Eric G.

"Double Tap" <doubletap@37.com> wrote in
news:QGoFh.7065$_73.5026@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net:

>
> "Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message
> news:Xns98E5B874BDA49Xz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ...
>> "Guncho" <cgunter@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:1172680245.953261.90860@k78g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com:
>>
>>
>>>> PS Have you done any research on this?- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> Yes I have and it's pretty obvious what is happening to anyone but
>>> the hardiest of skeptics.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>
>> The calsh of the bullheads....tonight on alt.autos.hyundai at 7. I
>> understand that you both think you are right, but most likely the
>> truth is somewhere in between.
>>
>> Eric
>
> Eric, it's a matter of showing hard scientific PROOF. There is none
> what so
> ever that proves that man is causing the supposed global warming.
> What some people call proof is nothing more that conjecture based on
> some degree of correlation between a set of facts.
> Correlation does not prove a dammed thing.
> As an example: If the police stop 10 cars for speeding based on a
> radar reading and all 10 cars were driven by people with red hair,
> then one conclusion drawn from this set of facts would be: all
> speeders have red hair.
> Just as this example shows that the conclusion is bull crap (sorry I
> must be politically correct, the conclusion is erroneous), the
> conclusions drawn from the correlations used in the global warming
> argument have no greater validity.

DT, I am with you on that for the most part, except there also is no
scientific evidence (beyond conjecture) that man ISN'T causing the
global warming either. I personally believe that man is not the cause,
becuase I think the same thing has happened over and over again over the
last billion years or so.

Eric

Eric G.

Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
news:MtpFh.2883$Oc.166036@news1.epix.net:

> Eric G. wrote:

>> Yes, CO2 is the cause of the warming. No, it has not been proven
>> that man is contributing to the problem. You should do a bit more
>> reading before you close your mind completely.
>
> How do you know it is the cause of warming? It might be that we are
> receiving more energy from the sun these days.
>
> Matt

Well,yes, I agree we are recieving more energy from the sun too, but I
think "we" could handle that more efficently without the CO2 trapping it in
like a blanket.

Eric

Double Tap

"Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message
news:Xns98E5CB995780BXz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ...
> "Double Tap" <doubletap@37.com> wrote in
> news:QGoFh.7065$_73.5026@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net:
>
>>
>> "Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message
>> news:Xns98E5B874BDA49Xz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ...
>>> "Guncho" <cgunter@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:1172680245.953261.90860@k78g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> PS Have you done any research on this?- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> Yes I have and it's pretty obvious what is happening to anyone but
>>>> the hardiest of skeptics.
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>
>>> The calsh of the bullheads....tonight on alt.autos.hyundai at 7. I
>>> understand that you both think you are right, but most likely the
>>> truth is somewhere in between.
>>>
>>> Eric
>>
>> Eric, it's a matter of showing hard scientific PROOF. There is none
>> what so
>> ever that proves that man is causing the supposed global warming.
>> What some people call proof is nothing more that conjecture based on
>> some degree of correlation between a set of facts.
>> Correlation does not prove a dammed thing.
>> As an example: If the police stop 10 cars for speeding based on a
>> radar reading and all 10 cars were driven by people with red hair,
>> then one conclusion drawn from this set of facts would be: all
>> speeders have red hair.
>> Just as this example shows that the conclusion is bull crap (sorry I
>> must be politically correct, the conclusion is erroneous), the
>> conclusions drawn from the correlations used in the global warming
>> argument have no greater validity.
>
> DT, I am with you on that for the most part, except there also is no
> scientific evidence (beyond conjecture) that man ISN'T causing the
> global warming either. I personally believe that man is not the cause,
> becuase I think the same thing has happened over and over again over the
> last billion years or so.
>
> Eric

Eric,
Any time one posits a theory it up to them to prove the theory.
It is not obligatory upon those who do not believe man is the cause to prove
that man is not the cause. Those that say man is the cause have the burden
of proof.
It is as if one who does not believe in God has to prove the non existence
of God.
It is up to those who believe in God to prove God exists.
One can believe what ever one chooses to believe, however believing without
proof is called faith.
Double Tap

Edwin Pawlowski

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> I don't know. A lot of humans burned a lot of wood, coal and other things
> for heat back then in very inefficient devices. I have no idea of we are
> creating more now than then, and neither does anyone else. I don't think
> we had accurate measurements 100 years ago.

I don't know if CO2 was even measured back then, but air pollution was
certainly far worse than today. Not to mention the horse crap in the
streets.

Edwin Pawlowski

"Guncho" <cgunter@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> If you swallow a little bit of poison, you probably won't die. If you
> keep swallowing little bits of poison do you think it will never kill
> you cause the first bit didn't?
>
> Chris

YES. My wife takes a little poison every day. Honest, it keeps her blood
thin and she will be taking it the rest of her life. It can be bought as a
medication, it can be bought as a rodent poison. It just comes down to
quantity.

Mike Marlow

"Guncho" <cgunter@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172704090.708099.148210@a75g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...

>
> Oh yeah it's the natural decay of the rain forest. The billions of
> tonnes of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere is food for birds or
> something right?
>

Wow - I always thought that, but wasn't sure it was true. Now I know it is.
After all, I read it right here on the internet.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Guncho

On Feb 28, 7:47 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
> Guncho wrote:
> > On Feb 28, 7:09 am, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
>
> >>Guncho wrote:
>
> >>>On Feb 27, 6:56 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>Guncho wrote:
>
> >>>>>On Feb 27, 6:47 am, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>Guncho wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>On Feb 26, 11:28 pm, "Double Tap" <double...@37.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>"Guncho" <cgun...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>>>>>>news:1172548020.147167.38660@t69g2000cwt.g ooglegroups.com...
>
> >>>>>>>>>On Feb 26, 6:01 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>m...@privacy.net wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>m...@privacy.net wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Vic Garcia wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Actually, those are not the engineers talking, those are the stupid
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>politicians forcing every manufacturer to install expensive devices
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>to protect some Owls in in Oregon.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>If they removed all that emission crap, the increase on efficiency
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>and lower gas use will make better for the environment, but of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>course, then, big oil will not make record profits, and Detroit will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>not sell a single car ... fat chance of that happening.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>AMEN!!!!!
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Wow, two clueless folks in a row.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Catalytic convertors and related pollution controls remove something
> >>>>>>>>>>>>upwards of 90% of the pollutants that would otherwise be emitted. To
> >>>>>>>>>>>>make that up with better mileage alone would require that cars get 10
> >>>>>>>>>>>>times better fuel mileage without the pollution controls. You can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>believe all of the gimmick ads you want, but thermodynamics precludes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>this happening.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Matt
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Talk about CLUELESS?!?! Read this:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>*http://tinyurl.com/3b6qz8*
>
> >>>>>>>>>>Which has no connection to the discussion at hand. I agree that the
> >>>>>>>>>>global warming hysteria is simply that, but that is completely
> >>>>>>>>>>unconnected to the discussion about current automotive pollution
> >>>>>>>>>>controls contribute to pollution or prevent it. The claims that they
> >>>>>>>>>>actually contribute to polluiont through increased gas usage are just
> >>>>>>>>>>hilarious. So, I guess maybe there is a connection to global warming
> >>>>>>>>>>... both claims are equally ludicrous.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>>>>>>>- Show quoted text -
>
> >>>>>>>>>Are you honestly suggesting that global warming is not occuring at an
> >>>>>>>>>unnatural rate?
>
> >>>>>>>>>Chris
>
> >>>>>>>>There is not one single shred of evidence that HUMANS are causing global
> >>>>>>>>warming.
>
> >>>>>>>Uhh there's tonnes of evidence actually. The temperature and C02
> >>>>>>>level spikes, mirror identically the population spike that started
> >>>>>>>during the baby boom.
>
> >>>>>>>>The earth has gone through numerous periods of warming and cooling. ALL
> >>>>>>>>happened before humans were in an industrial society. As a matter of FACT
> >>>>>>>>some of these periods happened before humans were present on our planet.
> >>>>>>>>Double Tap- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>>>>There has been no period of warming that was this off the charts.
> >>>>>>>It's obviously not natural.
>
> >>>>>>That is only because we only have records for a couple of hundred years.
>
> >>>>>>What about the global cooling warnings of the 70s? What happened to that?
>
> >>>>>>Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>>>- Show quoted text -
>
> >>>>>Or how bout how once doctor's said it was good to smoke cigarettes?
> >>>>>Puts the whole thing in doubt eh? Guess we should all start smoking.
>
> >>>>>PS We actually have records going back thousands of years obtained
>
> >>>>>from ice core samples in the arctic.
>
> >>>>>Chris
>
> >>>>Those aren't temperature records. We can only speculate and infer
> >>>>temperatures from ice core samples.
>
> >>>>Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>- Show quoted text -
>
> >>>So carbon dating is just speculation and inferrence?
>
> >>Yes, we have no fool-proof way to know that the decay mechanism is
> >>predictable over thousands of years.
>
> >>Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>- Show quoted text -
>
> > Okay let me ask you this.
>
> > #1 Do you agree that we are pumping tonnes of C02 into the
> > atmosphere?
>
> Yes.
>
> > #2 Do you agree that 100 years ago humans were not putting this amount
> > of C02 into the air?
>
> I don't know. A lot of humans burned a lot of wood, coal and other
> things for heat back then in very inefficient devices. I have no idea
> of we are creating more now than then, and neither does anyone else. I
> don't think we had accurate measurements 100 years ago.

YOu can't be serious??!?! You're comparing people burning some wood
or coal for heat with millions of cars on the road and huge factories
pumping out C02?

>
> > #3 What do you think happens to this C02? Do you think it harmlessly
> > disapates into the air.
>
> I think the trees and plants love it!

I think there's a lot more C02 than they need.

Chris

Guncho

On Feb 28, 7:50 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
> Guncho wrote:
> > On Feb 28, 1:22 pm, "Edwin Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>
> >>"Guncho" <cgun...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>#3 What do you think happens to this C02? Do you think it harmlessly
> >>>disapates into the air.
>
> >>Some is absorbed by plants and turned into oxygen. Neither side has really
> >>given a very definite answer on this question.
>
> > Uhh yes they have. It stops the suns rays from leaving the
> > atmosphere. That's what is causing the warming.
>
> That is one theory. And a wrong one, but a theory.
>
> You still haven't addressed the global cooling claims of the 1970s.
> What makes you so sure that the "scientists" are right this time when
> they were wrong then?
>
> Matt

You know what man? Believe what you want. I really don't care.

Chris

Mike Marlow

"Guncho" <cgunter@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172765719.590635.117370@h3g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
> On Feb 28, 7:50 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:

> >
> > You still haven't addressed the global cooling claims of the 1970s.
> > What makes you so sure that the "scientists" are right this time when
> > they were wrong then?
> >
> > Matt
>
> You know what man? Believe what you want. I really don't care.
>

But, he raised a valid point Chris. It's about the data, the interpretation
of the data, the validity of the data. Some of us have been around long
enough to have heard the same arguments, the same "use" of data, the same
alarms, just related to issues that are the complete opposite of today's pet
issues. I don't know if you've been around long enough to remember the
stuff Matt's talking about, but I am. His point is one you need to address
if you really want to be held as credible in your position.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

jp103

Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Guncho" <cgunter@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1172765719.590635.117370@h3g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
>> On Feb 28, 7:50 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
>
>>> You still haven't addressed the global cooling claims of the 1970s.
>>> What makes you so sure that the "scientists" are right this time when
>>> they were wrong then?
>>>
>>> Matt
>> You know what man? Believe what you want. I really don't care.
>>
>
> But, he raised a valid point Chris. It's about the data, the interpretation
> of the data, the validity of the data. Some of us have been around long
> enough to have heard the same arguments, the same "use" of data, the same
> alarms, just related to issues that are the complete opposite of today's pet
> issues. I don't know if you've been around long enough to remember the
> stuff Matt's talking about, but I am. His point is one you need to address
> if you really want to be held as credible in your position.
>
Why don't you guys just go to one of the environment newsgroups and
carry on this discussion. It has devolved to totally off-topic. Where
is the Hyundai connection?

Eric G.

jp103 <jpoinier110522mi@nospamcomcast.net> wrote in
news:GcqdnaTS6tQGlHrYnZ2dnUVZ_tninZ2d@comcast.com:

> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> "Guncho" <cgunter@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1172765719.590635.117370@h3g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
>>> On Feb 28, 7:50 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> You still haven't addressed the global cooling claims of the 1970s.
>>>> What makes you so sure that the "scientists" are right this time
>>>> when they were wrong then?
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>> You know what man? Believe what you want. I really don't care.
>>>
>>
>> But, he raised a valid point Chris. It's about the data, the
>> interpretation of the data, the validity of the data. Some of us
>> have been around long enough to have heard the same arguments, the
>> same "use" of data, the same alarms, just related to issues that are
>> the complete opposite of today's pet issues. I don't know if you've
>> been around long enough to remember the stuff Matt's talking about,
>> but I am. His point is one you need to address if you really want to
>> be held as credible in your position.
>>
> Why don't you guys just go to one of the environment newsgroups and
> carry on this discussion. It has devolved to totally off-topic.
> Where is the Hyundai connection?

It's right under your delete button.

Guncho

On Mar 1, 11:33 am, "Mike Marlow" <mmar...@alltel.net> wrote:
> "Guncho" <cgun...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172765719.590635.117370@h3g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
>
> > On Feb 28, 7:50 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
>
> > > You still haven't addressed the global cooling claims of the 1970s.
> > > What makes you so sure that the "scientists" are right this time when
> > > they were wrong then?
>
> > > Matt
>
> > You know what man? Believe what you want. I really don't care.
>
> But, he raised a valid point Chris. It's about the data, the interpretation
> of the data, the validity of the data. Some of us have been around long
> enough to have heard the same arguments, the same "use" of data, the same
> alarms, just related to issues that are the complete opposite of today's pet
> issues. I don't know if you've been around long enough to remember the
> stuff Matt's talking about, but I am. His point is one you need to address
> if you really want to be held as credible in your position.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> mmarlowREM...@alltel.net


Well, I understand that you don't believe it's a wolf as someone has
called that before and it didn't occur but one time, it just might be
real.

Chris

Guncho

On Mar 1, 12:14 pm, jp103 <jpoinier11052...@nospamcomcast.net> wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
> > "Guncho" <cgun...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1172765719.590635.117370@h3g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> >> On Feb 28, 7:50 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
>
> >>> You still haven't addressed the global cooling claims of the 1970s.
> >>> What makes you so sure that the "scientists" are right this time when
> >>> they were wrong then?
>
> >>> Matt
> >> You know what man? Believe what you want. I really don't care.
>
> > But, he raised a valid point Chris. It's about the data, the interpretation
> > of the data, the validity of the data. Some of us have been around long
> > enough to have heard the same arguments, the same "use" of data, the same
> > alarms, just related to issues that are the complete opposite of today's pet
> > issues. I don't know if you've been around long enough to remember the
> > stuff Matt's talking about, but I am. His point is one you need to address
> > if you really want to be held as credible in your position.
>
> Why don't you guys just go to one of the environment newsgroups and
> carry on this discussion. It has devolved to totally off-topic. Where
> is the Hyundai connection?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yeah I'm done here. I don't care what anyone believes.

Chris

Matt Whiting

Guncho wrote:
> On Feb 28, 7:50 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
>
>>Guncho wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 28, 1:22 pm, "Edwin Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>"Guncho" <cgun...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>>>#3 What do you think happens to this C02? Do you think it harmlessly
>>>>>disapates into the air.
>>
>>>>Some is absorbed by plants and turned into oxygen. Neither side has really
>>>>given a very definite answer on this question.
>>
>>>Uhh yes they have. It stops the suns rays from leaving the
>>>atmosphere. That's what is causing the warming.
>>
>>That is one theory. And a wrong one, but a theory.
>>
>>You still haven't addressed the global cooling claims of the 1970s.
>>What makes you so sure that the "scientists" are right this time when
>>they were wrong then?
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> You know what man? Believe what you want. I really don't care.

My thoughts exactly. Run with the lemmings and enjoy the swim.

Matt

Eric G.

The below was taken from the monthly summary from the National Weather
Service for the area covered by the Mt. Holly, NJ, office for the month
of February, 2007. Man, it sure didn't FEEL like global warming :-)




**** Public Information Statement


500 PM EST Thu Mar 1 2007

....Sixth coldest February on record at Allentown...
....Tenth coldest February on record at reading...
....Tenth coldest February on record at Trenton...
....Tenth coldest February on record at Atlantic City...

The following are the average monthly temperatures for February (for
the above mentioned cities) and where they ranked.


...Allentown...

February, 2007 was the sixth coldest February on record with an
average temperature of 23.9 degrees. The coldest February on record
occurred in 1934, when the average temperature was 16.4 degrees.

Records date back to 1923.

Rank temperature* year
---- ----------- ----
1 16.4 1934
2 20.5 1979
3 21.6 1936
4 22.0 1963
5 22.3 1978
6 23.9 2007
7 24.3 1967
8 24.4 1923
9 24.6 1958
10 24.8 1947


...reading...

February, 2007 was the tenth coldest February on record with an
average temperature of 25.0 degrees. The coldest February on record
occurred in 1979, when the average temperature was 20.5 degrees.

Records date back to 1898.

Rank temperature* year
---- ----------- ----
1 20.5 1979
2 21.1 1978
3 21.2 1934
4 22.3 1905
5 22.6 1907
6 23.4 1904
7 24.3 1994
8 24.8 1899
8 24.8 1914
10 25.0 2007


...Trenton...

February, 2007 was the tenth coldest February on record with an
average temperature of 27.1 degrees. The coldest February on record
occurred in 1934, when the average temperature was 18.5 degrees.

Records date back to 1893.

Rank temperature* year
---- ----------- ----
1 18.5 1934
2 23.6 1979
3 24.9 1936
4 25.4 1895
5 25.6 1914
6 26.2 1978
7 26.3 1899
8 26.5 1923
9 26.7 1907
10 27.1 2007


...Atlantic City...

February, 2007 was the tenth coldest February on record with an
average temperature of 29.3 degrees. The coldest February on record
occurred in 1979, when the average temperature was 21.7 degrees.

Records date back to 1902.

Rank temperature* year
---- ----------- ----
1 21.7 1979
2 23.6 1934
3 23.8 1978
4 27.1 1968
5 27.4 1907
6 28.6 1980
7 28.8 1936
8 29.0 1902
9 29.2 1967
10 29.3 2007

* = temperatures in degrees fahrenheit.