"A fool named chris mullin" <mullin_chris_j@northgrum.com> wrote in message
news:bnmd7s$csi$1@gateway.northgrum.com...
>
> "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
> >
> You don't have to be a scientist to know that evolution is a FACT. It
> occurs. period.
> The theory is Dawin's, and Darwin only tried to explain WHY evolution
> OCCURS.
> Even if Darwin's explanation is totally off, it doesn't change the FACT
> that
> evolution is occuring everyday, all the time, right in front of you.
> Look it up.
> How else would dog breeders be able to make dogs with different traits.
> Are
> you saying genes don't get passed down to offspring? Are you saying that
> the
> strong do not survive? Because the strong surviving and passing down genes
> to their offspring IS EVOLUTION.
> Just because we can't prove how something happens, doesn't change the FACT
> that it happens.
>
We have no way of knowing that it is indeed the strong that survive. What
we observe in nature is change. How we explain it is evolution. Evolution
is therefore a theory to explain change, not a fact. Putting something in
all caps does not make it more true. I am sure that even Lloyd knows this.

Earle

 

"A fool named chris mullin" <mullin_chris_j@northgrum.com> wrote in message
news:bnmd7s$csi$1@gateway.northgrum.com...
>
> "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
> >
> You don't have to be a scientist to know that evolution is a FACT. It
> occurs. period.
> The theory is Dawin's, and Darwin only tried to explain WHY evolution
> OCCURS.
> Even if Darwin's explanation is totally off, it doesn't change the FACT
> that
> evolution is occuring everyday, all the time, right in front of you.
> Look it up.
> How else would dog breeders be able to make dogs with different traits.
> Are
> you saying genes don't get passed down to offspring? Are you saying that
> the
> strong do not survive? Because the strong surviving and passing down genes
> to their offspring IS EVOLUTION.
> Just because we can't prove how something happens, doesn't change the FACT
> that it happens.
>
We have no way of knowing that it is indeed the strong that survive. What
we observe in nature is change. How we explain it is evolution. Evolution
is therefore a theory to explain change, not a fact. Putting something in
all caps does not make it more true. I am sure that even Lloyd knows this.

Earle

 

Mr. Parker:

> Are you saying the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, EPA, NOAA, etc.,
have jumped onto something that's not proven? <

Yes, and despite the bleatings of certain mavens of socialist dogma (for
whom this entire theory has become a convenint mantra) those agencies look
upon the greenhouse gas theory as just that, a THEORY among others. No one
has conclusiely proven that "global warming" even exists. Indeed, the temp
fluctuations gas (bag) theorists espouse aren't even significant within the
margin of error of their measuiring techniques.

Might I remind you, my over zealous, green friend, 25 years ago these same
social and scientific radicals were predicting the dawn of a NEW ICE AGE,
becuase, they theorized, global temps were falling due to man made gases
blocking the sun. Funny how it turned out that at that same time we were in
a period of low solar activity....

> The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. <

How about this: there is NO solution, because 1) there may not even be a
problem, 2) if it is actually occuring, then natural forces, such as
geothermal and solar activity, may be the primary, indeed the only source.

> That means driving less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles, using coal
less, using more renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not
clear-cutting forests... <

On, and how convenient all of those solutions will be in making the
Draconian, confiscatory dreams of social radicals come true!

> >GGM: Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming has a
perfect correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity. <

> Parker: Funny how that's nonexistent. <

Might I refer you, my science-spouting, but ill-informed friend, to all of
the studies being done that show we are just leaving a period of high solar
activity, which began in the early '80's. Funny how this activty PRECISLY
parallels data showing a rise in global temps. (Look it up, if you can stand
the truth.)

> GGM: Two Danish scientists (Friz-Christiansen & Lassen) have proven a
direct cause & effect between periods of high solar activity and earth
temps, going back hundreds of years. <

> Parker: Which has been studied and cannot account for all the current
warming. <

It has NOT been studied by the gas (bag) theorists, they even tried to quash
the two scientists findings because it was too shocking to their pet
theories. However, objective greehouse gas theorists has been forced to
admit the accuracy of their findings and they cannot explain away their
findings of a direct correlation between periods of high solar activity /
low cloud formation and vice versa. Tree ring data, etc. have all been
studied and the correlation has been proven...the gas (bag) theorists just
don't want to accept it because it puts the lie to all of their carping.

> GGM: How arrogant (but typical) of anti-society, socialist green zealots
to assume the puny effect of man vs. the absolute effect of the sun on
global climatic norms.

> Parker: Like we almost destroyed the ozone layer? Or don't you believe
that either? <

You again hope the world will ignore recent findings that the entire scare
was over blown and more likely caused by naturally occuring events.

> GGM: So, tell me oh green ones, 10,000 years ago, how many primitives
driving gas-guzzling SUVs did it take to turn the Sahara from a lush oasis
into a desert? (Oh, I see, you're hoping no one knows about that event,
aren't you?) <<

> Parker: No answer ....what a surprise. <

I will point out that Mr Parker has conveniently ignored my point re: the
Sahara's transformation from a lush, green oasis into a desert some 7 - 10k
years ago. The Sahara was created by totally naturally occuring changes in
weather patterns that had NOTHING to do with the insignificant effects of
man. It just must be really hard for people like this to grasp that in the
total scheme of things, man and his puny, insignificant activities really
don't matter at all.

 

Mr. Parker:

> Are you saying the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, EPA, NOAA, etc.,
have jumped onto something that's not proven? <

Yes, and despite the bleatings of certain mavens of socialist dogma (for
whom this entire theory has become a convenint mantra) those agencies look
upon the greenhouse gas theory as just that, a THEORY among others. No one
has conclusiely proven that "global warming" even exists. Indeed, the temp
fluctuations gas (bag) theorists espouse aren't even significant within the
margin of error of their measuiring techniques.

Might I remind you, my over zealous, green friend, 25 years ago these same
social and scientific radicals were predicting the dawn of a NEW ICE AGE,
becuase, they theorized, global temps were falling due to man made gases
blocking the sun. Funny how it turned out that at that same time we were in
a period of low solar activity....

> The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. <

How about this: there is NO solution, because 1) there may not even be a
problem, 2) if it is actually occuring, then natural forces, such as
geothermal and solar activity, may be the primary, indeed the only source.

> That means driving less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles, using coal
less, using more renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not
clear-cutting forests... <

On, and how convenient all of those solutions will be in making the
Draconian, confiscatory dreams of social radicals come true!

> >GGM: Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming has a
perfect correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity. <

> Parker: Funny how that's nonexistent. <

Might I refer you, my science-spouting, but ill-informed friend, to all of
the studies being done that show we are just leaving a period of high solar
activity, which began in the early '80's. Funny how this activty PRECISLY
parallels data showing a rise in global temps. (Look it up, if you can stand
the truth.)

> GGM: Two Danish scientists (Friz-Christiansen & Lassen) have proven a
direct cause & effect between periods of high solar activity and earth
temps, going back hundreds of years. <

> Parker: Which has been studied and cannot account for all the current
warming. <

It has NOT been studied by the gas (bag) theorists, they even tried to quash
the two scientists findings because it was too shocking to their pet
theories. However, objective greehouse gas theorists has been forced to
admit the accuracy of their findings and they cannot explain away their
findings of a direct correlation between periods of high solar activity /
low cloud formation and vice versa. Tree ring data, etc. have all been
studied and the correlation has been proven...the gas (bag) theorists just
don't want to accept it because it puts the lie to all of their carping.

> GGM: How arrogant (but typical) of anti-society, socialist green zealots
to assume the puny effect of man vs. the absolute effect of the sun on
global climatic norms.

> Parker: Like we almost destroyed the ozone layer? Or don't you believe
that either? <

You again hope the world will ignore recent findings that the entire scare
was over blown and more likely caused by naturally occuring events.

> GGM: So, tell me oh green ones, 10,000 years ago, how many primitives
driving gas-guzzling SUVs did it take to turn the Sahara from a lush oasis
into a desert? (Oh, I see, you're hoping no one knows about that event,
aren't you?) <<

> Parker: No answer ....what a surprise. <

I will point out that Mr Parker has conveniently ignored my point re: the
Sahara's transformation from a lush, green oasis into a desert some 7 - 10k
years ago. The Sahara was created by totally naturally occuring changes in
weather patterns that had NOTHING to do with the insignificant effects of
man. It just must be really hard for people like this to grasp that in the
total scheme of things, man and his puny, insignificant activities really
don't matter at all.

 

Mr. Parker:

> Are you saying the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, EPA, NOAA, etc.,
have jumped onto something that's not proven? <

Yes, and despite the bleatings of certain mavens of socialist dogma (for
whom this entire theory has become a convenint mantra) those agencies look
upon the greenhouse gas theory as just that, a THEORY among others. No one
has conclusiely proven that "global warming" even exists. Indeed, the temp
fluctuations gas (bag) theorists espouse aren't even significant within the
margin of error of their measuiring techniques.

Might I remind you, my over zealous, green friend, 25 years ago these same
social and scientific radicals were predicting the dawn of a NEW ICE AGE,
becuase, they theorized, global temps were falling due to man made gases
blocking the sun. Funny how it turned out that at that same time we were in
a period of low solar activity....

> The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. <

How about this: there is NO solution, because 1) there may not even be a
problem, 2) if it is actually occuring, then natural forces, such as
geothermal and solar activity, may be the primary, indeed the only source.

> That means driving less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles, using coal
less, using more renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not
clear-cutting forests... <

On, and how convenient all of those solutions will be in making the
Draconian, confiscatory dreams of social radicals come true!

> >GGM: Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming has a
perfect correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity. <

> Parker: Funny how that's nonexistent. <

Might I refer you, my science-spouting, but ill-informed friend, to all of
the studies being done that show we are just leaving a period of high solar
activity, which began in the early '80's. Funny how this activty PRECISLY
parallels data showing a rise in global temps. (Look it up, if you can stand
the truth.)

> GGM: Two Danish scientists (Friz-Christiansen & Lassen) have proven a
direct cause & effect between periods of high solar activity and earth
temps, going back hundreds of years. <

> Parker: Which has been studied and cannot account for all the current
warming. <

It has NOT been studied by the gas (bag) theorists, they even tried to quash
the two scientists findings because it was too shocking to their pet
theories. However, objective greehouse gas theorists has been forced to
admit the accuracy of their findings and they cannot explain away their
findings of a direct correlation between periods of high solar activity /
low cloud formation and vice versa. Tree ring data, etc. have all been
studied and the correlation has been proven...the gas (bag) theorists just
don't want to accept it because it puts the lie to all of their carping.

> GGM: How arrogant (but typical) of anti-society, socialist green zealots
to assume the puny effect of man vs. the absolute effect of the sun on
global climatic norms.

> Parker: Like we almost destroyed the ozone layer? Or don't you believe
that either? <

You again hope the world will ignore recent findings that the entire scare
was over blown and more likely caused by naturally occuring events.

> GGM: So, tell me oh green ones, 10,000 years ago, how many primitives
driving gas-guzzling SUVs did it take to turn the Sahara from a lush oasis
into a desert? (Oh, I see, you're hoping no one knows about that event,
aren't you?) <<

> Parker: No answer ....what a surprise. <

I will point out that Mr Parker has conveniently ignored my point re: the
Sahara's transformation from a lush, green oasis into a desert some 7 - 10k
years ago. The Sahara was created by totally naturally occuring changes in
weather patterns that had NOTHING to do with the insignificant effects of
man. It just must be really hard for people like this to grasp that in the
total scheme of things, man and his puny, insignificant activities really
don't matter at all.

 

"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote

> You know along the lines of discounting a period of higher solar activity
> while everything from cow farts to cold snaps are directly linked to
global
> warming.
>

You been reading about the NZ fart tax?

rhys

 

"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote

> You know along the lines of discounting a period of higher solar activity
> while everything from cow farts to cold snaps are directly linked to
global
> warming.
>

You been reading about the NZ fart tax?

rhys

 

"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote

> You know along the lines of discounting a period of higher solar activity
> while everything from cow farts to cold snaps are directly linked to
global
> warming.
>

You been reading about the NZ fart tax?

rhys

 

> Please, let's not descend to the level of posting IQ scores on the
Internet.
> That would be really crass.
>
> Earle

so?


I'm 126.

rhys

 

> Please, let's not descend to the level of posting IQ scores on the
Internet.
> That would be really crass.
>
> Earle

so?


I'm 126.

rhys