Well, whatever Lloyd. I asked for your opinion in good faith on a perfectly
interesting theory and you just don't respond.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bntmu5$k15$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
: In article <eCbob.146$Eu7.2109481@news-text.cableinet.net>,
: "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
: >Looks like Lloyd replied to every other post except this one. I guess
that
: >when he shouts "Learn some science", our educator didn't mean from
himself.
: >Interesting how he is vocal in criticizing other opinions as long as they
: >don't come from other scientists, and equally has no intention in backing
up
: >what he believes himself.
:
: Yes, I criticize dithering that doesn't come from science. Consider
yourself
: so criticized.
:
: >
: >Dave Milne, Scotland
: >'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: >
: >"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
: >news:d9Ynb.5397$QB7.49790167@news-text.cableinet.net...
: >: 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
: >:
: >:
: >
: >


 

"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
news:FV9qb.54150$Ub4.32412@twister.socal.rr.com...
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> I doubt many agree with you and your fascist buddies either.
> > >
> > >Do you even know what a fascist is Lloyd?
> > >
> > >
> > Yes, but you right-wingers obviously do not know what a socialist is.
>
> Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government as
> able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
> systems. That puts both of them on the opposite side of conservatism
where
> government is limited precisely because of it's belief in God given,
> individual, indivisible, inalienable rights that government as no
> jurisdiction over. Fascism and Socialism both reject that notion as
> government is the vehicle to compel their values on people.
>
> Democrats are in a constant dance on the edge of socialism. Their values
> include rejecting the unfairness of their being a large disparity between
> rich and poor, which isn't a bad value.... but their answer is to use
> government to compel "charity" or the "transfer of wealth" through taxes.
> The effort includes finding "rights" to justify this, like rights to
> employment, rights to minimum wages, rights of healthcare, rights to
> shelter, right to education, ad infinitum, which rights have to be "found"
> in the constitution via "activist", "progressive" judges.
>
>

Bravo! Couldn't have put that better myself. Read and try to open your mind
just a bit Lloyd maybe you'll learn something.


 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bob0lp$s2a$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <7wVpb.9500$Oo4.4594@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bo8k18$3lv$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <bo6rhb0rvn@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> >> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
> >> >> Just like I said - when you have nothing to say, you right-wingers
> >resort
> >> >to name-calling. <
> >> >
> >> >Why is it you leftist assholes always think anyone who disagreees with
> >you
> >> >is a "right-winger"? No wonder no one takes you seriously any longer.
> >> >
> >> >> > I register as an independent and in '00 I voted for Nader.
> >> >
> >> >> B.S. Nader was well to the left of Gore, and you sound just like a
> >> >commercial for Rush or Hannity. <
> >> >
> >> >But, Nader is not part of the Republicrat establishment, is he?
Neither
> >was
> >> >Perot, who I voted for the previous two elections.
> >> >
> >> >By the way, if you can purge your shallow little leftist mind of all
the
> >> >Socialist indoctrination
> >>
> >> If you're going to call people names, it hardly behooves you to ****
and
> >moan
> >> when they call you names.
> >>
> >>
> >> >you've been fed you'll find that people in the
> >> >middle and on the right often have quite well formed positions on
matters
> >> >that the left has managed to dominate, and **** UP, for over 50 years.
> >> >
> >> >I hate to challenge your little leftist sensibilities, but Bill
Clinton
> >was
> >> >not a liberal, he was just a politician wanting more & more power. He
was
> >a
> >> >HYPOCRITE of the first order.
> >>
> >> And gee, wasn't the country doing great under him?
> >>
> >> >Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got
> >creamed
> >> >because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent him
to
> >> >Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green
> >vote
> >> >which he'd not convinced.
> >> >
> >> >> Given the crap the Democrats are putting up as leaders, I'll vote
for
> >Bush
> >> >this time for sure.
> >> >
> >> >> Uhh-huh. As if there was a chance you'd vote any other way... <
> >> >
> >> >And that's the problem, isn't it Jonesey, too many people, indeed a
> >MAJORITY
> >> >of us, don't agree with you and your Socialist buddies! (Get used to
> >being
> >> >irrelevant....)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> I doubt many agree with you and your fascist buddies either.
> >
> >Do you even know what a fascist is Lloyd?
> >
> >
> Yes, but you right-wingers obviously do not know what a socialist is.

I'm not a right-winger Lloyd, I've just got enough common-sense to not
swallow either line from the far left or far right hook, line, and sinker
like you so obviously do from the far left.


 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bob0k1$s2a$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bo8tgh012ij@enews1.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
> >> You're still clutching onto the old "popular vote" complaint Lloyd. We
> >didn't have a popular vote. There wasn't a popular election, so there's
no
> >popular vote. Counting up the aggregate of individual state votes and
> >calling it a "popular vote" doesn't make it so. We've had this argument
> >before and you always ignore this pertinent fact. >
> >
> >Well, first, Llyod prefers indictrination to facts. ;-) If we add up the
> >poopular vote Gore is ALLEGED to have won by around 500,000. I say
alleged,
> >because the 2000 Presidential vote total was never verified.
>
> Each state certified its election returns.
>
>
> >Had we NOT had
> >an Elctoral College, as of course we do, that 500,000 represented about
1/2
> >of 1 percent of the total vote, satistically insignificant and therefore
it
> >would have necessitated a National recount. Given the corrupt Democrat
> >machines in the urban areas of the Country wher there political base is,
> >it's doubtful those 500,000 votes would have survived.
>
> And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?
>

Not as many as Democratic. The counties Gore tried to Cherry-pick in Florida
were Democratic strongholds. Do you think that was an accident?


> >
> >Nontheless, with the exception of Clinton's re-election in '96 the
Democrats
> >have lost every major campaign since '94 and are now out of power and can
> >mount no effective opposition other than obstruction.
>
>
> Since there're been 2 "major campaigns" since 94, that makes both parties
> batting .500.
>
> >Their recent hero,
> >Clinton, was a pragmatist and closet conservative, anything so long as it
> >got him power. So, other than the biggest tax increase in history, name
ONE
> >major liberal adgenda item he either championed or got signed into law.
>
> Family leave, environmental protection, workplace safety, kept abortion
rights
> from being taken away, Brady Bill, assault weapon ban...
>
>
I can't fault FMLA, in itself its a good thing. Workplace safety sometimes
goes to far the way the laws are written. Whether you like it or not Lloyd
there is such a thing as over regulation. I think abortion is wrong, but its
not for me or anyone else to legislate it, hence I don't think it should be
an issue.
The Brady Bill and assault weapons ban are a joke, if you actually got out
of that ivory tower you're holed up in you might realize it. If it were up
to you I could think of three people off the top of my head who might be
dead at the moment if they didn't have a firearm handy.
An Atlanta police officer's wife who killed her would be rapist.
A man who shot a would be carjacker on the northside of Atlanta somewhere in
a Wal-Fart parking lot.
A wal-Fart employee in Florida somewhere IIRC who was being stabbed by some
nutcase who was foiled by an old lady w/ a pistol.



 

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FA93957.6F9BA899@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > Because it's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You know, the kind
real
> > scientists publish in.
>
> I find your repeated reference to "real scientist" to be somewhat
irritating. Can
> you define a "real scientist" as opposed to just a plain old "scientist"?
Do you
> consider "real scientist" to be ones that agree with you and those who
don't are
> "false scientist"? I know there are plenty of people who call themselves
> scientist that I don't agree with. Many of them publish in peer reviewed
> journals. Some of them just post messages to newsgroups. Can we consider
that to
> be a peer review?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed White
>
"Real Scientist" - Ultra-left wing liberal who follows whatever facts that
support the agenda of the UN, Democratic party, CR, or any other group that
thinks it knows what's best for everybody else in the world. you
know..elitests.

"False Scientist" - Anyone w/ a different opinion who's facts are to be
debunked, ignored, and ridiculed as right-wing propaganda whether they are
or not.


 

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FA900DF.A19031A2@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Joe wrote:
>
> > "Nature doesn't extinguish fires started by lightening "
> > if this were true, there would be no vegitation on the planet. It would
> > have burned off long before humans showed up.
>
> OK, you got me. I should have said something like "nature lets fires burn
until
> rain storms put them out and doesn't fight them just becasue they are in
> national forests or near populated areas or becasue they dump lots of
pollution
> into the environment." But I bet you understood what I menat in the first
> place....didn't you?
>
> Ed
>

What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into the
air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any thinning
of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and contributing
to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.


 
In article <hNbqb.10739$9M3.9268@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, FDRanger92 wrote:

> What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into the
> air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any thinning
> of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and contributing
> to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
> truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.

You forget, it's the source and location of the CO2 that matters in
the political arguement. Not that it simply takes from a carbon sink
and releases CO2 to the atmosphere. A forest fire produces good CO2. An
automobile in the USA produces bad CO2. A factory in China produces good
CO2. A factory in the USA produces bad CO2. A tractor on a farm in the USA
produces bad CO2. A coal fired electric plant in china produces good
CO2. And on and on.

I'll believe that CO2 is bad when people promoting CO2 limitations
start being consistant and being against all CO2 production (where carbon
is moved from sink like a tree or fossil fuel into the atmosphere due
to human causes), not just the production that doesn't agree with their
politics.

 

> > Joe wrote:
> >
> > > "Nature doesn't extinguish fires started by lightening "
> > > if this were true, there would be no vegitation on the planet. It
would
> > > have burned off long before humans showed up.
> >
> > OK, you got me. I should have said something like "nature lets fires
burn
> until
> > rain storms put them out and doesn't fight them just becasue they are in
> > national forests or near populated areas or becasue they dump lots of
> pollution
> > into the environment." But I bet you understood what I menat in the
first
> > place....didn't you?
> >
> > Ed
> >
>
> What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into the
> air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any
thinning
> of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and contributing
> to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
> truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.
>
>

I was thinking the same thing when I went out to get the paper on Sunday
morning and saw plumes of smoke the size of thunderheads all the way across
the horizon. There aren't enough SUV's in the world.... NO!.... in history
to put out the amount of greenhouse gases being released in one day! The
whole SUV/Greenhouse gases thing is a canard.

Ironically, one of the reasons SUV's are so popular is the supply of large
cars with powerful engines were so restricted starting with the1973 CAFE
regulations.


 
In article <Sicqb.54272$Ub4.8985@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:

> Ironically, one of the reasons SUV's are so popular is the supply of large
> cars with powerful engines were so restricted starting with the1973 CAFE
> regulations.

1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
mid 1980s.


 
On Tue, 04 Nov 03 11:29:22 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>>because those are not lies, and thus he cannot argue against
>>them. Thus, since they prove that his conclusion - we shouldn't have gone
>>to war in Iraq - is wrong, he ignores them.
>>
>
>So when are we going to overthrow the saudis? The Chinese? Does your
>morality extend to all nasty regimes?

The inability to do *all* one wishes to do does not translate into the
need to do *nothing*.
Don't be so childish.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 13:34:35 -0500, "John T. Waisanen"
<jwaisane@NOTumich.edu> wrote:

>hey why don't you two funboys get a room and quit arguing over usenet?
>for christ's sake.

That's what usenet is for.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Wed, 05 Nov 03 11:42:46 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>>We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
>>middle class tax cut.
>
>And when Bush left the budget in much worse shape, to his credit, he took
>steps to get it under control.

Would that be by instituting the largest tax increase in our history?
Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 

"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:m48qb.84211$9E1.419351@attbi_s52...
> In article <bob0ko$s2a$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > In article <iSTpb.107445$e01.369342@attbi_s02>,
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >>In article <bo8tr4$dku$11@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> >>>>You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier.
> >>> Because it's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You know, the
kind real
> >>> scientists publish in.
>
> >>Please provide proof that "Energy and Environment" is not a
peer-reviewed
> >>journal.
>
> > Go to their web site and read about it.
>
> I have. where is your evidence that papers published by them are not
> reviewed?
>
> But just in case you were wondering parker, we already know about
> this specific paper:
>
> "When asked about the paper, which had undergone review by other
> scientists before being published, Mann said he had heard about it but
> had not seen it."
>
> (http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20031029/5631011s.htm)
>
> >>But of course instead of addressing the actual paper,
> >>http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf, you decide to attack
> >>where it's published. In other words, you once again put your politics
> >>before science. A real scienist would find arguement with the work
itself.
>
> No response from parker, of course.

Of course. As Parker says, real scientists are published, Lloyd is not
published. Lloyd is a wannabe scientist.

>
>


 
Maybe we're both wrong.... It was the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975.

"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qTcqb.112591$HS4.974062@attbi_s01...
> In article <Sicqb.54272$Ub4.8985@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen
wrote:
>
> > Ironically, one of the reasons SUV's are so popular is the supply of
large
> > cars with powerful engines were so restricted starting with the1973 CAFE
> > regulations.
>
> 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
> mid 1980s.
>
>


 
> What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into the
air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any thinning
of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and contributing
to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.>

LOL!!!

Frankly, one volcanic eruption releases more toxic gasses inthe atmosphere
in an hour than all the man-created activities for the preceding three
decades.


 
> Bravo! Couldn't have put that better myself. Read and try to open your
mind just a bit Lloyd maybe you'll learn something.>

Indeed, Lloyd will become conservative and green-fable-questioning when 1)
he works his @$$ off, gets a well-deserved promotion and finds out 55% went
to taxes, and 2) when the forest around his house is neglecetd by law and
the resulting inferno burns his house to the ground. He'll then learn he's
too wealthy to qualify for Federal assistance because he makes more than
$30k a year.


 
Great post, David.

> Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government as
> able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
> systems. That puts both of them on the opposite side of conservatism
where
> government is limited precisely because of it's belief in God given,
> individual, indivisible, inalienable rights that government as no
> jurisdiction over. Fascism and Socialism both reject that notion as
> government is the vehicle to compel their values on people.
>
> Democrats are in a constant dance on the edge of socialism. Their values
> include rejecting the unfairness of their being a large disparity between
> rich and poor, which isn't a bad value.... but their answer is to use
> government to compel "charity" or the "transfer of wealth" through taxes.
> The effort includes finding "rights" to justify this, like rights to
> employment, rights to minimum wages, rights of healthcare, rights to
> shelter, right to education, ad infinitum, which rights have to be "found"
> in the constitution via "activist", "progressive" judges.
>
>


 
> You forget, it's the source and location of the CO2 that matters in the
political arguement. Not that it simply takes from a carbon sink and
releases CO2 to the atmosphere. A forest fire produces good CO2. An
automobile in the USA produces bad CO2. A factory in China produces good
CO2. A factory in the USA produces bad CO2. A tractor on a farm in the USA
> produces bad CO2. A coal fired electric plant in china produces good CO2.
And on and on.

BrentP nails the issue once again!


 
> The whole SUV/Greenhouse gases thing is a canard. <

Of course it is, but anyone even suggesting this becomes a
"right-winger".

> Ironically, one of the reasons SUV's are so popular is the supply of large
cars with powerful engines were so restricted starting with the1973 CAFE
regulations. >

Absolutely. Back then the left figured that by now they could have forced
everyone into micro-cars and mass transit.


 

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bobrok01aff@enews3.newsguy.com...
> > You forget, it's the source and location of the CO2 that matters in the
> political arguement. Not that it simply takes from a carbon sink and
> releases CO2 to the atmosphere. A forest fire produces good CO2. An
> automobile in the USA produces bad CO2. A factory in China produces good
> CO2. A factory in the USA produces bad CO2. A tractor on a farm in the USA
> > produces bad CO2. A coal fired electric plant in china produces good
CO2.
> And on and on.
>
> BrentP nails the issue once again!

He seems to have a knack for it, glad I'm not arguing against him. :)

>
>


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Defenders Vs Insurers tomfoolery
Replies
1
Views
4K
lightning
lightning
300bhp/ton
Driven: New Defender - On & Off Road. Is it a Pretender?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
10K
Squonker
S
P
Range Rover P38 EKA and BeCM Lockout
Replies
6
Views
6K
Doolinjames
D
natas
Hurricane Dorian survivor.
Replies
8
Views
2K
ProjectX
ProjectX
Alibro
How to recondition a VCU yourself.
15 16 17
Replies
325
Views
60K
Alibro
Alibro