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 <bnm525$nk9$11@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <Naknb.43901$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.

Llyod tries character assination as he has nothing else.

>> 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.

Note, Dr. Parker does not respond, because he knows that I am accurate.
All one has to do is know the stories of people like darwin and eistein
(sp?) to know that the group mentality I speak of exists.

 

In article <bnm525$nk9$11@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <Naknb.43901$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.

Llyod tries character assination as he has nothing else.

>> 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.

Note, Dr. Parker does not respond, because he knows that I am accurate.
All one has to do is know the stories of people like darwin and eistein
(sp?) to know that the group mentality I speak of exists.

 

In article <bnm525$nk9$11@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <Naknb.43901$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.

Llyod tries character assination as he has nothing else.

>> 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.

Note, Dr. Parker does not respond, because he knows that I am accurate.
All one has to do is know the stories of people like darwin and eistein
(sp?) to know that the group mentality I speak of exists.

 

In article <bnm4ko$nk9$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <escnb.32938$ao4.63859@attbi_s51>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bnjf84$b81$7@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> In article <Gs%mb.38952$e01.85589@attbi_s02>,
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>In article <bngqba$8h4$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>>>>>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
>>>>
>>>>It also started at the same time man started flying with heavier than
>>>>air machines. A real scienist knows better than to make statements like
>>>>the one above as "proof" as I demonstrate with another thing that started
>>>>at the same time and has increased since.
>>>
>>> If you look at the data (I know that's a foreign concept to you), global
>>> warming began around the middle of the 19th century, as human combustion
>>> activities started picking up.
>>
>>And if you really had an understanding of science you wouldn't take
>>corrolation as causation and then declare the causation fact.

> When data is backed up by established scientific principles (CO2 traps heat),
> it's a logical conclusion. Is it scientific principles or logic that's
> foreign to you?

It's a logical conclusion, which makes it possibility. However the
atmosphere of earth, the systems of the solar system, and everything
else involved make for a complex system. Anyone who's even worked on
a machine even as complex as simple automobile knows that such leaps
of corrolation often do not mean causation.

You are jumping from corrolation and simplistic knowledge to certainity
about a complex system. You couldn't even properly diagnosis the
ignition system of an automobile's ICE that way let alone predict
climate.

 

In article <bnm4ko$nk9$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <escnb.32938$ao4.63859@attbi_s51>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bnjf84$b81$7@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> In article <Gs%mb.38952$e01.85589@attbi_s02>,
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>In article <bngqba$8h4$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>>>>>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
>>>>
>>>>It also started at the same time man started flying with heavier than
>>>>air machines. A real scienist knows better than to make statements like
>>>>the one above as "proof" as I demonstrate with another thing that started
>>>>at the same time and has increased since.
>>>
>>> If you look at the data (I know that's a foreign concept to you), global
>>> warming began around the middle of the 19th century, as human combustion
>>> activities started picking up.
>>
>>And if you really had an understanding of science you wouldn't take
>>corrolation as causation and then declare the causation fact.

> When data is backed up by established scientific principles (CO2 traps heat),
> it's a logical conclusion. Is it scientific principles or logic that's
> foreign to you?

It's a logical conclusion, which makes it possibility. However the
atmosphere of earth, the systems of the solar system, and everything
else involved make for a complex system. Anyone who's even worked on
a machine even as complex as simple automobile knows that such leaps
of corrolation often do not mean causation.

You are jumping from corrolation and simplistic knowledge to certainity
about a complex system. You couldn't even properly diagnosis the
ignition system of an automobile's ICE that way let alone predict
climate.

 

In article <bnm4ko$nk9$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <escnb.32938$ao4.63859@attbi_s51>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bnjf84$b81$7@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> In article <Gs%mb.38952$e01.85589@attbi_s02>,
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>In article <bngqba$8h4$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>>>>>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
>>>>
>>>>It also started at the same time man started flying with heavier than
>>>>air machines. A real scienist knows better than to make statements like
>>>>the one above as "proof" as I demonstrate with another thing that started
>>>>at the same time and has increased since.
>>>
>>> If you look at the data (I know that's a foreign concept to you), global
>>> warming began around the middle of the 19th century, as human combustion
>>> activities started picking up.
>>
>>And if you really had an understanding of science you wouldn't take
>>corrolation as causation and then declare the causation fact.

> When data is backed up by established scientific principles (CO2 traps heat),
> it's a logical conclusion. Is it scientific principles or logic that's
> foreign to you?

It's a logical conclusion, which makes it possibility. However the
atmosphere of earth, the systems of the solar system, and everything
else involved make for a complex system. Anyone who's even worked on
a machine even as complex as simple automobile knows that such leaps
of corrolation often do not mean causation.

You are jumping from corrolation and simplistic knowledge to certainity
about a complex system. You couldn't even properly diagnosis the
ignition system of an automobile's ICE that way let alone predict
climate.

 

In article <bnmd7s$csi$1@gateway.northgrum.com>, chris mullin wrote:
>
> You don't have to be a scientist to know that evolution is a FACT. It
> occurs. period.

The fact is that change (you are getting caught up in the semantic
game parker is playing) in living things occurs. Evolution, as the
term is commonly used, is the explaination of why that change occurs.

The term evolution implies evolving to a higher or better form more
suited to the environment / survival. That is part of the explaination
of why change happens.

 

In article <bnmd7s$csi$1@gateway.northgrum.com>, chris mullin wrote:
>
> You don't have to be a scientist to know that evolution is a FACT. It
> occurs. period.

The fact is that change (you are getting caught up in the semantic
game parker is playing) in living things occurs. Evolution, as the
term is commonly used, is the explaination of why that change occurs.

The term evolution implies evolving to a higher or better form more
suited to the environment / survival. That is part of the explaination
of why change happens.

 

In article <bnmd7s$csi$1@gateway.northgrum.com>, chris mullin wrote:
>
> You don't have to be a scientist to know that evolution is a FACT. It
> occurs. period.

The fact is that change (you are getting caught up in the semantic
game parker is playing) in living things occurs. Evolution, as the
term is commonly used, is the explaination of why that change occurs.

The term evolution implies evolving to a higher or better form more
suited to the environment / survival. That is part of the explaination
of why change happens.