In article <bnp0je$656$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:

>>Evolution is not a fact Lloyd. It is a theory.

> Bzzzt. Again, someone does not know what "theory" means in science. We have
> something called "atomic theory." Does that mean atoms are not factual?

Evolution is a theory, change in living things is a fact.

Very well stated BrentP, bravo!

These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll use
any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
gain political control.

The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2 emissions
are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse for
wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
"communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to think
I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)


> Global warming theory is being used for a political agenda because it
allows for _control_ of the population, control of economies, central
control by self appointed elites. It allows them to micro manage everyone's
life for the good of the planet. Meanwhile they get to continue living the
way they want. Note how dr. parker screams about putting too much CO2 into
the air yet drives a mercedes benz. This is rather typical. There'd be alot
more credibility if drove an insight or a metro.
>
> Then there are all the environmental policies designed to constrain
developed western nations while allowing 'developing' nations to make all
the same mistakes that were made in the west. We know better now. If it were
about the environment the policies would not be structured this way.
Needless harm to the environment simply would not be allowed. <

"Al Lewis" <big@boss.man> wrote in message
news:hojupvo338i74kjd3v31teul35l5e0opbs@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:16:28 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> <onlytheone@thetopknows.com>
>
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bnm54u$nk9$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <vprkhgchpgi642@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >> >news:bnjeoi$b81$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> >> In article <vpof02qkahoq17@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> >> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >> Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and
150,000
> >US
> >> >> >troops
> >> >> >> haven't found them.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Bingo, The UN couldn't find them, although it is well documented
that
> >> >they
> >> >> >existed.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not in 2003.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >That is why they were still looking, that is why we are still
> >> >> >looking. We haven't found Saddam yet either, but we know he exists
as
> >> >well.
> >> >> >Or do you think that is also a lie?
> >> >>
> >> >> Is he as big as the WMD?
> >> >
> >> >You do realize Saddam had twelve years in which to hide them. Where is
> >Jimmy
> >> >Hoffa?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> We claimed direct evidence and knowledge that WMD were there in 2003.
> >
> >No, we asked for proof of where they were and if they had been destroyed,
as
> >per the UN Mandate. Saddam refused to provide said proof. You really are
> >dumb aren't you.
>
>
> Not as dumb as you, who can't remember back as far as 8 months ago.
>

Plonk

"Earle Horton" <enfermero_diabolico@registerednurses.com> wrote in message
news:bnn3l9$135mtt$1@ID-147790.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
> news:vpu30r4o2ksq3f@corp.supernews.com...
> ---snippy---
> > If Lloyd claims an IQ higher than 80 no one will believe him
> > anyway.
> >
> Lloyd, no one will believe that it's that HIGH, get it?
>
> Earle
>

Got it ;-)

In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> Very well stated BrentP, bravo!

Thanks.

> These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
> masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll use
> any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
> gain political control.

I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
seems to be a favoring of China IMO.

> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
> morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
> When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
> had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2 emissions
> are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
> caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
> housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse for
> wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
> "communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
> paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
> sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to think
> I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)

There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.

CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
environment second. It's the only explaination.

Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
made.

On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?

To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
combustion.

Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> Bravo!
>
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3F4ECCD1.AB1C303@mindspring.com...
>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Perhaps if you knew some science, we could have an intelligent
>>
> discussion
>
>>>about science.
>>
>>Explain to me the methods being used to measure the average global
>>temperature that are both precise enough and consistent enough to
>>separate a 0.4 degree C temperature rise out of the normal background
>>variation over the past 1000 years. Explain to me any computer model
>>that can predict 1 degree C average global temperature rises with any
>>certainty when they can't even predict tomorrow's temperatures with 3
>>degrees on a consistent basis.
>>
>>I assume you don't know any scientist who adjust their data to fit their
>>preconceived notions.
>>
>>Weren't those cold fusion guys "scientist"? Heck I think they were even
>>honest scientist.
>>
>>Do you honestly think the Earth's environment has ever been static and
>>unchanging? Can you say with any certainty that global warming is worse
>>than the environmental changes that would occur in its absence?
>>
>>Literally billions of tons of carbon have been effectively removed from
>>the atmosphere over the last few billion years. At some point, might me
>>have too little CO2?
>>
>>History is full of widely accepted theories that turned out to be wrong.
>>Why are you so sure that Global Warming isn't one of these?
>>
>>I assume you believe that all scientist and government agency are
>>completely honest and that they would never jump on a popular bandwagon
>>as means of securing funding to support their careers/agencies? It has
>>been my experience that people who say things are OK tend not to secure
>>funding and soon need to find something else to do.
>>
>>Even if you are 100% right about global warming, might not the fixes be
>>worse than doing nothing?
>>
>>Ed
>>
>>None of us is as dumb as all of us
>
>
>

And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm

They still can't shake the ingrained notion that man has caused this,
but they'll come around eventually and likely add new "causes" as well.
Trouble is, it is very hard to separate causes from correlation,
especially in areas like this where it is pretty hard to run controlled
experiments. Simple observation of data can easily lead to such
confusion. I suspect many other things can be found to correlate with
global climate changes, but I'll also bet that few of them are causes.


Matt

In article <3FA03D91.3080807@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:

> And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
>
> http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
>
> They still can't shake the ingrained notion that man has caused this,
> but they'll come around eventually and likely add new "causes" as well.
> Trouble is, it is very hard to separate causes from correlation,
> especially in areas like this where it is pretty hard to run controlled
> experiments. Simple observation of data can easily lead to such
> confusion. I suspect many other things can be found to correlate with
> global climate changes, but I'll also bet that few of them are causes.

I am waiting for the journal article. Until then all that will happen
is an attack on the drugereport as a 'right-wing-corporate-whore'
source and it will get dismissed. (as if drudge can't just jot down
the facts as good as someone on the new york times) I'll look
around the net for it in dec/jan if I remember about it.

Lloyd, what's your opinion on the sunspot theory ? This has been a long and
boring thread, but if you can give us an intelligent critique on it, I for
one would be genuinely interested.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
news:3FA03D91.3080807@computer.org...
: And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
:
: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm

A very lucid post, Brent.

To me the whole Kyoto con job was simply an attempt by the UN and it's
minions to hobble the wealthier nations and impose an "un-level" commercial
playing field under the guise of "carbon credits", etc. In reality it gave
China, India and other so-called "underdeveloped" nations a pass. Much
ranting comes from the green community that the USA represents 6 percent of
the global population but consumes 30 percent of the resources. Hmmm....and
what percent of the worlds goods & services does the USA produce? Oh, right,
about 30 - 40 percent! Seems a logical and fair trade-off, unless you're
trying to legally gain an unfair advantage via "Kyoto Fiat" as your ticket
to imposition of Socialism.

As for your "what about the water" issue, I've also floated this argument to
green zealots and get no answer, same as I get no response regarding the
creation of the Sahara 7-10,000 years ago.

Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key research
green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming theory.
In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the second
half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.

The entire greenhouse gas THEORY will remain "bunkum" in my book until some
conclusive piece of research can withstand all challenges. Melting glaciers?
Happened before, unprecedented heatwaves? Nope, it's happened before, on &
on, & on. Just pray these people never gain real political power!




"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aBWnb.57501$Fm2.35469@attbi_s04...
> In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> > Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
>
> Thanks.
>
> > These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control
the
> > masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll
use
> > any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
> > gain political control.
>
> I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
> seems to be a favoring of China IMO.
>
> > The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
> > morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's &
70's.
> > When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily,
they
> > had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2
emissions
> > are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into
the
> > caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
> > housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse
for
> > wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
> > "communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
> > paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
> > sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
think
> > I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
>
> There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
> all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
> it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
> environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
> different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
> This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.
>
> CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
> Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
> for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
> released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
> however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
> environment second. It's the only explaination.
>
> Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
> chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
> releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
> CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
> global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
> and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
> made.
>
> On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
> about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
> things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
> hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
> also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
> 'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?
>
> To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
> any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
> do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
> when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
> See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
> even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
> the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
> combustion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$0hjinh$261$1@news.ipinc.net...
>
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:vptf3thq39cab0@corp.supernews.com...
>
> >
> > WE know he had them, we don't know what he did with them. If you owned a
> > house twelve years ago, and you could not provide evidence that you had
> sold
> > it, would it not be logical to assume you still owned it?
> >
>
> Not if it was a mobile trailer house, WMD's are generally pretty mobile.

Moving them does not change ownership, nor does it make them cease to exist.

>
> In any case who is "we". The CIA certainly wasn't claiming that Saddam
had
> WMD's

In the case of Saddam his chemical and biological weapons are and have
always been called WMD's, and yes the CIA knew he had them, he has used them
at least 12 times.

> and why did the Bush administraton blow a deep-CIA agent's cover in
revenge?

Speculation

> And
> why haven't they come up with the name of the person in the Bush
> administration who
> released the name?

You just claimed Bush was responsible, now you admit the identity is
unknown. I leave speculation to others, the truth will be known eventually.

>
> Your wasting your time attempting to use WMD's as a justification for
going
> to war
> in Iraq. Nukes might have been there 10 years ago, or partial nukes, but
> it's preposterous
> to suggest they were there before the war.

No one, including Bush, has ever claimed Sadam has or ever had Nukes. The
claim was that Saddam was trying to aquire them.

The case is a bit stronger for
> bio agents,
> but still inconclusive.

How so, when he has used them several times already?
What further proof could you possibly require that Saddam has them than the
fact he has used them repeatedly, both against his own people and Iran?

It is clearly obvious to anyone with any education
> that basing the
> Iraq invasion on WMD was a lie.

Your opinion.

>
> However what is not clear to most people, even now it seems, is that WMD's
> are not
> the only justification for a unilateral invasion of another country.

I know of no one who thought it was. WMD were only one of the reasons.

Lloyd
> may be able to
> make a coherent argument that Bush was lying when Bush used WMD's as
pretext
> for
> going to war in Iraq.

Lloyd is incapable of coherant thought, much less arqument.

But there is absolutely no logical, reasonable, or
> moral argument
> Lloyd can make for allowing a dictator to remain in power who for fun
would
> cut the eyes
> and tongues of people out of their heads, who killed his own brother in
> broad daylight
> and who committed numerous other atrocities. It was a terrible terrible
> thing for the
> nations of the world to stand idly by and allow this to continue year
after
> year, and they
> damn well know it, they know it even now because they all want to pretend
> that Iraq
> doesen't exist right now. The invasion of Iraq was justified on moral and
> human rights
> grounds, and does not need further justification. Iraqi's today, despite
> the mess in the
> country, are better off now than they were under Saddam.

I fully agree with you here.


>
> It is a shame that the President has not made this clear. But I can tell
> you why he has not,
> because if he did, then he would have to hold his own administration up to
> the same moral
> standards. This is why people in the Bush administration have no problem
> with basically
> committing treason by revealing the name of one of our better CIA agents,
> thank God she
> was in the country when they did it. In short, the Bush administration is
> totally morally
> bankrupt. They do not believe that the invasion of Iraq was justified on
> moral grounds
> simply because they themselves give absolutely no credit to morality. All
> they care about
> is personal power and greed.
>
> Ted

Your opinion. But if Bush is as bad as you think, how much worse was
Clinton? In my opinion Clinton was by far the worse President this country
has ever had, bar none. That is my opinion.
My opinion of Lloyd is simple, he is a lying hypocrit.
Why do I say this? If Al Gore had won the election, and had then proceded to
deal with Iraq exactly the way Bush has done, Lloyd would be singing his
praises. To Lloyd, as a Liberal he must publicly support any decision made
by a Liberal, and he must oppose any decision made by a Conservative. Bush
is wrong simply because he is a Repulican instead of a Democrat. I would
support the President in Iraq regardless, not because I wanted this war, I
didn't, but because I do feel it had to be done, and better now than latter.
You are an intelligent person Ted, I respect your opinion on this, even the
parts I disagree with you on.
Lloyd believes himself superior to anyone who isn't a Liberal or a
scientist, so I can't help but take him down a few pegs. Beyond that I
really have no interest in discussing Iraq or politics in general, and I
vote for as many Democrats come election time as I do Republicans, depends
on who I think is better qualified.

>
> >
>
>

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bnnein02qe3@enews4.newsguy.com...
> Thanks for posting the link & text, Doug. Indeed, back in the mid-70's
> theses same looney greens took all the "global cooling" crap just as
> seriously as they do all the hand wringing carbon dioxide theories now.
>

Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
made such a claim.
This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even National Academy of
Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From Lloyd about it. He must
really hate being proven wrong on every statement he makes. ;-)


> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:vpu8qml6qbn381@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
> > news:bnn0hd01qbc@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > > Mr. Parker:
> > >
> > > > Are you saying the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, EPA, NOAA,
> etc.,
> > > have jumped onto something that's not proven? <
> > >
> > > Yes, and despite the bleatings of certain mavens of socialist dogma
(for
> > > whom this entire theory has become a convenint mantra) those agencies
> look
> > > upon the greenhouse gas theory as just that, a THEORY among others. No
> one
> > > has conclusiely proven that "global warming" even exists. Indeed, the
> temp
> > > fluctuations gas (bag) theorists espouse aren't even significant
within
> > the
> > > margin of error of their measuiring techniques.
> > >
> > > Might I remind you, my over zealous, green friend, 25 years ago these
> same
> > > social and scientific radicals were predicting the dawn of a NEW ICE
> AGE,
> > > becuase, they theorized, global temps were falling due to man made
gases
> > > blocking the sun. Funny how it turned out that at that same time we
were
> > in
> > > a period of low solar activity....
> >
> > Just for Lloyd:
> >
> > http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm
> >
> > For those who don't use links, here it is, but it is a little long:
> >
> > FROM
> > Newsweek
> > April 28, 1975 Studies
> > Facts & Figures
> > Selected Links
> > Weather
> > Health
> >
> > The Cooling World
> > There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns
> > have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a
> > drastic decline in food production- with serious political implications
> for
> > just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin
> quite
> > soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its
> > impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in
> the
> > North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical
areas -
> > parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where
the
> > growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
> >
> > The evidence in support of these predictions has now
begun
> to
> > accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up
> with
> > it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about
> two
> > weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production
> > estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the
> average
> > temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree - a
> > fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April,
> in
> > the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters
> > killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of
> > damage in 13 U.S. states.
> >
> > To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents
> represent
> > the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather.
> > Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well

> as
> > over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are
almost
> > unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural
productivity
> > for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as
some
> > of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A
> > major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a
> > worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of
> Sciences,
> > "because the global patterns of food production and population that have
> > evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."
> >
> > A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of
the
> > National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a
> > degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between
> > 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University,
satellite
> > photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow
> cover
> > in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA
> > scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the
> > continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
> >
> > To the layman, the relatively small changes in
temperature
> > and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of
> > Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the
great
> > Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest
eras -
> > and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the
way
> > toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to
> the
> > "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of
Europe
> > and northern America between 1600 and 1900 - years when the Thames used
to
> > freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when
iceboats
> > sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
> >
> > Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages
> > remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change
is
> at
> > least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of
> Sciences
> > report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered,
> but
> > in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."
> >
> > Meteorologists think that they can forecast the
short-term
> > results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by
> noting
> > the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of
> > pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow
> of
> > westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this
way
> > causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts,
floods,
> > extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local
> > temperature increases - all of which have a direct impact on food
> supplies.
> >
> > "The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D.
> > McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is
> much
> > more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago."
> > Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national
> > boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their
> > devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
> >
> > Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders
will
> > take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even
to
> > allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular
> solutions
> > proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black
> soot
> > or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those
> > they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders
> > anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling
food
> > or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic
> > projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the
> more
> > difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the
results
> > become grim reality.
> >
> > Reprinted from Financial Post - Canada, Jun 21, 2000
> >
> > All Material Subject to Copyright.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. <
> > >
> > > How about this: there is NO solution, because 1) there may not even be
a
> > > problem, 2) if it is actually occuring, then natural forces, such as
> > > geothermal and solar activity, may be the primary, indeed the only
> source.
> > >
> > > > That means driving less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles,
using
> > coal
> > > less, using more renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not
> > > clear-cutting forests... <
> > >
> > > On, and how convenient all of those solutions will be in making the
> > > Draconian, confiscatory dreams of social radicals come true!
> > >
> > > > >GGM: Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming
has
> a
> > > perfect correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity. <
> > >
> > > > Parker: Funny how that's nonexistent. <
> > >
> > > Might I refer you, my science-spouting, but ill-informed friend, to
all
> > of
> > > the studies being done that show we are just leaving a period of high
> > solar
> > > activity, which began in the early '80's. Funny how this activty
> PRECISLY
> > > parallels data showing a rise in global temps. (Look it up, if you can
> > stand
> > > the truth.)
> > >
> > > > GGM: Two Danish scientists (Friz-Christiansen & Lassen) have proven
a
> > > direct cause & effect between periods of high solar activity and earth
> > > temps, going back hundreds of years. <
> > >
> > > > Parker: Which has been studied and cannot account for all the
current
> > > warming. <
> > >
> > > It has NOT been studied by the gas (bag) theorists, they even tried to
> > quash
> > > the two scientists findings because it was too shocking to their pet
> > > theories. However, objective greehouse gas theorists has been forced
to
> > > admit the accuracy of their findings and they cannot explain away
their
> > > findings of a direct correlation between periods of high solar
activity
> /
> > > low cloud formation and vice versa. Tree ring data, etc. have all been
> > > studied and the correlation has been proven...the gas (bag) theorists
> just
> > > don't want to accept it because it puts the lie to all of their
carping.
> > >
> > > > GGM: How arrogant (but typical) of anti-society, socialist green
> zealots
> > > to assume the puny effect of man vs. the absolute effect of the sun on
> > > global climatic norms.
> > >
> > > > Parker: Like we almost destroyed the ozone layer? Or don't you
> believe
> > > that either? <
> > >
> > > You again hope the world will ignore recent findings that the entire
> scare
> > > was over blown and more likely caused by naturally occuring events.
> > >
> > > > GGM: So, tell me oh green ones, 10,000 years ago, how many
primitives
> > > driving gas-guzzling SUVs did it take to turn the Sahara from a lush
> oasis
> > > into a desert? (Oh, I see, you're hoping no one knows about that
event,
> > > aren't you?) <<
> > >
> > > > Parker: No answer ....what a surprise. <
> > >
> > > I will point out that Mr Parker has conveniently ignored my point re:
> the
> > > Sahara's transformation from a lush, green oasis into a desert some
7 -
> > 10k
> > > years ago. The Sahara was created by totally naturally occuring
changes
> in
> > > weather patterns that had NOTHING to do with the insignificant effects
> of
> > > man. It just must be really hard for people like this to grasp that in
> the
> > > total scheme of things, man and his puny, insignificant activities
> really
> > > don't matter at all.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>...

<fanatical anti-socialist, anti-communist crap snipped>

> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas.

Tell that to the Apollo 13 astronauts.
What biology course did YOU take? I got two A's in biology.
I saw NOWHERE that humans breathe CO2.
Get a clue: even chemical engineering and chemistry departments
teach us that ANY chemical is toxic enough in high enough doses:
even O2 for humans and CO2 for deciduous trees.

> > Global warming theory is being used for a political agenda

<more me-me-me anti-environmental lunacy from a pro-capitalist extremist
caring only about their freedom to consume and pollute the world
leaving nothing else for everybody else
snipped>

How about the freedom to live in a world with a few trees left,
some clean air and water, some privacy free of overpopulation,
and where the quality of life is better than death?

In article <vq0qtnc1m8gd45@corp.supernews.com>, Douglas A. Shrader wrote:
>
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:bnnein02qe3@enews4.newsguy.com...
>> Thanks for posting the link & text, Doug. Indeed, back in the mid-70's
>> theses same looney greens took all the "global cooling" crap just as
>> seriously as they do all the hand wringing carbon dioxide theories now.
>>
>
> Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
> before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
> made such a claim.
> This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even National Academy of
> Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From Lloyd about it. He must
> really hate being proven wrong on every statement he makes. ;-)

I remember "global cooling" too. Got that in early grade school in the
late 1970s. Much like they teach kids "global warming" today. But cites
on the net were always few and far between due it being well prior to
1995.

"tortrix" <tortrix@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9327eab3.0310291827.631fffde@posting.google.com...
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:<bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>...
>
> <fanatical anti-socialist, anti-communist crap snipped>
>
> > The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas.
>
> Tell that to the Apollo 13 astronauts.
> What biology course did YOU take? I got two A's in biology.
> I saw NOWHERE that humans breathe CO2.

CO2 is essential for plant life, so it is a life sustaining gas. Plant life
is essential to sustain animal life, so CO2 indirectly sustains human life.
You did not deserve your A's if you cannot see what he meant by his
statement.


> Get a clue: even chemical engineering and chemistry departments
> teach us that ANY chemical is toxic enough in high enough doses:
> even O2 for humans and CO2 for deciduous trees.

CO2 is nowhere near that level, nor will it ever be.

>
> > > Global warming theory is being used for a political agenda
>
> <more me-me-me anti-environmental lunacy from a pro-capitalist extremist
> caring only about their freedom to consume and pollute the world
> leaving nothing else for everybody else
> snipped>

So anyone you disagree with is an extremist? No one here has suggested nor
do they want to do as you suggest. What is desired is sensible, sane
management based on facts, not emotion or political bias.

>
> How about the freedom to live in a world with a few trees left,
> some clean air and water, some privacy free of overpopulation,
> and where the quality of life is better than death?

We have that now, at least I do. The world is looking much better now than
it did even a few years ago. Pollution levels are dropping, streams and
lakes are cleaner, more people every year are working to make Earth a little
nicer. Change takes time, extreme measures traditionally bring less than
desirable results. Loosen up a little, you'll live longer and enjoy it more,
plus you'll accomplish far more good than your present ranting will ever
achieve.

"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b__nb.45699$ao4.111788@attbi_s51...
> In article <vq0qtnc1m8gd45@corp.supernews.com>, Douglas A. Shrader wrote:
> >
> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
> > news:bnnein02qe3@enews4.newsguy.com...
> >> Thanks for posting the link & text, Doug. Indeed, back in the mid-70's
> >> theses same looney greens took all the "global cooling" crap just as
> >> seriously as they do all the hand wringing carbon dioxide theories now.
> >>
> >
> > Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
> > before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
> > made such a claim.
> > This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even National
Academy of
> > Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From Lloyd about it. He
must
> > really hate being proven wrong on every statement he makes. ;-)
>
> I remember "global cooling" too. Got that in early grade school in the
> late 1970s. Much like they teach kids "global warming" today. But cites
> on the net were always few and far between due it being well prior to
> 1995.

Yep, they cried doom until it started warming up, then switched to global
warming and started crying doom again. I remember winters here as a kid,
temperatures normally 0 or below, snow on the ground for 60 days or more
without melting, just piling up deeper and deeper, always a fight to keep
the road here open to get to town.
We don't have weather like that now, but it will return soon, I'll bet on
that. Just a question of when. I like it better now, temperature around 30
and snowfall melts off in a few days to a week.

In article <9327eab3.0310291827.631fffde@posting.google.com>, tortrix wrote:
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>...
>
><fanatical anti-socialist, anti-communist crap snipped>
>
>> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas.

> Tell that to the Apollo 13 astronauts.
> What biology course did YOU take? I got two A's in biology.
> I saw NOWHERE that humans breathe CO2.
> Get a clue: even chemical engineering and chemistry departments
> teach us that ANY chemical is toxic enough in high enough doses:
> even O2 for humans and CO2 for deciduous trees.

Someone is playing usenet games. Nobody is talking about "high enough
doses" in a closed box. In the global environnment he is correct so
long as one considers that plants are alive. CO2 is needed for life
on this planet, it is not poisonous in the levels being discussed (in
the atmosphere). If you think it's poisonous you shouldn't be in the
same room with yourself. Because you spew it every momement of every
day.

> How about the freedom to live in a world with a few trees left,
> some clean air and water, some privacy free of overpopulation,
> and where the quality of life is better than death?

Then why do developing nations get a pass? Why is the environmental movement
not *DEMANDING* that the developing world use known methods of
protecting the environment? Why is the environmental movement supporting
policies that will relocate factories from the USA and western europe
where the environment is protected to nations where it is not protected?

I want a clean world where the environment is protected and not destroyed.
This is why I try to buy products made in nations with at least a decent
level of regulation to achieve that goal. However the environmental
movement doesn't stand for that. They stand for some political and social
agenda where the USA is considered evil and the standard of living must
be knocked down several pegs. The environment is being used for an
excuse and it sickens me.

And then guess what happens when someone decides to build a wind farm
near the homes of some rich liberals? They throw a hissy fit.

rickety wrote:

> istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel tank is
> prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a big Pinto.

When will you people quit promoting the false idea that Pinto's were
particualrly prone to fires. They weren't. Ford made the mistake of
proving this in court and having a jury ignore this and then award a
huge amount of money to the parents of a teenager that was doing
something stupid. Ford presented evidence in court that the fuel tanks
in Pinto were no more likely to rupture ina crash than other
contemporary cars. The toatl number of people killed in Pinto fires is
lcomparable to the total number of people killed in Chevette fires,
although many more Pintos were sold. The only reason people think Pintos
were unique is becasue Ford made the mistake of taking on scum sucking
trial lawyers instead of just forking over the cash like GM routinely
does. I guess Ford learned their lesson and now they do the same thing
in most cases. Until juries are required to have a minimal level of
intelligence, this will continue. And guess who utimately pays? It is
not Ford - it is us, the suckers who let trial lawyer harvest victums to
feed their greed.

Regards,

Ed White

In article <3F500D0A.D7B16BE2@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
> rickety wrote:
>
>> istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel tank is
>> prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a big Pinto.
>
> When will you people quit promoting the false idea that Pinto's were
> particualrly prone to fires. They weren't. Ford made the mistake of
> proving this in court and having a jury ignore this and then award a
> huge amount of money to the parents of a teenager that was doing
> something stupid. Ford presented evidence in court that the fuel tanks
> in Pinto were no more likely to rupture ina crash than other
> contemporary cars. The toatl number of people killed in Pinto fires is
> lcomparable to the total number of people killed in Chevette fires,
> although many more Pintos were sold. The only reason people think Pintos
> were unique is becasue Ford made the mistake of taking on scum sucking
> trial lawyers instead of just forking over the cash like GM routinely
> does. I guess Ford learned their lesson and now they do the same thing
> in most cases. Until juries are required to have a minimal level of
> intelligence, this will continue. And guess who utimately pays? It is
> not Ford - it is us, the suckers who let trial lawyer harvest victums to
> feed their greed.

The big problem for ford with the pinto was a known failure mode (the
long seatbelt hold down bolt) that they didn't correct, but instead
did a cost calculation on. But true, pintos were no more prone to
fire than other cars of that size class and era.

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> CO2 traps heat. Fact. The earth is warming. Fact. CO2 is rising. Fact.

They could be unrelated events, or maybe, global warming causes an
increase in CO2.

I just formulated a brilliant new theory as to the cause of global
warming. It is the Chicago Cubs. When they win the world series, global
cooling will start or maybe global cooling will start and the Cubs will
win the world series. Hard to decide on cause and effect. However, I am
certain that global warming is responsible for the increase in major
league baseball home runs. I mean after all, we all know that warmer air
is thinner and offers less resistance so the baseballs can fly further.
Or maybe all those baseballs flying further are heating the air and
causing global warming. Damn, I need a good scientist to study this for
me. I bet with a computer model I can predict the home run totals for
the next 50 years based on the increase in CO2 concentration or maybe I
can predict the rise in global temperatures based on the number of home
runs. Any volunteers? I bet there is a grant in this somewhere. Bush is
a baseball fan, maybe he'll set up a special commission to study the
effects of global warming on baseball. I smell lots of pork just waiting
to be picked up by a clever scientist and/or politician. Heck, the
envirowackos can even use this as another reason for outlawing SUVs. The
case is clear, SUVs are destroying baseball! (and maybe golf too, the
superheated air is letting those golf balls fly too d&*n far).

Ed

In article <bnpmk701sae@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:

> Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key research
> green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming theory.
> In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
> global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the second
> half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
> reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.

I think I've found the paper mentioned in the article:
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf