Re: OT: Global Warming is a 'Fact' just like Macro Evolution is a 'Fact'

n5hsr wrote:
[color=blue]
> Neither one is proven, but they're the favorite hobby horses of the Left, so
> they pretend they are proven.[/color]

You're full of dogmatic bullshit.

Macro evolution has been proven for a century, and today only nut jobs
still dismiss it. Global warming is also a fact because without it
the people in Florida would be freezing in July, but man's
contribution to global warming remains controversial among scientists.

In article <9AdJh.2667$I56.1034@trnddc06>, "Jeff" <news@googlemail.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> Wow! I never knew this. The reality of the fact is that until about 200 or
> 300 years ago, the carbon dioxide level in the air has not been high. And it
> has really only started rising rapidly in the last few decades. Considering
> that the Pilgrims has summer in Massachusetts in the 16th centrury and the
> southern-most extent of the glaciers from the last ice age was around the
> latitude of New York City and went across Pennsylvania and Ohio, I really
> doubt that Florida had ice in the summer in many thousands of years.
>
> You might want to get your facts straight.
>
> Jeff[/color]

You might want to check your "facts". What you said above is what
"they" want you to believe and what "they" have been promoting as an
argument. You must look farther back and examine the earth temp v. CO2
v. solar activity, from at least 4000 years and more then you will begin
to see this global warming is nothing but a political hoax. Had it not
been for the internet and culpable news media this global warming would
have never seen the light of day.
--

"dbu,." <question-mark@einp.com> wrote in message
news:question-mark-20C393.09491812032007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=blue]
> In article <9AdJh.2667$I56.1034@trnddc06>, "Jeff" <news@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>> Wow! I never knew this. The reality of the fact is that until about 200
>> or
>> 300 years ago, the carbon dioxide level in the air has not been high. And
>> it
>> has really only started rising rapidly in the last few decades.
>> Considering
>> that the Pilgrims has summer in Massachusetts in the 16th centrury and
>> the
>> southern-most extent of the glaciers from the last ice age was around the
>> latitude of New York City and went across Pennsylvania and Ohio, I really
>> doubt that Florida had ice in the summer in many thousands of years.
>>
>> You might want to get your facts straight.
>>
>> Jeff[/color]
>
> You might want to check your "facts". What you said above is what
> "they" want you to believe and what "they" have been promoting as an
> argument.[/color]

Who are "they?" Where have then been promoting this crap?

The fact is that there was very little carbon dioxide in the air from human
sources when America was first settled. And America was settled in the
Mass., not Florida. And there was an unfrozen summer, even up north. Global
warming was not in effect then. So, the conclusion that Florida would be
frozen if it were not for global warming is false.
[color=blue]
> You must look farther back and examine the earth temp v. CO2
> v. solar activity, from at least 4000 years and more then you will begin
> to see this global warming is nothing but a political hoax.[/color]

I have looked at the data. I don't beleive that global warming is a hoax. It
is real.

However, that doesn't mean the comment about Florida would be frozen is
true.
[color=blue]
> Had it not
> been for the internet and culpable news media this global warming would
> have never seen the light of day.[/color]

Actually, global warming was first described over a hundred years ago. I
think the first person who described it was Preistly, the guy who discovered
oxygen. That, my friend, was before Al Gore was a smile on his father's
face.

Jeff

In article <mSdJh.2675$I56.2451@trnddc06>, "Jeff" <news@googlemail.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> "dbu,." <question-mark@einp.com> wrote in message
> news:question-mark-20C393.09491812032007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=green]
> > In article <9AdJh.2667$I56.1034@trnddc06>, "Jeff" <news@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >>
> >> Wow! I never knew this. The reality of the fact is that until about 200
> >> or
> >> 300 years ago, the carbon dioxide level in the air has not been high. And
> >> it
> >> has really only started rising rapidly in the last few decades.
> >> Considering
> >> that the Pilgrims has summer in Massachusetts in the 16th centrury and
> >> the
> >> southern-most extent of the glaciers from the last ice age was around the
> >> latitude of New York City and went across Pennsylvania and Ohio, I really
> >> doubt that Florida had ice in the summer in many thousands of years.
> >>
> >> You might want to get your facts straight.
> >>
> >> Jeff[/color]
> >
> > You might want to check your "facts". What you said above is what
> > "they" want you to believe and what "they" have been promoting as an
> > argument.[/color]
>
> Who are "they?" Where have then been promoting this crap?
>
> The fact is that there was very little carbon dioxide in the air from human
> sources when America was first settled. And America was settled in the
> Mass., not Florida. And there was an unfrozen summer, even up north. Global
> warming was not in effect then. So, the conclusion that Florida would be
> frozen if it were not for global warming is false.[/color]

That is plain balony. Very little co2 is generated by humans. Better
go back to the drawing board.

[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > You must look farther back and examine the earth temp v. CO2
> > v. solar activity, from at least 4000 years and more then you will begin
> > to see this global warming is nothing but a political hoax.[/color]
>
> I have looked at the data. I don't beleive that global warming is a hoax. It
> is real.
>
> However, that doesn't mean the comment about Florida would be frozen is
> true.
>[color=green]
> > Had it not
> > been for the internet and culpable news media this global warming would
> > have never seen the light of day.[/color]
>
> Actually, global warming was first described over a hundred years ago. I
> think the first person who described it was Preistly, the guy who discovered
> oxygen. That, my friend, was before Al Gore was a smile on his father's
> face.
>
> Jeff[/color]
--

"dbu,." <question-mark@einp.com> wrote in message
news:question-mark-950A1D.10225912032007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=blue]
> In article <mSdJh.2675$I56.2451@trnddc06>, "Jeff" <news@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "dbu,." <question-mark@einp.com> wrote in message
>> news:question-mark-20C393.09491812032007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=darkred]
>> > In article <9AdJh.2667$I56.1034@trnddc06>, "Jeff" <news@googlemail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Wow! I never knew this. The reality of the fact is that until about
>> >> 200
>> >> or
>> >> 300 years ago, the carbon dioxide level in the air has not been high.
>> >> And
>> >> it
>> >> has really only started rising rapidly in the last few decades.
>> >> Considering
>> >> that the Pilgrims has summer in Massachusetts in the 16th centrury and
>> >> the
>> >> southern-most extent of the glaciers from the last ice age was around
>> >> the
>> >> latitude of New York City and went across Pennsylvania and Ohio, I
>> >> really
>> >> doubt that Florida had ice in the summer in many thousands of years.
>> >>
>> >> You might want to get your facts straight.
>> >>
>> >> Jeff
>> >
>> > You might want to check your "facts". What you said above is what
>> > "they" want you to believe and what "they" have been promoting as an
>> > argument.[/color]
>>
>> Who are "they?" Where have then been promoting this crap?
>>
>> The fact is that there was very little carbon dioxide in the air from
>> human
>> sources when America was first settled. And America was settled in the
>> Mass., not Florida. And there was an unfrozen summer, even up north.
>> Global
>> warming was not in effect then. So, the conclusion that Florida would be
>> frozen if it were not for global warming is false.[/color]
>
> That is plain balony. Very little co2 is generated by humans. Better
> go back to the drawing board.[/color]

The concentration of carbon dioxide when from about 280 ppm (parts per
million) to 340 ppm in the last 200 years or so. During this period of time,
the population of humans has gone up several fold, from less than 1 billion
people to about six and a half billion people. In addition, the usage of
carbon-based fuels, like oil, natural gas and coal has gone up marketedly,
as well.

Anyway, until you are able to make any comments that scientific validity, I
won't reply to your nonsense again.

Jeff

[url]http://planetforlife.com/gwarm/glob1000.html[/url]

[color=blue]
>
>[color=green]
>>[color=darkred]
>> > You must look farther back and examine the earth temp v. CO2
>> > v. solar activity, from at least 4000 years and more then you will
>> > begin
>> > to see this global warming is nothing but a political hoax.[/color]
>>
>> I have looked at the data. I don't beleive that global warming is a hoax.
>> It
>> is real.
>>
>> However, that doesn't mean the comment about Florida would be frozen is
>> true.
>>[color=darkred]
>> > Had it not
>> > been for the internet and culpable news media this global warming would
>> > have never seen the light of day.[/color]
>>
>> Actually, global warming was first described over a hundred years ago. I
>> think the first person who described it was Preistly, the guy who
>> discovered
>> oxygen. That, my friend, was before Al Gore was a smile on his father's
>> face.
>>
>> Jeff[/color]
> --
>[/color]

n5hsr is proof that cavemen still exist.


<beerspill@whoever.com> wrote in message
news:1173708252.876267.294140@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
>
> n5hsr wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Neither one is proven, but they're the favorite hobby horses of the Left,
>> so
>> they pretend they are proven.[/color]
>
> You're full of dogmatic bullshit.
>
> Macro evolution has been proven for a century, and today only nut jobs
> still dismiss it. Global warming is also a fact because without it
> the people in Florida would be freezing in July, but man's
> contribution to global warming remains controversial among scientists.
>[/color]

The environuts have a plan to lower the amount of CO2 in the air. They want
the government to pass a law that would, depending on ones birthday on an
even number day or an odd numbered day, that is the only day you will be
allowed to exhale.

mike


"dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message
news:45f61334$1$16370$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
[color=blue]
> Failing to take reasonable precautions to keep CO2 from climbing higher is
> just irresponsible.[/color]

Who is talking about environmentalists? We are referring to the environuts
who were telling us we were headed into another ice age, from way back in
the fifties until the late seventies because of pollution, who are now
telling us we are all going to die because of the 'pollution' of OC2 LOL


mike

"DH" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message .com...[color=blue][color=green]
>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>> news:qdudncIkyuhVL2jYnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@ptd.net...[color=darkred]
>>> Better do a bit more research if that is what you believe.. Try looking
>>> back 65,000,000 at the end of the reign of the dinosaurs when it was
>>> even higher than today and had been for 160,000,000 years when the
>>> dinosaurs were roaming the earth. Look at the tilt of the earths axis
>>> today and back then.. Take note of the number of earthquakes indicating
>>> unusual movement of the tectonic plates with the resulting warming of
>>> the oceans, as well
>>>
>>> We are all environmentalists in that we do not want to $#it were we eat.
>>> The environuts, who want to rule the world, do not want us to eat so we
>>> don't need to deal with the $#it LOL
>>>
>>> mike
>>>[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Hmmm, the environuts remind me of the order the German general gave his
>> troops after they captured Warschaw in 1939. . . .
>>
>> Charles of Schaumburg.[/color]
>[/color]
, "Can you cite examples of 'environuts' telling us to stop eating?"


Look up metaphor, WBMA
[color=blue]
>
> But mindless swallowing of any lie about liberals and environmentalists is
> one of your few talents.[/color]

Jeff wrote:[color=blue]
> <beerspill@whoever.com> wrote in message
> news:1173708252.876267.294140@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Global warming is also a fact because without it
> > the people in Florida would be freezing in July, but man's
> > contribution to global warming remains controversial among scientists.[/color]
>
> Wow! I never knew this. The reality of the fact is that until about 200 or
> 300 years ago, the carbon dioxide level in the air has not been high. And it
> has really only started rising rapidly in the last few decades. Considering
> that the Pilgrims has summer in Massachusetts in the 16th centrury and the
> southern-most extent of the glaciers from the last ice age was around the
> latitude of New York City and went across Pennsylvania and Ohio, I really
> doubt that Florida had ice in the summer in many thousands of years.
>
> You might want to get your facts straight.[/color]

I think man-caused global warming is real, and when I say it's
controversial I don't mean scientists are split around 50-50 on it;
it's more like 90-10 in favor.

Jeff wrote:[color=blue]
> <beerspill@whoever.com> wrote in message
> news:1173708252.876267.294140@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...[color=green]
> >
> > n5hsr wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> Neither one is proven, but they're the favorite hobby horses of the Left,
> >> so they pretend they are proven.[/color]
> >
> > You're full of dogmatic bullshit.
> >
> > Macro evolution has been proven for a century, and today only nut jobs
> > still dismiss it.[/color]
>
> While I think that those who dismiss it are incorrect, I don't think that
> they are nutjobs.[/color]

OK, many are just ignorant.

In message news:45f6ae1b$0$16398$88260bb3@free.teranews.com, DH sprach
forth the following:
[color=blue]
> Name them. Give examples. Show citations. Show that the same
> environuts who publicly proclaimed that we were heading into an ice age
> are now sounding alarm bells over global warming. Be specific.[/color]

Done in my other post. If you want more, I can post scans of "Science" and
other rags from the '70s squawking about the "coming Ice Age".

In message news:1173798813.086807.48300@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com,
sprach forth the following:
[color=blue]
> I think man-caused global warming is real[/color]

Prove it.

<beerspill@whoever.com> wrote in message
news:1173798813.086807.48300@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
>
> Jeff wrote:[color=green]
>> <beerspill@whoever.com> wrote in message
>> news:1173708252.876267.294140@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > Global warming is also a fact because without it
>> > the people in Florida would be freezing in July, but man's
>> > contribution to global warming remains controversial among scientists.[/color]
>>
>> Wow! I never knew this. The reality of the fact is that until about 200
>> or
>> 300 years ago, the carbon dioxide level in the air has not been high. And
>> it
>> has really only started rising rapidly in the last few decades.
>> Considering
>> that the Pilgrims has summer in Massachusetts in the 16th centrury and
>> the
>> southern-most extent of the glaciers from the last ice age was around the
>> latitude of New York City and went across Pennsylvania and Ohio, I really
>> doubt that Florida had ice in the summer in many thousands of years.
>>
>> You might want to get your facts straight.[/color]
>
> I think man-caused global warming is real, and when I say it's
> controversial I don't mean scientists are split around 50-50 on it;
> it's more like 90-10 in favor.[/color]

I have no like question that it is real. But I still believe that your
statement about Florida would be frozen if it were not for global heating
(global warming sounds like a nice toasty room at ski resort, global heating
I think is a better description) is incorrect. It wasn't frozen before man's
activities started to significantly raise CO2, and the Earth was getting
warming for a variety of reasons, like the Sun's increased activity.

I want to point out that, IMHO, although the sun's increase activity is one
reason why the Earth is warmer, man's release of CO2 is, based on the
available evidence, another. Without man's activity, the warming of the
Earth would have been less. And man's release of CO2 in the atmosphere will
make globel heating worse in the future.

Jeff

"n5hsr" <n5hsr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:WLudnd-rRpa9o2rYnZ2dnUVZ_tKjnZ2d@comcast.com...[color=blue]
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:_Kidnfy2n_sBLGvYnZ2dnUVZ_uCinZ2d@ptd.net...[color=green]
>> The environuts have a plan to lower the amount of CO2 in the air. They
>> want the government to pass a law that would, depending on ones birthday
>> on an even number day or an odd numbered day, that is the only day you
>> will be allowed to exhale.
>>
>> mike[/color]
>
> I'll be under arrest half the time for generating methane.
>
> Charles of Schaumburg[/color]

That will put a stop to any unnecessary breathing in your vicinity. :-)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]

"dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message
news:45f8cfa2$0$31271$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...[color=blue]
> "n5hsr" <n5hsr@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:PpCdnX01IrL-XGXYnZ2dnUVZ_oCmnZ2d@comcast.com...[color=green]
>> "dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:5edhv2lra7h1po03eu7b12kc801b31dmqm@4ax.com...[color=darkred]
>>> n5hsr wrote:
>>>>"dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>news:l03hv29j78q9kgc68g6lp9j5dlj36r8u37@4ax.com...
>>>>> n5hsr wrote:
>>>>>>I'd rather be a caveman than a knuckle-dragger like Art. . . . At
>>>>>>least
>>>>>>cavemen were developing civilization, instead of evolving backwards
>>>>>>like
>>>>>>Art.
>>>>>
>>>>> Approximately how old is our planet, Charles?
>>>>
>>>>At least 6000 years, Dizziot.
>>>
>>> That's not an answer, Charles. It's "at least" 2 years old, also.
>>>
>>> Why are you so afraid to directly answer this question?
>>>
>>>>Who was there to prove it prior to that? You sure weren't.
>>>
>>> WTF does that have to do with it?
>>>
>>>>The ones that
>>>>say it is older are basing that on such things as carbon dating,
>>>
>>> And lots of other evidence, such as Geological and Astronomical.
>>>
>>>>which we are guessing on.
>>>
>>> Umm... No, we are not "guessing" on carbon dating. It's called
>>> SCIENCE.
>>>
>>>>I can't believe we can measure the half-life of something
>>>>like Carbon 14 accurately enough to provide dates millions of years ago.
>>>>We've only known about Carbon 14 dating for less than 100 years. To
>>>>have
>>>>0.1 % of the amount you'd have in 100 years, you'd need 100,000 years.
>>>>That's a pretty accurate measurement, and one not easily achived.
>>>
>>> You are totalling fucking clueless on how carbon-dating works,
>>> obviously.
>>>
>>>>I have
>>>>seen measurements that run to 6 decimal places, they're a fairly recent
>>>>achivement. Think about it. In order to measure billions of years,
>>>>they'd
>>>>need something like 9 decimal places of accuracy in measuring
>>>>percentages,
>>>>let alone units.
>>>
>>> Think about it. You're ignorant. It's only used for up to 60,000
>>> years.
>>>
>>> [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating[/url]
>>>
>>>>It takes more faith to believe in evolution that it does God.
>>>
>>> Did man and dinosaurs roam the Earth at the same time? A simple yes
>>> or no would do.
>>>
>>>>We see marvelous mechanical things and we know that such things do not
>>>>just
>>>>happen, that there must be a person who caused such a thing to be built.
>>>>Yet we assume that the universe 'just happened'?
>>>
>>> Yet you assume that God 'just happened'?
>>>
>>> And why couldn't God have made the Earth billions of years ago?
>>>
>>>>Who's the Dizziot now?
>>>
>>> Neither one of us is a "Dizziot". However, I'm really curious how old
>>> you think our planet is. I'll even make it multiple choice, if it
>>> helps.
>>>
>>> A) About 10,000 years, or even less.
>>> B) Significantly more than 10,000 years, but less than 100,000 years
>>> C) 100,000 to 10,000,000 years
>>> D) More than 10,000,000 years
>>>[/color]
>>
>> We can't prove to a certainty that it was here more than 10,000 years
>> ago. None of us were here to prove it, and there were no written records
>> that far back. Most of the astronomical 'evidence' is extrapolation.
>> It's a guess. A well-educated guess, but a guess. It's not something we
>> can reproduce ourselves, certainly. Scientific proof involves us being
>> to reproduce the same results, and we can't.
>>
>> Why can't you shut up for once and let God be God? What you got against
>> Him?
>>
>> One day you will bow down and confess that Jesus is Lord. Sadly, that
>> will probably come at what is known as The Great White Throne judgement,
>> and it will be too late then. You'll know that what I said was true, and
>> these words will burn in your ears for all eternity.
>>
>> Charles of Schaumburg[/color]
>
> I can't give you a paragraph reference at the moment but the Catholic
> Catechism (I looked over that way but it's not in its accustomed place ont
> he shelf (*)) holds that the honest study of science is one way we learn
> about the nature of God.
>
> There are quite a few reasons that the universe can't be 6,000 or whatever
> years old. Physicists could explain them to you. I've seen some of the
> arguments and don't remember them.
>
> The bigger question is, if the Earth is not 6,000 years old, why does it
> look like it's that old? Why does the Moon look like it was pelted with
> meteors for hundreds of millions of years (there's a delightful chapter on
> this in Clifford Stoll's "Silicon Snake Oil")? Why can we see so many
> stars? Seriously, if the universe was 6,000 years old, we'd be able to
> see hardly any of what's in the sky because none of the light from things
> over 6,000 miles away would be here, yet. Why isn't the Sun a young, hot
> star? Why does the Earth have all these layers? Why is the ocean salty?
>
> If it's all a 6-day engineering feat, why do we have so much junk DNA on
> board? Why is our DNA 99% chipmanzee DNA? If we're special, why aren't
> we really special? Why do we have toes? Animals that run get hooves or
> paws. Why don't we have them? How did they get all these critters on the
> Ark? How did all those critters that live in Brazil now get to Brazil?
> Why don't these critters also live in Australia? Why are there so many
> bugs? Why does staph develop resistance to antibiotics? Why do I have an
> appendix? Why did my Dad? For 35 years, it did him no good at all and
> then it tried to kill him. Why do we start to wear out after 45 or so?
> Science - especially the theory of evolution - addresses these questions
> and the nifty thing is that the answers are someting akin to synergistic.
>
> You have two choices, you can say all those are "mysteries" and spend your
> life carefully ignoring what doesn't line up with Genesis or you can
> acknowledge that the Bible was originally given to ignorant shepherds who
> weren't going to understand any of the real mechanisms of the universe, so
> they got a reassuring story to let them know that God loves them and the
> real story is equally fascinating and offers opportunities to think and
> learn and create.
>
> The latter works just fine for me. God told us a story to encourage and
> reassure us and left it to our creative minds to work out the details.
>
>
> (*) - and I don't know if you're Catholic but the official Catholic
> Catechism is a dauntingly fat book. Excessively fat, if you ask me, as
> the Church should just teach the great lessons and leave the rest to
> conscience but I suppose they've got to have something for the bureacracy
> to do and I'm relatively easy-going in these things, so I don't let it
> bother me overmuch. One of the advantages of Catholicism, though, is the
> fact that it's been around for 2000 years and if you have a theological
> question, they've got said really fat book available for your enjoyment
> which almost certainly has a paragraph relevant to your inquiry and, if
> you don't happen to agree with the Church's conclusion, well, at least
> it's a place to start.[/color]
-----
You mention the moon.
Sometimes I add a wee bit too much liquid for my bread dough. If I don't
take steps to correct it, two different size globs form during the kneading
process and neither one is sticky enough to adhere to the other. The end
result of the first cycle is one large ball on one side of the bowl and a
smaller ball further away.
Interestingly, had the liquid been warmer by just a few degrees, the end
result during the first cycle would be one large ball of dough. And the
finished bread would have a different flavor.
mark_