Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#2691
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Al Lewis" <big@boss.man> wrote in message
news:hojupvo338i74kjd3v31teul35l5e0opbs@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:16:28 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> <onlytheone@thetopknows.com>
>
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bnm54u$nk9$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <vprkhgchpgi642@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >> >news:bnjeoi$b81$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> >> In article <vpof02qkahoq17@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> >> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >> Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and
150,000
> >US
> >> >> >troops
> >> >> >> haven't found them.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Bingo, The UN couldn't find them, although it is well documented
that
> >> >they
> >> >> >existed.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not in 2003.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >That is why they were still looking, that is why we are still
> >> >> >looking. We haven't found Saddam yet either, but we know he exists
as
> >> >well.
> >> >> >Or do you think that is also a lie?
> >> >>
> >> >> Is he as big as the WMD?
> >> >
> >> >You do realize Saddam had twelve years in which to hide them. Where is
> >Jimmy
> >> >Hoffa?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> We claimed direct evidence and knowledge that WMD were there in 2003.
> >
> >No, we asked for proof of where they were and if they had been destroyed,
as
> >per the UN Mandate. Saddam refused to provide said proof. You really are
> >dumb aren't you.
>
>
> Not as dumb as you, who can't remember back as far as 8 months ago.
>
Plonk
#2692
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Al Lewis" <big@boss.man> wrote in message
news:hojupvo338i74kjd3v31teul35l5e0opbs@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:16:28 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> <onlytheone@thetopknows.com>
>
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bnm54u$nk9$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <vprkhgchpgi642@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >> >news:bnjeoi$b81$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> >> In article <vpof02qkahoq17@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> >> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >> Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and
150,000
> >US
> >> >> >troops
> >> >> >> haven't found them.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Bingo, The UN couldn't find them, although it is well documented
that
> >> >they
> >> >> >existed.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not in 2003.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >That is why they were still looking, that is why we are still
> >> >> >looking. We haven't found Saddam yet either, but we know he exists
as
> >> >well.
> >> >> >Or do you think that is also a lie?
> >> >>
> >> >> Is he as big as the WMD?
> >> >
> >> >You do realize Saddam had twelve years in which to hide them. Where is
> >Jimmy
> >> >Hoffa?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> We claimed direct evidence and knowledge that WMD were there in 2003.
> >
> >No, we asked for proof of where they were and if they had been destroyed,
as
> >per the UN Mandate. Saddam refused to provide said proof. You really are
> >dumb aren't you.
>
>
> Not as dumb as you, who can't remember back as far as 8 months ago.
>
Plonk
#2693
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Earle Horton" <enfermero_diabolico@registerednurses.com> wrote in message
news:bnn3l9$135mtt$1@ID-147790.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
> news:vpu30r4o2ksq3f@corp.supernews.com...
> ---snippy---
> > If Lloyd claims an IQ higher than 80 no one will believe him
> > anyway.
> >
> Lloyd, no one will believe that it's that HIGH, get it?
>
> Earle
>
Got it ;-)
#2694
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Earle Horton" <enfermero_diabolico@registerednurses.com> wrote in message
news:bnn3l9$135mtt$1@ID-147790.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
> news:vpu30r4o2ksq3f@corp.supernews.com...
> ---snippy---
> > If Lloyd claims an IQ higher than 80 no one will believe him
> > anyway.
> >
> Lloyd, no one will believe that it's that HIGH, get it?
>
> Earle
>
Got it ;-)
#2695
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Earle Horton" <enfermero_diabolico@registerednurses.com> wrote in message
news:bnn3l9$135mtt$1@ID-147790.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
> news:vpu30r4o2ksq3f@corp.supernews.com...
> ---snippy---
> > If Lloyd claims an IQ higher than 80 no one will believe him
> > anyway.
> >
> Lloyd, no one will believe that it's that HIGH, get it?
>
> Earle
>
Got it ;-)
#2696
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
Thanks.
> These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
> masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll use
> any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
> gain political control.
I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
seems to be a favoring of China IMO.
> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
> morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
> When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
> had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2 emissions
> are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
> caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
> housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse for
> wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
> "communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
> paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
> sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to think
> I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.
CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
environment second. It's the only explaination.
Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
made.
On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?
To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
combustion. ;)
> Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
Thanks.
> These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
> masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll use
> any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
> gain political control.
I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
seems to be a favoring of China IMO.
> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
> morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
> When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
> had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2 emissions
> are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
> caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
> housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse for
> wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
> "communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
> paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
> sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to think
> I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.
CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
environment second. It's the only explaination.
Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
made.
On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?
To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
combustion. ;)
#2697
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
Thanks.
> These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
> masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll use
> any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
> gain political control.
I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
seems to be a favoring of China IMO.
> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
> morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
> When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
> had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2 emissions
> are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
> caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
> housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse for
> wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
> "communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
> paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
> sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to think
> I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.
CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
environment second. It's the only explaination.
Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
made.
On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?
To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
combustion. ;)
> Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
Thanks.
> These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
> masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll use
> any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
> gain political control.
I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
seems to be a favoring of China IMO.
> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
> morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
> When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
> had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2 emissions
> are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
> caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
> housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse for
> wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
> "communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
> paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
> sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to think
> I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.
CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
environment second. It's the only explaination.
Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
made.
On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?
To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
combustion. ;)
#2698
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
Thanks.
> These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
> masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll use
> any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
> gain political control.
I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
seems to be a favoring of China IMO.
> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
> morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
> When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
> had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2 emissions
> are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
> caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
> housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse for
> wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
> "communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
> paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
> sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to think
> I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.
CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
environment second. It's the only explaination.
Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
made.
On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?
To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
combustion. ;)
> Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
Thanks.
> These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
> masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll use
> any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
> gain political control.
I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
seems to be a favoring of China IMO.
> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
> morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
> When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
> had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2 emissions
> are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
> caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
> housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse for
> wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
> "communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
> paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
> sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to think
> I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.
CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
environment second. It's the only explaination.
Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
made.
On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?
To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
combustion. ;)
#2699
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> Bravo!
>
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3F4ECCD1.AB1C303@mindspring.com...
>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Perhaps if you knew some science, we could have an intelligent
>>
> discussion
>
>>>about science.
>>
>>Explain to me the methods being used to measure the average global
>>temperature that are both precise enough and consistent enough to
>>separate a 0.4 degree C temperature rise out of the normal background
>>variation over the past 1000 years. Explain to me any computer model
>>that can predict 1 degree C average global temperature rises with any
>>certainty when they can't even predict tomorrow's temperatures with 3
>>degrees on a consistent basis.
>>
>>I assume you don't know any scientist who adjust their data to fit their
>>preconceived notions.
>>
>>Weren't those cold fusion guys "scientist"? Heck I think they were even
>>honest scientist.
>>
>>Do you honestly think the Earth's environment has ever been static and
>>unchanging? Can you say with any certainty that global warming is worse
>>than the environmental changes that would occur in its absence?
>>
>>Literally billions of tons of carbon have been effectively removed from
>>the atmosphere over the last few billion years. At some point, might me
>>have too little CO2?
>>
>>History is full of widely accepted theories that turned out to be wrong.
>>Why are you so sure that Global Warming isn't one of these?
>>
>>I assume you believe that all scientist and government agency are
>>completely honest and that they would never jump on a popular bandwagon
>>as means of securing funding to support their careers/agencies? It has
>>been my experience that people who say things are OK tend not to secure
>>funding and soon need to find something else to do.
>>
>>Even if you are 100% right about global warming, might not the fixes be
>>worse than doing nothing?
>>
>>Ed
>>
>>None of us is as dumb as all of us
>
>
>
And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
They still can't shake the ingrained notion that man has caused this,
but they'll come around eventually and likely add new "causes" as well.
Trouble is, it is very hard to separate causes from correlation,
especially in areas like this where it is pretty hard to run controlled
experiments. Simple observation of data can easily lead to such
confusion. I suspect many other things can be found to correlate with
global climate changes, but I'll also bet that few of them are causes.
Matt
> Bravo!
>
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3F4ECCD1.AB1C303@mindspring.com...
>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Perhaps if you knew some science, we could have an intelligent
>>
> discussion
>
>>>about science.
>>
>>Explain to me the methods being used to measure the average global
>>temperature that are both precise enough and consistent enough to
>>separate a 0.4 degree C temperature rise out of the normal background
>>variation over the past 1000 years. Explain to me any computer model
>>that can predict 1 degree C average global temperature rises with any
>>certainty when they can't even predict tomorrow's temperatures with 3
>>degrees on a consistent basis.
>>
>>I assume you don't know any scientist who adjust their data to fit their
>>preconceived notions.
>>
>>Weren't those cold fusion guys "scientist"? Heck I think they were even
>>honest scientist.
>>
>>Do you honestly think the Earth's environment has ever been static and
>>unchanging? Can you say with any certainty that global warming is worse
>>than the environmental changes that would occur in its absence?
>>
>>Literally billions of tons of carbon have been effectively removed from
>>the atmosphere over the last few billion years. At some point, might me
>>have too little CO2?
>>
>>History is full of widely accepted theories that turned out to be wrong.
>>Why are you so sure that Global Warming isn't one of these?
>>
>>I assume you believe that all scientist and government agency are
>>completely honest and that they would never jump on a popular bandwagon
>>as means of securing funding to support their careers/agencies? It has
>>been my experience that people who say things are OK tend not to secure
>>funding and soon need to find something else to do.
>>
>>Even if you are 100% right about global warming, might not the fixes be
>>worse than doing nothing?
>>
>>Ed
>>
>>None of us is as dumb as all of us
>
>
>
And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
They still can't shake the ingrained notion that man has caused this,
but they'll come around eventually and likely add new "causes" as well.
Trouble is, it is very hard to separate causes from correlation,
especially in areas like this where it is pretty hard to run controlled
experiments. Simple observation of data can easily lead to such
confusion. I suspect many other things can be found to correlate with
global climate changes, but I'll also bet that few of them are causes.
Matt
#2700
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> Bravo!
>
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3F4ECCD1.AB1C303@mindspring.com...
>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Perhaps if you knew some science, we could have an intelligent
>>
> discussion
>
>>>about science.
>>
>>Explain to me the methods being used to measure the average global
>>temperature that are both precise enough and consistent enough to
>>separate a 0.4 degree C temperature rise out of the normal background
>>variation over the past 1000 years. Explain to me any computer model
>>that can predict 1 degree C average global temperature rises with any
>>certainty when they can't even predict tomorrow's temperatures with 3
>>degrees on a consistent basis.
>>
>>I assume you don't know any scientist who adjust their data to fit their
>>preconceived notions.
>>
>>Weren't those cold fusion guys "scientist"? Heck I think they were even
>>honest scientist.
>>
>>Do you honestly think the Earth's environment has ever been static and
>>unchanging? Can you say with any certainty that global warming is worse
>>than the environmental changes that would occur in its absence?
>>
>>Literally billions of tons of carbon have been effectively removed from
>>the atmosphere over the last few billion years. At some point, might me
>>have too little CO2?
>>
>>History is full of widely accepted theories that turned out to be wrong.
>>Why are you so sure that Global Warming isn't one of these?
>>
>>I assume you believe that all scientist and government agency are
>>completely honest and that they would never jump on a popular bandwagon
>>as means of securing funding to support their careers/agencies? It has
>>been my experience that people who say things are OK tend not to secure
>>funding and soon need to find something else to do.
>>
>>Even if you are 100% right about global warming, might not the fixes be
>>worse than doing nothing?
>>
>>Ed
>>
>>None of us is as dumb as all of us
>
>
>
And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
They still can't shake the ingrained notion that man has caused this,
but they'll come around eventually and likely add new "causes" as well.
Trouble is, it is very hard to separate causes from correlation,
especially in areas like this where it is pretty hard to run controlled
experiments. Simple observation of data can easily lead to such
confusion. I suspect many other things can be found to correlate with
global climate changes, but I'll also bet that few of them are causes.
Matt
> Bravo!
>
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3F4ECCD1.AB1C303@mindspring.com...
>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Perhaps if you knew some science, we could have an intelligent
>>
> discussion
>
>>>about science.
>>
>>Explain to me the methods being used to measure the average global
>>temperature that are both precise enough and consistent enough to
>>separate a 0.4 degree C temperature rise out of the normal background
>>variation over the past 1000 years. Explain to me any computer model
>>that can predict 1 degree C average global temperature rises with any
>>certainty when they can't even predict tomorrow's temperatures with 3
>>degrees on a consistent basis.
>>
>>I assume you don't know any scientist who adjust their data to fit their
>>preconceived notions.
>>
>>Weren't those cold fusion guys "scientist"? Heck I think they were even
>>honest scientist.
>>
>>Do you honestly think the Earth's environment has ever been static and
>>unchanging? Can you say with any certainty that global warming is worse
>>than the environmental changes that would occur in its absence?
>>
>>Literally billions of tons of carbon have been effectively removed from
>>the atmosphere over the last few billion years. At some point, might me
>>have too little CO2?
>>
>>History is full of widely accepted theories that turned out to be wrong.
>>Why are you so sure that Global Warming isn't one of these?
>>
>>I assume you believe that all scientist and government agency are
>>completely honest and that they would never jump on a popular bandwagon
>>as means of securing funding to support their careers/agencies? It has
>>been my experience that people who say things are OK tend not to secure
>>funding and soon need to find something else to do.
>>
>>Even if you are 100% right about global warming, might not the fixes be
>>worse than doing nothing?
>>
>>Ed
>>
>>None of us is as dumb as all of us
>
>
>
And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
They still can't shake the ingrained notion that man has caused this,
but they'll come around eventually and likely add new "causes" as well.
Trouble is, it is very hard to separate causes from correlation,
especially in areas like this where it is pretty hard to run controlled
experiments. Simple observation of data can easily lead to such
confusion. I suspect many other things can be found to correlate with
global climate changes, but I'll also bet that few of them are causes.
Matt