"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnm4ro$nk9$6@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vpr7cutepp2qe4@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bnjeug$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.

Learn some science LP

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnm4ro$nk9$6@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vpr7cutepp2qe4@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bnjeug$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.

Learn some science LP

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnm4ro$nk9$6@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vpr7cutepp2qe4@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bnjeug$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.

Learn some science LP

 

"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
news:vpt9lg96cr1g09@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:bnm4se$nk9$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > In article <vpr7k4sc7eeb07@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> > >news:bnjf84$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?
>
> So it is as cold now as it was 11,000 years ago? Why do you pretend to
know
> anything about science? You are not a scientist, you are an Associate
> chemistry professor. You may know a little chemistry, that does not make
you
> any more an expert on global warming than it qualifies you for flipping
> burgers. Stay in your field of study lloyd, you know nothing outside it.
>

And Damn little inside it.

 

"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
news:vpt9lg96cr1g09@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:bnm4se$nk9$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > In article <vpr7k4sc7eeb07@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> > >news:bnjf84$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?
>
> So it is as cold now as it was 11,000 years ago? Why do you pretend to
know
> anything about science? You are not a scientist, you are an Associate
> chemistry professor. You may know a little chemistry, that does not make
you
> any more an expert on global warming than it qualifies you for flipping
> burgers. Stay in your field of study lloyd, you know nothing outside it.
>

And Damn little inside it.

 

"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
news:vpt9lg96cr1g09@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:bnm4se$nk9$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > In article <vpr7k4sc7eeb07@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> > >news:bnjf84$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?
>
> So it is as cold now as it was 11,000 years ago? Why do you pretend to
know
> anything about science? You are not a scientist, you are an Associate
> chemistry professor. You may know a little chemistry, that does not make
you
> any more an expert on global warming than it qualifies you for flipping
> burgers. Stay in your field of study lloyd, you know nothing outside it.
>

And Damn little inside it.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnm50p$nk9$10@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> 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.

Some SCIENTISTS are saying that LP, SOME are saying it is not. We've been
over this before, the issue is NOT settled, there is NOT a consensus as to
whether 1. there is true global warming, as opposed to a temperature
fluctation,
and 2. if there is Global warming the cause has not been established. You
can whine and cry and post all your little pet Liberal websites you want,
you are still wrong.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnm50p$nk9$10@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> 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.

Some SCIENTISTS are saying that LP, SOME are saying it is not. We've been
over this before, the issue is NOT settled, there is NOT a consensus as to
whether 1. there is true global warming, as opposed to a temperature
fluctation,
and 2. if there is Global warming the cause has not been established. You
can whine and cry and post all your little pet Liberal websites you want,
you are still wrong.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnm50p$nk9$10@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> 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.

Some SCIENTISTS are saying that LP, SOME are saying it is not. We've been
over this before, the issue is NOT settled, there is NOT a consensus as to
whether 1. there is true global warming, as opposed to a temperature
fluctation,
and 2. if there is Global warming the cause has not been established. You
can whine and cry and post all your little pet Liberal websites you want,
you are still wrong.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnm57i$ord$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vprm88jd5h658b@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:mDknb.34757$9E1.133399@attbi_s52...
> >> In article <vprkoqb5aif957@corp.supernews.com>, Douglas A. Shrader
wrote:
> >>
> >> > This thread is to long, I'm leaving it, but I must say it has been a
> >> > pleasure reading your posts. What group are you posting from?
> >>
> >> Thanks. Nate, aardwolf, and I post from rec.autos.driving.
> >>
> >> If you think this is a long thread, you should google for the one
> >> years ago where we (regulars of r.a.d) tried to teach lloyd how
> >> braking antilock braking systems worked and how they varied from car to
> >> car. :)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >LOL, I can imagine, I've tried to hold an intelligent discussion with
Lloyd
> >before, I discovered it can't be done. ;-)
>
> Perhaps if you knew some science, we could have an intelligent discussion
> about science. But to claim, as some have here, that evolution is not a
fact
> is as UNintelligent as claiming atoms aren't factual.

Perhaps if you had both intelligence and an open mind we could have an
intelligent conversation. However you are to stupid to realize how ignorant
you are. A PHd does not make you intelligent LP, nor is one required to have
an informed discussion about any topic you care to name. I would bet hard
money my IQ is far greater than yours, care to post yours?