Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
it's "septic decay" (non-aerated) that occurs without Oxygen... producing
Methane!
different bacteria perform the two types of decomposition
aerated: think well-turned compost pile -or- fermentation vat
non-aerated: think outhouse -or- poorly-turned compost pile
"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3FCBD484.B1CFA8B@kinez.net...
>
>
> Joe wrote:
>
> > "Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
therefore
> > produces no CO2."
> > Go back to grade school:
> > "Alcohol fermentation is done by yeast and some kinds of bacteria. The
> > "waste" products of this process are ethanol and carbon dioxide (CO2)"
> > http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/cellresp.htm
>
> IIRC, the big concern of the environuts a few (maybe 10 or 15) years ago
that
> wanted to put something similar to sealed diapers on cows and other farm
animals
> was the release of too much methane into the atmosphere. Wouldn't you
like to
> have had the DependsT concession if that had gone thru, z?
>
> Bill Putney
> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
with
> "x")
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Methane!
different bacteria perform the two types of decomposition
aerated: think well-turned compost pile -or- fermentation vat
non-aerated: think outhouse -or- poorly-turned compost pile
"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3FCBD484.B1CFA8B@kinez.net...
>
>
> Joe wrote:
>
> > "Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
therefore
> > produces no CO2."
> > Go back to grade school:
> > "Alcohol fermentation is done by yeast and some kinds of bacteria. The
> > "waste" products of this process are ethanol and carbon dioxide (CO2)"
> > http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/cellresp.htm
>
> IIRC, the big concern of the environuts a few (maybe 10 or 15) years ago
that
> wanted to put something similar to sealed diapers on cows and other farm
animals
> was the release of too much methane into the atmosphere. Wouldn't you
like to
> have had the DependsT concession if that had gone thru, z?
>
> Bill Putney
> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
with
> "x")
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
it's "septic decay" (non-aerated) that occurs without Oxygen... producing
Methane!
different bacteria perform the two types of decomposition
aerated: think well-turned compost pile -or- fermentation vat
non-aerated: think outhouse -or- poorly-turned compost pile
"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3FCBD484.B1CFA8B@kinez.net...
>
>
> Joe wrote:
>
> > "Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
therefore
> > produces no CO2."
> > Go back to grade school:
> > "Alcohol fermentation is done by yeast and some kinds of bacteria. The
> > "waste" products of this process are ethanol and carbon dioxide (CO2)"
> > http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/cellresp.htm
>
> IIRC, the big concern of the environuts a few (maybe 10 or 15) years ago
that
> wanted to put something similar to sealed diapers on cows and other farm
animals
> was the release of too much methane into the atmosphere. Wouldn't you
like to
> have had the DependsT concession if that had gone thru, z?
>
> Bill Putney
> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
with
> "x")
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Methane!
different bacteria perform the two types of decomposition
aerated: think well-turned compost pile -or- fermentation vat
non-aerated: think outhouse -or- poorly-turned compost pile
"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3FCBD484.B1CFA8B@kinez.net...
>
>
> Joe wrote:
>
> > "Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
therefore
> > produces no CO2."
> > Go back to grade school:
> > "Alcohol fermentation is done by yeast and some kinds of bacteria. The
> > "waste" products of this process are ethanol and carbon dioxide (CO2)"
> > http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/cellresp.htm
>
> IIRC, the big concern of the environuts a few (maybe 10 or 15) years ago
that
> wanted to put something similar to sealed diapers on cows and other farm
animals
> was the release of too much methane into the atmosphere. Wouldn't you
like to
> have had the DependsT concession if that had gone thru, z?
>
> Bill Putney
> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
with
> "x")
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GSM vs CDMA Technology
In article <bqlisk$60j@netnews.proxy.lucent.com>, Bob Shuman wrote:
> Brent,
>
> If you go back far enough in history, I think you will find that the U.S.
> AMPS standard was the model that was used as the driver for the GSM standard
> in Europe. At the time each European country had its own wireless
> technology "standard" rendering it impossible to use the same phone or even
> think about roaming across system/country borders. The European community
> looked at the US model and saw the distinct advantage of having a single
> standard defined and implemented. IIRC., this was at about roughly the same
> time as the ECC was getting off the ground. It was later that Ericsson and
> other GSM proponents really pushed to get the standard adopted in Asia
> pacific (and unsuccessfully until most recently in the US and South America)
Wooptie do. The USA has used a large variety of MAs and frequencies that
make it so that if you get too far from home your phone may or may not be
worth anything. About the only thing one could count on was AMPS service.
My arguement still stands, using cellular MAs is not a good example to
point to as US superiority over europeans. It's more like one of leap
froging each other.
What really makes this example silly to use is that the handset makers
are global companies while it's the carriers that tend to be more
localized.
> Interestingly enough, in the US where the original AMPS standard was born,
> two completely different and competing digital standards were emerging (TDMA
> and sometime later, CDMA) and there were even some different flavors within
> vanilla TDMA (remember the incompatible Motorola Narrow band TDMA?) The FCC
> and the industry never really tried to pull these together and instead
> allowed the market to determine the winner/loser. The difference between
> the incompatibility mess in Europe in the late 1980's and the US today is
> due to the continuing evolution of the intelligent hand set which supports
> multiple technologies, RF spectrum, etc.
That's nice. My point of cellular MA's being a bad example for what he
was trying to demonstrate is not even challenged by the above.
> Oh well, in any event, thanks for the clarification. Yes, its always
> interesting to look back at history and wonder what would have or could have
> happened if ....
My point still stands.
> Brent,
>
> If you go back far enough in history, I think you will find that the U.S.
> AMPS standard was the model that was used as the driver for the GSM standard
> in Europe. At the time each European country had its own wireless
> technology "standard" rendering it impossible to use the same phone or even
> think about roaming across system/country borders. The European community
> looked at the US model and saw the distinct advantage of having a single
> standard defined and implemented. IIRC., this was at about roughly the same
> time as the ECC was getting off the ground. It was later that Ericsson and
> other GSM proponents really pushed to get the standard adopted in Asia
> pacific (and unsuccessfully until most recently in the US and South America)
Wooptie do. The USA has used a large variety of MAs and frequencies that
make it so that if you get too far from home your phone may or may not be
worth anything. About the only thing one could count on was AMPS service.
My arguement still stands, using cellular MAs is not a good example to
point to as US superiority over europeans. It's more like one of leap
froging each other.
What really makes this example silly to use is that the handset makers
are global companies while it's the carriers that tend to be more
localized.
> Interestingly enough, in the US where the original AMPS standard was born,
> two completely different and competing digital standards were emerging (TDMA
> and sometime later, CDMA) and there were even some different flavors within
> vanilla TDMA (remember the incompatible Motorola Narrow band TDMA?) The FCC
> and the industry never really tried to pull these together and instead
> allowed the market to determine the winner/loser. The difference between
> the incompatibility mess in Europe in the late 1980's and the US today is
> due to the continuing evolution of the intelligent hand set which supports
> multiple technologies, RF spectrum, etc.
That's nice. My point of cellular MA's being a bad example for what he
was trying to demonstrate is not even challenged by the above.
> Oh well, in any event, thanks for the clarification. Yes, its always
> interesting to look back at history and wonder what would have or could have
> happened if ....
My point still stands.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GSM vs CDMA Technology
In article <bqlisk$60j@netnews.proxy.lucent.com>, Bob Shuman wrote:
> Brent,
>
> If you go back far enough in history, I think you will find that the U.S.
> AMPS standard was the model that was used as the driver for the GSM standard
> in Europe. At the time each European country had its own wireless
> technology "standard" rendering it impossible to use the same phone or even
> think about roaming across system/country borders. The European community
> looked at the US model and saw the distinct advantage of having a single
> standard defined and implemented. IIRC., this was at about roughly the same
> time as the ECC was getting off the ground. It was later that Ericsson and
> other GSM proponents really pushed to get the standard adopted in Asia
> pacific (and unsuccessfully until most recently in the US and South America)
Wooptie do. The USA has used a large variety of MAs and frequencies that
make it so that if you get too far from home your phone may or may not be
worth anything. About the only thing one could count on was AMPS service.
My arguement still stands, using cellular MAs is not a good example to
point to as US superiority over europeans. It's more like one of leap
froging each other.
What really makes this example silly to use is that the handset makers
are global companies while it's the carriers that tend to be more
localized.
> Interestingly enough, in the US where the original AMPS standard was born,
> two completely different and competing digital standards were emerging (TDMA
> and sometime later, CDMA) and there were even some different flavors within
> vanilla TDMA (remember the incompatible Motorola Narrow band TDMA?) The FCC
> and the industry never really tried to pull these together and instead
> allowed the market to determine the winner/loser. The difference between
> the incompatibility mess in Europe in the late 1980's and the US today is
> due to the continuing evolution of the intelligent hand set which supports
> multiple technologies, RF spectrum, etc.
That's nice. My point of cellular MA's being a bad example for what he
was trying to demonstrate is not even challenged by the above.
> Oh well, in any event, thanks for the clarification. Yes, its always
> interesting to look back at history and wonder what would have or could have
> happened if ....
My point still stands.
> Brent,
>
> If you go back far enough in history, I think you will find that the U.S.
> AMPS standard was the model that was used as the driver for the GSM standard
> in Europe. At the time each European country had its own wireless
> technology "standard" rendering it impossible to use the same phone or even
> think about roaming across system/country borders. The European community
> looked at the US model and saw the distinct advantage of having a single
> standard defined and implemented. IIRC., this was at about roughly the same
> time as the ECC was getting off the ground. It was later that Ericsson and
> other GSM proponents really pushed to get the standard adopted in Asia
> pacific (and unsuccessfully until most recently in the US and South America)
Wooptie do. The USA has used a large variety of MAs and frequencies that
make it so that if you get too far from home your phone may or may not be
worth anything. About the only thing one could count on was AMPS service.
My arguement still stands, using cellular MAs is not a good example to
point to as US superiority over europeans. It's more like one of leap
froging each other.
What really makes this example silly to use is that the handset makers
are global companies while it's the carriers that tend to be more
localized.
> Interestingly enough, in the US where the original AMPS standard was born,
> two completely different and competing digital standards were emerging (TDMA
> and sometime later, CDMA) and there were even some different flavors within
> vanilla TDMA (remember the incompatible Motorola Narrow band TDMA?) The FCC
> and the industry never really tried to pull these together and instead
> allowed the market to determine the winner/loser. The difference between
> the incompatibility mess in Europe in the late 1980's and the US today is
> due to the continuing evolution of the intelligent hand set which supports
> multiple technologies, RF spectrum, etc.
That's nice. My point of cellular MA's being a bad example for what he
was trying to demonstrate is not even challenged by the above.
> Oh well, in any event, thanks for the clarification. Yes, its always
> interesting to look back at history and wonder what would have or could have
> happened if ....
My point still stands.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GSM vs CDMA Technology
In article <bqlisk$60j@netnews.proxy.lucent.com>, Bob Shuman wrote:
> Brent,
>
> If you go back far enough in history, I think you will find that the U.S.
> AMPS standard was the model that was used as the driver for the GSM standard
> in Europe. At the time each European country had its own wireless
> technology "standard" rendering it impossible to use the same phone or even
> think about roaming across system/country borders. The European community
> looked at the US model and saw the distinct advantage of having a single
> standard defined and implemented. IIRC., this was at about roughly the same
> time as the ECC was getting off the ground. It was later that Ericsson and
> other GSM proponents really pushed to get the standard adopted in Asia
> pacific (and unsuccessfully until most recently in the US and South America)
Wooptie do. The USA has used a large variety of MAs and frequencies that
make it so that if you get too far from home your phone may or may not be
worth anything. About the only thing one could count on was AMPS service.
My arguement still stands, using cellular MAs is not a good example to
point to as US superiority over europeans. It's more like one of leap
froging each other.
What really makes this example silly to use is that the handset makers
are global companies while it's the carriers that tend to be more
localized.
> Interestingly enough, in the US where the original AMPS standard was born,
> two completely different and competing digital standards were emerging (TDMA
> and sometime later, CDMA) and there were even some different flavors within
> vanilla TDMA (remember the incompatible Motorola Narrow band TDMA?) The FCC
> and the industry never really tried to pull these together and instead
> allowed the market to determine the winner/loser. The difference between
> the incompatibility mess in Europe in the late 1980's and the US today is
> due to the continuing evolution of the intelligent hand set which supports
> multiple technologies, RF spectrum, etc.
That's nice. My point of cellular MA's being a bad example for what he
was trying to demonstrate is not even challenged by the above.
> Oh well, in any event, thanks for the clarification. Yes, its always
> interesting to look back at history and wonder what would have or could have
> happened if ....
My point still stands.
> Brent,
>
> If you go back far enough in history, I think you will find that the U.S.
> AMPS standard was the model that was used as the driver for the GSM standard
> in Europe. At the time each European country had its own wireless
> technology "standard" rendering it impossible to use the same phone or even
> think about roaming across system/country borders. The European community
> looked at the US model and saw the distinct advantage of having a single
> standard defined and implemented. IIRC., this was at about roughly the same
> time as the ECC was getting off the ground. It was later that Ericsson and
> other GSM proponents really pushed to get the standard adopted in Asia
> pacific (and unsuccessfully until most recently in the US and South America)
Wooptie do. The USA has used a large variety of MAs and frequencies that
make it so that if you get too far from home your phone may or may not be
worth anything. About the only thing one could count on was AMPS service.
My arguement still stands, using cellular MAs is not a good example to
point to as US superiority over europeans. It's more like one of leap
froging each other.
What really makes this example silly to use is that the handset makers
are global companies while it's the carriers that tend to be more
localized.
> Interestingly enough, in the US where the original AMPS standard was born,
> two completely different and competing digital standards were emerging (TDMA
> and sometime later, CDMA) and there were even some different flavors within
> vanilla TDMA (remember the incompatible Motorola Narrow band TDMA?) The FCC
> and the industry never really tried to pull these together and instead
> allowed the market to determine the winner/loser. The difference between
> the incompatibility mess in Europe in the late 1980's and the US today is
> due to the continuing evolution of the intelligent hand set which supports
> multiple technologies, RF spectrum, etc.
That's nice. My point of cellular MA's being a bad example for what he
was trying to demonstrate is not even challenged by the above.
> Oh well, in any event, thanks for the clarification. Yes, its always
> interesting to look back at history and wonder what would have or could have
> happened if ....
My point still stands.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql23n$c29$23@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <nLjzb.86$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.
No, we don't.
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.
Still using the same feeble arguments I see.
>
> >
> >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).
> >
> >
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql23n$c29$23@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <nLjzb.86$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.
No, we don't.
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.
Still using the same feeble arguments I see.
>
> >
> >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).
> >
> >
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql23n$c29$23@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <nLjzb.86$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.
No, we don't.
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.
Still using the same feeble arguments I see.
>
> >
> >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).
> >
> >
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Nabzb.285099$275.1004261@attbi_s53...
> In article <bqitam$of5$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do that for free, for
example.
>
> Government health care programs already cover dialysis. In fact the price
> (LOW) the government pays is a if not the driving factor in care in this
> area. The government payment scheme for 3-times-a-week dialysis is
> a major obstacle to improving the quality of care, the quality of
> people's lives, and their surviviability.
>
> I am really glad you made a point of dialysis parker, because it is one
> treatment that is required to keep people with renal failure alive but one
> where government price controls dominate what people get with regards
> to care. It is a great example of the arrogant way government does things
> that has a negative effect on people. Want better care than 3 times a
> week? Government says you can't have it, they'll only pay for that. If
> you want something better, you better pay for it yourself or hope it can
> work within the government 3-times-a-week cost model. You've stuck your
> foot in your mouth once again Parker.
Easy for him, he has a small brain but a big mouth.
>
>
>
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Nabzb.285099$275.1004261@attbi_s53...
> In article <bqitam$of5$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do that for free, for
example.
>
> Government health care programs already cover dialysis. In fact the price
> (LOW) the government pays is a if not the driving factor in care in this
> area. The government payment scheme for 3-times-a-week dialysis is
> a major obstacle to improving the quality of care, the quality of
> people's lives, and their surviviability.
>
> I am really glad you made a point of dialysis parker, because it is one
> treatment that is required to keep people with renal failure alive but one
> where government price controls dominate what people get with regards
> to care. It is a great example of the arrogant way government does things
> that has a negative effect on people. Want better care than 3 times a
> week? Government says you can't have it, they'll only pay for that. If
> you want something better, you better pay for it yourself or hope it can
> work within the government 3-times-a-week cost model. You've stuck your
> foot in your mouth once again Parker.
Easy for him, he has a small brain but a big mouth.
>
>
>
>
>
