In article <Khxqb.91903$mZ5.602598@attbi_s54>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <boe5a7$i0q$4@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> CO2 put into the air by nature has been in balance for millions of years.
>> It's man changing this equilibrium that's the problem.
>
>CO2 content of the atmosphere been changing for millions years.

It's been around 280 ppm for half a million years; now it's up to 350 ppm in
the last 120 years.


>Did you not
>look at the data you keep harping on?
>
Yes. Have you?

 

In article <qlxqb.95265$ao4.280496@attbi_s51>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <boe695$i0q$21@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>>>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>>>> But I have to admit, this is the product of experience.
><snip>
>>>You've learned from experience, Lloyd never has. ;-)
>
>> I've learned from science; you never have.
>
>I've learned from science, and it's not science that you preach parker.
>You spout political views and hide behind a PhD in chemistry as if
>that makes your political views correct. You dismiss without discussion
>any scientific data or analysis that challenges your beliefs. That is *NOT*
>science.
>
>
>
Science tells up CO2 absorbs heat, science tells us the earth is warming,
science tells us CO2 has increased along with temperature, science tells us
human activities produce CO2.

 

In article <qlxqb.95265$ao4.280496@attbi_s51>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <boe695$i0q$21@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>>>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>>>> But I have to admit, this is the product of experience.
><snip>
>>>You've learned from experience, Lloyd never has. ;-)
>
>> I've learned from science; you never have.
>
>I've learned from science, and it's not science that you preach parker.
>You spout political views and hide behind a PhD in chemistry as if
>that makes your political views correct. You dismiss without discussion
>any scientific data or analysis that challenges your beliefs. That is *NOT*
>science.
>
>
>
Science tells up CO2 absorbs heat, science tells us the earth is warming,
science tells us CO2 has increased along with temperature, science tells us
human activities produce CO2.

 

In article <qlxqb.95265$ao4.280496@attbi_s51>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <boe695$i0q$21@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>>>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>>>> But I have to admit, this is the product of experience.
><snip>
>>>You've learned from experience, Lloyd never has. ;-)
>
>> I've learned from science; you never have.
>
>I've learned from science, and it's not science that you preach parker.
>You spout political views and hide behind a PhD in chemistry as if
>that makes your political views correct. You dismiss without discussion
>any scientific data or analysis that challenges your beliefs. That is *NOT*
>science.
>
>
>
Science tells up CO2 absorbs heat, science tells us the earth is warming,
science tells us CO2 has increased along with temperature, science tells us
human activities produce CO2.

 

"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vqm2nephikjf28@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:boe65n$i0q$19@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > In article <boci0401rri@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
> > >> Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the
> results
> > >of Florida? The final results were accurate and valid.>
> > >
> > >Actually it looks like the ORIGINAL results were accurate & valid!
> > >
> > >The Democrats proved their disegenuousness when they only wanted to
> recout
> > >three heavily Democratic counties.
> >
> > FL law allowed for a candidate to ask for a recount in specific
counties.
>
> No one minded Gore asking for a recount, he had that right. He did not
have
> the right to insist on recount after recount until he could find one that
> favored him.
> Had he bowed out gracefully after the first recount he would have had an
> excellent chance of beating Bush in 2004, way he went on though he
destroyed
> any chance he ever had at winning the Presidency. Sort of like the way you
> would do better in debates if you quit after the first reply instead of
> digging yourself in deeper with every lie you post.
>

What Gore did in Florida was really insane. I think it stems from their
incredulity at losing congress in '94 (along with their anger at Republicans
impeaching Clinton). They have a sense of entitlement and moral superiority
that aloows them to use whatever extreme measures are required to return
themselves to their proper place in the seat of power.

I think everyone to the right of the Democratic base gave a sigh of relief
when Gore finally gave it up and gave another sight of relief after 9/11.

 

"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vqm2nephikjf28@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:boe65n$i0q$19@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > In article <boci0401rri@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
> > >> Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the
> results
> > >of Florida? The final results were accurate and valid.>
> > >
> > >Actually it looks like the ORIGINAL results were accurate & valid!
> > >
> > >The Democrats proved their disegenuousness when they only wanted to
> recout
> > >three heavily Democratic counties.
> >
> > FL law allowed for a candidate to ask for a recount in specific
counties.
>
> No one minded Gore asking for a recount, he had that right. He did not
have
> the right to insist on recount after recount until he could find one that
> favored him.
> Had he bowed out gracefully after the first recount he would have had an
> excellent chance of beating Bush in 2004, way he went on though he
destroyed
> any chance he ever had at winning the Presidency. Sort of like the way you
> would do better in debates if you quit after the first reply instead of
> digging yourself in deeper with every lie you post.
>

What Gore did in Florida was really insane. I think it stems from their
incredulity at losing congress in '94 (along with their anger at Republicans
impeaching Clinton). They have a sense of entitlement and moral superiority
that aloows them to use whatever extreme measures are required to return
themselves to their proper place in the seat of power.

I think everyone to the right of the Democratic base gave a sigh of relief
when Gore finally gave it up and gave another sight of relief after 9/11.

 

"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vqm2nephikjf28@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:boe65n$i0q$19@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > In article <boci0401rri@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
> > >> Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the
> results
> > >of Florida? The final results were accurate and valid.>
> > >
> > >Actually it looks like the ORIGINAL results were accurate & valid!
> > >
> > >The Democrats proved their disegenuousness when they only wanted to
> recout
> > >three heavily Democratic counties.
> >
> > FL law allowed for a candidate to ask for a recount in specific
counties.
>
> No one minded Gore asking for a recount, he had that right. He did not
have
> the right to insist on recount after recount until he could find one that
> favored him.
> Had he bowed out gracefully after the first recount he would have had an
> excellent chance of beating Bush in 2004, way he went on though he
destroyed
> any chance he ever had at winning the Presidency. Sort of like the way you
> would do better in debates if you quit after the first reply instead of
> digging yourself in deeper with every lie you post.
>

What Gore did in Florida was really insane. I think it stems from their
incredulity at losing congress in '94 (along with their anger at Republicans
impeaching Clinton). They have a sense of entitlement and moral superiority
that aloows them to use whatever extreme measures are required to return
themselves to their proper place in the seat of power.

I think everyone to the right of the Democratic base gave a sigh of relief
when Gore finally gave it up and gave another sight of relief after 9/11.

 

In article <4fadnTaEMbc0PjeiRTvUrg@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>ead who might be
>>>dead at the moment if they didn't have a firearm handy.
>>>An Atlanta police officer's wife who killed her would be rapist.
>>>A man who shot a would be carjacker on the northside of Atlanta somewhere
in
>>>a Wal-Fart parking lot.
>>>A wal-Fart employee in Florida somewhere IIRC who was being stabbed by some
>>>nutcase who was foiled by an old lady w/ a pistol.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And for each of those, there are family members shot in anger or
accidentally,
>> suicides with a handy gun, children shooting children with a gun found in
the
>> house, shooting of a neighbor the homeowner thought was a burglar, etc.
>
>No one denies that those things can happen, but not "for each" of the
>previous examples. The documented TRUTH is that in states where
>concealed handguns are legal, the number of those events does not even
>come CLOSE to the number of times when a legally-carried gun stops a crime.
>
>I suggest remedial reading...
>
Sorry, there is no evidence of your claim. The only scientific study, by
Kellerman, shows just the opposite.

 

In article <4fadnTaEMbc0PjeiRTvUrg@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>ead who might be
>>>dead at the moment if they didn't have a firearm handy.
>>>An Atlanta police officer's wife who killed her would be rapist.
>>>A man who shot a would be carjacker on the northside of Atlanta somewhere
in
>>>a Wal-Fart parking lot.
>>>A wal-Fart employee in Florida somewhere IIRC who was being stabbed by some
>>>nutcase who was foiled by an old lady w/ a pistol.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And for each of those, there are family members shot in anger or
accidentally,
>> suicides with a handy gun, children shooting children with a gun found in
the
>> house, shooting of a neighbor the homeowner thought was a burglar, etc.
>
>No one denies that those things can happen, but not "for each" of the
>previous examples. The documented TRUTH is that in states where
>concealed handguns are legal, the number of those events does not even
>come CLOSE to the number of times when a legally-carried gun stops a crime.
>
>I suggest remedial reading...
>
Sorry, there is no evidence of your claim. The only scientific study, by
Kellerman, shows just the opposite.

 

In article <4fadnTaEMbc0PjeiRTvUrg@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>ead who might be
>>>dead at the moment if they didn't have a firearm handy.
>>>An Atlanta police officer's wife who killed her would be rapist.
>>>A man who shot a would be carjacker on the northside of Atlanta somewhere
in
>>>a Wal-Fart parking lot.
>>>A wal-Fart employee in Florida somewhere IIRC who was being stabbed by some
>>>nutcase who was foiled by an old lady w/ a pistol.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And for each of those, there are family members shot in anger or
accidentally,
>> suicides with a handy gun, children shooting children with a gun found in
the
>> house, shooting of a neighbor the homeowner thought was a burglar, etc.
>
>No one denies that those things can happen, but not "for each" of the
>previous examples. The documented TRUTH is that in states where
>concealed handguns are legal, the number of those events does not even
>come CLOSE to the number of times when a legally-carried gun stops a crime.
>
>I suggest remedial reading...
>
Sorry, there is no evidence of your claim. The only scientific study, by
Kellerman, shows just the opposite.