Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FAB8527.5FDF3CE2@kinez.net>...
> Well he just offended 95% of the "average guy" in the last couple of
> days with his spastic tap dancing. Al Sharpton still hasn't decided if

Were you offended? I wasn't. Speak for youself, lest you become a
"Sharpton" of your own.

The only think that got me upset was that he apologized at all to that
*****.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bog9sf$44t$15@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <4gdlqvgd2sp10por0pn9u03v90rtnsa4d3@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
> >On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "C. E. White"
> ><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is
worse
> than
> >>the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case
is
> being
> >>dramatically overstated.
> >>
> >>Ed
> >
> >I don't think there's any question that global warming is happening.
> >But there are a lot of questions about that:
> >
> >*Why* is it happening? Truth is, we don't know. We can *model*
> >scenarios that say we are at fault, but those models don't admit that
> >it's happened in the past, without the possibility of us interfering
> >at all.
>
> Actually, they don't need to. Something can have more than one cause.
For
> example, your body temp. can rise due to many factors; just because factor
A
> caused it to rise yesterday doesn't mean factor B can't be the cause
today.
>
> >*How long* will it last? Again, we don't know.
> >Will reducing the CO2 output from our manufacturing/transportation
> >slow/reverse the warming? Again, we don't know. And, we have
> >absolutely no idea of what would happen if we were to reverse it.
> >Would we enter another ice age? We simply don't know.
> >
> >Models can be made to say anything the people making the models want
> >to hear. That's reality.
>
> The models now predict current conditions quite well; the test of a model.
>
> >It's stupid to say that CO2 that we are putting out is the cause of
> >global; warming, then push something like Kyoto, which merely shifts
> >the location of the CO2 production. Yet, that's what the tree-huggers
> >want.
>
> Shifts location? Huh? It would require cuts.
>
> >
> >Maybe if we had more facts about what the problem is, we could come up
> >with some workable answers.
> >
> Maybe if more people would read what the scientists say -- IPCC, EPA,
NASA,
> NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, etc. --
they'd
> know we already have "more facts."

Those same sites had "massive" amounts of evidence 25 years ago "proving:"
we were heading into a new ice age.
Thier "opinion" is no more valuable now than it was then.

Reading right-wing web sites and thinking
> that constitutes science would be laughable if it were not such a pathetic
> commentary on the state of education today.

You reading left wing sites and calling it science is laughable Lloyd.
Learn some real science.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bog9sf$44t$15@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <4gdlqvgd2sp10por0pn9u03v90rtnsa4d3@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
> >On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "C. E. White"
> ><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is
worse
> than
> >>the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case
is
> being
> >>dramatically overstated.
> >>
> >>Ed
> >
> >I don't think there's any question that global warming is happening.
> >But there are a lot of questions about that:
> >
> >*Why* is it happening? Truth is, we don't know. We can *model*
> >scenarios that say we are at fault, but those models don't admit that
> >it's happened in the past, without the possibility of us interfering
> >at all.
>
> Actually, they don't need to. Something can have more than one cause.
For
> example, your body temp. can rise due to many factors; just because factor
A
> caused it to rise yesterday doesn't mean factor B can't be the cause
today.
>
> >*How long* will it last? Again, we don't know.
> >Will reducing the CO2 output from our manufacturing/transportation
> >slow/reverse the warming? Again, we don't know. And, we have
> >absolutely no idea of what would happen if we were to reverse it.
> >Would we enter another ice age? We simply don't know.
> >
> >Models can be made to say anything the people making the models want
> >to hear. That's reality.
>
> The models now predict current conditions quite well; the test of a model.
>
> >It's stupid to say that CO2 that we are putting out is the cause of
> >global; warming, then push something like Kyoto, which merely shifts
> >the location of the CO2 production. Yet, that's what the tree-huggers
> >want.
>
> Shifts location? Huh? It would require cuts.
>
> >
> >Maybe if we had more facts about what the problem is, we could come up
> >with some workable answers.
> >
> Maybe if more people would read what the scientists say -- IPCC, EPA,
NASA,
> NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, etc. --
they'd
> know we already have "more facts."

Those same sites had "massive" amounts of evidence 25 years ago "proving:"
we were heading into a new ice age.
Thier "opinion" is no more valuable now than it was then.

Reading right-wing web sites and thinking
> that constitutes science would be laughable if it were not such a pathetic
> commentary on the state of education today.

You reading left wing sites and calling it science is laughable Lloyd.
Learn some real science.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bog9sf$44t$15@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <4gdlqvgd2sp10por0pn9u03v90rtnsa4d3@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
> >On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "C. E. White"
> ><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is
worse
> than
> >>the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case
is
> being
> >>dramatically overstated.
> >>
> >>Ed
> >
> >I don't think there's any question that global warming is happening.
> >But there are a lot of questions about that:
> >
> >*Why* is it happening? Truth is, we don't know. We can *model*
> >scenarios that say we are at fault, but those models don't admit that
> >it's happened in the past, without the possibility of us interfering
> >at all.
>
> Actually, they don't need to. Something can have more than one cause.
For
> example, your body temp. can rise due to many factors; just because factor
A
> caused it to rise yesterday doesn't mean factor B can't be the cause
today.
>
> >*How long* will it last? Again, we don't know.
> >Will reducing the CO2 output from our manufacturing/transportation
> >slow/reverse the warming? Again, we don't know. And, we have
> >absolutely no idea of what would happen if we were to reverse it.
> >Would we enter another ice age? We simply don't know.
> >
> >Models can be made to say anything the people making the models want
> >to hear. That's reality.
>
> The models now predict current conditions quite well; the test of a model.
>
> >It's stupid to say that CO2 that we are putting out is the cause of
> >global; warming, then push something like Kyoto, which merely shifts
> >the location of the CO2 production. Yet, that's what the tree-huggers
> >want.
>
> Shifts location? Huh? It would require cuts.
>
> >
> >Maybe if we had more facts about what the problem is, we could come up
> >with some workable answers.
> >
> Maybe if more people would read what the scientists say -- IPCC, EPA,
NASA,
> NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, etc. --
they'd
> know we already have "more facts."

Those same sites had "massive" amounts of evidence 25 years ago "proving:"
we were heading into a new ice age.
Thier "opinion" is no more valuable now than it was then.

Reading right-wing web sites and thinking
> that constitutes science would be laughable if it were not such a pathetic
> commentary on the state of education today.

You reading left wing sites and calling it science is laughable Lloyd.
Learn some real science.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.
> >
> >Prove it.
> >
> http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/ag...o_Peanuts.html

I particularly like these two paragraphs:
"'Life on Earth, in general, cannot be sustained above 104 degrees
Fahrenheit,' he said. 'In July of 1995 when temperatures rose to over
104 degrees over a large section of the Midwest, over 600 people died in
Chicago, not to mention the loss of livestock.'"

"One of the problems with global warming is that there will be winners
and losers," Thompson said. "There are 6 billion people who live on this
planet, and there are 2 billion who make less than $300 a year. It's
those people who won't be able to deal with changes in the environment.
If those people are displaced, where will they go and who pays the bill
for them going?"

WHAT an idiot!

The wording in this sentence was also rather telling: "Various global
warming models have predicted an increase in Earth's average temperature
over the next century, ranging from 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit to as high as
10 degrees Fahrenheit". I always am skeptical of people who
pretentiously refer to the Earth as if it were a person saying "Earth"
instead of "the Earth" as any normal person (at least in the U.S.) would
do (these are strangely the same people who say someone is "in
hospital", rather than "in the hospital" - NPR and people from England
say "in hospital" - for the latter, it's normal for their culture - for
U.S. born and raised NPR announcers, it's affectatious.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.
> >
> >Prove it.
> >
> http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/ag...o_Peanuts.html

I particularly like these two paragraphs:
"'Life on Earth, in general, cannot be sustained above 104 degrees
Fahrenheit,' he said. 'In July of 1995 when temperatures rose to over
104 degrees over a large section of the Midwest, over 600 people died in
Chicago, not to mention the loss of livestock.'"

"One of the problems with global warming is that there will be winners
and losers," Thompson said. "There are 6 billion people who live on this
planet, and there are 2 billion who make less than $300 a year. It's
those people who won't be able to deal with changes in the environment.
If those people are displaced, where will they go and who pays the bill
for them going?"

WHAT an idiot!

The wording in this sentence was also rather telling: "Various global
warming models have predicted an increase in Earth's average temperature
over the next century, ranging from 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit to as high as
10 degrees Fahrenheit". I always am skeptical of people who
pretentiously refer to the Earth as if it were a person saying "Earth"
instead of "the Earth" as any normal person (at least in the U.S.) would
do (these are strangely the same people who say someone is "in
hospital", rather than "in the hospital" - NPR and people from England
say "in hospital" - for the latter, it's normal for their culture - for
U.S. born and raised NPR announcers, it's affectatious.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.
> >
> >Prove it.
> >
> http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/ag...o_Peanuts.html

I particularly like these two paragraphs:
"'Life on Earth, in general, cannot be sustained above 104 degrees
Fahrenheit,' he said. 'In July of 1995 when temperatures rose to over
104 degrees over a large section of the Midwest, over 600 people died in
Chicago, not to mention the loss of livestock.'"

"One of the problems with global warming is that there will be winners
and losers," Thompson said. "There are 6 billion people who live on this
planet, and there are 2 billion who make less than $300 a year. It's
those people who won't be able to deal with changes in the environment.
If those people are displaced, where will they go and who pays the bill
for them going?"

WHAT an idiot!

The wording in this sentence was also rather telling: "Various global
warming models have predicted an increase in Earth's average temperature
over the next century, ranging from 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit to as high as
10 degrees Fahrenheit". I always am skeptical of people who
pretentiously refer to the Earth as if it were a person saying "Earth"
instead of "the Earth" as any normal person (at least in the U.S.) would
do (these are strangely the same people who say someone is "in
hospital", rather than "in the hospital" - NPR and people from England
say "in hospital" - for the latter, it's normal for their culture - for
U.S. born and raised NPR announcers, it's affectatious.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> 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.

Soil absorbs heat. Air absorbs heat. Water absorbs heat. Just making
a statement like "CO2 absorbs heat" tells us nothing.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> 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.

Soil absorbs heat. Air absorbs heat. Water absorbs heat. Just making
a statement like "CO2 absorbs heat" tells us nothing.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> 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.

Soil absorbs heat. Air absorbs heat. Water absorbs heat. Just making
a statement like "CO2 absorbs heat" tells us nothing.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----