Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3FBD9137.89E09CD@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >"global warming is as established fact"
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> >Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>> >fact from the other (correct) side...
>>
>> No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>> NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>>
>> As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>
>Oh, ok. So, where are the "settled" equations of global warming? With
Atoms, we
>have empirical data, such as the Mole, Avogadro's Number and Molar Mass's
number
>that we can use to predict what will happen. So tell us how many degrees the
>globe will warm between now and 2010 please and show us how you obtained that
>figure? After all, global warming is just as settled as gravity, with its
known
>and quantifiable laws according to you. Gravity will accelerate mass at
>9.8/s/s, how fast will the globe warm 2 degrees in the future?
You can't predict that because you can't predict what emissions of CO2 will be
like. That's like asking, what will be the pH of this beaker of water after
everybody in lab adds something to it.
>
>
>
>"A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's
temperatures
>are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the
most
>extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.
>
>The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University [I suppose Harvard
>University is a real right wing hot spot, right Lloyd?], 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.
>
>They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during
which
>the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up
again -
>but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.
>
>The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as it
>implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when the
>Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's
>temperature rise."
> CITE:
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...06/nclim06.xml
>
Again, that's one article. There are hundreds showing just the opposite. Go
to sci.environment and read some of the postings.
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >"global warming is as established fact"
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> >Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>> >fact from the other (correct) side...
>>
>> No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>> NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>>
>> As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>
>Oh, ok. So, where are the "settled" equations of global warming? With
Atoms, we
>have empirical data, such as the Mole, Avogadro's Number and Molar Mass's
number
>that we can use to predict what will happen. So tell us how many degrees the
>globe will warm between now and 2010 please and show us how you obtained that
>figure? After all, global warming is just as settled as gravity, with its
known
>and quantifiable laws according to you. Gravity will accelerate mass at
>9.8/s/s, how fast will the globe warm 2 degrees in the future?
You can't predict that because you can't predict what emissions of CO2 will be
like. That's like asking, what will be the pH of this beaker of water after
everybody in lab adds something to it.
>
>
>
>"A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's
temperatures
>are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the
most
>extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.
>
>The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University [I suppose Harvard
>University is a real right wing hot spot, right Lloyd?], 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.
>
>They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during
which
>the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up
again -
>but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.
>
>The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as it
>implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when the
>Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's
>temperature rise."
> CITE:
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...06/nclim06.xml
>
Again, that's one article. There are hundreds showing just the opposite. Go
to sci.environment and read some of the postings.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3FBD9137.89E09CD@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >"global warming is as established fact"
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> >Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>> >fact from the other (correct) side...
>>
>> No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>> NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>>
>> As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>
>Oh, ok. So, where are the "settled" equations of global warming? With
Atoms, we
>have empirical data, such as the Mole, Avogadro's Number and Molar Mass's
number
>that we can use to predict what will happen. So tell us how many degrees the
>globe will warm between now and 2010 please and show us how you obtained that
>figure? After all, global warming is just as settled as gravity, with its
known
>and quantifiable laws according to you. Gravity will accelerate mass at
>9.8/s/s, how fast will the globe warm 2 degrees in the future?
You can't predict that because you can't predict what emissions of CO2 will be
like. That's like asking, what will be the pH of this beaker of water after
everybody in lab adds something to it.
>
>
>
>"A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's
temperatures
>are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the
most
>extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.
>
>The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University [I suppose Harvard
>University is a real right wing hot spot, right Lloyd?], 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.
>
>They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during
which
>the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up
again -
>but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.
>
>The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as it
>implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when the
>Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's
>temperature rise."
> CITE:
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...06/nclim06.xml
>
Again, that's one article. There are hundreds showing just the opposite. Go
to sci.environment and read some of the postings.
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >"global warming is as established fact"
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> >Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>> >fact from the other (correct) side...
>>
>> No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>> NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>>
>> As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>
>Oh, ok. So, where are the "settled" equations of global warming? With
Atoms, we
>have empirical data, such as the Mole, Avogadro's Number and Molar Mass's
number
>that we can use to predict what will happen. So tell us how many degrees the
>globe will warm between now and 2010 please and show us how you obtained that
>figure? After all, global warming is just as settled as gravity, with its
known
>and quantifiable laws according to you. Gravity will accelerate mass at
>9.8/s/s, how fast will the globe warm 2 degrees in the future?
You can't predict that because you can't predict what emissions of CO2 will be
like. That's like asking, what will be the pH of this beaker of water after
everybody in lab adds something to it.
>
>
>
>"A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's
temperatures
>are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the
most
>extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.
>
>The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University [I suppose Harvard
>University is a real right wing hot spot, right Lloyd?], 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.
>
>They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during
which
>the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up
again -
>but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.
>
>The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as it
>implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when the
>Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's
>temperature rise."
> CITE:
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...06/nclim06.xml
>
Again, that's one article. There are hundreds showing just the opposite. Go
to sci.environment and read some of the postings.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3FBD9137.89E09CD@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >"global warming is as established fact"
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> >Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>> >fact from the other (correct) side...
>>
>> No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>> NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>>
>> As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>
>Oh, ok. So, where are the "settled" equations of global warming? With
Atoms, we
>have empirical data, such as the Mole, Avogadro's Number and Molar Mass's
number
>that we can use to predict what will happen. So tell us how many degrees the
>globe will warm between now and 2010 please and show us how you obtained that
>figure? After all, global warming is just as settled as gravity, with its
known
>and quantifiable laws according to you. Gravity will accelerate mass at
>9.8/s/s, how fast will the globe warm 2 degrees in the future?
You can't predict that because you can't predict what emissions of CO2 will be
like. That's like asking, what will be the pH of this beaker of water after
everybody in lab adds something to it.
>
>
>
>"A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's
temperatures
>are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the
most
>extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.
>
>The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University [I suppose Harvard
>University is a real right wing hot spot, right Lloyd?], 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.
>
>They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during
which
>the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up
again -
>but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.
>
>The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as it
>implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when the
>Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's
>temperature rise."
> CITE:
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...06/nclim06.xml
>
Again, that's one article. There are hundreds showing just the opposite. Go
to sci.environment and read some of the postings.
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >"global warming is as established fact"
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> >Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>> >fact from the other (correct) side...
>>
>> No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>> NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>>
>> As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>
>Oh, ok. So, where are the "settled" equations of global warming? With
Atoms, we
>have empirical data, such as the Mole, Avogadro's Number and Molar Mass's
number
>that we can use to predict what will happen. So tell us how many degrees the
>globe will warm between now and 2010 please and show us how you obtained that
>figure? After all, global warming is just as settled as gravity, with its
known
>and quantifiable laws according to you. Gravity will accelerate mass at
>9.8/s/s, how fast will the globe warm 2 degrees in the future?
You can't predict that because you can't predict what emissions of CO2 will be
like. That's like asking, what will be the pH of this beaker of water after
everybody in lab adds something to it.
>
>
>
>"A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's
temperatures
>are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the
most
>extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.
>
>The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University [I suppose Harvard
>University is a real right wing hot spot, right Lloyd?], 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.
>
>They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during
which
>the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up
again -
>but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.
>
>The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as it
>implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when the
>Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's
>temperature rise."
> CITE:
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...06/nclim06.xml
>
Again, that's one article. There are hundreds showing just the opposite. Go
to sci.environment and read some of the postings.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ICE AGE? (was Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?)
In article <bplcj4$njr$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> If you think so, you're ignorant then. Go to the agencies and read what they
> say. Go to the scientific literature and read what's being published.
Why don't you follow your own advice parker? If you had, then NOAA cites
wouldn't prove you wrong, now would they?
> If you think so, you're ignorant then. Go to the agencies and read what they
> say. Go to the scientific literature and read what's being published.
Why don't you follow your own advice parker? If you had, then NOAA cites
wouldn't prove you wrong, now would they?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ICE AGE? (was Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?)
In article <bplcj4$njr$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> If you think so, you're ignorant then. Go to the agencies and read what they
> say. Go to the scientific literature and read what's being published.
Why don't you follow your own advice parker? If you had, then NOAA cites
wouldn't prove you wrong, now would they?
> If you think so, you're ignorant then. Go to the agencies and read what they
> say. Go to the scientific literature and read what's being published.
Why don't you follow your own advice parker? If you had, then NOAA cites
wouldn't prove you wrong, now would they?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ICE AGE? (was Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?)
In article <bplcj4$njr$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> If you think so, you're ignorant then. Go to the agencies and read what they
> say. Go to the scientific literature and read what's being published.
Why don't you follow your own advice parker? If you had, then NOAA cites
wouldn't prove you wrong, now would they?
> If you think so, you're ignorant then. Go to the agencies and read what they
> say. Go to the scientific literature and read what's being published.
Why don't you follow your own advice parker? If you had, then NOAA cites
wouldn't prove you wrong, now would they?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ICE AGE? (was Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?)
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:28:48 -0500, "The Ancient One"
<onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bpinaa$rom$23@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <bpgviq081a@enews4.newsguy.com>,
>> "Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> >Nice selection of studies. Unfortunately, rather than accept the well
>> >documented and monumental forces of nature to explain normal fluctuations
>in
>> >climate and temperature, socialist green gas (bag) theorists will refute
>> >anything other than "destructive Co2 emissions" from human activities as
>an
>> >explanation for their totally unproven theories of global warming.
>> >
>> >
>> No, we look to science -- peer-reviewed scientific journals, groups like
>EPA,
>> NASA, NOAA, etc. We don't just call people who disagree "socialists" like
>> some little child.
>
>You insult anyone who disagrees with you.
>Those sites you quote said we were heading into another ice age in 1975, and
>urged immediate action to warm up the climate before millions of people
>starved to death.
>Why are they more believable now?
>
>
I also remember they were being pretty hysterical over holes in the
ozone layer, too.
Oops, turns out they, too, are cyclical, and normal.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
<onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bpinaa$rom$23@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <bpgviq081a@enews4.newsguy.com>,
>> "Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> >Nice selection of studies. Unfortunately, rather than accept the well
>> >documented and monumental forces of nature to explain normal fluctuations
>in
>> >climate and temperature, socialist green gas (bag) theorists will refute
>> >anything other than "destructive Co2 emissions" from human activities as
>an
>> >explanation for their totally unproven theories of global warming.
>> >
>> >
>> No, we look to science -- peer-reviewed scientific journals, groups like
>EPA,
>> NASA, NOAA, etc. We don't just call people who disagree "socialists" like
>> some little child.
>
>You insult anyone who disagrees with you.
>Those sites you quote said we were heading into another ice age in 1975, and
>urged immediate action to warm up the climate before millions of people
>starved to death.
>Why are they more believable now?
>
>
I also remember they were being pretty hysterical over holes in the
ozone layer, too.
Oops, turns out they, too, are cyclical, and normal.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ICE AGE? (was Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?)
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:28:48 -0500, "The Ancient One"
<onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bpinaa$rom$23@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <bpgviq081a@enews4.newsguy.com>,
>> "Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> >Nice selection of studies. Unfortunately, rather than accept the well
>> >documented and monumental forces of nature to explain normal fluctuations
>in
>> >climate and temperature, socialist green gas (bag) theorists will refute
>> >anything other than "destructive Co2 emissions" from human activities as
>an
>> >explanation for their totally unproven theories of global warming.
>> >
>> >
>> No, we look to science -- peer-reviewed scientific journals, groups like
>EPA,
>> NASA, NOAA, etc. We don't just call people who disagree "socialists" like
>> some little child.
>
>You insult anyone who disagrees with you.
>Those sites you quote said we were heading into another ice age in 1975, and
>urged immediate action to warm up the climate before millions of people
>starved to death.
>Why are they more believable now?
>
>
I also remember they were being pretty hysterical over holes in the
ozone layer, too.
Oops, turns out they, too, are cyclical, and normal.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
<onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bpinaa$rom$23@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <bpgviq081a@enews4.newsguy.com>,
>> "Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> >Nice selection of studies. Unfortunately, rather than accept the well
>> >documented and monumental forces of nature to explain normal fluctuations
>in
>> >climate and temperature, socialist green gas (bag) theorists will refute
>> >anything other than "destructive Co2 emissions" from human activities as
>an
>> >explanation for their totally unproven theories of global warming.
>> >
>> >
>> No, we look to science -- peer-reviewed scientific journals, groups like
>EPA,
>> NASA, NOAA, etc. We don't just call people who disagree "socialists" like
>> some little child.
>
>You insult anyone who disagrees with you.
>Those sites you quote said we were heading into another ice age in 1975, and
>urged immediate action to warm up the climate before millions of people
>starved to death.
>Why are they more believable now?
>
>
I also remember they were being pretty hysterical over holes in the
ozone layer, too.
Oops, turns out they, too, are cyclical, and normal.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ICE AGE? (was Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?)
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:28:48 -0500, "The Ancient One"
<onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bpinaa$rom$23@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <bpgviq081a@enews4.newsguy.com>,
>> "Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> >Nice selection of studies. Unfortunately, rather than accept the well
>> >documented and monumental forces of nature to explain normal fluctuations
>in
>> >climate and temperature, socialist green gas (bag) theorists will refute
>> >anything other than "destructive Co2 emissions" from human activities as
>an
>> >explanation for their totally unproven theories of global warming.
>> >
>> >
>> No, we look to science -- peer-reviewed scientific journals, groups like
>EPA,
>> NASA, NOAA, etc. We don't just call people who disagree "socialists" like
>> some little child.
>
>You insult anyone who disagrees with you.
>Those sites you quote said we were heading into another ice age in 1975, and
>urged immediate action to warm up the climate before millions of people
>starved to death.
>Why are they more believable now?
>
>
I also remember they were being pretty hysterical over holes in the
ozone layer, too.
Oops, turns out they, too, are cyclical, and normal.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
<onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bpinaa$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, and
>urged immediate action to warm up the climate before millions of people
>starved to death.
>Why are they more believable now?
>
>
I also remember they were being pretty hysterical over holes in the
ozone layer, too.
Oops, turns out they, too, are cyclical, and normal.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 20 Nov 03 11:04:06 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <9fjprv4vkkqcckuj6t93v6u23s5qgn5cv5@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On 19 Nov 2003 12:54:37 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>>
>>>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
>news:<4gdlqvgd2sp10por0pn9u03v90rtnsa4d3@4ax.com> ...
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>Are you saying that the existing models don't fit the past climate
>>>spikes? At what point do they miss? Or are you saying that because
>>>there was warming in the past without human interaction, the fit of
>>>the model explaining current warming as tied to current human CO2
>>>release can't be correct? Similar to the argument that, since forest
>>>fires have been going on since the dawn of forests, current forest
>>>fires can't possibly be ignited by human actions?
>>
>>I am being rather clear in saying that "models" can model anything
>>that the programmers want them to model.
>>>
>>>> *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.
>>>
>>>Well, we do know that we are entering a new ice age; these cycles are
>>>pretty much worked out, and in 4-5 thousand years we are going to be
>>>pretty damn chilly. But most people are more interested in where we
>>>will be for the next few decades. And right now it looks like
>>>continuing to perpetually increase the amount of solar energy trapped
>>>by the atmosphere is probably a worse idea than not doing so.
>>
>>Yet, the actual *causes* for this warming are not known.
>>They are *assumed* to be caused by C02 released by us, but we don't
>>*know* that.
>
>They're as known as anything in science can be where you can't do controlled
>experiments. That CO2 is causing the current warming is as known as, say,
>CFCs destroy the ozone layer, or evolution explains the current diversity, or
>the big bang is how the universe began.
IOW, I'm right, they aren't known.
>
>>We don't know for sure what causes climatic shifts on a grand scale.
>>We can see what happened, but we can't say why they happened.
>>So, we are being told that we must creat economic upheaval, and
>>drastically change our livings, because we are somehow "bad".
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Models can be made to say anything the people making the models want
>>>> to hear. That's reality.
>>>
>>>Not hardly. Show me a model showing that global warming is related to
>>>astrology, then you can say this. In any event, science consists of
>>>'dueling models'; you narrow it down to a few that explain the current
>>>data better than the rest, then narrow it down further by seeing which
>>>ones predict new data better.
>>
>>I can make one.
>>You are asking me to do something you can't do yourself, when I made
>>no claim that I can do that.
>>Sorry, but that's a bogus defence of the claim that we are causing
>>global warming.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>Similarly, it's stupid to take a little step away from the bed in the
>>>morning, when what I really need to do is get to my job 20 miles away.
>>
>>???
>>Where did this come from?
>>Kyoto doesn't do more than pretend that it will reduce C02. Instead,
>>it only shifts the production of C02 from some countries to others.
>
>It does not.
It does. Read it.
It allows developing countries to skate, with the very predictable
results that manufacturing will move there.
>
>>>Yet, it works out somehow, and I doubt that it would do so were I not
>>>to take that first step. What's the alternative plan? Tell the third
>>>world that they need to keep their living standard the way it is
>>>unless they can figure out how to improve it without CO2 emissions, so
>>>that we can maintain our standard of living with our vast CO2
>>>emissions?
>>
>>Maybe we should actually determine the real solution before we take
>>such drastic steps.
>
>Since the problem is CO2 emission, the solution is obvious.
Again, that's not been proven, only demonstrated in small models.
When you know what caused past ice ages, and the subsequent warming,
let the rest of us know how that applies to the current situation.
>
>>>And when they decline to take that advice, just shrug our
>>>shoulders and say, 'Well hell, we tried, but they won't cooperate'?
>>
>>Again, we could actually find the solution rather than base one on the
>>idea that we are "bad".
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe if we had more facts about what the problem is, we could come up
>>>> with some workable answers.
>>>
>>>Facts? Like what, two tablets coming down from heaven with a
>>>mathematical model of climate inscribed on them, and God's handwritten
>>>guarantee? Fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Fact: we are producing CO2
>>>at an unprecedented rate. Fact: the climate is heating up at a
>>>similarly unprecedented rate. Fact: the best fitting and best
>>>supported models show the major agent of the rising temperature to be
>>>the CO2 release. Fact: there isn't enough wiggle room in the models to
>>>eliminate the actions of human CO2 release as a prime cause, without
>>>postulating some big unknown never-before-identified factor. Fact: as
>>>more and more research has piled up over the years, the anthrogenic
>>>CO2 global warming model has not been overthrown, contrary to the
>>>predictions of the opponents over the years; in fact, areas of
>>>uncertainty have become clearer and clearer and estimates of model
>>>parameters have become more precise.
>>
>>Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
>
>Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
And yet again, we don't.
We *think* we know, and we can demonstrate it in a very limited lab
scenario.
But we still can't manage to translate that into why it's happened
before.
>
>>We do know that happened, but we don't know why.
>>Yet, we are so amazingly arrogant as to assume that *this time*, we
>>are the cause.
>>
>No, we deduce it from data and scientific principles. If I add HCl to water
>and the pH goes down, I don't throw up my hands and say:
>
>1. We don't know why the pH went down.
>2. The pH went down last year from other reasons, so we can't say why it's
>going down now.
There's a slight difference there, Lloyd.
What's being asked for is a major change in lifestyle, not just
wondering why water is salty.
Since the consequences are major, it's only wise to make sure the
action is necessary.
You DO understand that, right?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <9fjprv4vkkqcckuj6t93v6u23s5qgn5cv5@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On 19 Nov 2003 12:54:37 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>>
>>>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
>news:<4gdlqvgd2sp10por0pn9u03v90rtnsa4d3@4ax.com> ...
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>Are you saying that the existing models don't fit the past climate
>>>spikes? At what point do they miss? Or are you saying that because
>>>there was warming in the past without human interaction, the fit of
>>>the model explaining current warming as tied to current human CO2
>>>release can't be correct? Similar to the argument that, since forest
>>>fires have been going on since the dawn of forests, current forest
>>>fires can't possibly be ignited by human actions?
>>
>>I am being rather clear in saying that "models" can model anything
>>that the programmers want them to model.
>>>
>>>> *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.
>>>
>>>Well, we do know that we are entering a new ice age; these cycles are
>>>pretty much worked out, and in 4-5 thousand years we are going to be
>>>pretty damn chilly. But most people are more interested in where we
>>>will be for the next few decades. And right now it looks like
>>>continuing to perpetually increase the amount of solar energy trapped
>>>by the atmosphere is probably a worse idea than not doing so.
>>
>>Yet, the actual *causes* for this warming are not known.
>>They are *assumed* to be caused by C02 released by us, but we don't
>>*know* that.
>
>They're as known as anything in science can be where you can't do controlled
>experiments. That CO2 is causing the current warming is as known as, say,
>CFCs destroy the ozone layer, or evolution explains the current diversity, or
>the big bang is how the universe began.
IOW, I'm right, they aren't known.
>
>>We don't know for sure what causes climatic shifts on a grand scale.
>>We can see what happened, but we can't say why they happened.
>>So, we are being told that we must creat economic upheaval, and
>>drastically change our livings, because we are somehow "bad".
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Models can be made to say anything the people making the models want
>>>> to hear. That's reality.
>>>
>>>Not hardly. Show me a model showing that global warming is related to
>>>astrology, then you can say this. In any event, science consists of
>>>'dueling models'; you narrow it down to a few that explain the current
>>>data better than the rest, then narrow it down further by seeing which
>>>ones predict new data better.
>>
>>I can make one.
>>You are asking me to do something you can't do yourself, when I made
>>no claim that I can do that.
>>Sorry, but that's a bogus defence of the claim that we are causing
>>global warming.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>Similarly, it's stupid to take a little step away from the bed in the
>>>morning, when what I really need to do is get to my job 20 miles away.
>>
>>???
>>Where did this come from?
>>Kyoto doesn't do more than pretend that it will reduce C02. Instead,
>>it only shifts the production of C02 from some countries to others.
>
>It does not.
It does. Read it.
It allows developing countries to skate, with the very predictable
results that manufacturing will move there.
>
>>>Yet, it works out somehow, and I doubt that it would do so were I not
>>>to take that first step. What's the alternative plan? Tell the third
>>>world that they need to keep their living standard the way it is
>>>unless they can figure out how to improve it without CO2 emissions, so
>>>that we can maintain our standard of living with our vast CO2
>>>emissions?
>>
>>Maybe we should actually determine the real solution before we take
>>such drastic steps.
>
>Since the problem is CO2 emission, the solution is obvious.
Again, that's not been proven, only demonstrated in small models.
When you know what caused past ice ages, and the subsequent warming,
let the rest of us know how that applies to the current situation.
>
>>>And when they decline to take that advice, just shrug our
>>>shoulders and say, 'Well hell, we tried, but they won't cooperate'?
>>
>>Again, we could actually find the solution rather than base one on the
>>idea that we are "bad".
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe if we had more facts about what the problem is, we could come up
>>>> with some workable answers.
>>>
>>>Facts? Like what, two tablets coming down from heaven with a
>>>mathematical model of climate inscribed on them, and God's handwritten
>>>guarantee? Fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Fact: we are producing CO2
>>>at an unprecedented rate. Fact: the climate is heating up at a
>>>similarly unprecedented rate. Fact: the best fitting and best
>>>supported models show the major agent of the rising temperature to be
>>>the CO2 release. Fact: there isn't enough wiggle room in the models to
>>>eliminate the actions of human CO2 release as a prime cause, without
>>>postulating some big unknown never-before-identified factor. Fact: as
>>>more and more research has piled up over the years, the anthrogenic
>>>CO2 global warming model has not been overthrown, contrary to the
>>>predictions of the opponents over the years; in fact, areas of
>>>uncertainty have become clearer and clearer and estimates of model
>>>parameters have become more precise.
>>
>>Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
>
>Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
And yet again, we don't.
We *think* we know, and we can demonstrate it in a very limited lab
scenario.
But we still can't manage to translate that into why it's happened
before.
>
>>We do know that happened, but we don't know why.
>>Yet, we are so amazingly arrogant as to assume that *this time*, we
>>are the cause.
>>
>No, we deduce it from data and scientific principles. If I add HCl to water
>and the pH goes down, I don't throw up my hands and say:
>
>1. We don't know why the pH went down.
>2. The pH went down last year from other reasons, so we can't say why it's
>going down now.
There's a slight difference there, Lloyd.
What's being asked for is a major change in lifestyle, not just
wondering why water is salty.
Since the consequences are major, it's only wise to make sure the
action is necessary.
You DO understand that, right?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
