In article <3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>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.

Actually, I'd say more like 99% of scientists so believe. And that's as much
unanimity as you'll find on anything in science.


>Your agreement with their belief does not prove
>it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove anything.

Uh, the data does.


>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.

No it's not. It's done all the time. It's called factor analysis.


>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.

Simply not true. Have you read the IPCC report? The National Academy of
Sciences report?

>
>Ed
>

 

In article <vrqjhih3n6k752@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bpinaa$rom$23@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> 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.
>
>You insult anyone who disagrees with you.
>Those sites you quote said we were heading into another ice age in 1975,


They did not. No scientific publication or group said that. Some "popular"
press magazines, like Popular Science, are the only places you will find that.
Someone on sci.environment has a standing challenge for anyone to find a
scientific journal that made that claim. No one has.


> and
>urged immediate action to warm up the climate before millions of people
>starved to death.
>Why are they more believable now?
>
>
>

 

In article <vrqjhih3n6k752@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bpinaa$rom$23@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> 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.
>
>You insult anyone who disagrees with you.
>Those sites you quote said we were heading into another ice age in 1975,


They did not. No scientific publication or group said that. Some "popular"
press magazines, like Popular Science, are the only places you will find that.
Someone on sci.environment has a standing challenge for anyone to find a
scientific journal that made that claim. No one has.


> and
>urged immediate action to warm up the climate before millions of people
>starved to death.
>Why are they more believable now?
>
>
>

 

In article <vrqjhih3n6k752@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bpinaa$rom$23@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> 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.
>
>You insult anyone who disagrees with you.
>Those sites you quote said we were heading into another ice age in 1975,


They did not. No scientific publication or group said that. Some "popular"
press magazines, like Popular Science, are the only places you will find that.
Someone on sci.environment has a standing challenge for anyone to find a
scientific journal that made that claim. No one has.


> and
>urged immediate action to warm up the climate before millions of people
>starved to death.
>Why are they more believable now?
>
>
>

 

In article <vrqjn514krhf8b@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bpild2$rom$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <bpg9t30i20@enews2.newsguy.com>,
>> "Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> >> I wish you wouldn't get your "facts" from right-wing propaganda
>sources.>
>> >
>> >As opposed to what, your lefty friends in academia, the socialist press,
>> >looney-left websites, etc.?
>> >
>> >
>> No, peer-reviewed scientific journals and groups like NASA, NOAA, EPA,
>> National Aacdemy of Sciences, etc.
>
>The same groups that claimed we were heading into a new ice age in 1975.
>
>
Lie. No group said that.

 

In article <vrqjn514krhf8b@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bpild2$rom$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <bpg9t30i20@enews2.newsguy.com>,
>> "Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> >> I wish you wouldn't get your "facts" from right-wing propaganda
>sources.>
>> >
>> >As opposed to what, your lefty friends in academia, the socialist press,
>> >looney-left websites, etc.?
>> >
>> >
>> No, peer-reviewed scientific journals and groups like NASA, NOAA, EPA,
>> National Aacdemy of Sciences, etc.
>
>The same groups that claimed we were heading into a new ice age in 1975.
>
>
Lie. No group said that.

 

In article <vrqjn514krhf8b@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bpild2$rom$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <bpg9t30i20@enews2.newsguy.com>,
>> "Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> >> I wish you wouldn't get your "facts" from right-wing propaganda
>sources.>
>> >
>> >As opposed to what, your lefty friends in academia, the socialist press,
>> >looney-left websites, etc.?
>> >
>> >
>> No, peer-reviewed scientific journals and groups like NASA, NOAA, EPA,
>> National Aacdemy of Sciences, etc.
>
>The same groups that claimed we were heading into a new ice age in 1975.
>
>
Lie. No group said that.

 

In article <3FBD8DF2.FCB384E8@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> global warming llogic telegraph
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <bpg9t30i20@enews2.newsguy.com>,
>> "Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> >> I wish you wouldn't get your "facts" from right-wing propaganda
sources.>
>> >
>> >As opposed to what, your lefty friends in academia, the socialist press,
>> >looney-left websites, etc.?
>> >
>> >
>> No, peer-reviewed scientific journals and groups like NASA, NOAA, EPA,
>> National Aacdemy of Sciences, etc.
>
>"The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University,

That's misleading. It's an independent think tank affiliated with Harvard; no
more Harvard than the Hoover Institute is Stanford, for example.


>examined the
>findings of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings,
ice
>cores and historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures
>prevailing at sites around the world.
>
>The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between
the
>ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even
than
>today."

And there are hundreds of scientific articles saying just the opposite.
Further, this article has been substiantially refuted in Nature recently.

> . . .
>"Dr Philip Stott, the professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University
of
>London, told The Telegraph: "What has been forgotten in all the discussion
about
>global warming is a proper sense of history."
>
>According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions
>about the effect of higher global temperatures. "During the Medieval Warm
>Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a
>wonderful period of plenty for everyone.""

That's just not true.

>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...06/nclim06.xml
>
>
>
>

 

In article <3FBD8DF2.FCB384E8@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> global warming llogic telegraph
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <bpg9t30i20@enews2.newsguy.com>,
>> "Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> >> I wish you wouldn't get your "facts" from right-wing propaganda
sources.>
>> >
>> >As opposed to what, your lefty friends in academia, the socialist press,
>> >looney-left websites, etc.?
>> >
>> >
>> No, peer-reviewed scientific journals and groups like NASA, NOAA, EPA,
>> National Aacdemy of Sciences, etc.
>
>"The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University,

That's misleading. It's an independent think tank affiliated with Harvard; no
more Harvard than the Hoover Institute is Stanford, for example.


>examined the
>findings of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings,
ice
>cores and historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures
>prevailing at sites around the world.
>
>The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between
the
>ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even
than
>today."

And there are hundreds of scientific articles saying just the opposite.
Further, this article has been substiantially refuted in Nature recently.

> . . .
>"Dr Philip Stott, the professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University
of
>London, told The Telegraph: "What has been forgotten in all the discussion
about
>global warming is a proper sense of history."
>
>According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions
>about the effect of higher global temperatures. "During the Medieval Warm
>Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a
>wonderful period of plenty for everyone.""

That's just not true.

>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...06/nclim06.xml
>
>
>
>

 

In article <3FBD8DF2.FCB384E8@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> global warming llogic telegraph
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <bpg9t30i20@enews2.newsguy.com>,
>> "Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> >> I wish you wouldn't get your "facts" from right-wing propaganda
sources.>
>> >
>> >As opposed to what, your lefty friends in academia, the socialist press,
>> >looney-left websites, etc.?
>> >
>> >
>> No, peer-reviewed scientific journals and groups like NASA, NOAA, EPA,
>> National Aacdemy of Sciences, etc.
>
>"The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University,

That's misleading. It's an independent think tank affiliated with Harvard; no
more Harvard than the Hoover Institute is Stanford, for example.


>examined the
>findings of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings,
ice
>cores and historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures
>prevailing at sites around the world.
>
>The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between
the
>ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even
than
>today."

And there are hundreds of scientific articles saying just the opposite.
Further, this article has been substiantially refuted in Nature recently.

> . . .
>"Dr Philip Stott, the professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University
of
>London, told The Telegraph: "What has been forgotten in all the discussion
about
>global warming is a proper sense of history."
>
>According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions
>about the effect of higher global temperatures. "During the Medieval Warm
>Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a
>wonderful period of plenty for everyone.""

That's just not true.

>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...06/nclim06.xml
>
>
>
>