Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"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$9E1.133399@attbi_s52...
> >> In article <vprkoqb5aif957@corp.supernews.com>, Douglas A. Shrader
wrote:
> >>
> >> > This thread is to long, I'm leaving it, but I must say it has been a
> >> > pleasure reading your posts. What group are you posting from?
> >>
> >> Thanks. Nate, aardwolf, and I post from rec.autos.driving.
> >>
> >> If you think this is a long thread, you should google for the one
> >> years ago where we (regulars of r.a.d) tried to teach lloyd how
> >> braking antilock braking systems worked and how they varied from car to
> >> car. :)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >LOL, I can imagine, I've tried to hold an intelligent discussion with
Lloyd
> >before, I discovered it can't be done. ;-)
>
> Perhaps if you knew some science, we could have an intelligent discussion
> about science. But to claim, as some have here, that evolution is not a
fact
> is as UNintelligent as claiming atoms aren't factual.
Perhaps if you had both intelligence and an open mind we could have an
intelligent conversation. However you are to stupid to realize how ignorant
you are. A PHd does not make you intelligent LP, nor is one required to have
an informed discussion about any topic you care to name. I would bet hard
money my IQ is far greater than yours, care to post yours?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnm57i$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?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Earle Horton" <enfermero_diabolico@registerednurses.com> wrote in message
news:bnm69q$12d4h3$1@ID-147790.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "A senile incontinent old fool named Lloyd Parker"
<lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu>
> wrote in message news:bnm57i$ord$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> ---snippy---
> > 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.
> >
> Evolution is not a fact Lloyd. It is a theory. It happens to be a good
> theory which explains much of the observed data, but it is still a theory.
> If you were a real scientist you would know this.
>
> Earle
>
>
I've explained to LP before what a scientific theory is, he still doesn't
know.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Earle Horton" <enfermero_diabolico@registerednurses.com> wrote in message
news:bnm69q$12d4h3$1@ID-147790.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "A senile incontinent old fool named Lloyd Parker"
<lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu>
> wrote in message news:bnm57i$ord$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> ---snippy---
> > 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.
> >
> Evolution is not a fact Lloyd. It is a theory. It happens to be a good
> theory which explains much of the observed data, but it is still a theory.
> If you were a real scientist you would know this.
>
> Earle
>
>
I've explained to LP before what a scientific theory is, he still doesn't
know.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Earle Horton" <enfermero_diabolico@registerednurses.com> wrote in message
news:bnm69q$12d4h3$1@ID-147790.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "A senile incontinent old fool named Lloyd Parker"
<lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu>
> wrote in message news:bnm57i$ord$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> ---snippy---
> > Perhaps if you knew some science, we could have an intelligent
> > discussion about science. But to claim, as some have here, that
> > evolution is not a fact is as UNintelligent as claiming atoms aren't
> > factual.
> >
> Evolution is not a fact Lloyd. It is a theory. It happens to be a good
> theory which explains much of the observed data, but it is still a theory.
> If you were a real scientist you would know this.
>
> Earle
>
>
I've explained to LP before what a scientific theory is, he still doesn't
know.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnm54u$nk9$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vprkhgchpgi642@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bnjeoi$b81$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <vpof02qkahoq17@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >
> >> >> Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000
US
> >> >troops
> >> >> haven't found them.
> >> >
> >> >Bingo, The UN couldn't find them, although it is well documented that
> >they
> >> >existed.
> >>
> >> Not in 2003.
> >>
> >>
> >> >That is why they were still looking, that is why we are still
> >> >looking. We haven't found Saddam yet either, but we know he exists as
> >well.
> >> >Or do you think that is also a lie?
> >>
> >> Is he as big as the WMD?
> >
> >You do realize Saddam had twelve years in which to hide them. Where is
Jimmy
> >Hoffa?
> >
> >
> >
> We claimed direct evidence and knowledge that WMD were there in 2003.
WE know he had them, we don't know what he did with them. If you owned a
house twelve years ago, and you could not provide evidence that you had sold
it, would it not be logical to assume you still owned it?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnm54u$nk9$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vprkhgchpgi642@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bnjeoi$b81$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <vpof02qkahoq17@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >
> >> >> Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000
US
> >> >troops
> >> >> haven't found them.
> >> >
> >> >Bingo, The UN couldn't find them, although it is well documented that
> >they
> >> >existed.
> >>
> >> Not in 2003.
> >>
> >>
> >> >That is why they were still looking, that is why we are still
> >> >looking. We haven't found Saddam yet either, but we know he exists as
> >well.
> >> >Or do you think that is also a lie?
> >>
> >> Is he as big as the WMD?
> >
> >You do realize Saddam had twelve years in which to hide them. Where is
Jimmy
> >Hoffa?
> >
> >
> >
> We claimed direct evidence and knowledge that WMD were there in 2003.
WE know he had them, we don't know what he did with them. If you owned a
house twelve years ago, and you could not provide evidence that you had sold
it, would it not be logical to assume you still owned it?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnm54u$nk9$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vprkhgchpgi642@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bnjeoi$b81$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <vpof02qkahoq17@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >
> >> >> Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000
US
> >> >troops
> >> >> haven't found them.
> >> >
> >> >Bingo, The UN couldn't find them, although it is well documented that
> >they
> >> >existed.
> >>
> >> Not in 2003.
> >>
> >>
> >> >That is why they were still looking, that is why we are still
> >> >looking. We haven't found Saddam yet either, but we know he exists as
> >well.
> >> >Or do you think that is also a lie?
> >>
> >> Is he as big as the WMD?
> >
> >You do realize Saddam had twelve years in which to hide them. Where is
Jimmy
> >Hoffa?
> >
> >
> >
> We claimed direct evidence and knowledge that WMD were there in 2003.
WE know he had them, we don't know what he did with them. If you owned a
house twelve years ago, and you could not provide evidence that you had sold
it, would it not be logical to assume you still owned it?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bnm4j7$nk9$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <Cecnb.41760$Tr4.86710@attbi_s03>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
<snip what parker didn't respond too>
>>> Huh? Do you know what the work "theory" means in science?
>>It's clear you don't. Hint: theory != fact.
> Theory != "guess" either.
Didn't say it was. You have a significant character flaw parker, get
that checked out.
> A theory is an explanation for something,
No ----. That's what I wrote several posts ago.
> the explanation accepted generally in science. Thus we have the theory of
> gravity, an explanation for gravity; atomic theory, an explanation for the
> behavior of atoms; quantum theory, an explanation for the behavior of
> electrons and photons at the quantum level; the theory of evolution, an
> explanation for evolution.
There are ones that aren't generally accepted, but being generally
accepted doesn't make a theory a fact. Theories are BASED ON FACT, they
are NOT FACTS.
>>It's what I said it was, an explanation based on facts and evidence, it
>>is not a fact in and of itself.
> It is the explanation accepted in science. And to be an explanation, it has
> to explain something that does occur, like atoms, or gravity, or evolution.
A theory still is not a FACT. The ruler on my desk being 12 inches long
is a fact. A hinge knuckle part being made of aluminium on my desk is
a fact. What would happen if either were accelerated to the speed of
light is _explained_ by theory.
>>Some google search results for you parker:
>>http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/theory.htm
>>http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/theory
>>What exactly do you teach in those chemistry classes? Liberal politics?
> Too bad you never learned anything.
Bold statement in the face of being proven wrong.
>>>>You aren't grasping the entire context of what I wrote. With you I can't
>>>>tell if it's on purpose with your typical less than honest debate style
>>>>or if you really are that dumb. Go, back re-read, before you cut my initial
>>>>reply up and try to grasp the meaning of it. Everything that occurs with
>>>>the climate is claimed by global warming believers to be something that
>>>>supports the theory. Much like that other guy's cite tried to make
>>>>everything fit the bible, global warming believers try to make every bit
>>>>of odd weather fit the global warming, climate change scheme.
>>> You, sir, are lying.
>>*hahahahahaha* Anyone who wants proof just read sci.environment for awhile.
> Yes, please do.
I read part of a wonderful thread on how recent US weather was proof of
global warming in action with the true believers falling over themselves
with glee. Maybe you should discuss the difference between global climate
and local weather with them.
<snip more stuff parker didn't respond to>
>>>>>>As usual didn't see you
>>>>>>chastising them. Of course should someone suggest cold weather means
>>>>>>there isn't global warming you and others jump in calling the person a
>>>>>>moron with some saying that unusual cold too is proof of 'gobal warming'.
>>>>> I see you're still too dumb to understand what "global" means.
>>>>I see you are too stupid to grasp a simple point. The point is the behavior
>>>>of global warming believers pretty much parallels creationists trying to
>>>>make everything fit the bible.
>>> As I said, you are lying. Try reading some scientific sources.
>>*laugh* go read sci.environment, you cross post in there enough to
>>know what I am saying is true.
> Please do. Read the scientific chaps there -- St. John, Halpen, and others.
*laugh* The other true believers. St John posted a US rocket launch for
some reason. Maybe it's seen as an environmental problem. Yet ignored
china's. Typical lefist politics is all you get from those two.
>>Hell, if someone posts scientific evidence
>>that doesn't support global warming the true believers like yourself jump
>>all over them as 'conservative corporate -----s' or try to scramble and
>>say it's part of the great scheme and expected by the theory of global
>>warming.
> Because those yahoos post without any data or evidence.
No, they both post local weather conditions.
>>It's rather comical watching political regilous zealots try
>>and hide behind science. It's what I see you do rather frequently parker
>>and it is amusing.
> Yeah, I bet you believe all the creationists too then.
There's parker again, acusing but not letting *facts* (my recent posts)
get in the way. Hint: I argued *AGAINST* a creationist.
>>>>Theory != fact,
>>> yes it is. Try learning some science.
>>I think the school that granted you anything more than a HS dipolma
>>should be sued for damages. Every student you've ever taught should also
>>sue for damages.
>>Theory is BASED ON FACTS. It is NOT A FACT.
> Evolution is a fact; the theory of evolution explains it. Just as gravity is
> a fact and the theory of gravity is an explanation of it.
Change in living things is a fact. Evolution is an explaination of that
change. Objects of smaller mass being pulled in towards objects of
larger mass is a fact, gravity is an explaination of that behavior.
>>More cites, in addition to the ones presented earlier:
>>http://www.hi.is/~joner/eaps/y3_91048.htm
>>http://chem.tufts.edu/science/FrankSteiger/theory.htm
>>http://www.jediknight.com/~smpoole/scitheory.html
>>
>>From the last one:
>>
>>"While we're at it, let's clear up another misunderstanding. Scientists
>>use the term "theory" instead of "fact" simply because they can't test
>>the model against every possible condition. All they can do is derive
>>suitable tests to check the model in various ways; if it passes each
>>test, their confidence increases."
>>
>>
>>You call these things facts parker, therefore you are not a scientist.
No response from parker. Parker just ignores what what rips his views
apart. Again demonstrating behavior not becoming of a real scienist.
>>I have looked at "the data", I cannot conclude one way or the other.
>>All I can say for certain from the data is there is change going on. Why
>>that change is occuring I cannot say, there is not enough data to say for
>>sure. Is it part of the natural course of the planet (earth has never been
>>static as global warming true believers need it to be) or is it the result
>>of too many people? A scientist does not close his mind and say it's a
>>fact, he continues to ask questions and seek answers.
> Too bad you're not a scientist.
But as an engineer I'm more of scientist than you.
> Scientists HAVE looked at it, and have
> concluded that global warming is real, and that human activities are
> responsible. If you'd read some scientific journals, or what scientific
> groups say, you'd know this. You've "looked at it?" Where, right-wing web
> sites?
Parker again resorts to politics and projection. Parker is projecting
his own politically based selective use of data on to me.
Yes, something *IS* happening to the climate. Why, and what it all
involves is hardly decided or fully understood. I see this, the
science. You sit back and see that CO2 content has increased and
jump to a conclusion that is to blame. Why? Because it fits your
politics.
There are various problems with alot of the data and it's use over long
period of time. There are new sources of heat on this planet that
didn't exist before. There is solar activity. There are whole hosts
of factors in this complex system. I recognize that. You refuse to.
You jump to a conclusion that fits *YOUR POLITICS*.
If you believe CO2 is destroying the climate Parker, why the ---- do
you drive a mercedes benz, let alone drive at all? Why are *YOU*
deciding to be part of this problem you see?
>>What I have read on "global warming" leaves me with more questions to
>>be answered. You close the book and declare it "fact". It's you sir
>>that needs to learn some science.
> Still won't tell us what area your Ph.D. is in?
You're certainly hiding behind yours Parker.
>>> Why don't you tell us what area of science your Ph.D. is in?
>>I've told you what my graduate degree is in Parker, I can remember
>>what your degree is in, you certainly could do the same. But I'm not
>>the one claiming to be a "scientist" without publishing anything, you
>>are.
> I'm still waiting for your scientific credentials.
You've had them for years. Not my fault you don't remember.
> In article <Cecnb.41760$Tr4.86710@attbi_s03>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
<snip what parker didn't respond too>
>>> Huh? Do you know what the work "theory" means in science?
>>It's clear you don't. Hint: theory != fact.
> Theory != "guess" either.
Didn't say it was. You have a significant character flaw parker, get
that checked out.
> A theory is an explanation for something,
No ----. That's what I wrote several posts ago.
> the explanation accepted generally in science. Thus we have the theory of
> gravity, an explanation for gravity; atomic theory, an explanation for the
> behavior of atoms; quantum theory, an explanation for the behavior of
> electrons and photons at the quantum level; the theory of evolution, an
> explanation for evolution.
There are ones that aren't generally accepted, but being generally
accepted doesn't make a theory a fact. Theories are BASED ON FACT, they
are NOT FACTS.
>>It's what I said it was, an explanation based on facts and evidence, it
>>is not a fact in and of itself.
> It is the explanation accepted in science. And to be an explanation, it has
> to explain something that does occur, like atoms, or gravity, or evolution.
A theory still is not a FACT. The ruler on my desk being 12 inches long
is a fact. A hinge knuckle part being made of aluminium on my desk is
a fact. What would happen if either were accelerated to the speed of
light is _explained_ by theory.
>>Some google search results for you parker:
>>http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/theory.htm
>>http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/theory
>>What exactly do you teach in those chemistry classes? Liberal politics?
> Too bad you never learned anything.
Bold statement in the face of being proven wrong.
>>>>You aren't grasping the entire context of what I wrote. With you I can't
>>>>tell if it's on purpose with your typical less than honest debate style
>>>>or if you really are that dumb. Go, back re-read, before you cut my initial
>>>>reply up and try to grasp the meaning of it. Everything that occurs with
>>>>the climate is claimed by global warming believers to be something that
>>>>supports the theory. Much like that other guy's cite tried to make
>>>>everything fit the bible, global warming believers try to make every bit
>>>>of odd weather fit the global warming, climate change scheme.
>>> You, sir, are lying.
>>*hahahahahaha* Anyone who wants proof just read sci.environment for awhile.
> Yes, please do.
I read part of a wonderful thread on how recent US weather was proof of
global warming in action with the true believers falling over themselves
with glee. Maybe you should discuss the difference between global climate
and local weather with them.
<snip more stuff parker didn't respond to>
>>>>>>As usual didn't see you
>>>>>>chastising them. Of course should someone suggest cold weather means
>>>>>>there isn't global warming you and others jump in calling the person a
>>>>>>moron with some saying that unusual cold too is proof of 'gobal warming'.
>>>>> I see you're still too dumb to understand what "global" means.
>>>>I see you are too stupid to grasp a simple point. The point is the behavior
>>>>of global warming believers pretty much parallels creationists trying to
>>>>make everything fit the bible.
>>> As I said, you are lying. Try reading some scientific sources.
>>*laugh* go read sci.environment, you cross post in there enough to
>>know what I am saying is true.
> Please do. Read the scientific chaps there -- St. John, Halpen, and others.
*laugh* The other true believers. St John posted a US rocket launch for
some reason. Maybe it's seen as an environmental problem. Yet ignored
china's. Typical lefist politics is all you get from those two.
>>Hell, if someone posts scientific evidence
>>that doesn't support global warming the true believers like yourself jump
>>all over them as 'conservative corporate -----s' or try to scramble and
>>say it's part of the great scheme and expected by the theory of global
>>warming.
> Because those yahoos post without any data or evidence.
No, they both post local weather conditions.
>>It's rather comical watching political regilous zealots try
>>and hide behind science. It's what I see you do rather frequently parker
>>and it is amusing.
> Yeah, I bet you believe all the creationists too then.
There's parker again, acusing but not letting *facts* (my recent posts)
get in the way. Hint: I argued *AGAINST* a creationist.
>>>>Theory != fact,
>>> yes it is. Try learning some science.
>>I think the school that granted you anything more than a HS dipolma
>>should be sued for damages. Every student you've ever taught should also
>>sue for damages.
>>Theory is BASED ON FACTS. It is NOT A FACT.
> Evolution is a fact; the theory of evolution explains it. Just as gravity is
> a fact and the theory of gravity is an explanation of it.
Change in living things is a fact. Evolution is an explaination of that
change. Objects of smaller mass being pulled in towards objects of
larger mass is a fact, gravity is an explaination of that behavior.
>>More cites, in addition to the ones presented earlier:
>>http://www.hi.is/~joner/eaps/y3_91048.htm
>>http://chem.tufts.edu/science/FrankSteiger/theory.htm
>>http://www.jediknight.com/~smpoole/scitheory.html
>>
>>From the last one:
>>
>>"While we're at it, let's clear up another misunderstanding. Scientists
>>use the term "theory" instead of "fact" simply because they can't test
>>the model against every possible condition. All they can do is derive
>>suitable tests to check the model in various ways; if it passes each
>>test, their confidence increases."
>>
>>
>>You call these things facts parker, therefore you are not a scientist.
No response from parker. Parker just ignores what what rips his views
apart. Again demonstrating behavior not becoming of a real scienist.
>>I have looked at "the data", I cannot conclude one way or the other.
>>All I can say for certain from the data is there is change going on. Why
>>that change is occuring I cannot say, there is not enough data to say for
>>sure. Is it part of the natural course of the planet (earth has never been
>>static as global warming true believers need it to be) or is it the result
>>of too many people? A scientist does not close his mind and say it's a
>>fact, he continues to ask questions and seek answers.
> Too bad you're not a scientist.
But as an engineer I'm more of scientist than you.
> Scientists HAVE looked at it, and have
> concluded that global warming is real, and that human activities are
> responsible. If you'd read some scientific journals, or what scientific
> groups say, you'd know this. You've "looked at it?" Where, right-wing web
> sites?
Parker again resorts to politics and projection. Parker is projecting
his own politically based selective use of data on to me.
Yes, something *IS* happening to the climate. Why, and what it all
involves is hardly decided or fully understood. I see this, the
science. You sit back and see that CO2 content has increased and
jump to a conclusion that is to blame. Why? Because it fits your
politics.
There are various problems with alot of the data and it's use over long
period of time. There are new sources of heat on this planet that
didn't exist before. There is solar activity. There are whole hosts
of factors in this complex system. I recognize that. You refuse to.
You jump to a conclusion that fits *YOUR POLITICS*.
If you believe CO2 is destroying the climate Parker, why the ---- do
you drive a mercedes benz, let alone drive at all? Why are *YOU*
deciding to be part of this problem you see?
>>What I have read on "global warming" leaves me with more questions to
>>be answered. You close the book and declare it "fact". It's you sir
>>that needs to learn some science.
> Still won't tell us what area your Ph.D. is in?
You're certainly hiding behind yours Parker.
>>> Why don't you tell us what area of science your Ph.D. is in?
>>I've told you what my graduate degree is in Parker, I can remember
>>what your degree is in, you certainly could do the same. But I'm not
>>the one claiming to be a "scientist" without publishing anything, you
>>are.
> I'm still waiting for your scientific credentials.
You've had them for years. Not my fault you don't remember.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bnm4j7$nk9$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <Cecnb.41760$Tr4.86710@attbi_s03>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
<snip what parker didn't respond too>
>>> Huh? Do you know what the work "theory" means in science?
>>It's clear you don't. Hint: theory != fact.
> Theory != "guess" either.
Didn't say it was. You have a significant character flaw parker, get
that checked out.
> A theory is an explanation for something,
No ----. That's what I wrote several posts ago.
> the explanation accepted generally in science. Thus we have the theory of
> gravity, an explanation for gravity; atomic theory, an explanation for the
> behavior of atoms; quantum theory, an explanation for the behavior of
> electrons and photons at the quantum level; the theory of evolution, an
> explanation for evolution.
There are ones that aren't generally accepted, but being generally
accepted doesn't make a theory a fact. Theories are BASED ON FACT, they
are NOT FACTS.
>>It's what I said it was, an explanation based on facts and evidence, it
>>is not a fact in and of itself.
> It is the explanation accepted in science. And to be an explanation, it has
> to explain something that does occur, like atoms, or gravity, or evolution.
A theory still is not a FACT. The ruler on my desk being 12 inches long
is a fact. A hinge knuckle part being made of aluminium on my desk is
a fact. What would happen if either were accelerated to the speed of
light is _explained_ by theory.
>>Some google search results for you parker:
>>http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/theory.htm
>>http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/theory
>>What exactly do you teach in those chemistry classes? Liberal politics?
> Too bad you never learned anything.
Bold statement in the face of being proven wrong.
>>>>You aren't grasping the entire context of what I wrote. With you I can't
>>>>tell if it's on purpose with your typical less than honest debate style
>>>>or if you really are that dumb. Go, back re-read, before you cut my initial
>>>>reply up and try to grasp the meaning of it. Everything that occurs with
>>>>the climate is claimed by global warming believers to be something that
>>>>supports the theory. Much like that other guy's cite tried to make
>>>>everything fit the bible, global warming believers try to make every bit
>>>>of odd weather fit the global warming, climate change scheme.
>>> You, sir, are lying.
>>*hahahahahaha* Anyone who wants proof just read sci.environment for awhile.
> Yes, please do.
I read part of a wonderful thread on how recent US weather was proof of
global warming in action with the true believers falling over themselves
with glee. Maybe you should discuss the difference between global climate
and local weather with them.
<snip more stuff parker didn't respond to>
>>>>>>As usual didn't see you
>>>>>>chastising them. Of course should someone suggest cold weather means
>>>>>>there isn't global warming you and others jump in calling the person a
>>>>>>moron with some saying that unusual cold too is proof of 'gobal warming'.
>>>>> I see you're still too dumb to understand what "global" means.
>>>>I see you are too stupid to grasp a simple point. The point is the behavior
>>>>of global warming believers pretty much parallels creationists trying to
>>>>make everything fit the bible.
>>> As I said, you are lying. Try reading some scientific sources.
>>*laugh* go read sci.environment, you cross post in there enough to
>>know what I am saying is true.
> Please do. Read the scientific chaps there -- St. John, Halpen, and others.
*laugh* The other true believers. St John posted a US rocket launch for
some reason. Maybe it's seen as an environmental problem. Yet ignored
china's. Typical lefist politics is all you get from those two.
>>Hell, if someone posts scientific evidence
>>that doesn't support global warming the true believers like yourself jump
>>all over them as 'conservative corporate -----s' or try to scramble and
>>say it's part of the great scheme and expected by the theory of global
>>warming.
> Because those yahoos post without any data or evidence.
No, they both post local weather conditions.
>>It's rather comical watching political regilous zealots try
>>and hide behind science. It's what I see you do rather frequently parker
>>and it is amusing.
> Yeah, I bet you believe all the creationists too then.
There's parker again, acusing but not letting *facts* (my recent posts)
get in the way. Hint: I argued *AGAINST* a creationist.
>>>>Theory != fact,
>>> yes it is. Try learning some science.
>>I think the school that granted you anything more than a HS dipolma
>>should be sued for damages. Every student you've ever taught should also
>>sue for damages.
>>Theory is BASED ON FACTS. It is NOT A FACT.
> Evolution is a fact; the theory of evolution explains it. Just as gravity is
> a fact and the theory of gravity is an explanation of it.
Change in living things is a fact. Evolution is an explaination of that
change. Objects of smaller mass being pulled in towards objects of
larger mass is a fact, gravity is an explaination of that behavior.
>>More cites, in addition to the ones presented earlier:
>>http://www.hi.is/~joner/eaps/y3_91048.htm
>>http://chem.tufts.edu/science/FrankSteiger/theory.htm
>>http://www.jediknight.com/~smpoole/scitheory.html
>>
>>From the last one:
>>
>>"While we're at it, let's clear up another misunderstanding. Scientists
>>use the term "theory" instead of "fact" simply because they can't test
>>the model against every possible condition. All they can do is derive
>>suitable tests to check the model in various ways; if it passes each
>>test, their confidence increases."
>>
>>
>>You call these things facts parker, therefore you are not a scientist.
No response from parker. Parker just ignores what what rips his views
apart. Again demonstrating behavior not becoming of a real scienist.
>>I have looked at "the data", I cannot conclude one way or the other.
>>All I can say for certain from the data is there is change going on. Why
>>that change is occuring I cannot say, there is not enough data to say for
>>sure. Is it part of the natural course of the planet (earth has never been
>>static as global warming true believers need it to be) or is it the result
>>of too many people? A scientist does not close his mind and say it's a
>>fact, he continues to ask questions and seek answers.
> Too bad you're not a scientist.
But as an engineer I'm more of scientist than you.
> Scientists HAVE looked at it, and have
> concluded that global warming is real, and that human activities are
> responsible. If you'd read some scientific journals, or what scientific
> groups say, you'd know this. You've "looked at it?" Where, right-wing web
> sites?
Parker again resorts to politics and projection. Parker is projecting
his own politically based selective use of data on to me.
Yes, something *IS* happening to the climate. Why, and what it all
involves is hardly decided or fully understood. I see this, the
science. You sit back and see that CO2 content has increased and
jump to a conclusion that is to blame. Why? Because it fits your
politics.
There are various problems with alot of the data and it's use over long
period of time. There are new sources of heat on this planet that
didn't exist before. There is solar activity. There are whole hosts
of factors in this complex system. I recognize that. You refuse to.
You jump to a conclusion that fits *YOUR POLITICS*.
If you believe CO2 is destroying the climate Parker, why the ---- do
you drive a mercedes benz, let alone drive at all? Why are *YOU*
deciding to be part of this problem you see?
>>What I have read on "global warming" leaves me with more questions to
>>be answered. You close the book and declare it "fact". It's you sir
>>that needs to learn some science.
> Still won't tell us what area your Ph.D. is in?
You're certainly hiding behind yours Parker.
>>> Why don't you tell us what area of science your Ph.D. is in?
>>I've told you what my graduate degree is in Parker, I can remember
>>what your degree is in, you certainly could do the same. But I'm not
>>the one claiming to be a "scientist" without publishing anything, you
>>are.
> I'm still waiting for your scientific credentials.
You've had them for years. Not my fault you don't remember.
> In article <Cecnb.41760$Tr4.86710@attbi_s03>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
<snip what parker didn't respond too>
>>> Huh? Do you know what the work "theory" means in science?
>>It's clear you don't. Hint: theory != fact.
> Theory != "guess" either.
Didn't say it was. You have a significant character flaw parker, get
that checked out.
> A theory is an explanation for something,
No ----. That's what I wrote several posts ago.
> the explanation accepted generally in science. Thus we have the theory of
> gravity, an explanation for gravity; atomic theory, an explanation for the
> behavior of atoms; quantum theory, an explanation for the behavior of
> electrons and photons at the quantum level; the theory of evolution, an
> explanation for evolution.
There are ones that aren't generally accepted, but being generally
accepted doesn't make a theory a fact. Theories are BASED ON FACT, they
are NOT FACTS.
>>It's what I said it was, an explanation based on facts and evidence, it
>>is not a fact in and of itself.
> It is the explanation accepted in science. And to be an explanation, it has
> to explain something that does occur, like atoms, or gravity, or evolution.
A theory still is not a FACT. The ruler on my desk being 12 inches long
is a fact. A hinge knuckle part being made of aluminium on my desk is
a fact. What would happen if either were accelerated to the speed of
light is _explained_ by theory.
>>Some google search results for you parker:
>>http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/theory.htm
>>http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/theory
>>What exactly do you teach in those chemistry classes? Liberal politics?
> Too bad you never learned anything.
Bold statement in the face of being proven wrong.
>>>>You aren't grasping the entire context of what I wrote. With you I can't
>>>>tell if it's on purpose with your typical less than honest debate style
>>>>or if you really are that dumb. Go, back re-read, before you cut my initial
>>>>reply up and try to grasp the meaning of it. Everything that occurs with
>>>>the climate is claimed by global warming believers to be something that
>>>>supports the theory. Much like that other guy's cite tried to make
>>>>everything fit the bible, global warming believers try to make every bit
>>>>of odd weather fit the global warming, climate change scheme.
>>> You, sir, are lying.
>>*hahahahahaha* Anyone who wants proof just read sci.environment for awhile.
> Yes, please do.
I read part of a wonderful thread on how recent US weather was proof of
global warming in action with the true believers falling over themselves
with glee. Maybe you should discuss the difference between global climate
and local weather with them.
<snip more stuff parker didn't respond to>
>>>>>>As usual didn't see you
>>>>>>chastising them. Of course should someone suggest cold weather means
>>>>>>there isn't global warming you and others jump in calling the person a
>>>>>>moron with some saying that unusual cold too is proof of 'gobal warming'.
>>>>> I see you're still too dumb to understand what "global" means.
>>>>I see you are too stupid to grasp a simple point. The point is the behavior
>>>>of global warming believers pretty much parallels creationists trying to
>>>>make everything fit the bible.
>>> As I said, you are lying. Try reading some scientific sources.
>>*laugh* go read sci.environment, you cross post in there enough to
>>know what I am saying is true.
> Please do. Read the scientific chaps there -- St. John, Halpen, and others.
*laugh* The other true believers. St John posted a US rocket launch for
some reason. Maybe it's seen as an environmental problem. Yet ignored
china's. Typical lefist politics is all you get from those two.
>>Hell, if someone posts scientific evidence
>>that doesn't support global warming the true believers like yourself jump
>>all over them as 'conservative corporate -----s' or try to scramble and
>>say it's part of the great scheme and expected by the theory of global
>>warming.
> Because those yahoos post without any data or evidence.
No, they both post local weather conditions.
>>It's rather comical watching political regilous zealots try
>>and hide behind science. It's what I see you do rather frequently parker
>>and it is amusing.
> Yeah, I bet you believe all the creationists too then.
There's parker again, acusing but not letting *facts* (my recent posts)
get in the way. Hint: I argued *AGAINST* a creationist.
>>>>Theory != fact,
>>> yes it is. Try learning some science.
>>I think the school that granted you anything more than a HS dipolma
>>should be sued for damages. Every student you've ever taught should also
>>sue for damages.
>>Theory is BASED ON FACTS. It is NOT A FACT.
> Evolution is a fact; the theory of evolution explains it. Just as gravity is
> a fact and the theory of gravity is an explanation of it.
Change in living things is a fact. Evolution is an explaination of that
change. Objects of smaller mass being pulled in towards objects of
larger mass is a fact, gravity is an explaination of that behavior.
>>More cites, in addition to the ones presented earlier:
>>http://www.hi.is/~joner/eaps/y3_91048.htm
>>http://chem.tufts.edu/science/FrankSteiger/theory.htm
>>http://www.jediknight.com/~smpoole/scitheory.html
>>
>>From the last one:
>>
>>"While we're at it, let's clear up another misunderstanding. Scientists
>>use the term "theory" instead of "fact" simply because they can't test
>>the model against every possible condition. All they can do is derive
>>suitable tests to check the model in various ways; if it passes each
>>test, their confidence increases."
>>
>>
>>You call these things facts parker, therefore you are not a scientist.
No response from parker. Parker just ignores what what rips his views
apart. Again demonstrating behavior not becoming of a real scienist.
>>I have looked at "the data", I cannot conclude one way or the other.
>>All I can say for certain from the data is there is change going on. Why
>>that change is occuring I cannot say, there is not enough data to say for
>>sure. Is it part of the natural course of the planet (earth has never been
>>static as global warming true believers need it to be) or is it the result
>>of too many people? A scientist does not close his mind and say it's a
>>fact, he continues to ask questions and seek answers.
> Too bad you're not a scientist.
But as an engineer I'm more of scientist than you.
> Scientists HAVE looked at it, and have
> concluded that global warming is real, and that human activities are
> responsible. If you'd read some scientific journals, or what scientific
> groups say, you'd know this. You've "looked at it?" Where, right-wing web
> sites?
Parker again resorts to politics and projection. Parker is projecting
his own politically based selective use of data on to me.
Yes, something *IS* happening to the climate. Why, and what it all
involves is hardly decided or fully understood. I see this, the
science. You sit back and see that CO2 content has increased and
jump to a conclusion that is to blame. Why? Because it fits your
politics.
There are various problems with alot of the data and it's use over long
period of time. There are new sources of heat on this planet that
didn't exist before. There is solar activity. There are whole hosts
of factors in this complex system. I recognize that. You refuse to.
You jump to a conclusion that fits *YOUR POLITICS*.
If you believe CO2 is destroying the climate Parker, why the ---- do
you drive a mercedes benz, let alone drive at all? Why are *YOU*
deciding to be part of this problem you see?
>>What I have read on "global warming" leaves me with more questions to
>>be answered. You close the book and declare it "fact". It's you sir
>>that needs to learn some science.
> Still won't tell us what area your Ph.D. is in?
You're certainly hiding behind yours Parker.
>>> Why don't you tell us what area of science your Ph.D. is in?
>>I've told you what my graduate degree is in Parker, I can remember
>>what your degree is in, you certainly could do the same. But I'm not
>>the one claiming to be a "scientist" without publishing anything, you
>>are.
> I'm still waiting for your scientific credentials.
You've had them for years. Not my fault you don't remember.
