In article <3F5017DD.63E0BB0E@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> CO2 traps heat. Fact. The earth is warming. Fact. CO2 is rising. Fact.
>
>They could be unrelated events, or maybe, global warming causes an
>increase in CO2.

Like saying maybe death causes cancer.

>
>I just formulated a brilliant new theory as to the cause of global
>warming. It is the Chicago Cubs. When they win the world series, global
>cooling will start or maybe global cooling will start and the Cubs will
>win the world series. Hard to decide on cause and effect. However, I am
>certain that global warming is responsible for the increase in major
>league baseball home runs. I mean after all, we all know that warmer air
>is thinner and offers less resistance so the baseballs can fly further.
>Or maybe all those baseballs flying further are heating the air and
>causing global warming. Damn, I need a good scientist to study this for
>me. I bet with a computer model I can predict the home run totals for
>the next 50 years based on the increase in CO2 concentration or maybe I
>can predict the rise in global temperatures based on the number of home
>runs. Any volunteers? I bet there is a grant in this somewhere. Bush is
>a baseball fan, maybe he'll set up a special commission to study the
>effects of global warming on baseball. I smell lots of pork just waiting
>to be picked up by a clever scientist and/or politician. Heck, the
>envirowackos can even use this as another reason for outlawing SUVs. The
>case is clear, SUVs are destroying baseball! (and maybe golf too, the
>superheated air is letting those golf ***** fly too d&*n far).
>
>Ed

 

In article <3F5017DD.63E0BB0E@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> CO2 traps heat. Fact. The earth is warming. Fact. CO2 is rising. Fact.
>
>They could be unrelated events, or maybe, global warming causes an
>increase in CO2.

Like saying maybe death causes cancer.

>
>I just formulated a brilliant new theory as to the cause of global
>warming. It is the Chicago Cubs. When they win the world series, global
>cooling will start or maybe global cooling will start and the Cubs will
>win the world series. Hard to decide on cause and effect. However, I am
>certain that global warming is responsible for the increase in major
>league baseball home runs. I mean after all, we all know that warmer air
>is thinner and offers less resistance so the baseballs can fly further.
>Or maybe all those baseballs flying further are heating the air and
>causing global warming. Damn, I need a good scientist to study this for
>me. I bet with a computer model I can predict the home run totals for
>the next 50 years based on the increase in CO2 concentration or maybe I
>can predict the rise in global temperatures based on the number of home
>runs. Any volunteers? I bet there is a grant in this somewhere. Bush is
>a baseball fan, maybe he'll set up a special commission to study the
>effects of global warming on baseball. I smell lots of pork just waiting
>to be picked up by a clever scientist and/or politician. Heck, the
>envirowackos can even use this as another reason for outlawing SUVs. The
>case is clear, SUVs are destroying baseball! (and maybe golf too, the
>superheated air is letting those golf ***** fly too d&*n far).
>
>Ed

 

In article <3F5017DD.63E0BB0E@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> CO2 traps heat. Fact. The earth is warming. Fact. CO2 is rising. Fact.
>
>They could be unrelated events, or maybe, global warming causes an
>increase in CO2.

Like saying maybe death causes cancer.

>
>I just formulated a brilliant new theory as to the cause of global
>warming. It is the Chicago Cubs. When they win the world series, global
>cooling will start or maybe global cooling will start and the Cubs will
>win the world series. Hard to decide on cause and effect. However, I am
>certain that global warming is responsible for the increase in major
>league baseball home runs. I mean after all, we all know that warmer air
>is thinner and offers less resistance so the baseballs can fly further.
>Or maybe all those baseballs flying further are heating the air and
>causing global warming. Damn, I need a good scientist to study this for
>me. I bet with a computer model I can predict the home run totals for
>the next 50 years based on the increase in CO2 concentration or maybe I
>can predict the rise in global temperatures based on the number of home
>runs. Any volunteers? I bet there is a grant in this somewhere. Bush is
>a baseball fan, maybe he'll set up a special commission to study the
>effects of global warming on baseball. I smell lots of pork just waiting
>to be picked up by a clever scientist and/or politician. Heck, the
>envirowackos can even use this as another reason for outlawing SUVs. The
>case is clear, SUVs are destroying baseball! (and maybe golf too, the
>superheated air is letting those golf ***** fly too d&*n far).
>
>Ed

 

In article <bnq6np06dk@enews1.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>> Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
>before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
>made such a claim. This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even
>National Academy of Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From
>Lloyd about it. He must really hate being proven wrong on every statement
>he makes. ;-) >

Try reading some science. USA Today is your source for science? LOL!

>
>LOL! I remember this "new ice age" scam well, I was in Collee at the time
>and all the Socialist faculty were flapping their gloom & doom gums about
>it, claiming if we didn't all stsrt driving VWs we'd all freeze to death
>come 1990.Typical hogwash, sure glad you posted the link.
>
>BTW, read today's USA Today. It has a prominent piece on how the gas (bag)
>theorists pet study from the '80's has been proven faulty and that theris no
>evidence global average temps of the second half of the 20th century were
>anything but perfectly normal. (Notice how quiet Lloyd's been today?)
>
>

 

In article <bnq6np06dk@enews1.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>> Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
>before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
>made such a claim. This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even
>National Academy of Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From
>Lloyd about it. He must really hate being proven wrong on every statement
>he makes. ;-) >

Try reading some science. USA Today is your source for science? LOL!

>
>LOL! I remember this "new ice age" scam well, I was in Collee at the time
>and all the Socialist faculty were flapping their gloom & doom gums about
>it, claiming if we didn't all stsrt driving VWs we'd all freeze to death
>come 1990.Typical hogwash, sure glad you posted the link.
>
>BTW, read today's USA Today. It has a prominent piece on how the gas (bag)
>theorists pet study from the '80's has been proven faulty and that theris no
>evidence global average temps of the second half of the 20th century were
>anything but perfectly normal. (Notice how quiet Lloyd's been today?)
>
>

 

In article <bnq6np06dk@enews1.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>> Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
>before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
>made such a claim. This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even
>National Academy of Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From
>Lloyd about it. He must really hate being proven wrong on every statement
>he makes. ;-) >

Try reading some science. USA Today is your source for science? LOL!

>
>LOL! I remember this "new ice age" scam well, I was in Collee at the time
>and all the Socialist faculty were flapping their gloom & doom gums about
>it, claiming if we didn't all stsrt driving VWs we'd all freeze to death
>come 1990.Typical hogwash, sure glad you posted the link.
>
>BTW, read today's USA Today. It has a prominent piece on how the gas (bag)
>theorists pet study from the '80's has been proven faulty and that theris no
>evidence global average temps of the second half of the 20th century were
>anything but perfectly normal. (Notice how quiet Lloyd's been today?)
>
>

 

chris mullin wrote:

> "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.

Absolutely correct. Darwin's theory was not a "theory of evolution", it
was a "theory of natural selection" which described how observed
evolution happened.

>
> 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.

--
Tom Royer
Lead Engineer, Software Test
The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road
Bedford, MA 01730
Voice: (781) 271-8399
FAX: (781) 271-8500
troyer@mitre.org

"If you're not free to fail, you're not free." --Gene Burns

 

chris mullin wrote:

> "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.

Absolutely correct. Darwin's theory was not a "theory of evolution", it
was a "theory of natural selection" which described how observed
evolution happened.

>
> 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.

--
Tom Royer
Lead Engineer, Software Test
The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road
Bedford, MA 01730
Voice: (781) 271-8399
FAX: (781) 271-8500
troyer@mitre.org

"If you're not free to fail, you're not free." --Gene Burns

 

chris mullin wrote:

> "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.

Absolutely correct. Darwin's theory was not a "theory of evolution", it
was a "theory of natural selection" which described how observed
evolution happened.

>
> 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.

--
Tom Royer
Lead Engineer, Software Test
The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road
Bedford, MA 01730
Voice: (781) 271-8399
FAX: (781) 271-8500
troyer@mitre.org

"If you're not free to fail, you're not free." --Gene Burns

 

Whatsa matter, Lloyd, logic get your tongue? You were spouting all the green
tripe like an advocate a few days ago until contrary info and logic showed
up, now all you can say is "More BS"? No Greenpeace awards for YOU!

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4e8$kba$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FA03D91.3080807@computer.org>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
> >Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>
> More BS:
>
> >> Bravo!
> >>
> >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3F4ECCD1.AB1C303@mindspring.com...
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Perhaps if you knew some science, we could have an intelligent
> >>>
> >> discussion
> >>
> >>>>about science.
> >>>
> >>>Explain to me the methods being used to measure the average global
> >>>temperature that are both precise enough and consistent enough to
> >>>separate a 0.4 degree C temperature rise out of the normal background
> >>>variation over the past 1000 years. Explain to me any computer model
> >>>that can predict 1 degree C average global temperature rises with any
> >>>certainty when they can't even predict tomorrow's temperatures with 3
> >>>degrees on a consistent basis.
> >>>
> >>>I assume you don't know any scientist who adjust their data to fit
their
> >>>preconceived notions.
> >>>
> >>>Weren't those cold fusion guys "scientist"? Heck I think they were even
> >>>honest scientist.
> >>>
> >>>Do you honestly think the Earth's environment has ever been static and
> >>>unchanging? Can you say with any certainty that global warming is worse
> >>>than the environmental changes that would occur in its absence?
> >>>
> >>>Literally billions of tons of carbon have been effectively removed from
> >>>the atmosphere over the last few billion years. At some point, might me
> >>>have too little CO2?
> >>>
> >>>History is full of widely accepted theories that turned out to be
wrong.
> >>>Why are you so sure that Global Warming isn't one of these?
> >>>
> >>>I assume you believe that all scientist and government agency are
> >>>completely honest and that they would never jump on a popular bandwagon
> >>>as means of securing funding to support their careers/agencies? It has
> >>>been my experience that people who say things are OK tend not to secure
> >>>funding and soon need to find something else to do.
> >>>
> >>>Even if you are 100% right about global warming, might not the fixes be
> >>>worse than doing nothing?
> >>>
> >>>Ed
> >>>
> >>>None of us is as dumb as all of us
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
> >
> >http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
> >
> >They still can't shake the ingrained notion that man has caused this,
> >but they'll come around eventually and likely add new "causes" as well.
> > Trouble is, it is very hard to separate causes from correlation,
> >especially in areas like this where it is pretty hard to run controlled
> >experiments. Simple observation of data can easily lead to such
> >confusion. I suspect many other things can be found to correlate with
> >global climate changes, but I'll also bet that few of them are causes.
> >
> >
> >Matt
> >