Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5151
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Jerry McG" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bqbpqa021gd@enews2.newsguy.com>...
> > I'd rather take my chances with global warming rather than turn control
> over to the wackos who have grabbed onto the global warming scenario as a
> way to force the implementation of their ideas of how I should live. If
> global warming wasn't
> available, the wackos would have to create it, or something else like it so
> they can have an excuse for forcing the implementation of their ideas.>
>
> Bravo, Ed! These people are attempting to impose their own social
> reengineering upon everyone based upon their own crypto-communist ideals.
> They hate capitalism and the abilities of free peoples to do as they choose.
> They latched onto this madness when people actually took them seriously 30
> years ago that a "new ice age" was upon us, when that fell apart they
> concocted this latest scam. The more people pillory these arrogant bastards
> the better off we'll all be.
Yeah, that's a requirement for a grant, like your predecessors here
say. You have to say 'and if funded, this project will destroy
capitalism and further the crypto-communist agenda, destroying the
middle class life style of myself and others like me and my family'.
Bravo, you've figured it out. Down with science!!!
> > I'd rather take my chances with global warming rather than turn control
> over to the wackos who have grabbed onto the global warming scenario as a
> way to force the implementation of their ideas of how I should live. If
> global warming wasn't
> available, the wackos would have to create it, or something else like it so
> they can have an excuse for forcing the implementation of their ideas.>
>
> Bravo, Ed! These people are attempting to impose their own social
> reengineering upon everyone based upon their own crypto-communist ideals.
> They hate capitalism and the abilities of free peoples to do as they choose.
> They latched onto this madness when people actually took them seriously 30
> years ago that a "new ice age" was upon us, when that fell apart they
> concocted this latest scam. The more people pillory these arrogant bastards
> the better off we'll all be.
Yeah, that's a requirement for a grant, like your predecessors here
say. You have to say 'and if funded, this project will destroy
capitalism and further the crypto-communist agenda, destroying the
middle class life style of myself and others like me and my family'.
Bravo, you've figured it out. Down with science!!!
#5152
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Jerry McG" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bqbpqa021gd@enews2.newsguy.com>...
> > I'd rather take my chances with global warming rather than turn control
> over to the wackos who have grabbed onto the global warming scenario as a
> way to force the implementation of their ideas of how I should live. If
> global warming wasn't
> available, the wackos would have to create it, or something else like it so
> they can have an excuse for forcing the implementation of their ideas.>
>
> Bravo, Ed! These people are attempting to impose their own social
> reengineering upon everyone based upon their own crypto-communist ideals.
> They hate capitalism and the abilities of free peoples to do as they choose.
> They latched onto this madness when people actually took them seriously 30
> years ago that a "new ice age" was upon us, when that fell apart they
> concocted this latest scam. The more people pillory these arrogant bastards
> the better off we'll all be.
Yeah, that's a requirement for a grant, like your predecessors here
say. You have to say 'and if funded, this project will destroy
capitalism and further the crypto-communist agenda, destroying the
middle class life style of myself and others like me and my family'.
Bravo, you've figured it out. Down with science!!!
> > I'd rather take my chances with global warming rather than turn control
> over to the wackos who have grabbed onto the global warming scenario as a
> way to force the implementation of their ideas of how I should live. If
> global warming wasn't
> available, the wackos would have to create it, or something else like it so
> they can have an excuse for forcing the implementation of their ideas.>
>
> Bravo, Ed! These people are attempting to impose their own social
> reengineering upon everyone based upon their own crypto-communist ideals.
> They hate capitalism and the abilities of free peoples to do as they choose.
> They latched onto this madness when people actually took them seriously 30
> years ago that a "new ice age" was upon us, when that fell apart they
> concocted this latest scam. The more people pillory these arrogant bastards
> the better off we'll all be.
Yeah, that's a requirement for a grant, like your predecessors here
say. You have to say 'and if funded, this project will destroy
capitalism and further the crypto-communist agenda, destroying the
middle class life style of myself and others like me and my family'.
Bravo, you've figured it out. Down with science!!!
#5153
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
> energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
> comparison with any other country.
Well you don't even have this right. Canada has a much higher per capita energy
consumption than the US.
Ed
#5154
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
> energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
> comparison with any other country.
Well you don't even have this right. Canada has a much higher per capita energy
consumption than the US.
Ed
#5155
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
> energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
> comparison with any other country.
Well you don't even have this right. Canada has a much higher per capita energy
consumption than the US.
Ed
#5156
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"C. E. White" <cewhite3nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<3FC91DFC.E1363976@mindspring.com>...
> z wrote:
>
> > But that's what corporations do. Particularly for-profit. What is your
> > impression, that people go into climatology research because they
> > hunger for power and money, and that corporations plan their actions
> > based on what would best improve the lives of the 6 billion humans
> > plodding around on the planet?
>
> If you think individuals doing academic research are all sweetness and nice, I think you are naive. Ask yourself this, how
> much grant money is flowing to scientist who say everything is OK? What is more likely to generate grant money, a Chicken
> Little like performance, or a calm reasoned presentation that says climate is a subject to long term trends that are the
> result of many factors which are not well understood?
Right. Peer reviewed grants are adjudicated and funded by established
scientists in a field, not on the basis of scientific validity or
track record, but on the basis of how much hysteria is in the grant
proposal. And certainly, no researcher can ever hope to get any money
from large energy corporations by delivering research that promotes
the corporations' messages; they just don't have the funding that the
NSF does, especially after the latest rounds of conservative cuts in
federal research spending and corporate regulation. Ask yourself, how
come the folks who carry out the vast volumes of research that go into
something like the huge IPCC report toil in anonymity and obscurity,
but every time some guy's estimate of global warming comes out to be
..9 degrees per decade instead of 1 degree per decade, every newspaper
runs a headline story 'New Study Casts Doubt on Global Warming'
mentioning him by name.
>
> I'd rather take my chances with global warming rather than turn control over to the wackos who have grabbed onto the global
> warming scenario as a way to force the implementation of their ideas of how I should live. If global warming wasn't
> available, the wackos would have to create it, or something else like it so they can have an excuse for forcing the
> implementation of their ideas.
>
> Ed
> z wrote:
>
> > But that's what corporations do. Particularly for-profit. What is your
> > impression, that people go into climatology research because they
> > hunger for power and money, and that corporations plan their actions
> > based on what would best improve the lives of the 6 billion humans
> > plodding around on the planet?
>
> If you think individuals doing academic research are all sweetness and nice, I think you are naive. Ask yourself this, how
> much grant money is flowing to scientist who say everything is OK? What is more likely to generate grant money, a Chicken
> Little like performance, or a calm reasoned presentation that says climate is a subject to long term trends that are the
> result of many factors which are not well understood?
Right. Peer reviewed grants are adjudicated and funded by established
scientists in a field, not on the basis of scientific validity or
track record, but on the basis of how much hysteria is in the grant
proposal. And certainly, no researcher can ever hope to get any money
from large energy corporations by delivering research that promotes
the corporations' messages; they just don't have the funding that the
NSF does, especially after the latest rounds of conservative cuts in
federal research spending and corporate regulation. Ask yourself, how
come the folks who carry out the vast volumes of research that go into
something like the huge IPCC report toil in anonymity and obscurity,
but every time some guy's estimate of global warming comes out to be
..9 degrees per decade instead of 1 degree per decade, every newspaper
runs a headline story 'New Study Casts Doubt on Global Warming'
mentioning him by name.
>
> I'd rather take my chances with global warming rather than turn control over to the wackos who have grabbed onto the global
> warming scenario as a way to force the implementation of their ideas of how I should live. If global warming wasn't
> available, the wackos would have to create it, or something else like it so they can have an excuse for forcing the
> implementation of their ideas.
>
> Ed
#5157
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"C. E. White" <cewhite3nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<3FC91DFC.E1363976@mindspring.com>...
> z wrote:
>
> > But that's what corporations do. Particularly for-profit. What is your
> > impression, that people go into climatology research because they
> > hunger for power and money, and that corporations plan their actions
> > based on what would best improve the lives of the 6 billion humans
> > plodding around on the planet?
>
> If you think individuals doing academic research are all sweetness and nice, I think you are naive. Ask yourself this, how
> much grant money is flowing to scientist who say everything is OK? What is more likely to generate grant money, a Chicken
> Little like performance, or a calm reasoned presentation that says climate is a subject to long term trends that are the
> result of many factors which are not well understood?
Right. Peer reviewed grants are adjudicated and funded by established
scientists in a field, not on the basis of scientific validity or
track record, but on the basis of how much hysteria is in the grant
proposal. And certainly, no researcher can ever hope to get any money
from large energy corporations by delivering research that promotes
the corporations' messages; they just don't have the funding that the
NSF does, especially after the latest rounds of conservative cuts in
federal research spending and corporate regulation. Ask yourself, how
come the folks who carry out the vast volumes of research that go into
something like the huge IPCC report toil in anonymity and obscurity,
but every time some guy's estimate of global warming comes out to be
..9 degrees per decade instead of 1 degree per decade, every newspaper
runs a headline story 'New Study Casts Doubt on Global Warming'
mentioning him by name.
>
> I'd rather take my chances with global warming rather than turn control over to the wackos who have grabbed onto the global
> warming scenario as a way to force the implementation of their ideas of how I should live. If global warming wasn't
> available, the wackos would have to create it, or something else like it so they can have an excuse for forcing the
> implementation of their ideas.
>
> Ed
> z wrote:
>
> > But that's what corporations do. Particularly for-profit. What is your
> > impression, that people go into climatology research because they
> > hunger for power and money, and that corporations plan their actions
> > based on what would best improve the lives of the 6 billion humans
> > plodding around on the planet?
>
> If you think individuals doing academic research are all sweetness and nice, I think you are naive. Ask yourself this, how
> much grant money is flowing to scientist who say everything is OK? What is more likely to generate grant money, a Chicken
> Little like performance, or a calm reasoned presentation that says climate is a subject to long term trends that are the
> result of many factors which are not well understood?
Right. Peer reviewed grants are adjudicated and funded by established
scientists in a field, not on the basis of scientific validity or
track record, but on the basis of how much hysteria is in the grant
proposal. And certainly, no researcher can ever hope to get any money
from large energy corporations by delivering research that promotes
the corporations' messages; they just don't have the funding that the
NSF does, especially after the latest rounds of conservative cuts in
federal research spending and corporate regulation. Ask yourself, how
come the folks who carry out the vast volumes of research that go into
something like the huge IPCC report toil in anonymity and obscurity,
but every time some guy's estimate of global warming comes out to be
..9 degrees per decade instead of 1 degree per decade, every newspaper
runs a headline story 'New Study Casts Doubt on Global Warming'
mentioning him by name.
>
> I'd rather take my chances with global warming rather than turn control over to the wackos who have grabbed onto the global
> warming scenario as a way to force the implementation of their ideas of how I should live. If global warming wasn't
> available, the wackos would have to create it, or something else like it so they can have an excuse for forcing the
> implementation of their ideas.
>
> Ed
#5158
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"C. E. White" <cewhite3nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<3FC91DFC.E1363976@mindspring.com>...
> z wrote:
>
> > But that's what corporations do. Particularly for-profit. What is your
> > impression, that people go into climatology research because they
> > hunger for power and money, and that corporations plan their actions
> > based on what would best improve the lives of the 6 billion humans
> > plodding around on the planet?
>
> If you think individuals doing academic research are all sweetness and nice, I think you are naive. Ask yourself this, how
> much grant money is flowing to scientist who say everything is OK? What is more likely to generate grant money, a Chicken
> Little like performance, or a calm reasoned presentation that says climate is a subject to long term trends that are the
> result of many factors which are not well understood?
Right. Peer reviewed grants are adjudicated and funded by established
scientists in a field, not on the basis of scientific validity or
track record, but on the basis of how much hysteria is in the grant
proposal. And certainly, no researcher can ever hope to get any money
from large energy corporations by delivering research that promotes
the corporations' messages; they just don't have the funding that the
NSF does, especially after the latest rounds of conservative cuts in
federal research spending and corporate regulation. Ask yourself, how
come the folks who carry out the vast volumes of research that go into
something like the huge IPCC report toil in anonymity and obscurity,
but every time some guy's estimate of global warming comes out to be
..9 degrees per decade instead of 1 degree per decade, every newspaper
runs a headline story 'New Study Casts Doubt on Global Warming'
mentioning him by name.
>
> I'd rather take my chances with global warming rather than turn control over to the wackos who have grabbed onto the global
> warming scenario as a way to force the implementation of their ideas of how I should live. If global warming wasn't
> available, the wackos would have to create it, or something else like it so they can have an excuse for forcing the
> implementation of their ideas.
>
> Ed
> z wrote:
>
> > But that's what corporations do. Particularly for-profit. What is your
> > impression, that people go into climatology research because they
> > hunger for power and money, and that corporations plan their actions
> > based on what would best improve the lives of the 6 billion humans
> > plodding around on the planet?
>
> If you think individuals doing academic research are all sweetness and nice, I think you are naive. Ask yourself this, how
> much grant money is flowing to scientist who say everything is OK? What is more likely to generate grant money, a Chicken
> Little like performance, or a calm reasoned presentation that says climate is a subject to long term trends that are the
> result of many factors which are not well understood?
Right. Peer reviewed grants are adjudicated and funded by established
scientists in a field, not on the basis of scientific validity or
track record, but on the basis of how much hysteria is in the grant
proposal. And certainly, no researcher can ever hope to get any money
from large energy corporations by delivering research that promotes
the corporations' messages; they just don't have the funding that the
NSF does, especially after the latest rounds of conservative cuts in
federal research spending and corporate regulation. Ask yourself, how
come the folks who carry out the vast volumes of research that go into
something like the huge IPCC report toil in anonymity and obscurity,
but every time some guy's estimate of global warming comes out to be
..9 degrees per decade instead of 1 degree per decade, every newspaper
runs a headline story 'New Study Casts Doubt on Global Warming'
mentioning him by name.
>
> I'd rather take my chances with global warming rather than turn control over to the wackos who have grabbed onto the global
> warming scenario as a way to force the implementation of their ideas of how I should live. If global warming wasn't
> available, the wackos would have to create it, or something else like it so they can have an excuse for forcing the
> implementation of their ideas.
>
> Ed
#5159
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"MacIntosh" <chesshire_cat@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<3fc94817$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net>...
> fact: cow's "fermenting" their dinner, and burping is one of the major
> sources of CO2 emissions....
>
> gotta ban the bloody cows!
1) Cow or human, burps contain no CO2.
2) Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
therefore produces no CO2.
Got any more 'facts' you'd like to share?
>
>
>
>
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:vs514a9607ev84@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> > news:bpt48s$h0v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > > In article <vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google. com...
> > > >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
> > > >> > 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.
> > > >>
> > > >> The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
> > > >> one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> > > >> inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
> > > >> the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> > > >> confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> > > >> reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> > > >> declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they
> "decided
> > > >> on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there
> some
> > > >> kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> > > >> climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw
> the
> > > >> economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> > > >> warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
> > > >> have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
> > > >> operation?
> > > >> And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the
> establishment
> > > >> who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
> > > >
> > > >I believe they are wrong.
> > >
> > > And your data is where?
> >
> >
> > Hiya LP. Now you know it would be a waste of my time to tell you, because
> > you don't have the brains to understand it anyway, if you did you wouldn't
> > ask such a stupid question, you would have already read all the Data, not
> > just what your left wing wackos say.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
> > > >far more likely cause.
> > >
> > > No, they've studied it and found it cannot explain all the current
> > warming.
> >
> > Who is this mysterious 'we" that pops up in every post you make. Don't
> > bother answering, it would just be another of your lies.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
> > > >temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating
> (think
> > > >seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force
> behind
> > > >global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> fact: cow's "fermenting" their dinner, and burping is one of the major
> sources of CO2 emissions....
>
> gotta ban the bloody cows!
1) Cow or human, burps contain no CO2.
2) Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
therefore produces no CO2.
Got any more 'facts' you'd like to share?
>
>
>
>
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:vs514a9607ev84@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> > news:bpt48s$h0v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > > In article <vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google. com...
> > > >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
> > > >> > 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.
> > > >>
> > > >> The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
> > > >> one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> > > >> inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
> > > >> the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> > > >> confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> > > >> reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> > > >> declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they
> "decided
> > > >> on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there
> some
> > > >> kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> > > >> climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw
> the
> > > >> economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> > > >> warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
> > > >> have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
> > > >> operation?
> > > >> And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the
> establishment
> > > >> who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
> > > >
> > > >I believe they are wrong.
> > >
> > > And your data is where?
> >
> >
> > Hiya LP. Now you know it would be a waste of my time to tell you, because
> > you don't have the brains to understand it anyway, if you did you wouldn't
> > ask such a stupid question, you would have already read all the Data, not
> > just what your left wing wackos say.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
> > > >far more likely cause.
> > >
> > > No, they've studied it and found it cannot explain all the current
> > warming.
> >
> > Who is this mysterious 'we" that pops up in every post you make. Don't
> > bother answering, it would just be another of your lies.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
> > > >temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating
> (think
> > > >seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force
> behind
> > > >global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
#5160
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"MacIntosh" <chesshire_cat@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<3fc94817$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net>...
> fact: cow's "fermenting" their dinner, and burping is one of the major
> sources of CO2 emissions....
>
> gotta ban the bloody cows!
1) Cow or human, burps contain no CO2.
2) Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
therefore produces no CO2.
Got any more 'facts' you'd like to share?
>
>
>
>
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:vs514a9607ev84@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> > news:bpt48s$h0v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > > In article <vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google. com...
> > > >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
> > > >> > 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.
> > > >>
> > > >> The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
> > > >> one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> > > >> inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
> > > >> the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> > > >> confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> > > >> reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> > > >> declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they
> "decided
> > > >> on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there
> some
> > > >> kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> > > >> climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw
> the
> > > >> economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> > > >> warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
> > > >> have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
> > > >> operation?
> > > >> And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the
> establishment
> > > >> who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
> > > >
> > > >I believe they are wrong.
> > >
> > > And your data is where?
> >
> >
> > Hiya LP. Now you know it would be a waste of my time to tell you, because
> > you don't have the brains to understand it anyway, if you did you wouldn't
> > ask such a stupid question, you would have already read all the Data, not
> > just what your left wing wackos say.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
> > > >far more likely cause.
> > >
> > > No, they've studied it and found it cannot explain all the current
> > warming.
> >
> > Who is this mysterious 'we" that pops up in every post you make. Don't
> > bother answering, it would just be another of your lies.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
> > > >temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating
> (think
> > > >seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force
> behind
> > > >global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> fact: cow's "fermenting" their dinner, and burping is one of the major
> sources of CO2 emissions....
>
> gotta ban the bloody cows!
1) Cow or human, burps contain no CO2.
2) Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
therefore produces no CO2.
Got any more 'facts' you'd like to share?
>
>
>
>
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:vs514a9607ev84@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> > news:bpt48s$h0v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > > In article <vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google. com...
> > > >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
> > > >> > 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.
> > > >>
> > > >> The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
> > > >> one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> > > >> inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
> > > >> the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> > > >> confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> > > >> reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> > > >> declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they
> "decided
> > > >> on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there
> some
> > > >> kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> > > >> climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw
> the
> > > >> economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> > > >> warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
> > > >> have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
> > > >> operation?
> > > >> And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the
> establishment
> > > >> who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
> > > >
> > > >I believe they are wrong.
> > >
> > > And your data is where?
> >
> >
> > Hiya LP. Now you know it would be a waste of my time to tell you, because
> > you don't have the brains to understand it anyway, if you did you wouldn't
> > ask such a stupid question, you would have already read all the Data, not
> > just what your left wing wackos say.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
> > > >far more likely cause.
> > >
> > > No, they've studied it and found it cannot explain all the current
> > warming.
> >
> > Who is this mysterious 'we" that pops up in every post you make. Don't
> > bother answering, it would just be another of your lies.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
> > > >temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating
> (think
> > > >seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force
> behind
> > > >global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >