you think that is also a lie?
>>
>> Is he as big as the WMD?
>
>You do realize Saddam had twelve years in which to hide them. Where is Jimmy
>Hoffa?
>
>
>
We claimed direct evidence and knowledge that WMD were there in 2003.
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bnjeoi$b81$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vpof02qkahoq17@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>
>> >> Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000 US
>> >troops
>> >> haven't found them.
>> >
>> >Bingo, The UN couldn't find them, although it is well documented that
>they
>> >existed.
>>
>> Not in 2003.
>>
>>
>> >That is why they were still looking, that is why we are still
>> >looking. We haven't found Saddam yet either, but we know he exists as
>well.
>> >Or do you think that is also a lie?
>>
>> Is he as big as the WMD?
>
>You do realize Saddam had twelve years in which to hide them. Where is Jimmy
>Hoffa?
>
>
>
We claimed direct evidence and knowledge that WMD were there in 2003.