Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Right you are, the hypocrisy is incredible.

"C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" wrote:
>
> >
> > ...................................No, these are the most obstinate,
selfich
> > people
> > on the face ofth Earth and they deserve all the derision that comes
their
> > way. It's always "no, no, no", but they have no alternative solutions
other
> > than to live in a cave somewhere.
>
> They aren't planning on living in a cave. That's for you. They are
planning on
> sitting in a warm home and being flown to environmental support functions
in
> private jets or driven in limos. I mean the world only has enough
resources for
> truly dedicated environmentalist to live well. The rest of us, well we
need to
> preserve those precious resources for the truly committed
environmentalist -
> right?
>
> Wasn't there an environmentalist that arrived at an event in an Insight
and then
> drove the Insight just out of sight of the masses and got into a limo?
Wasn't it
> Ariana Huffington who flew across country in a private yet to attend an
> SUV-bashing event? The hypocrisy on both sides is enormous.
>
> Ed
>

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Ted Mittelstaedt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> >
> >> > 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.
>
> Did he have them in 2003? If so, where are they?

You know Lloyd, if they made a list of the one hundred dumbest people on
earth, you name would be in every spot.
If I have something in 1990, and I don't get rid of it, then yes, I will
still have it in 2003. Saddam had them, he never provided any evidence that
he destroyed them, so yes, he still has them to this day until and unless
proven, PROVEN, otherwise.
Where are they? Well hidden, he had twelve years to do so, they may be
buired in the desert, he may have transfered them to another country, until
they are found we won't know. The fact that they are unaccounted for makes
it imperative that we keep looking until we do know where they are, or if he
in fact did destroy them, and simply hid that fact in an attempt to bluff
us, which is what Hans Blix is suggesting. A suggestion, I might add, he
would not have made if he and the inspectors knew they had been destroyed,
which is what you claimed, thus proving you once again a lying asshole. You
really should be taking classes instead of teaching them, you have so much
to learn.


>
> >
> >> 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.
>
> Which turned out to be a lie.

Not at all. The claim he tried to aquire weapons grade Uranium from Nigeria
turned out to be a lie, but that does not equate to Saddam seeking to aquire
Nukes being a lie, that remains to be seen.

>
> >
> >The case is a bit stronger for
> >> bio agents,
> >> but still inconclusive.
> >
> >How so, when he has used them several times already?
>
> Where are they?

Ther ones he used? Ask the hundreds of thousands of people he killed with
them. The fact you are questioning this at all proves you a heartless
bastard who would murder your own family if you thought it would benifit
you. Your support of a Dictator who murdered for sport is sickening.

>
> >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?
>
> "Has" is present tense. Where are they?

You know where they are you lying bastard. Pull your liberal head out of
Gores ass and think for yourself, you sound like a parrot.

>
> >
> > 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.
>
> The one given to us by Bush.

And Clinton, and Clintons staff.

>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Yes, thank goodness our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity
under
> Clinton is over.


Which Clinton had nothing to do with. The economy was improving when Clinton
took over. The current recession, however, began thanks to Clinton. The more
you post, the more people see your ignorance for themselves. Keep it up.

>
> >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.
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <Cj0ob.59593$Fm2.41498@attbi_s04>,
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>
> Another fool who believes what he reads on right-wing web sites:

As opposed to your left wing sites heh?

>
> >In article <[email protected]>, 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
> >
> >

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <aBWnb.57501$Fm2.35469@attbi_s04>,
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>
> And another fool:

Nope, still just you Lloyd.

>
> >In article <[email protected]>, 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Great reply, Brent. Ask Ted Kennedy & his Hyannisport chums why they're
> blocking off shore wind turbines. Just another bunch of Liberal NIMBY
> hypocrites.

The same Ted Kennedy who murded that girl at Chappaquidik and used his name
to get off.


>
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Here's one of the fools:

We know your here Lloyd, you don't need to introduce yourself every time you
post.


>
> >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. <
> >
> >

"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

Lloyd tries hard to never post facts, because then it is harder for him to
lie his way out of it. Of course when confronted with facts he can't lie his
way around he simply doesn't respond.

>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>
> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> : 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> : news:[email protected]...
> : : And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
> : :
> : : http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
> :
> :
>
>

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>
> More BS:

Yep, that's what every post you make is.

>
> >> Bravo!
> >>
> >> "C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >>>
> >>>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
> >

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
>
> Another fool proudly showing off his ignorance:

Yes, your very proud of your foolish ideas, lets see you actually counter it
with some facts. You can't do it.

>
> >"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:b__nb.45699$ao4.111788@attbi_s51...
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Douglas A. Shrader
wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[email protected]...
> >> >> 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.
> >
> >

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> 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. ;-) >
>
> Try reading some science. USA Today is your source for science? LOL!

I wish you would learn some science Lloyd, then you wouldn't come in here
spouting your left wing propaganda you heard from your Sierra Club buddies.
What peer reviewed Scientific journals do you read Lloyd, and where can I
read your published articles in peer reviewed journals? Until you answer
this your still just an individual with nutty ideas that are always proven
wrong when you post them.


>
> >
> >LOL! I remember this "new ice age" scam well, I was in Collee at the time
> >and all the Socialist faculty were flapping their gloom & doom gums about
> >it, claiming if we didn't all stsrt driving VWs we'd all freeze to death
> >come 1990.Typical hogwash, sure glad you posted the link.
> >
> >BTW, read today's USA Today. It has a prominent piece on how the gas
(bag)
> >theorists pet study from the '80's has been proven faulty and that theris
no
> >evidence global average temps of the second half of the 20th century were
> >anything but perfectly normal. (Notice how quiet Lloyd's been today?)
> >
> >

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Same old, same old.

That's all you ever post Lloyd, I'm still waiting to hear what ariticles
you've had published in peer reviewed journals, and which ones you read for
your information. Are you really so ashamed of the journals you read that
you are afraid to post them?


>
> >
> >"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >
> >> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[email protected]...
> >> > > 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.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >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.
>
> Like saying maybe death causes cancer.

More like saying if you get cancer you will die from it, ignoring all the
cancer survivors out there. But you ignore all facts that don't agree with
what you already believe. You are not a scientist, you are a parrot.


>
> >
> >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

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Same old, same old.

Not man enough to admit you were wrong are you LP.
That's OK, I knew you were a fraud from your first post. Now all of Usenet
knows it.


>
> >
> >"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >
> >> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[email protected]...
> >> > > 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lloyd, the world trembles at the searing intellect behind your pithy
> posts....
>
> Hey, don't worry, one of those 9 morons the Democrats have out there
wagging
> their tax & spend, cut & run gums might get elected and save your whole
> little comfy green peer group from further humiliation.

I've been waiting since Carter for the Democrats to run a candidate worth
voting for. Clark looked like a possibility this time but he is quickly
killing his chances.
He needs to stop the Bush bashing and start promoting his own ideas, people
are sick to death of negative campaigns. Odds are looking good at the moment
for a Bush victory in 2004, but alot can happen in a year.

>
>
> "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Same old, same old.
> >
> > >
> > >"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:[email protected]...
> > >> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >> news:[email protected]...
> > >> >
> > >> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >> > news:[email protected]...
> > >> > > 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The more you nail this stuff, Doug, the more ranting you'll hear!

Hehee. I really need to stop reading this thread. Tonight is my last time,
scouts honor. Nice meeting you to BTW.


>
> > > <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.
> >
> >
>
>

> Did he have them in 2003? If so, where are they?
>
>

Yes. Read every post I've made LP, I've answered this a dozen times. You're
the scientist, you tell me. If an item is created, and is not destroyed in
anyway, does it still exist?
Your like the little kid who keeps saying "why" everytime it gets an answer,
no matter how thorough the answer is, until the parent finally has enough
and states BECAUSE I SAID SO!.
LP, BECAUSE I SAID SO!!. Now shut up and go to bed, you wish to act like a
child I'll treat you like one.

> More like saying if you get cancer you will die from it, ignoring all the
> cancer survivors out there. But you ignore all facts that don't agree with
> what you already believe. You are not a scientist, you are a parrot. <

"Lloyd want a CRACKER? Rawk!"

Yeah, I'm out, too. Best!

"Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > The more you nail this stuff, Doug, the more ranting you'll hear!
>
> Hehee. I really need to stop reading this thread. Tonight is my last time,
> scouts honor. Nice meeting you to BTW.
>
>
> >
> > > > <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.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

This is the worst crop of candidates the Democrats have yet to put forward.
Worse, their attacks on the President and national policy coming at a time
of war, articulated for personal partisan gain, are reprehensible and a
disgrace to the name of their political party. Never in history have we seen
a major political party so devoid of vision and so obstructionist in its
actions.

None of them has even a remote chance of beating Bush in '04, but in the
process of all this they give true aid & comfort to the most despicable of
enemies. (As a former liberal Democrat and McGovern campaign worker, I
remind people I know losers when I see 'em.) Clark is nothing but a
chameleon, running as a Democrat because he can't run as a Republican.

The sad part is these assholes have nothing to put forward, except "tax the
rich" (which really means tax anyone making enough to afford a roof over
their heads) and "cut & run", proving they're nothing but cowards at heart.
Imagine the total chaos in the middle east if we were to knee-jerk and pull
out our troops at this time. But, if they gained power in the process, what
would these selfish idiots care? Every Democrat since FDR has left a major
world crisis for his successor to clean up.

The Democrats have not articulated a inspirational, constructive vision
since Kennedy & Johnson. Indeed, they have not implemented anything truly
effective (other than confiscating income) since the New Deal. Sad, but
unavoidable conclusion: they're so bound up in their special interest
obligations they can't step forward with anything coherent or relevant to
lead their country. As for Bush, Americans know a real leader when they see
one. He may have his flaws, but after 9/11 he passed the test with flying
colors.

October 30, 2003

"Gerald G. McGeorge" wrote:

> he passed the test with flying colors.

And so will you, as long as you continue to crosspost to sci.environment.

Please remove sci.environment from your crosspost list.

It's way out of context to your discussion.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net