Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
* KLC Lewis wrote, On 4/4/2007 9:11 PM:
When I was a wee little lass in Elementary school, yea, even when I was
older and graduated from High School, the "concensus view" was that
there was, once upon a time, a critter called a "Brontosaurus," who
lived in marshes and dragged his tail. It was also the concensus view
that this critter, and those like him, died out because they "got too
big."
No. That's a cute story, but fantasy. Although there were much
speculation as to what might have caused the extinctions, there was
certainly no consensus on the topic. To quote the Encyclopedia
Britannica from 1973:

"What caused this sudden extinction? The answer is not at all clear.
Temperature changes, epidemics, eating of dinosaur eggs by early
mammals, have all been suggested but are far from satisfactory."

Perhaps in your school system the teachers made up fairy tales; that
could explain a lot.

The Denver Public School System, in the 60's, was rated very highly. And
regardless what the Encyclopedia Britannica would say in the next decade,
the story I related was accurate.

I was at the local library today and wandered over to the "Dinosaur"
section. The books there were labeled with the publication date on the
spine, so it was easy to find the several books from the late '50's
through the '60's. For completeness, I also went up to the "old
reference" section and found an encyclopedia from 1967. Without
exception, they had the same information as the 1973 Britannica. For
example, "The Fossil Book," 1958, went on for several pages in a section
titled "The Puzzle of Extinction" with a discussion of the various
theories. They favored climate change triggered by some unknown cause,
but noted that no one had presented any complete theory that fit the data.
Without exception, every text presented this as a mystery that maybe
someday will be solved. This is how I remember the subject being
presented here in Boston, but secretly I favored the egg-sucking mammal
theory.

So the question now is, was the Denver School System incompetent back
then, or is KLC spinning a cute yarn?

Now you're just being insulting. Perhaps the teachers back then, rather
relying upon the most recent data, repeated what they had been told when
*they* were in school. How many elementary school teachers do you know who
are rocket scientists? The fact remains that the critter was called
"Brontosaurus" at least until 1974, we were taught that he dragged his tail,
and we were taught that they died out from "Gigantism."

You can apply today's theories and knowledge to the past as much as you
would like, but I attended public school in three states (Colorado, New
York, New Jersey), and distinctly remember being taught pretty much the same
thing in all of them. Were they wrong? Yup. That's my point, innit?

As for Gigantism killing the dinosaurs, the theory is making a comeback --
at least in some circles: http://www.dinoextinct.com/ . Will you now claim
that this website doesn't exist?

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...
Now you're just being insulting. Perhaps the teachers back then, rather
relying upon the most recent data, repeated what they had been told when
*they* were in school. How many elementary school teachers do you know who
are rocket scientists? The fact remains that the critter was called
"Brontosaurus" at least until 1974, we were taught that he dragged his
tail, and we were taught that they died out from "Gigantism."

You can apply today's theories and knowledge to the past as much as you
would like, but I attended public school in three states (Colorado, New
York, New Jersey), and distinctly remember being taught pretty much the
same thing in all of them. Were they wrong? Yup. That's my point, innit?

As for Gigantism killing the dinosaurs, the theory is making a comeback --
at least in some circles: http://www.dinoextinct.com/ . Will you now claim
that this website doesn't exist?


Another link which addresses the "Gigantism" theory, proving for Jeff that
such a theory did, in point of fact, exist in the past, and has since been
falsified. Gee, funny that someone would go to all the trouble of falsifying
a theory that I couldn't have been taught because it didn't exist, but there
ya go.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/extincthypo.html

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

* KLC Lewis wrote, On 4/5/2007 8:23 PM:
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...
Now you're just being insulting. Perhaps the teachers back then, rather
relying upon the most recent data, repeated what they had been told when
*they* were in school. How many elementary school teachers do you know who
are rocket scientists? The fact remains that the critter was called
"Brontosaurus" at least until 1974, we were taught that he dragged his
tail, and we were taught that they died out from "Gigantism."

You can apply today's theories and knowledge to the past as much as you
would like, but I attended public school in three states (Colorado, New
York, New Jersey), and distinctly remember being taught pretty much the
same thing in all of them. Were they wrong? Yup. That's my point, innit?

As for Gigantism killing the dinosaurs, the theory is making a comeback --
at least in some circles: http://www.dinoextinct.com/ . Will you now claim
that this website doesn't exist?

The website exists, but I can make the claim that it doesn't represent
"science."



Another link which addresses the "Gigantism" theory, proving for Jeff that
such a theory did, in point of fact, exist in the past, and has since been
falsified. Gee, funny that someone would go to all the trouble of falsifying
a theory that I couldn't have been taught because it didn't exist, but there
ya go.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/extincthypo.html

Thanks for the link - that only proves my point. There were many
hypotheses for the extinction, but virtually no proof for any of them.
There is nothing wrong with presenting the various suggested
possibilities, that's exactly what the my teachers did, and what the
books of the day taught. Selecting one of them, and teaching it as
accepted fact, as you claim your teachers did, is, at best, incompetence.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Jeff" wrote in message
...

Thanks for the link - that only proves my point. There were many
hypotheses for the extinction, but virtually no proof for any of them.
There is nothing wrong with presenting the various suggested
possibilities, that's exactly what the my teachers did, and what the books
of the day taught. Selecting one of them, and teaching it as accepted
fact, as you claim your teachers did, is, at best, incompetence.

Still can't bring yourself to admit that I related a true story, can you?

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

* KLC Lewis wrote, On 4/5/2007 9:46 PM:
"Jeff" wrote in message
...
Thanks for the link - that only proves my point. There were many
hypotheses for the extinction, but virtually no proof for any of them.
There is nothing wrong with presenting the various suggested
possibilities, that's exactly what the my teachers did, and what the books
of the day taught. Selecting one of them, and teaching it as accepted
fact, as you claim your teachers did, is, at best, incompetence.

Still can't bring yourself to admit that I related a true story, can you?

Did I ever say that? I only said that if it happened as you claim,
the teachers were incompetent.

Thinking about it, I can remember several instances of being taught
falsehoods - The Great Western was not the first ship to use steam to
cross the Atlantic, and Henry Ford did not make the first automobile.

My problem with your story is the implication is that society freely
accepts theories that are later shown to be false. While there may be
some cases of that, dinosaur extinction by gigantism is not one of
them. Whether you were taught it, imagined it, or made it up
yesterday is irrelevant. It was never accepted as probable by a
significant number of scientists; it was just one of many hypotheses
proposed to explain a mystery.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
* KLC Lewis wrote, On 4/5/2007 9:46 PM:

Still can't bring yourself to admit that I related a true story, can you?

Did I ever say that? I only said that if it happened as you claim, the
teachers were incompetent.

Thinking about it, I can remember several instances of being taught
falsehoods - The Great Western was not the first ship to use steam to
cross the Atlantic, and Henry Ford did not make the first automobile.

My problem with your story is the implication is that society freely
accepts theories that are later shown to be false. While there may be
some cases of that, dinosaur extinction by gigantism is not one of them.
Whether you were taught it, imagined it, or made it up yesterday is
irrelevant. It was never accepted as probable by a significant number of
scientists; it was just one of many hypotheses proposed to explain a
mystery.

As recently as 20 years ago, the medical community believed, and taught,
that ulcers were caused by stress. Treatment for the condition was based
upon that theory. It was universally accepted. It was nonetheless wrong.

As recently as today, students are still being taught that Pluto is a
planet, even though it is really only a "Kuyper Belt Object," and there are
a significant number of *larger* Kuyper Belt Objects that have *never* been
considered to be planets. Indeed, at least one Kuyper Belt Object (other
than Pluto) has a moon, yet is still not a planet. So why are students still
being taught outdated "facts"?

What science considers to be truth today is what will be taught in schools
for some time to come. Textbooks are not printed anew each time a new fact
displaces an old fact -- nor can they be. So there will always be a lag
between new discoveries and their acceptance by the general public -- for
that matter, even by the experts in that particular field. And even then,
there will always be the "old guard" who will cling steadfastly to what
*they* learned when *they* were in school.

Eventually, most -- if not all -- science textbooks will teach that Global
Warming is caused by CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere by human activity.
It may be taught as only a theory, but it will be accepted as fact, as the
most current theories generally are. And by that time, it is highly likely
that this theory, too, will be surplanted by another.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On 4 Apr 2007 18:20:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 18:10:23 -0500, "KLC Lewis" said:

When I was a wee little lass in Elementary school, yea, even when I was
older and graduated from High School, the "concensus view" was that there
was, once upon a time, a critter called a "Brontosaurus," who lived in
marshes and dragged his tail. It was also the concensus view that this
critter, and those like him, died out because they "got too big."

And wasn't there a "consensus view" that we were about to enter a new ice
age around 1970?

"Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No"
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 18:49:04 -0400, Jeff wrote:

* Cessna 310 wrote, On 4/5/2007 6:31 PM:

After working with others for years developing ANSI and ISO standards,
the meaning of consensus is fairly well understood. It basically means
that though everyone may not agree with the final document, all the
objections and negative votes have been addressed. The "final" standard
is one that everyone can live with.

Using this practical definition, there is no consensus agreement on
whether or not man is the cause of global warming.


That could be why this use of "consensus" is meaningless for
scientific issues. For standards, everyone has already agreed to the
concept that a 100% consensus that "everyone can live with" is more
important than having a "perfect" standard.

In the scientific world, a 100% consensus has no value, and in fact is
undesirable. Scientists look for the truth, not some compromise that
the most people can live with. The skeptics serve an important role
in the process. In this world, the meaning of "consensus" is quite
different.


I also worked with ISO and, additionally, with self directed teams in
organizations. The teams had in their charter that consensus would be
the only means of arriving at a decision. The meaning of consensus in
both of those arenas is just as described by Cessna 310. Multiply my
experience by the number of other organizations that have been exposed
to that and the population is large.

Jeff, my only point is that for many people that is the meaning of
consensus. If that group hears that word used in the case of GW, but
knows that there are dissenters, then the credibility of those in the
majority will be discounted. As you said, it is too important a
matter to let that happen and there are better describers that will
not cause that to happen.

I'm not commenting on the reality of GW, the cause, and certainly not
on any course of action with regard to it, just on being as clear as
possible about what gets reported to the general public. Nor am I
commenting on your opinion on the matter, since I don't actually know
what it is.

I'm as concerned as most about the probability of GW, and have taken
more personal action in that regard than the Al Gore's, John Travoltas
and others who seem to know what "we" should do, but are not willing
to do themselves. Add them and others like them to what many "common
folks" feel is a misues of the term "consensus" , and you get a
discount of the issue that is not in anyone's best interest.

And I do understand that in the dictionary, depending on which one and
which version, majority is used as a definition in some order. My
world book and MW have general agreement, unanimity as the first. But
that's not the point. I refer to that population mentioned above that
have had the meaning I hold true, drilled into them. They are not
going to run to the dictionary, they will react to the use and
possibly discount the message.

Frank

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Frank Boettcher wrote:


I'm as concerned as most about the probability of GW, and have taken
more personal action in that regard than the Al Gore's, John Travoltas
and others who seem to know what "we" should do, but are not willing
to do themselves. Add them and others like them to what many "common
folks" feel is a misues of the term "consensus" , and you get a
discount of the issue that is not in anyone's best interest.


A link to consider:

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF.../ice_ages.html

Presents the FACTS of global warming, not speculation.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
On 4 Apr 2007 18:20:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 18:10:23 -0500, "KLC Lewis" said:

When I was a wee little lass in Elementary school, yea, even when I was
older and graduated from High School, the "concensus view" was that there
was, once upon a time, a critter called a "Brontosaurus," who lived in
marshes and dragged his tail. It was also the concensus view that this
critter, and those like him, died out because they "got too big."
And wasn't there a "consensus view" that we were about to enter a new ice
age around 1970?

"Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No"
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/



http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF.../ice_ages.html

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

* KLC Lewis wrote, On 4/5/2007 10:45 PM:
"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
* KLC Lewis wrote, On 4/5/2007 9:46 PM:
....
My problem with your story is the implication is that society freely
accepts theories that are later shown to be false. While there may be
some cases of that, dinosaur extinction by gigantism is not one of them.
Whether you were taught it, imagined it, or made it up yesterday is
irrelevant. It was never accepted as probable by a significant number of
scientists; it was just one of many hypotheses proposed to explain a
mystery.


Two interesting cases you have - as I said there are a few.

As recently as 20 years ago, the medical community believed, and taught,
that ulcers were caused by stress. Treatment for the condition was based
upon that theory. It was universally accepted. It was nonetheless wrong.


Not entirely true, its still accepted that emotional stress can make
the symptoms worse, and physical stress seems to trigger the ulcer
infection. A large segment of the population is infected with the
bacteria, but only a small number get ulcers - the reason for this is
not understood.

Also, it must be remembered that this breakthrough in treatment
involves drugs that did not exist a few decades earlier, so reducing
stress and modifying diet was not a bad treatment.

You would do better to find cases where the traditional treatment was
the complete opposite of what we believe to be true today. In the
field of medicine, it should be easy to find dozens of such examples.

As recently as today, students are still being taught that Pluto is a
planet, even though it is really only a "Kuyper Belt Object," and there are
a significant number of *larger* Kuyper Belt Objects that have *never* been
considered to be planets. Indeed, at least one Kuyper Belt Object (other
than Pluto) has a moon, yet is still not a planet. So why are students still
being taught outdated "facts"?

This issue is total bogus, as it has little to do with Pluto, but with
the discovery of additional objects that caused astronomers to rethink
the traditional classification system. In particular, the discovery
of another roughly the size of Pluto meant that we had to decide
between an ever-growing pantheon of planets, or 8 true planets, and a
growing list of "dwarf" or "minor" planets.

I remember being taught that Pluto was an "odd" planet, quite
different from others. I also remember Fred Whipple, Al Cameron and
others predicting that we might find numerous objects out there. Fred
Leonard even speculated in 1930 that Pluto may be the first of a
series of ultra-Neptunian bodies. It was just that we had to wait
until 1992 to begin to discover the large number of objects.

BTW, the term "Kuiper Belt" is somewhat controversial, since Kuiper
had nothing to do with the discovery, and even claimed that it would
unlikely to find much. The "Leonard-Whipple" belt would be more
appropriate, but many favor "Trans-Neptunian Objects" (TNO's) or Minor
Planets.


What science considers to be truth today is what will be taught in schools
for some time to come. Textbooks are not printed anew each time a new fact
displaces an old fact -- nor can they be. So there will always be a lag
between new discoveries and their acceptance by the general public -- for
that matter, even by the experts in that particular field. And even then,
there will always be the "old guard" who will cling steadfastly to what
*they* learned when *they* were in school.

True, but it is sad that the common perception, reinforced by the
popular press, often misses the true story. For example, the real
story of Pluto is not that we lost a planet, but that we gained a
whole category of minor planets.

It is also sad that one book or movie that had little scientific
foundation becomes remembered as the "consensus view." A perfect
example of this is the book "The Cooling" which I happened to run into
at the library yesterday. Dave mentioned in another thread that this
was the "consensus view" in the 70's, but in fact it was a fringe
view, not supported by any science. Even today, its poor
interpretations of the contemporary science are repeated to show how
science has "flip-flopped."


Eventually, most -- if not all -- science textbooks will teach that Global
Warming is caused by CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere by human activity.
It may be taught as only a theory, but it will be accepted as fact, as the
most current theories generally are. And by that time, it is highly likely
that this theory, too, will be surplanted by another.

It is highly likely that there will be some significant change to the
theory, but "supplanted" is not quite the right word. Any new theory
has to take into account the data that has been collected thus far.
As more and more data seems to support the consensus view of
anthropogenic climate change, it becomes less likely that the current
theory will be replaced by something totally different.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On Apr 6, 11:50 am, Jeff wrote:
* KLC Lewis wrote, On 4/5/2007 10:45 PM:

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
* KLC Lewis wrote, On 4/5/2007 9:46 PM:
...
My problem with your story is the implication is that society freely
accepts theories that are later shown to be false. While there may be
some cases of that, dinosaur extinction by gigantism is not one of them.
Whether you were taught it, imagined it, or made it up yesterday is
irrelevant. It was never accepted as probable by a significant number of
scientists; it was just one of many hypotheses proposed to explain a
mystery.

Two interesting cases you have - as I said there are a few.

As recently as 20 years ago, the medical community believed, and taught,
that ulcers were caused by stress. Treatment for the condition was based
upon that theory. It was universally accepted. It was nonetheless wrong.

Not entirely true, its still accepted that emotional stress can make
the symptoms worse, and physical stress seems to trigger the ulcer
infection. A large segment of the population is infected with the
bacteria, but only a small number get ulcers - the reason for this is
not understood.

Also, it must be remembered that this breakthrough in treatment
involves drugs that did not exist a few decades earlier, so reducing
stress and modifying diet was not a bad treatment.

You would do better to find cases where the traditional treatment was
the complete opposite of what we believe to be true today. In the
field of medicine, it should be easy to find dozens of such examples.

As recently as today, students are still being taught that Pluto is a
planet, even though it is really only a "Kuyper Belt Object," and there are
a significant number of *larger* Kuyper Belt Objects that have *never* been
considered to be planets. Indeed, at least one Kuyper Belt Object (other
than Pluto) has a moon, yet is still not a planet. So why are students still
being taught outdated "facts"?

This issue is total bogus, as it has little to do with Pluto, but with
the discovery of additional objects that caused astronomers to rethink
the traditional classification system. In particular, the discovery
of another roughly the size of Pluto meant that we had to decide
between an ever-growing pantheon of planets, or 8 true planets, and a
growing list of "dwarf" or "minor" planets.

I remember being taught that Pluto was an "odd" planet, quite
different from others. I also remember Fred Whipple, Al Cameron and
others predicting that we might find numerous objects out there. Fred
Leonard even speculated in 1930 that Pluto may be the first of a
series of ultra-Neptunian bodies. It was just that we had to wait
until 1992 to begin to discover the large number of objects.

BTW, the term "Kuiper Belt" is somewhat controversial, since Kuiper
had nothing to do with the discovery, and even claimed that it would
unlikely to find much. The "Leonard-Whipple" belt would be more
appropriate, but many favor "Trans-Neptunian Objects" (TNO's) or Minor
Planets.



What science considers to be truth today is what will be taught in schools
for some time to come. Textbooks are not printed anew each time a new fact
displaces an old fact -- nor can they be. So there will always be a lag
between new discoveries and their acceptance by the general public -- for
that matter, even by the experts in that particular field. And even then,
there will always be the "old guard" who will cling steadfastly to what
*they* learned when *they* were in school.

True, but it is sad that the common perception, reinforced by the
popular press, often misses the true story. For example, the real
story of Pluto is not that we lost a planet, but that we gained a
whole category of minor planets.

It is also sad that one book or movie that had little scientific
foundation becomes remembered as the "consensus view." A perfect
example of this is the book "The Cooling" which I happened to run into
at the library yesterday. Dave mentioned in another thread that this
was the "consensus view" in the 70's, but in fact it was a fringe
view, not supported by any science. Even today, its poor
interpretations of the contemporary science are repeated to show how
science has "flip-flopped."



Eventually, most -- if not all -- science textbooks will teach that Global
Warming is caused by CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere by human activity.
It may be taught as only a theory, but it will be accepted as fact, as the
most current theories generally are. And by that time, it is highly likely
that this theory, too, will be surplanted by another.

It is highly likely that there will be some significant change to the
theory, but "supplanted" is not quite the right word. Any new theory
has to take into account the data that has been collected thus far.
As more and more data seems to support the consensus view of
anthropogenic climate change, it becomes less likely that the current
theory will be replaced by something totally different.



i keep finding it funny that while CO2 is a bad thing there are other
gasses that are worse; and for those of you who get atmospheric chem
what happens if the meth hydrid ice melts? hows our hocky stick graph
then?

see the problem is not so much the close in stuff its the stuff that
we are getting really close to.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

* Two meter troll wrote, On 4/6/2007 7:30 PM:


i keep finding it funny that while CO2 is a bad thing there are other
gasses that are worse; and for those of you who get atmospheric chem
what happens if the meth hydrid ice melts? hows our hocky stick graph
then?

Hey, the holes in the ozone layer won't just heal themselves!

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Cessna 310 wrote in :

there is no consensus agreement on
whether or not man is the cause of global warming.


Not as long as all the funding continues...it'll never end!

Larry
--

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Cessna 310 wrote in :

Presents the FACTS of global warming, not speculation.



http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...ming_swindle/i
ndex.html

Finest presentation from the finest scientist on the subject.
Wait until you see the weather balloon data! The SURFACE of the planet IS
warmer. The ATMOSPHERE of the planet is COLDER!...go figure.

Youtube HAD the movie on it, but there seems to only be an abridged version
left after the GW hackers trashed it. The abridged is 8 minutes of the
hour, without all the extensive documentation.
alt.binaries.multimedia.documentaries newsgroup has posted it in its
entirety, many times. Fantastic show...The sky is NOT falling!

CO2 wouldn't be problem if we can stop the GOVERNMENT FUNDING the academics
are sucking on.

Larry
--

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Cessna 310 wrote in :

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF.../ice_ages.html

My favorite quote from it:

"2. CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000
years-- long before humans invented smokestacks ( Figure 1). Unless you
count campfires and intestinal gas, man played no role in the pre-
industrial increases."

This brings into question how much intestinal gas ancient man produced,
given he had no beer, that we know of....

Larry
--

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Cessna 310 wrote in :

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF.../ice_ages.html

"Atmospheric concentrations of the various greenhouse gases have been
adjusted for heat retention potential of each. For example, the global
warming potential (GWP) of various man-made chloroflourocarbons (CFC's)
range between 1,300 and 9,300 times greater potency as greenhouse gases
than CO2. Methane has a GWP of about 21 and nitrous oxide a GWP of about
310.

Comparing greenhouse gases by strict concentration only, the total human
component is somewhere between 0.1% and 0.2%, depending on whose numbers
you use. Adjusted for GWP, the total human contribution to Earth's overall
greenhouse effect is about 0.28%."

So, the 18.8 oz of R-12 in my 1973 Mercedes 220D's really-great-working air
conditioner is NOT going to depopulate the planet. So, can I have my
68c/16 oz can R-12 back....instead of the $8.29/12 oz R-134a the *******s
are selling now?

NOT! .28%?! Lied to by our Illuminati government, yet again.....

Larry
--

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"KLC Lewis" wrote in
et:

Eventually, most -- if not all -- science textbooks will teach that
Global Warming is caused by CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere by
human activity. It may be taught as only a theory, but it will be
accepted as fact, as the most current theories generally are. And by
that time, it is highly likely that this theory, too, will be
surplanted by another.



If current trends continue, in the USA at least, science textbooks will be
full of religious nonsense such as the Christian BS that the Earth is ONLY
6000 years old, or something stupid like that, in spite of the MOUNTAIN of
real evidence to the contrary, like nuclear physics of the Carbon 14 atoms.

MANY teachers in YOUR local schools are devout Christians who ARE teaching
this as fact "because the bible says so". Religion depends on the
indoctrination of the young, in any sect. Forcing it into the schools is a
matter of survival of the cults.

Darwin was right. Just look at the teaching staff at any high school!

Larry
--

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Larry wrote:


Darwin was right. Just look at the teaching staff at any high school!

Larry

Darwin was wrong. Just look at the teaching staff at any public high
school with a tenure system.

Darwin was wrong. Just look at the teaching staff at most colleges and
universities with a tenure system.