In article <WPhzb.2620$rE3.1688@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqitii$of5$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <JX5zb.48$rE3.36@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >I think a National Health Care system sounds very scary. If we want
>an
>> >> >abundant supply of medical care in this country you can't take the
>supply
>> >> >and demand components out of the system. The minute you do, there
>won't be
>> >> >enough care and it will be substandard. There will be a constant
>struggle
>> >> >to keep the system from bankrupting the national treasury. I think it
>will
>> >> >just become a giant sized version of an HMO run by the government with
>no
>> >> >competitors.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>health
>> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>insurance
>> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >>
>> >> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have
>national
>> >> health care, just national health insurance.
>> >>
>> >
>> >That's the point. A national HMO.
>>
>> No, a national insurance. Like Medicare, which runs with less overhead
>than
>> any private insurance company, and which seniors love.
>>
>
>Doctors who accept Medicare patients lose money. Many doctors won't accept
>Medicare patients for that reason. Those that do accept them do it because
>they feel an obligation. Medicare is also headed for bankruptcy unless
>drastic action is taken. Reduced coverage, reduced reimbursement to
>doctors, increased Medicare tax withholding.
>
>
Lots of doctors won't accept certain HMOs either, because of low payments or
endless delays. Here in GA, a number recently have dropped Aetna, for
example.

 

In article <WPhzb.2620$rE3.1688@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqitii$of5$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <JX5zb.48$rE3.36@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >I think a National Health Care system sounds very scary. If we want
>an
>> >> >abundant supply of medical care in this country you can't take the
>supply
>> >> >and demand components out of the system. The minute you do, there
>won't be
>> >> >enough care and it will be substandard. There will be a constant
>struggle
>> >> >to keep the system from bankrupting the national treasury. I think it
>will
>> >> >just become a giant sized version of an HMO run by the government with
>no
>> >> >competitors.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>health
>> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>insurance
>> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >>
>> >> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have
>national
>> >> health care, just national health insurance.
>> >>
>> >
>> >That's the point. A national HMO.
>>
>> No, a national insurance. Like Medicare, which runs with less overhead
>than
>> any private insurance company, and which seniors love.
>>
>
>Doctors who accept Medicare patients lose money. Many doctors won't accept
>Medicare patients for that reason. Those that do accept them do it because
>they feel an obligation. Medicare is also headed for bankruptcy unless
>drastic action is taken. Reduced coverage, reduced reimbursement to
>doctors, increased Medicare tax withholding.
>
>
Lots of doctors won't accept certain HMOs either, because of low payments or
endless delays. Here in GA, a number recently have dropped Aetna, for
example.

 

In article <WPhzb.2620$rE3.1688@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqitii$of5$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <JX5zb.48$rE3.36@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >I think a National Health Care system sounds very scary. If we want
>an
>> >> >abundant supply of medical care in this country you can't take the
>supply
>> >> >and demand components out of the system. The minute you do, there
>won't be
>> >> >enough care and it will be substandard. There will be a constant
>struggle
>> >> >to keep the system from bankrupting the national treasury. I think it
>will
>> >> >just become a giant sized version of an HMO run by the government with
>no
>> >> >competitors.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>health
>> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>insurance
>> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >>
>> >> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have
>national
>> >> health care, just national health insurance.
>> >>
>> >
>> >That's the point. A national HMO.
>>
>> No, a national insurance. Like Medicare, which runs with less overhead
>than
>> any private insurance company, and which seniors love.
>>
>
>Doctors who accept Medicare patients lose money. Many doctors won't accept
>Medicare patients for that reason. Those that do accept them do it because
>they feel an obligation. Medicare is also headed for bankruptcy unless
>drastic action is taken. Reduced coverage, reduced reimbursement to
>doctors, increased Medicare tax withholding.
>
>
Lots of doctors won't accept certain HMOs either, because of low payments or
endless delays. Here in GA, a number recently have dropped Aetna, for
example.

 

In article <Uaizb.2907$rE3.2726@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqit92$of5$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <MK5zb.46$rE3.8@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >> 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!!!
>> >> >
>> >> >This is the strategy of the left. When they find them on the wrong
>side
>> >of
>> >> >morality, they redefine morality. Now it's science. If you disagree
>> >with
>> >> >the "science" of global warming (and the global disaster it leads to)
>> >then
>> >> >you reject science. Likewise, morality is no longer fidelity,
>honesty,
>> >> >personal responsibility. It's now support for the policies of the
>left,
>> >> >like gay marriage and adopting the Kyoto protocol.
>> >>
>> >> Spoken like a good little creationist.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Who? Me? I don't buy into "Creation Science". But the lefts
>redefinition
>> >of "morality" and "science" is no different than what Creationists do to
>> >force fit science into Genesis. Only it's force fit of science (and
>> >religion) into anti-capitalism.
>>
>> No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.
>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists
>and
>> >> >Communists. They are idealogical siblings to protect people from
>"evil
>> >> >corporations".
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> And the folks standing behind you and your ilk are Fascists and *****.
>> >Want
>> >> to call names? OK.
>> >
>> >Not at all. When you see who shows up to those anti-globalist
>> >(anti-corporate) demonstrations you see Socialist signs and booths all
>over
>> >the place. No "name" calling was intended. And if you're looking for
>nasty
>> >names to fit conservatives, you're really missing the mark with Fascist
>and
>> >****. Those are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, away
>from
>> >limited government.
>>
>> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
>genders
>> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>>
>
>This one again? Ok, I'll repeat myself. Conservatives believe some rights
>are reserved to states and individuals to decide how they want to govern
>themselves. That includes the rights of states and communities, through
>their legislatures, to rule on sexual behaviors, abortion, and marriage.
>It's the Dems who want to nationalize these things and force all communities
>nationwide to accept their new age definitions of morality and religion.

Why wouldn't the most intimate relationships between people be a right
reserved to the people themselves (9th amendment)? Surely if there are any
"inherent" or "God-given" rights, it would be those that have to do with
intimate relationships and behaviors. Aren't you arguing the 9th amendment is
meaningless, that any rights not enumerated are reserved just to the states?

>
>The conservative position has never been to nationalize any of these issues,
>but to allow local jurisdictions to choose for themselves. The only time
>conservatives do want to nationalize such issues is when the Libs find a
>liberal federal judge to overturn local law based and make it a national
>issue, i.e., unlimited federal government.
>
>Why can't you see the conservative vs. liberal debate as one based on role
>of federal government instead of merely accusing conservatives of being
>"rascist", "homophobe", "sexist", "bigoted". All those labels are debate
>enders. The issue of the role of government is a legitimate thing to debate
>with honorable arguments on both sides. Yet people like you never engage in
>it. You resort to this name calling instead.
>
>> >
>> >
>
>

 

In article <Uaizb.2907$rE3.2726@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqit92$of5$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <MK5zb.46$rE3.8@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >> 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!!!
>> >> >
>> >> >This is the strategy of the left. When they find them on the wrong
>side
>> >of
>> >> >morality, they redefine morality. Now it's science. If you disagree
>> >with
>> >> >the "science" of global warming (and the global disaster it leads to)
>> >then
>> >> >you reject science. Likewise, morality is no longer fidelity,
>honesty,
>> >> >personal responsibility. It's now support for the policies of the
>left,
>> >> >like gay marriage and adopting the Kyoto protocol.
>> >>
>> >> Spoken like a good little creationist.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Who? Me? I don't buy into "Creation Science". But the lefts
>redefinition
>> >of "morality" and "science" is no different than what Creationists do to
>> >force fit science into Genesis. Only it's force fit of science (and
>> >religion) into anti-capitalism.
>>
>> No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.
>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists
>and
>> >> >Communists. They are idealogical siblings to protect people from
>"evil
>> >> >corporations".
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> And the folks standing behind you and your ilk are Fascists and *****.
>> >Want
>> >> to call names? OK.
>> >
>> >Not at all. When you see who shows up to those anti-globalist
>> >(anti-corporate) demonstrations you see Socialist signs and booths all
>over
>> >the place. No "name" calling was intended. And if you're looking for
>nasty
>> >names to fit conservatives, you're really missing the mark with Fascist
>and
>> >****. Those are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, away
>from
>> >limited government.
>>
>> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
>genders
>> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>>
>
>This one again? Ok, I'll repeat myself. Conservatives believe some rights
>are reserved to states and individuals to decide how they want to govern
>themselves. That includes the rights of states and communities, through
>their legislatures, to rule on sexual behaviors, abortion, and marriage.
>It's the Dems who want to nationalize these things and force all communities
>nationwide to accept their new age definitions of morality and religion.

Why wouldn't the most intimate relationships between people be a right
reserved to the people themselves (9th amendment)? Surely if there are any
"inherent" or "God-given" rights, it would be those that have to do with
intimate relationships and behaviors. Aren't you arguing the 9th amendment is
meaningless, that any rights not enumerated are reserved just to the states?

>
>The conservative position has never been to nationalize any of these issues,
>but to allow local jurisdictions to choose for themselves. The only time
>conservatives do want to nationalize such issues is when the Libs find a
>liberal federal judge to overturn local law based and make it a national
>issue, i.e., unlimited federal government.
>
>Why can't you see the conservative vs. liberal debate as one based on role
>of federal government instead of merely accusing conservatives of being
>"rascist", "homophobe", "sexist", "bigoted". All those labels are debate
>enders. The issue of the role of government is a legitimate thing to debate
>with honorable arguments on both sides. Yet people like you never engage in
>it. You resort to this name calling instead.
>
>> >
>> >
>
>

 

In article <Uaizb.2907$rE3.2726@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqit92$of5$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <MK5zb.46$rE3.8@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >> 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!!!
>> >> >
>> >> >This is the strategy of the left. When they find them on the wrong
>side
>> >of
>> >> >morality, they redefine morality. Now it's science. If you disagree
>> >with
>> >> >the "science" of global warming (and the global disaster it leads to)
>> >then
>> >> >you reject science. Likewise, morality is no longer fidelity,
>honesty,
>> >> >personal responsibility. It's now support for the policies of the
>left,
>> >> >like gay marriage and adopting the Kyoto protocol.
>> >>
>> >> Spoken like a good little creationist.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Who? Me? I don't buy into "Creation Science". But the lefts
>redefinition
>> >of "morality" and "science" is no different than what Creationists do to
>> >force fit science into Genesis. Only it's force fit of science (and
>> >religion) into anti-capitalism.
>>
>> No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.
>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists
>and
>> >> >Communists. They are idealogical siblings to protect people from
>"evil
>> >> >corporations".
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> And the folks standing behind you and your ilk are Fascists and *****.
>> >Want
>> >> to call names? OK.
>> >
>> >Not at all. When you see who shows up to those anti-globalist
>> >(anti-corporate) demonstrations you see Socialist signs and booths all
>over
>> >the place. No "name" calling was intended. And if you're looking for
>nasty
>> >names to fit conservatives, you're really missing the mark with Fascist
>and
>> >****. Those are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, away
>from
>> >limited government.
>>
>> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
>genders
>> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>>
>
>This one again? Ok, I'll repeat myself. Conservatives believe some rights
>are reserved to states and individuals to decide how they want to govern
>themselves. That includes the rights of states and communities, through
>their legislatures, to rule on sexual behaviors, abortion, and marriage.
>It's the Dems who want to nationalize these things and force all communities
>nationwide to accept their new age definitions of morality and religion.

Why wouldn't the most intimate relationships between people be a right
reserved to the people themselves (9th amendment)? Surely if there are any
"inherent" or "God-given" rights, it would be those that have to do with
intimate relationships and behaviors. Aren't you arguing the 9th amendment is
meaningless, that any rights not enumerated are reserved just to the states?

>
>The conservative position has never been to nationalize any of these issues,
>but to allow local jurisdictions to choose for themselves. The only time
>conservatives do want to nationalize such issues is when the Libs find a
>liberal federal judge to overturn local law based and make it a national
>issue, i.e., unlimited federal government.
>
>Why can't you see the conservative vs. liberal debate as one based on role
>of federal government instead of merely accusing conservatives of being
>"rascist", "homophobe", "sexist", "bigoted". All those labels are debate
>enders. The issue of the role of government is a legitimate thing to debate
>with honorable arguments on both sides. Yet people like you never engage in
>it. You resort to this name calling instead.
>
>> >
>> >
>
>

 

In article <nLjzb.86$uE6.60@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
"OrygunGuy" <orygun.guy@verizon.net> wrote:
>A technical paper that appeared in July, 2003 in GSA Today, a journal of the
>Geological Society of America, gave evidence that the periodic cooling and
>warming of the planet over the past millions of years is cyclical and is
>caused by a complex interplay between solar activity and cosmic rays. It
>concluded that carbon dioxide emissions are not the main "driver" of climate
>change.
>
>Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist from the Racah Institute of Physics of the
>Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Prof. Jan Veiser a geochemist at the
>University of Ottawa in Canada, say that temperature variations are due more
>to cosmic forces than to the actions of man.
>
>In the article, Shaviv and Veiser tell of their studies illustrating a
>correlation between past cosmic ray flux - the high-energy particles
>reaching us from stellar explosions - and long-term climate variability, as
>recorded by oxygen isotopes trapped in rocks formed by ancient marine
>fossils. The level of cosmic ray activity reaching the earth and its
>atmosphere was reconstructed using another isotopic record in meteorites.
>
>The study showed that peak periods of cosmic rays reaching the earth over
>the past 550 million years coincided with lower global temperatures,
>apparently due to the way that the cosmic rays promote low-level cloud
>formation, hence blocking out the sun. No correlation was obtained,
>however, with the changing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
>
>The conclusion of the two scientists is that celestial processes seem to be
>the dominant influence on climate change, and that increased carbon dioxide
>release, while certainly not beneficial, is only secondary to those forces
>which are beyond our control.

But we know that the warming TODAY is due to CO2. It doesn't matter that
warmings in the past may have had other causes. That's like arguing that
since exercise raised your body temp. yesterday, a virus cannot be the cause
of your fever today.

>
>For me I think I'll do what I see Frank say all of the time...
>
>
>yeah see if you can find out some thing about the trails
>
>
>Frank. Sling some mud for me!!!!!!!
>Braille trail 4 wheelers
>we wheel by feel
>79 chev 3/4 bb
>
>
>
>
>
>"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:b5b4685f.0312020814.750e4869@posting.google. com...
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:<vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>...
>> > "z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google.c om...
>> > > "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. They discount solar influence when IMHO it is
>a
>> > far more likely cause. 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.
>>
>> Well, here are the estimated magnitudes of the components in the IPCC
>> model, with confidence limits <pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/warming.jpg>.
>> Compare the magnitude of the solar component, though large, with the
>> magnitude of the CO2 component, even with the max end of the solar
>> confidence limit and the min end of the CO2 confidence limit. The
>> thing being, that the reasons for the IPCC adopting these estimates
>> are given in the report along with references to the published
>> studies, etc. A far cry from just saying they 'discount' solar
>> warming. So do you have any such evidence for your more solar
>> position? (This wan't meant to be as hostile a challenge as it sounds
>> on reading it, just a conversational inquiry tone).
>
>

 

In article <nLjzb.86$uE6.60@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
"OrygunGuy" <orygun.guy@verizon.net> wrote:
>A technical paper that appeared in July, 2003 in GSA Today, a journal of the
>Geological Society of America, gave evidence that the periodic cooling and
>warming of the planet over the past millions of years is cyclical and is
>caused by a complex interplay between solar activity and cosmic rays. It
>concluded that carbon dioxide emissions are not the main "driver" of climate
>change.
>
>Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist from the Racah Institute of Physics of the
>Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Prof. Jan Veiser a geochemist at the
>University of Ottawa in Canada, say that temperature variations are due more
>to cosmic forces than to the actions of man.
>
>In the article, Shaviv and Veiser tell of their studies illustrating a
>correlation between past cosmic ray flux - the high-energy particles
>reaching us from stellar explosions - and long-term climate variability, as
>recorded by oxygen isotopes trapped in rocks formed by ancient marine
>fossils. The level of cosmic ray activity reaching the earth and its
>atmosphere was reconstructed using another isotopic record in meteorites.
>
>The study showed that peak periods of cosmic rays reaching the earth over
>the past 550 million years coincided with lower global temperatures,
>apparently due to the way that the cosmic rays promote low-level cloud
>formation, hence blocking out the sun. No correlation was obtained,
>however, with the changing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
>
>The conclusion of the two scientists is that celestial processes seem to be
>the dominant influence on climate change, and that increased carbon dioxide
>release, while certainly not beneficial, is only secondary to those forces
>which are beyond our control.

But we know that the warming TODAY is due to CO2. It doesn't matter that
warmings in the past may have had other causes. That's like arguing that
since exercise raised your body temp. yesterday, a virus cannot be the cause
of your fever today.

>
>For me I think I'll do what I see Frank say all of the time...
>
>
>yeah see if you can find out some thing about the trails
>
>
>Frank. Sling some mud for me!!!!!!!
>Braille trail 4 wheelers
>we wheel by feel
>79 chev 3/4 bb
>
>
>
>
>
>"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:b5b4685f.0312020814.750e4869@posting.google. com...
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:<vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>...
>> > "z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google.c om...
>> > > "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. They discount solar influence when IMHO it is
>a
>> > far more likely cause. 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.
>>
>> Well, here are the estimated magnitudes of the components in the IPCC
>> model, with confidence limits <pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/warming.jpg>.
>> Compare the magnitude of the solar component, though large, with the
>> magnitude of the CO2 component, even with the max end of the solar
>> confidence limit and the min end of the CO2 confidence limit. The
>> thing being, that the reasons for the IPCC adopting these estimates
>> are given in the report along with references to the published
>> studies, etc. A far cry from just saying they 'discount' solar
>> warming. So do you have any such evidence for your more solar
>> position? (This wan't meant to be as hostile a challenge as it sounds
>> on reading it, just a conversational inquiry tone).
>
>

 

In article <nLjzb.86$uE6.60@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
"OrygunGuy" <orygun.guy@verizon.net> wrote:
>A technical paper that appeared in July, 2003 in GSA Today, a journal of the
>Geological Society of America, gave evidence that the periodic cooling and
>warming of the planet over the past millions of years is cyclical and is
>caused by a complex interplay between solar activity and cosmic rays. It
>concluded that carbon dioxide emissions are not the main "driver" of climate
>change.
>
>Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist from the Racah Institute of Physics of the
>Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Prof. Jan Veiser a geochemist at the
>University of Ottawa in Canada, say that temperature variations are due more
>to cosmic forces than to the actions of man.
>
>In the article, Shaviv and Veiser tell of their studies illustrating a
>correlation between past cosmic ray flux - the high-energy particles
>reaching us from stellar explosions - and long-term climate variability, as
>recorded by oxygen isotopes trapped in rocks formed by ancient marine
>fossils. The level of cosmic ray activity reaching the earth and its
>atmosphere was reconstructed using another isotopic record in meteorites.
>
>The study showed that peak periods of cosmic rays reaching the earth over
>the past 550 million years coincided with lower global temperatures,
>apparently due to the way that the cosmic rays promote low-level cloud
>formation, hence blocking out the sun. No correlation was obtained,
>however, with the changing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
>
>The conclusion of the two scientists is that celestial processes seem to be
>the dominant influence on climate change, and that increased carbon dioxide
>release, while certainly not beneficial, is only secondary to those forces
>which are beyond our control.

But we know that the warming TODAY is due to CO2. It doesn't matter that
warmings in the past may have had other causes. That's like arguing that
since exercise raised your body temp. yesterday, a virus cannot be the cause
of your fever today.

>
>For me I think I'll do what I see Frank say all of the time...
>
>
>yeah see if you can find out some thing about the trails
>
>
>Frank. Sling some mud for me!!!!!!!
>Braille trail 4 wheelers
>we wheel by feel
>79 chev 3/4 bb
>
>
>
>
>
>"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:b5b4685f.0312020814.750e4869@posting.google. com...
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:<vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>...
>> > "z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google.c om...
>> > > "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. They discount solar influence when IMHO it is
>a
>> > far more likely cause. 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.
>>
>> Well, here are the estimated magnitudes of the components in the IPCC
>> model, with confidence limits <pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/warming.jpg>.
>> Compare the magnitude of the solar component, though large, with the
>> magnitude of the CO2 component, even with the max end of the solar
>> confidence limit and the min end of the CO2 confidence limit. The
>> thing being, that the reasons for the IPCC adopting these estimates
>> are given in the report along with references to the published
>> studies, etc. A far cry from just saying they 'discount' solar
>> warming. So do you have any such evidence for your more solar
>> position? (This wan't meant to be as hostile a challenge as it sounds
>> on reading it, just a conversational inquiry tone).
>
>

 

A technical paper that appeared in July, 2003 in GSA Today, a journal of the
Geological Society of America, gave evidence that the periodic cooling and
warming of the planet over the past millions of years is cyclical and is
caused by a complex interplay between solar activity and cosmic rays. It
concluded that carbon dioxide emissions are not the main "driver" of climate
change.

Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist from the Racah Institute of Physics of the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Prof. Jan Veiser a geochemist at the
University of Ottawa in Canada, say that temperature variations are due more
to cosmic forces than to the actions of man.

In the article, Shaviv and Veiser tell of their studies illustrating a
correlation between past cosmic ray flux - the high-energy particles
reaching us from stellar explosions - and long-term climate variability, as
recorded by oxygen isotopes trapped in rocks formed by ancient marine
fossils. The level of cosmic ray activity reaching the earth and its
atmosphere was reconstructed using another isotopic record in meteorites.

The study showed that peak periods of cosmic rays reaching the earth over
the past 550 million years coincided with lower global temperatures,
apparently due to the way that the cosmic rays promote low-level cloud
formation, hence blocking out the sun. No correlation was obtained,
however, with the changing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The conclusion of the two scientists is that celestial processes seem to be
the dominant influence on climate change, and that increased carbon dioxide
release, while certainly not beneficial, is only secondary to those forces
which are beyond our control.

For me I think I'll do what I see Frank say all of the time...


yeah see if you can find out some thing about the trails


Frank. Sling some mud for me!!!!!!!
Braille trail 4 wheelers
we wheel by feel
79 chev 3/4 bb





"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312020814.750e4869@posting.google.c om...
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google.c om...
> > > "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. They discount solar influence when IMHO it is
a
> > far more likely cause. 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.
>
> Well, here are the estimated magnitudes of the components in the IPCC
> model, with confidence limits <pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/warming.jpg>.
> Compare the magnitude of the solar component, though large, with the
> magnitude of the CO2 component, even with the max end of the solar
> confidence limit and the min end of the CO2 confidence limit. The
> thing being, that the reasons for the IPCC adopting these estimates
> are given in the report along with references to the published
> studies, etc. A far cry from just saying they 'discount' solar
> warming. So do you have any such evidence for your more solar
> position? (This wan't meant to be as hostile a challenge as it sounds
> on reading it, just a conversational inquiry tone).