Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#2661
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vptf3thq39cab0@corp.supernews.com...
>
> WE know he had them, we don't know what he did with them. If you owned a
> house twelve years ago, and you could not provide evidence that you had
sold
> it, would it not be logical to assume you still owned it?
>
Not if it was a mobile trailer house, WMD's are generally pretty mobile.
In any case who is "we". The CIA certainly wasn't claiming that Saddam had
WMD's
and why did the Bush administraton blow a deep-CIA agent's cover in revenge?
And
why haven't they come up with the name of the person in the Bush
administration who
released the name?
Your wasting your time attempting to use WMD's as a justification for going
to war
in Iraq. Nukes might have been there 10 years ago, or partial nukes, but
it's preposterous
to suggest they were there before the war. The case is a bit stronger for
bio agents,
but still inconclusive. It is clearly obvious to anyone with any education
that basing the
Iraq invasion on WMD was a lie.
However what is not clear to most people, even now it seems, is that WMD's
are not
the only justification for a unilateral invasion of another country. Lloyd
may be able to
make a coherent argument that Bush was lying when Bush used WMD's as pretext
for
going to war in Iraq. But there is absolutely no logical, reasonable, or
moral argument
Lloyd can make for allowing a dictator to remain in power who for fun would
cut the eyes
and tongues of people out of their heads, who killed his own brother in
broad daylight
and who committed numerous other atrocities. It was a terrible terrible
thing for the
nations of the world to stand idly by and allow this to continue year after
year, and they
damn well know it, they know it even now because they all want to pretend
that Iraq
doesen't exist right now. The invasion of Iraq was justified on moral and
human rights
grounds, and does not need further justification. Iraqi's today, despite
the mess in the
country, are better off now than they were under Saddam.
It is a shame that the President has not made this clear. But I can tell
you why he has not,
because if he did, then he would have to hold his own administration up to
the same moral
standards. This is why people in the Bush administration have no problem
with basically
committing treason by revealing the name of one of our better CIA agents,
thank God she
was in the country when they did it. In short, the Bush administration is
totally morally
bankrupt. They do not believe that the invasion of Iraq was justified on
moral grounds
simply because they themselves give absolutely no credit to morality. All
they care about
is personal power and greed.
Ted
>
#2662
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vptf3thq39cab0@corp.supernews.com...
>
> WE know he had them, we don't know what he did with them. If you owned a
> house twelve years ago, and you could not provide evidence that you had
sold
> it, would it not be logical to assume you still owned it?
>
Not if it was a mobile trailer house, WMD's are generally pretty mobile.
In any case who is "we". The CIA certainly wasn't claiming that Saddam had
WMD's
and why did the Bush administraton blow a deep-CIA agent's cover in revenge?
And
why haven't they come up with the name of the person in the Bush
administration who
released the name?
Your wasting your time attempting to use WMD's as a justification for going
to war
in Iraq. Nukes might have been there 10 years ago, or partial nukes, but
it's preposterous
to suggest they were there before the war. The case is a bit stronger for
bio agents,
but still inconclusive. It is clearly obvious to anyone with any education
that basing the
Iraq invasion on WMD was a lie.
However what is not clear to most people, even now it seems, is that WMD's
are not
the only justification for a unilateral invasion of another country. Lloyd
may be able to
make a coherent argument that Bush was lying when Bush used WMD's as pretext
for
going to war in Iraq. But there is absolutely no logical, reasonable, or
moral argument
Lloyd can make for allowing a dictator to remain in power who for fun would
cut the eyes
and tongues of people out of their heads, who killed his own brother in
broad daylight
and who committed numerous other atrocities. It was a terrible terrible
thing for the
nations of the world to stand idly by and allow this to continue year after
year, and they
damn well know it, they know it even now because they all want to pretend
that Iraq
doesen't exist right now. The invasion of Iraq was justified on moral and
human rights
grounds, and does not need further justification. Iraqi's today, despite
the mess in the
country, are better off now than they were under Saddam.
It is a shame that the President has not made this clear. But I can tell
you why he has not,
because if he did, then he would have to hold his own administration up to
the same moral
standards. This is why people in the Bush administration have no problem
with basically
committing treason by revealing the name of one of our better CIA agents,
thank God she
was in the country when they did it. In short, the Bush administration is
totally morally
bankrupt. They do not believe that the invasion of Iraq was justified on
moral grounds
simply because they themselves give absolutely no credit to morality. All
they care about
is personal power and greed.
Ted
>
#2663
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:xlznb.50720$Tr4.107112@attbi_s03...
>
> Yes, something *IS* happening to the climate. Why, and what it all
> involves is hardly decided or fully understood. I see this, the
> science. You sit back and see that CO2 content has increased and
> jump to a conclusion that is to blame. Why? Because it fits your
> politics.
>
It is true that this is what the politicians do, but keep in mind politics
is
an inexact science, and quite frequently to get to There from Here, you
have to go sideways.
Look at it this way. We all probably can agree that polluting the air is
bad,
although I'll allow that there's no doubt disagreement on the levels of what
constitutes pollution. We all can probably agree that acid rain today is
doing millions of dollars of damage to buildings and plantlife every year,
and is being caused by air pollution.
The problem is that in order to force the polluters to clean up their air
pollution to the extent that acid rain disappears, we have to bring pressure
to bear on them. If just the existence of acid rain itself was enough to
get the public riled up enough to bring sufficient pressure, then there
would
be no problem. Unfortunately the public is unable to grasp complex ideas
(well the majority of people are it seems) so loses interest in this whole
acid
rain thing rather quickly.
So, the politicians picked global warming, which is ill defined but a
simplistic
concept, and serves the purpose of grabbing the public attention, getting
them
to apply pressure to their elected officials, who apply pressure to the
polluters,
who eventually when this goes on long enough, finally buckle and pay the
money
to install the scrubbers needed to clean the smokestack emissions so that
the
acid rain problem finally gets fixed. In the last analysis, neither side
really gives
a danm about global warming, the argument is really over acid rain. Only
the
general public is being manipulated by the image of global warming.
The politicians used this quite effectively to shut down the logging of old
growth
in the Pacific NW with the Northern Spotted Owl. People's eyes would glaze
over when you started talking about biodiversity, wildlife corridors, the
fact that
just about all the old growth was gone and none of the sawmills here had
retooled
for smaller logs and once the old growth was gone their lumber companies
were
just going to ashcan the mills anyhow. But, an owl is a simple thing to
understand
and as well you get the icon of "wise owl" and so forth. They certainly
didn't pick
the Northern spotted rat to fight over.
That is how politics works. It's ugly, but nobody has thought up anything
better.
Ted
#2664
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:xlznb.50720$Tr4.107112@attbi_s03...
>
> Yes, something *IS* happening to the climate. Why, and what it all
> involves is hardly decided or fully understood. I see this, the
> science. You sit back and see that CO2 content has increased and
> jump to a conclusion that is to blame. Why? Because it fits your
> politics.
>
It is true that this is what the politicians do, but keep in mind politics
is
an inexact science, and quite frequently to get to There from Here, you
have to go sideways.
Look at it this way. We all probably can agree that polluting the air is
bad,
although I'll allow that there's no doubt disagreement on the levels of what
constitutes pollution. We all can probably agree that acid rain today is
doing millions of dollars of damage to buildings and plantlife every year,
and is being caused by air pollution.
The problem is that in order to force the polluters to clean up their air
pollution to the extent that acid rain disappears, we have to bring pressure
to bear on them. If just the existence of acid rain itself was enough to
get the public riled up enough to bring sufficient pressure, then there
would
be no problem. Unfortunately the public is unable to grasp complex ideas
(well the majority of people are it seems) so loses interest in this whole
acid
rain thing rather quickly.
So, the politicians picked global warming, which is ill defined but a
simplistic
concept, and serves the purpose of grabbing the public attention, getting
them
to apply pressure to their elected officials, who apply pressure to the
polluters,
who eventually when this goes on long enough, finally buckle and pay the
money
to install the scrubbers needed to clean the smokestack emissions so that
the
acid rain problem finally gets fixed. In the last analysis, neither side
really gives
a danm about global warming, the argument is really over acid rain. Only
the
general public is being manipulated by the image of global warming.
The politicians used this quite effectively to shut down the logging of old
growth
in the Pacific NW with the Northern Spotted Owl. People's eyes would glaze
over when you started talking about biodiversity, wildlife corridors, the
fact that
just about all the old growth was gone and none of the sawmills here had
retooled
for smaller logs and once the old growth was gone their lumber companies
were
just going to ashcan the mills anyhow. But, an owl is a simple thing to
understand
and as well you get the icon of "wise owl" and so forth. They certainly
didn't pick
the Northern spotted rat to fight over.
That is how politics works. It's ugly, but nobody has thought up anything
better.
Ted
#2665
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:xlznb.50720$Tr4.107112@attbi_s03...
>
> Yes, something *IS* happening to the climate. Why, and what it all
> involves is hardly decided or fully understood. I see this, the
> science. You sit back and see that CO2 content has increased and
> jump to a conclusion that is to blame. Why? Because it fits your
> politics.
>
It is true that this is what the politicians do, but keep in mind politics
is
an inexact science, and quite frequently to get to There from Here, you
have to go sideways.
Look at it this way. We all probably can agree that polluting the air is
bad,
although I'll allow that there's no doubt disagreement on the levels of what
constitutes pollution. We all can probably agree that acid rain today is
doing millions of dollars of damage to buildings and plantlife every year,
and is being caused by air pollution.
The problem is that in order to force the polluters to clean up their air
pollution to the extent that acid rain disappears, we have to bring pressure
to bear on them. If just the existence of acid rain itself was enough to
get the public riled up enough to bring sufficient pressure, then there
would
be no problem. Unfortunately the public is unable to grasp complex ideas
(well the majority of people are it seems) so loses interest in this whole
acid
rain thing rather quickly.
So, the politicians picked global warming, which is ill defined but a
simplistic
concept, and serves the purpose of grabbing the public attention, getting
them
to apply pressure to their elected officials, who apply pressure to the
polluters,
who eventually when this goes on long enough, finally buckle and pay the
money
to install the scrubbers needed to clean the smokestack emissions so that
the
acid rain problem finally gets fixed. In the last analysis, neither side
really gives
a danm about global warming, the argument is really over acid rain. Only
the
general public is being manipulated by the image of global warming.
The politicians used this quite effectively to shut down the logging of old
growth
in the Pacific NW with the Northern Spotted Owl. People's eyes would glaze
over when you started talking about biodiversity, wildlife corridors, the
fact that
just about all the old growth was gone and none of the sawmills here had
retooled
for smaller logs and once the old growth was gone their lumber companies
were
just going to ashcan the mills anyhow. But, an owl is a simple thing to
understand
and as well you get the icon of "wise owl" and so forth. They certainly
didn't pick
the Northern spotted rat to fight over.
That is how politics works. It's ugly, but nobody has thought up anything
better.
Ted
#2666
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F4EC7F4.B4BE1FC1@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. That means
driving
> > less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles, using coal less, using more
> > renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not clear-cutting
forests...
>
> I'll ignore the rest of your opinions on the subject. But explain to me
> how not clear cutting forest will help with global warming
If you don't clearcut old growth, you aren't able to manufacture anymore
these
nice, long, smooth-grained beautiful pieces of wood. Thus, the yuppies with
the SUV's see a bunch of icky knotty pine in the bins at Home Depot, and
lose
interest in their remodeling plans, thus are not driving the SUV back and
forth
from Home Depot all the time.
;-)
Ted
#2667
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F4EC7F4.B4BE1FC1@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. That means
driving
> > less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles, using coal less, using more
> > renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not clear-cutting
forests...
>
> I'll ignore the rest of your opinions on the subject. But explain to me
> how not clear cutting forest will help with global warming
If you don't clearcut old growth, you aren't able to manufacture anymore
these
nice, long, smooth-grained beautiful pieces of wood. Thus, the yuppies with
the SUV's see a bunch of icky knotty pine in the bins at Home Depot, and
lose
interest in their remodeling plans, thus are not driving the SUV back and
forth
from Home Depot all the time.
;-)
Ted
#2668
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F4EC7F4.B4BE1FC1@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. That means
driving
> > less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles, using coal less, using more
> > renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not clear-cutting
forests...
>
> I'll ignore the rest of your opinions on the subject. But explain to me
> how not clear cutting forest will help with global warming
If you don't clearcut old growth, you aren't able to manufacture anymore
these
nice, long, smooth-grained beautiful pieces of wood. Thus, the yuppies with
the SUV's see a bunch of icky knotty pine in the bins at Home Depot, and
lose
interest in their remodeling plans, thus are not driving the SUV back and
forth
from Home Depot all the time.
;-)
Ted
#2669
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bnm69q$12d4h3$1@ID-147790.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Earle Horton" <enfermero_diabolico@registerednurses.com> wrote:
>"A senile incontinent old fool named Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu>
>wrote in message news:bnm57i$ord$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>---snippy---
>> Perhaps if you knew some science, we could have an intelligent
>> discussion about science. But to claim, as some have here, that
>> evolution is not a fact is as UNintelligent as claiming atoms aren't
>> factual.
>>
>Evolution is not a fact Lloyd. It is a theory.
Bzzzt. Again, someone does not know what "theory" means in science. We have
something called "atomic theory." Does that mean atoms are not factual?
>It happens to be a good
>theory which explains much of the observed data, but it is still a theory.
>If you were a real scientist you would know this.
>
>Earle
>
>
It is a fact. It is as factual as atoms. It is as much a cornerstone of
biology as atoms are of chemistry.
"Earle Horton" <enfermero_diabolico@registerednurses.com> wrote:
>"A senile incontinent old fool named Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu>
>wrote in message news:bnm57i$ord$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>---snippy---
>> Perhaps if you knew some science, we could have an intelligent
>> discussion about science. But to claim, as some have here, that
>> evolution is not a fact is as UNintelligent as claiming atoms aren't
>> factual.
>>
>Evolution is not a fact Lloyd. It is a theory.
Bzzzt. Again, someone does not know what "theory" means in science. We have
something called "atomic theory." Does that mean atoms are not factual?
>It happens to be a good
>theory which explains much of the observed data, but it is still a theory.
>If you were a real scientist you would know this.
>
>Earle
>
>
It is a fact. It is as factual as atoms. It is as much a cornerstone of
biology as atoms are of chemistry.
#2670
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bnm69q$12d4h3$1@ID-147790.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Earle Horton" <enfermero_diabolico@registerednurses.com> wrote:
>"A senile incontinent old fool named Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu>
>wrote in message news:bnm57i$ord$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>---snippy---
>> Perhaps if you knew some science, we could have an intelligent
>> discussion about science. But to claim, as some have here, that
>> evolution is not a fact is as UNintelligent as claiming atoms aren't
>> factual.
>>
>Evolution is not a fact Lloyd. It is a theory.
Bzzzt. Again, someone does not know what "theory" means in science. We have
something called "atomic theory." Does that mean atoms are not factual?
>It happens to be a good
>theory which explains much of the observed data, but it is still a theory.
>If you were a real scientist you would know this.
>
>Earle
>
>
It is a fact. It is as factual as atoms. It is as much a cornerstone of
biology as atoms are of chemistry.
"Earle Horton" <enfermero_diabolico@registerednurses.com> wrote:
>"A senile incontinent old fool named Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu>
>wrote in message news:bnm57i$ord$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>---snippy---
>> Perhaps if you knew some science, we could have an intelligent
>> discussion about science. But to claim, as some have here, that
>> evolution is not a fact is as UNintelligent as claiming atoms aren't
>> factual.
>>
>Evolution is not a fact Lloyd. It is a theory.
Bzzzt. Again, someone does not know what "theory" means in science. We have
something called "atomic theory." Does that mean atoms are not factual?
>It happens to be a good
>theory which explains much of the observed data, but it is still a theory.
>If you were a real scientist you would know this.
>
>Earle
>
>
It is a fact. It is as factual as atoms. It is as much a cornerstone of
biology as atoms are of chemistry.