> No, we look to science -- peer-reviewed scientific journals, groups like
EPA, NASA, NOAA, etc. <

Seems they've been referred to several time here by others in a manner which
refutes your claims.

> We don't just call people who disagree "socialists" like
some little child.<

No, you call them "right-wingers".

 

> No, we look to science -- peer-reviewed scientific journals, groups like
EPA, NASA, NOAA, etc. <

Seems they've been referred to several time here by others in a manner which
refutes your claims.

> We don't just call people who disagree "socialists" like
some little child.<

No, you call them "right-wingers".

 

> (1) We measure air trapped in arctic ice cores. <

But your methods of dating them are complete conjecture, as is the sources
of co2.

> (2) The world of science disagrees. <

No, only the world of science you chose to quote.

 

> (1) We measure air trapped in arctic ice cores. <

But your methods of dating them are complete conjecture, as is the sources
of co2.

> (2) The world of science disagrees. <

No, only the world of science you chose to quote.

 

> (1) We measure air trapped in arctic ice cores. <

But your methods of dating them are complete conjecture, as is the sources
of co2.

> (2) The world of science disagrees. <

No, only the world of science you chose to quote.

 

On Thu, 20 Nov 03 10:41:47 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <bpgviq081a@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> "Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>>Nice selection of studies. Unfortunately, rather than accept the well
>>documented and monumental forces of nature to explain normal fluctuations in
>>climate and temperature, socialist green gas (bag) theorists will refute
>>anything other than "destructive Co2 emissions" from human activities as an
>>explanation for their totally unproven theories of global warming.
>>
>>
>No, we look to science -- peer-reviewed scientific journals, groups like EPA,
>NASA, NOAA, etc. We don't just call people who disagree "socialists" like
>some little child.

No, you maturely scream LIAR, right?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

On Thu, 20 Nov 03 10:41:47 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <bpgviq081a@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> "Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>>Nice selection of studies. Unfortunately, rather than accept the well
>>documented and monumental forces of nature to explain normal fluctuations in
>>climate and temperature, socialist green gas (bag) theorists will refute
>>anything other than "destructive Co2 emissions" from human activities as an
>>explanation for their totally unproven theories of global warming.
>>
>>
>No, we look to science -- peer-reviewed scientific journals, groups like EPA,
>NASA, NOAA, etc. We don't just call people who disagree "socialists" like
>some little child.

No, you maturely scream LIAR, right?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

On Thu, 20 Nov 03 10:41:47 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <bpgviq081a@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> "Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>>Nice selection of studies. Unfortunately, rather than accept the well
>>documented and monumental forces of nature to explain normal fluctuations in
>>climate and temperature, socialist green gas (bag) theorists will refute
>>anything other than "destructive Co2 emissions" from human activities as an
>>explanation for their totally unproven theories of global warming.
>>
>>
>No, we look to science -- peer-reviewed scientific journals, groups like EPA,
>NASA, NOAA, etc. We don't just call people who disagree "socialists" like
>some little child.

No, you maturely scream LIAR, right?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
>
> Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.

No we don't!

Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric concentration
of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief does not prove
it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove anything. The
global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs. Looking at one
input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS. As a
scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate research don't even
have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last few years.
They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or trying to infere
it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature. The errors
associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes they are
claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and then groomed the
data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is treated as a
loon.

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
>
> Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.

No we don't!

Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric concentration
of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief does not prove
it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove anything. The
global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs. Looking at one
input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS. As a
scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate research don't even
have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last few years.
They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or trying to infere
it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature. The errors
associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes they are
claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and then groomed the
data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is treated as a
loon.

Ed