Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

No. Isotope dating works very well.

No, the scientific literature and agencies like EPA, NASA, NOAA, IPCC,
National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union...

Find me some sources to the contrary.

 

Actually, I'd say more like 99% of scientists so believe. And that's as much
unanimity as you'll find on anything in science.

Uh, the data does.

No it's not. It's done all the time. It's called factor analysis.

Simply not true. Have you read the IPCC report? The National Academy of
Sciences report?

 

They did not. No scientific publication or group said that. Some "popular"
press magazines, like Popular Science, are the only places you will find that.
Someone on sci.environment has a standing challenge for anyone to find a
scientific journal that made that claim. No one has.

 

Lie. No group said that.

 

That's misleading. It's an independent think tank affiliated with Harvard; no
more Harvard than the Hoover Institute is Stanford, for example.

And there are hundreds of scientific articles saying just the opposite.
Further, this article has been substiantially refuted in Nature recently.

That's just not true.

 

You can't predict that because you can't predict what emissions of CO2 will be
like. That's like asking, what will be the pH of this beaker of water after
everybody in lab adds something to it.

Again, that's one article. There are hundreds showing just the opposite. Go
to sci.environment and read some of the postings.

 

Why don't you follow your own advice parker? If you had, then NOAA cites
wouldn't prove you wrong, now would they?

 

I also remember they were being pretty hysterical over holes in the
ozone layer, too.
Oops, turns out they, too, are cyclical, and normal.

 

IOW, I'm right, they aren't known.

It does. Read it.
It allows developing countries to skate, with the very predictable
results that manufacturing will move there.

Again, that's not been proven, only demonstrated in small models.
When you know what caused past ice ages, and the subsequent warming,
let the rest of us know how that applies to the current situation.

And yet again, we don't.
We *think* we know, and we can demonstrate it in a very limited lab
scenario.
But we still can't manage to translate that into why it's happened
before.

There's a slight difference there, Lloyd.
What's being asked for is a major change in lifestyle, not just
wondering why water is salty.
Since the consequences are major, it's only wise to make sure the
action is necessary.
You DO understand that, right?

 

Read where that article got it's info from.

 

Approximately 11/21/03 02:57, Lloyd Parker uttered for posterity:

Please excuse poor little Lloyd folks, he has been spending a bit
too much time at Neverland ranch.

 

Have you realized that Alger Hiss was really a spy yet?
I ask because you demonstrate a remarkable ability to not keep up.

 

The same people who saw a normal hole in the ozone layer, and
proclaimed that the sky was falling.

 

That can't be right.
Lloyd says the causes of past ice ages and subsequent warming periods
are well known, and cites the NOAA as authority for this.
Hmmm, the NOAA must be lying, or Lloyd is lying.
Gee, tough choice...

 

They did to. That article names names Lloyd, NOAA, National Academy of
Science, they said it, your lies can't change it. You are wrong, you are
always wrong.

No scientific publication or group said that. Some "popular"

 

NOAA did, National Academy of Science did. Come on Lloyd, grow up and admit
you're wrong, it won't kill you. No one believes you, you are incapable of
telling the truth. Prove me wrong, admit you are wrong for once.

 

You'd say. That alone proves it isn't true. Stop lying Lloyd.

Have you read anything above a preschool level? Didn't think so.

 

Hundreds huh? Show them to us Lloyd. For once in your life back up your
lies. I want to see hundreds of articles listed here supporting your claims
and rebunking his. You can't do it. His report is far more accurate than any
hogwash you've posted.

 

Is Nature a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

 

"Analysis of the sun's varying activity in the last two millennia indicates
that contrary to the IPCC's speculation about man-made global warming as high as
5.8° C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its
coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected. It is shown that minima in the 80
to 90-year Gleissberg cycle of solar activity, coinciding with periods of cool
climate on Earth, are consistently linked to an 83-year cycle in the change of
the rotary force driving the sun's oscillatory motion about the centre of mass
of the solar system. As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can
be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another
one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe
cooling on Earth. This forecast should prove skillful as other long-range
forecasts of climate phenomena, based on cycles in the sun's orbital motion,
have turned out correct as for instance the prediction of the last three El
Niños years before the respective event."
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/Landscheidt-1.html