Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

And Damn little inside it.

 

Some SCIENTISTS are saying that LP, SOME are saying it is not. We've been
over this before, the issue is NOT settled, there is NOT a consensus as to
whether 1. there is true global warming, as opposed to a temperature
fluctation,
and 2. if there is Global warming the cause has not been established. You
can whine and cry and post all your little pet Liberal websites you want,
you are still wrong.

 

I've explained to LP before what a scientific theory is, he still doesn't
know.

 

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?

 

Didn't say it was. You have a significant character flaw parker, get
that checked out.

No shit. That's what I wrote several posts ago.

There are ones that aren't generally accepted, but being generally
accepted doesn't make a theory a fact. Theories are BASED ON FACT, they
are NOT FACTS.

A theory still is not a FACT. The ruler on my desk being 12 inches long
is a fact. A hinge knuckle part being made of aluminium on my desk is
a fact. What would happen if either were accelerated to the speed of
light is _explained_ by theory.

Bold statement in the face of being proven wrong.

I read part of a wonderful thread on how recent US weather was proof of
global warming in action with the true believers falling over themselves
with glee. Maybe you should discuss the difference between global climate
and local weather with them.

*laugh* The other true believers. St John posted a US rocket launch for
some reason. Maybe it's seen as an environmental problem. Yet ignored
china's. Typical lefist politics is all you get from those two.

No, they both post local weather conditions.

There's parker again, acusing but not letting *facts* (my recent posts)
get in the way. Hint: I argued *AGAINST* a creationist.

Change in living things is a fact. Evolution is an explaination of that
change. Objects of smaller mass being pulled in towards objects of
larger mass is a fact, gravity is an explaination of that behavior.


No response from parker. Parker just ignores what what rips his views
apart. Again demonstrating behavior not becoming of a real scienist.

But as an engineer I'm more of scientist than you.

Parker again resorts to politics and projection. Parker is projecting
his own politically based selective use of data on to me.

Yes, something *IS* happening to the climate. Why, and what it all
involves is hardly decided or fully understood. I see this, the
science. You sit back and see that CO2 content has increased and
jump to a conclusion that is to blame. Why? Because it fits your
politics.

There are various problems with alot of the data and it's use over long
period of time. There are new sources of heat on this planet that
didn't exist before. There is solar activity. There are whole hosts
of factors in this complex system. I recognize that. You refuse to.
You jump to a conclusion that fits *YOUR POLITICS*.

If you believe CO2 is destroying the climate Parker, why the **** do
you drive a mercedes benz, let alone drive at all? Why are *YOU*
deciding to be part of this problem you see?

You're certainly hiding behind yours Parker.

You've had them for years. Not my fault you don't remember.

 

Llyod tries character assination as he has nothing else.

Note, Dr. Parker does not respond, because he knows that I am accurate.
All one has to do is know the stories of people like darwin and eistein
(sp?) to know that the group mentality I speak of exists.

 

It's a logical conclusion, which makes it possibility. However the
atmosphere of earth, the systems of the solar system, and everything
else involved make for a complex system. Anyone who's even worked on
a machine even as complex as simple automobile knows that such leaps
of corrolation often do not mean causation.

You are jumping from corrolation and simplistic knowledge to certainity
about a complex system. You couldn't even properly diagnosis the
ignition system of an automobile's ICE that way let alone predict
climate.

 

The fact is that change (you are getting caught up in the semantic
game parker is playing) in living things occurs. Evolution, as the
term is commonly used, is the explaination of why that change occurs.

The term evolution implies evolving to a higher or better form more
suited to the environment / survival. That is part of the explaination
of why change happens.

 

Gee Lloyd trying to be condescending here as usual. I didn't say anything
about creationism, evil spirits, or the earth being 6000 years old.
An open mind means looking at all the data instead of ignoring some data
while giving more weight to other data.
You know along the lines of discounting a period of higher solar activity
while everything from cow farts to cold snaps are directly linked to global
warming.
You should also think twice about slamming people for siting what you call
"right-wing" sources when you tend to use sources that have the opposite
bias or use scare tactics to get more funding. Its called being
hypocritical.

 

So when are you gonna trade that gas guzzling overpriced German taxi cab
Benzo in for a Prius or an Insight? I bet your computer uses a good bit of
electricity too.

 

Please, let's not descend to the level of posting IQ scores on the Internet.
That would be really crass.

Earle
http://earleh.tripod.com/w2.html

 

We have no way of knowing that it is indeed the strong that survive. What
we observe in nature is change. How we explain it is evolution. Evolution
is therefore a theory to explain change, not a fact. Putting something in
all caps does not make it more true. I am sure that even Lloyd knows this.

Earle

 

Mr. Parker:

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....

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.

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!
perfect correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity. <

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.)

direct cause & effect between periods of high solar activity and earth
temps, going back hundreds of years. <

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.

to assume the puny effect of man vs. the absolute effect of the sun on
global climatic norms.

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.

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?) <<

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.

 

You been reading about the NZ fart tax?

rhys

 

so?


I'm 126.

rhys

 

If Lloyd claims an IQ higher than 80 no one will believe him anyway.

 

---snippy---

Lloyd, no one will believe that it's that HIGH, get it?

Earle

 

Man is however a factor and alot mismangement of natural resources and
spewing of toxins hasn't done any good. And sum total of all people
is not without some effect. The question is wether or not this is
significant in the face of stronger factors such as the sun and the
earth itself that have resulted in countless climate changes throughout
the history of the planet. That question is unanswered.

 

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.