Re: The sky is falling

What college? Or was it a kollege?

No wonder you don't believe in global warming; you believe in 18th century medicine.

In this case it worked. They ate food in the 18th century too. Does that mean that eating food is no good and that we should stop it.

I believe in what works, I don't believe something or not believe something just because it was used in the past. That would be stupid wouldn't it. For example - some herbal medicines work very well. So I use them. Yet I do not believe that the earth is flat. Nor do I believe in *modern* superstition. The point is to believe in and use what's right not to base things on superstition. That's why I don't believe the GW hype.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

True but tell me, when, say in the last 50 years, when has any explanation gotten to the point where it really IS a theory been proven wrong? Cold fusion was proven wrong long before it advanced. Can you come up with any?

Well, first, you cannot prove a theory. A theory is an explanation which inherently is not provable. The theory of gravity cannot be proven. The existence (fact) of gravity can. The law of gravity can. But not the theory -- the explanation.

Found any use for string theory yet?

An absolute lie.

You know, just reading and parroting right-wing propaganda may make you feel good, and it might make you look smart to the nonscientists here, but you know what -- it really just makes you look dumb.

First, DDT was banned only for large-scale agricultural use. It remains legal to use for localized, directed mosquito control.

Second, DDT was proven to be the cause of the decline in bald eagles.

Yeah, sure. And smoking doesn't cause cancer either.

False. O2 and N2 are IR inactive. Jesus, do you ever bother to check the facts?

Wrong.

Bet you doubt CFCs damage the ozone layer too. Suspect you don't believe in evolution either. Hey, do you maintain the earth is 6000 years old?

Yes, but all the scientific evidence shows a net positive feedback.

Do you really believe EVERY scientific agency and group in the world is wrong about this? And that only you, guided by a few right-wing web sites, are right?

And for those interested in the earth not going around the sun, fixedearth.com

At least by calling themselves "junk science" they're being truthful.

His entire post was political. It sure wasn't scientific. It's off right-wing web sites, Mr. "Gee, I can come up with a dirty-sounding name"

You've GOT to be kidding.....

Semantic horseshit. So who cares if you stop calling it "theory" and call it "fact," once its proven? The concept remains the same. And besides, how do you know something is "inherently" not provable? Someone may devise a proof tomorrow. Unless of course we're talking about religion, wherein I agree things are inherently non-provable. Oh wait, global warming IS a religion....

That's really funny. You honestly think those gasses have no interaction with solar electromagnetic radiation at all? Try again.

Ah here we go. Lloyd's last resort: wild non-sequitir accusations. But I'll play, because Lloyd always loses these.

Actually, I do believe the CFC interaction with ozone was rather well established. By science, not by mythology. I was rather skeptical 20 years ago, but not any more. There was a nice logical progression, each step measurable and traceable, that went from low-altitude CFCs which break down very slowly, to a breakdown mechanism that occurs readily at high altitude, which resulted in free flourine and chlorine, which had a clear potential to break down ozone. The fact that you could fly a U2 or Canberra up there and actually *make* the measurements helped a lot. There was no "and an unknown process that violates everything we know about the stability of the ecosystem occurs here...." step required. And since CFC usage has been curtailed, a measurable recovery in atmospheric ozone has occurred.

Certain aspects of evolution are clear, others aren't. The idea that it is *solely* responsible for life as we know it has some serious problems with basic probability theory... evolution ALONE producing life as we know it would be about as likely as a pencil balancing on its point on Funk N. Wagnall's desk for 100 years and through 2 earthquakes. Not impossible, but not realistically probable, even given a few billion years of random chance. There's more to the story.

Got a one-word answer for ya there: No.

So now what, Lloyd? Gonna accuse me of believing in the tooth fairy next in order to discredit?

No, "all" the scientific evidence doesn't.

Of course not. Because not EVERY scientific agency and group agrees with you.

The mere fact that you routinely throw around words like "all" and "every" proves that you're far from scientific in your thinking. But that's obvious for countless other reasons, too.

Do we not already have scientific proof?

The 'sky is falling' folks keep telling us that man is casing the world to warm by belching more CO2 into the atmosphere. If that is true why has the earths average temperature not risen over the past ten years, even though they insist the CO2 level is continuing to rise? Does that not prove their theory that CO2 cause a rise in temperature? ;)

It is notable that are not cross posting your opinion in any scientific NGs, only as an off topic post in several NGs. I wonder why, is it because you will not be heard in one of those NG? If all you can do to support 'your man is the cause' theory is keep referring to the 'right wing,' why do you not leave this automobile NG and go to one of the political sits to promote your theory with folk the may be able to influence? You certainly are not influencing anybody in this NG, except the other lefty kooks.

Interesting point. If we really knew what causes cancer we could cure cancer. Can you point us to a site that has proof that smoking causes cancer? The fact is millions who smokers never develop cancer and die of old age. If smoking indeed caused cancer why do not all smokers develop cancer?

We know the Rino Virus causes the common "cold," because the US Navy proved that many years ago. Everyone the Navy exposed to a Rino virus develops the symptoms, but not everyone exposed to "the cold," developed systems. Everyone that smokes does not develop cancer. How can that be? The truth is most people that get cancer do not get lung cancer from smoking.

They recently discovered a virus that causes cancer of the cervix in woman and they can give them an injection to help prevent that cancer. If we know the true cause of decease we eventually find a cure.

As to DDT causing the demise of birds, the THEORY presented in the book "The Silent Spring" were disproven years ago.

Do some points in that article bring to mind any of the "man is the cause theorists?

I E "As I neared the middle of the book, the feeling grew in my mind that Rachel Carson was really playing loose with the facts and was also deliberately wording many sentences in such a way as to make them IMPLY certain things without actually saying them. She was carefully omitting everything that failed to support her thesis that pesticides were bad, that industry was bad, and that any scientists who did not support her views were bad.

Dedication: A Lie

Birds Vs. Human Deaths

I then took notice of her bibliography and realized that it was filled with references from very unscientific sources. Also, each reference was cited separately each time it appeared in the book, thus producing an impressive array of "references" even though not many different sources were actually cited. I began to lose confidence in Rachel Carson, even though I thought that as an environmentalist I really should continue to support her.

I next looked up some of the references that Carson cited and quickly found that they did not support her contentions about the harm caused by pesticides. When leading scientists began to publish harsh criticisms of her methods and her allegations, it slowly dawned on me that Rachel Carson was not interested in the truth about those topics, and that I really was being duped, along with millions of other Americans.

As a result, I went back to the beginning of the book and read it all again, but this time my eyes were open and I was not lulled into believing that her motives were noble and that her statements could be supported by logic and by scientific fact. I wrote my comments down in rough draft style, and gathered together the scientific articles that refuted what Carson had reported the articles indicated. It was a most frustrating experience."

That's true. Because most people who get cancer get a different form of cancer. But most people who get lung cancer get it from smoking.

They've known that the virus causes cancer 20 years ago.

Well, no. We know the cause of cystic fibrosis of the pancreas and sickle cell disease, but there is no cure, although the treatments prolong the life of the people with these diseases and greatly improve the quality of their lives. In fact, sickle cell disease was the first genetic disease that we understood the cause.

However, if we understand the cause of a disease, we can often prevent the disease. We can prevent poisoning be preventing people from being exposed to poisons. We know that heart disease is caused by smoking, lack of exercise and poor diet. Not smoking, getting plenty of exercise and a proper diet decreases the incidence of heart disease and reduces the complications. Likewise, not smoking decreases the incidence of lung cancer and bladder cancer as well as arterial disease.

You're welcome to do you own homework and learn more about the causes of lung cancer here:

or here:

Jeff

Again you pick and choose to be heard on every thread. What part of "If smoking indeed caused cancer why do not all smokers develop cancer?"

If you are following the thread the comparison was to teh question, If the increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of global warming, as the theorist are contending, why has the average earth temperature NOT risen in over ten years while the percentage of CO2 has gone up by the amount they suggest? ')

No - an inconvenient (for you and your ilk) truth.

Ummm - no.

Whatever you say, Lloyd.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Read it and weep, Lloyd. Once again, a so-called scientist faking his experiment (by feeding the birds a low calcium diet and blaming the thin egg shells on DDT) - much like the GW people who have gotten caught over and over and over again routinely falsifying their data to get the results they want:

"The DDT/eggshell thinning bandwagon got really rolling with two scientific articles. The first study, 'Decrease in Eggshell Weight in Certain Birds of Prey,' by British Nature Conservancy researcher D.A. Ratcliffe, was published in Nature on July 8, 1967. Ratcliffe claimed that the incidence of broken eggs in nests of peregrine falcons, sparrowhawks, and golden eagles had increased considerably since 1950. He compared eggshells collected before 1946 with eggshells collected afterward, and found that post-1946 peregrine falcon eggshells weighed

19 percent less; sparrowhawks' weighed 24 percent less; and golden eagles' 8 percent less. Ratcliffe dismissed lack of food and radioactive contamination as explanations for the thinning, but noted 'some physiological change evidently followed a widespread and pervasive environmental change around 1945-1947... For the species examined, frequency of egg-breakage, scale of decrease in eggshell weight, subsequent status of breeding population, and exposure to persistent organic pesticides are correlated. The possibility that these phenomena are links in a causal chain is being investigated,' he concluded.

"Those British results were soon bolstered by the study 'Chlorinated Hydrocarbons and Eggshell Changes in Raptorial and Fish-Eating Birds,' published in an October 1968 issue of Science, and authored by Daniel Anderson and Joseph Hickey, both at the University of Wisconsin. 'Catastrophic declines of three raptorial species in the United States have been accompanied by decreases in eggshell thickness that began in

1947, and have amounted to 19 percent or more, and were identical to phenomena found in Britain,' they declared. The three species were peregrine falcons, bald eagles, and ospreys. They claimed that the eggshell thinning coincided with the introduction of chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides like DDT, and concluded that these compounds were harming certain species of birds at the tops of contaminated ecosystems.

"Still, the researchers just had a correlation between DDT and eggshell thinning. So they did what good scientists should do?they experimented. Joel Bitman at the U.S. Department of Agriculture fed Japanese quail a diet laced with DDT. His study, 'DDT Induces a Decrease in Eggshell Calcium,' published in Nature on October 4, 1969, found that the quail dosed with DDT had eggshells that were about 10 percent thinner than those of undosed quail. However, Bitman's findings were eventually overturned because he had also fed his quail a low-calcium diet. When the quail were fed normal amounts of calcium, the thinning effect disappeared. Studies published in Poultry Science found chicken eggs almost completely unaffected by high dosages of DDT."

Sorry Lloyd. Have a nice day.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

No it didn't. Either you were overdramatic about your affliction (highly likely), or time healed it. Chiropractic didn't do anything because it can't do anything except snap your neck or cause a stroke.

That's obvious, and it's not a faulty analogy.

Most herbal "medicines" are nothing but a scam to exploit superstition and hypochondria.

It's obvious you're not logical enough to hold any valid scientific opinions, including any about global warming.