Lloyd Parker wrote:

>
> If you think GW isn't real, then you need to learn what "proof" means.
>
> And in 1990, we weren't exactly living in the 1600s.

Thank goodness, the 1600's were COLD.

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

>
> If you think GW isn't real, then you need to learn what "proof" means.
>
> And in 1990, we weren't exactly living in the 1600s.

Thank goodness, the 1600's were COLD.

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

>
> If you think GW isn't real, then you need to learn what "proof" means.
>
> And in 1990, we weren't exactly living in the 1600s.

Thank goodness, the 1600's were COLD.

Ed

 

"Nathan Collier" <JeepMail@7SlotGrille.com> wrote
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote
>
> <snip flaming liberal -------->
>
> when i hadnt heard from you all weekend i had hoped that youd choked to
> death while slamming some form of processed fat. then i remembered that
you
> only post while youre at work on company time using company resources. i
> have to wonder if anyone from emory would be interested in the 60,000
easily
> verifiable messages youve posted all using emory resources.

Haven't you noticed? Lloyd posts from his university account, when he
should be in the classroom filling minds with drivel.

Floyd

 

"Nathan Collier" <JeepMail@7SlotGrille.com> wrote
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote
>
> <snip flaming liberal -------->
>
> when i hadnt heard from you all weekend i had hoped that youd choked to
> death while slamming some form of processed fat. then i remembered that
you
> only post while youre at work on company time using company resources. i
> have to wonder if anyone from emory would be interested in the 60,000
easily
> verifiable messages youve posted all using emory resources.

Haven't you noticed? Lloyd posts from his university account, when he
should be in the classroom filling minds with drivel.

Floyd

 

"Nathan Collier" <JeepMail@7SlotGrille.com> wrote
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote
>
> <snip flaming liberal -------->
>
> when i hadnt heard from you all weekend i had hoped that youd choked to
> death while slamming some form of processed fat. then i remembered that
you
> only post while youre at work on company time using company resources. i
> have to wonder if anyone from emory would be interested in the 60,000
easily
> verifiable messages youve posted all using emory resources.

Haven't you noticed? Lloyd posts from his university account, when he
should be in the classroom filling minds with drivel.

Floyd

 

Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FAF7A28.19E1D5EF@kinez.net>...
> Erik Aronesty wrote:
> >
> > ...I would contend that offending Al Sharpton and raising a brouhaha in
> > the media is NOT a bad thing for Dean. I would contend that this is
> > precisely the sort of incident that will make him more popular with
> > people like you and I. Although less popular wih a minority of angry
> > idiots that won't matter in the long run.
>
> The likelihood of my voting for Dean or any of the other existing
> Democratic contenders (including Hillary if she decides to be the hero
> to save the party from it's current demise) with or without this latest
> debacle is less than 0.1%.

The likelihood of my voting for Dean went up after this one. I guess
it's a sort of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" line of thinking.

If the wealthy special interests on *both* sides of the aisle really
jab at him, then I get more and more certain that he's the man for me.

- Erik

 

Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FAF7A28.19E1D5EF@kinez.net>...
> Erik Aronesty wrote:
> >
> > ...I would contend that offending Al Sharpton and raising a brouhaha in
> > the media is NOT a bad thing for Dean. I would contend that this is
> > precisely the sort of incident that will make him more popular with
> > people like you and I. Although less popular wih a minority of angry
> > idiots that won't matter in the long run.
>
> The likelihood of my voting for Dean or any of the other existing
> Democratic contenders (including Hillary if she decides to be the hero
> to save the party from it's current demise) with or without this latest
> debacle is less than 0.1%.

The likelihood of my voting for Dean went up after this one. I guess
it's a sort of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" line of thinking.

If the wealthy special interests on *both* sides of the aisle really
jab at him, then I get more and more certain that he's the man for me.

- Erik

 

Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FAF7A28.19E1D5EF@kinez.net>...
> Erik Aronesty wrote:
> >
> > ...I would contend that offending Al Sharpton and raising a brouhaha in
> > the media is NOT a bad thing for Dean. I would contend that this is
> > precisely the sort of incident that will make him more popular with
> > people like you and I. Although less popular wih a minority of angry
> > idiots that won't matter in the long run.
>
> The likelihood of my voting for Dean or any of the other existing
> Democratic contenders (including Hillary if she decides to be the hero
> to save the party from it's current demise) with or without this latest
> debacle is less than 0.1%.

The likelihood of my voting for Dean went up after this one. I guess
it's a sort of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" line of thinking.

If the wealthy special interests on *both* sides of the aisle really
jab at him, then I get more and more certain that he's the man for me.

- Erik

 

In article <3FAFE3B4.A42DF686@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Wrong. The last 120 years have shown warming, and the hottest years on
>> record have all occurred in the last decade.
>
> There are a lot of problems with this claim. By biggest concern is the source of
> the data. A lot of the old data is being inferred from unreliable sources. The
> newer data is better, but it is not always corrected for changes in the micro
> environment around the reporting station.

After someone altered me to a recent paper via a USA today article I
hunted it down and posted the URL. It was published in the journal
energy and environment. the authors fixed a number of errors in the
original analysis that's the basis for many of the claims lloyd has
made. Some of those claims then fall apart.