Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#2701
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
#2702
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3FA03D91.3080807@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> 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.
I am waiting for the journal article. Until then all that will happen
is an attack on the drugereport as a 'right-wing-corporate------'
source and it will get dismissed. (as if drudge can't just jot down
the facts as good as someone on the new york times) I'll look
around the net for it in dec/jan if I remember about it.
> 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.
I am waiting for the journal article. Until then all that will happen
is an attack on the drugereport as a 'right-wing-corporate------'
source and it will get dismissed. (as if drudge can't just jot down
the facts as good as someone on the new york times) I'll look
around the net for it in dec/jan if I remember about it.
#2703
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3FA03D91.3080807@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> 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.
I am waiting for the journal article. Until then all that will happen
is an attack on the drugereport as a 'right-wing-corporate------'
source and it will get dismissed. (as if drudge can't just jot down
the facts as good as someone on the new york times) I'll look
around the net for it in dec/jan if I remember about it.
> 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.
I am waiting for the journal article. Until then all that will happen
is an attack on the drugereport as a 'right-wing-corporate------'
source and it will get dismissed. (as if drudge can't just jot down
the facts as good as someone on the new york times) I'll look
around the net for it in dec/jan if I remember about it.
#2704
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3FA03D91.3080807@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> 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.
I am waiting for the journal article. Until then all that will happen
is an attack on the drugereport as a 'right-wing-corporate------'
source and it will get dismissed. (as if drudge can't just jot down
the facts as good as someone on the new york times) I'll look
around the net for it in dec/jan if I remember about it.
> 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.
I am waiting for the journal article. Until then all that will happen
is an attack on the drugereport as a 'right-wing-corporate------'
source and it will get dismissed. (as if drudge can't just jot down
the facts as good as someone on the new york times) I'll look
around the net for it in dec/jan if I remember about it.
#2705
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd, what's your opinion on the sunspot theory ? This has been a long and
boring thread, but if you can give us an intelligent critique on it, I for
one would be genuinely interested.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
news:3FA03D91.3080807@computer.org...
: And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
:
: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
boring thread, but if you can give us an intelligent critique on it, I for
one would be genuinely interested.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
news:3FA03D91.3080807@computer.org...
: And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
:
: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
#2706
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd, what's your opinion on the sunspot theory ? This has been a long and
boring thread, but if you can give us an intelligent critique on it, I for
one would be genuinely interested.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
news:3FA03D91.3080807@computer.org...
: And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
:
: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
boring thread, but if you can give us an intelligent critique on it, I for
one would be genuinely interested.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
news:3FA03D91.3080807@computer.org...
: And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
:
: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
#2707
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd, what's your opinion on the sunspot theory ? This has been a long and
boring thread, but if you can give us an intelligent critique on it, I for
one would be genuinely interested.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
news:3FA03D91.3080807@computer.org...
: And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
:
: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
boring thread, but if you can give us an intelligent critique on it, I for
one would be genuinely interested.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
news:3FA03D91.3080807@computer.org...
: And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
:
: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
#2708
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
A very lucid post, Brent.
To me the whole Kyoto con job was simply an attempt by the UN and it's
minions to hobble the wealthier nations and impose an "un-level" commercial
playing field under the guise of "carbon credits", etc. In reality it gave
China, India and other so-called "underdeveloped" nations a pass. Much
ranting comes from the green community that the USA represents 6 percent of
the global population but consumes 30 percent of the resources. Hmmm....and
what percent of the worlds goods & services does the USA produce? Oh, right,
about 30 - 40 percent! Seems a logical and fair trade-off, unless you're
trying to legally gain an unfair advantage via "Kyoto Fiat" as your ticket
to imposition of Socialism.
As for your "what about the water" issue, I've also floated this argument to
green zealots and get no answer, same as I get no response regarding the
creation of the Sahara 7-10,000 years ago.
Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key research
green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming theory.
In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the second
half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.
The entire greenhouse gas THEORY will remain "bunkum" in my book until some
conclusive piece of research can withstand all challenges. Melting glaciers?
Happened before, unprecedented heatwaves? Nope, it's happened before, on &
on, & on. Just pray these people never gain real political power!
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aBWnb.57501$Fm2.35469@attbi_s04...
> 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. ;)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
To me the whole Kyoto con job was simply an attempt by the UN and it's
minions to hobble the wealthier nations and impose an "un-level" commercial
playing field under the guise of "carbon credits", etc. In reality it gave
China, India and other so-called "underdeveloped" nations a pass. Much
ranting comes from the green community that the USA represents 6 percent of
the global population but consumes 30 percent of the resources. Hmmm....and
what percent of the worlds goods & services does the USA produce? Oh, right,
about 30 - 40 percent! Seems a logical and fair trade-off, unless you're
trying to legally gain an unfair advantage via "Kyoto Fiat" as your ticket
to imposition of Socialism.
As for your "what about the water" issue, I've also floated this argument to
green zealots and get no answer, same as I get no response regarding the
creation of the Sahara 7-10,000 years ago.
Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key research
green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming theory.
In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the second
half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.
The entire greenhouse gas THEORY will remain "bunkum" in my book until some
conclusive piece of research can withstand all challenges. Melting glaciers?
Happened before, unprecedented heatwaves? Nope, it's happened before, on &
on, & on. Just pray these people never gain real political power!
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aBWnb.57501$Fm2.35469@attbi_s04...
> 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. ;)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
#2709
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
A very lucid post, Brent.
To me the whole Kyoto con job was simply an attempt by the UN and it's
minions to hobble the wealthier nations and impose an "un-level" commercial
playing field under the guise of "carbon credits", etc. In reality it gave
China, India and other so-called "underdeveloped" nations a pass. Much
ranting comes from the green community that the USA represents 6 percent of
the global population but consumes 30 percent of the resources. Hmmm....and
what percent of the worlds goods & services does the USA produce? Oh, right,
about 30 - 40 percent! Seems a logical and fair trade-off, unless you're
trying to legally gain an unfair advantage via "Kyoto Fiat" as your ticket
to imposition of Socialism.
As for your "what about the water" issue, I've also floated this argument to
green zealots and get no answer, same as I get no response regarding the
creation of the Sahara 7-10,000 years ago.
Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key research
green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming theory.
In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the second
half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.
The entire greenhouse gas THEORY will remain "bunkum" in my book until some
conclusive piece of research can withstand all challenges. Melting glaciers?
Happened before, unprecedented heatwaves? Nope, it's happened before, on &
on, & on. Just pray these people never gain real political power!
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aBWnb.57501$Fm2.35469@attbi_s04...
> 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. ;)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
To me the whole Kyoto con job was simply an attempt by the UN and it's
minions to hobble the wealthier nations and impose an "un-level" commercial
playing field under the guise of "carbon credits", etc. In reality it gave
China, India and other so-called "underdeveloped" nations a pass. Much
ranting comes from the green community that the USA represents 6 percent of
the global population but consumes 30 percent of the resources. Hmmm....and
what percent of the worlds goods & services does the USA produce? Oh, right,
about 30 - 40 percent! Seems a logical and fair trade-off, unless you're
trying to legally gain an unfair advantage via "Kyoto Fiat" as your ticket
to imposition of Socialism.
As for your "what about the water" issue, I've also floated this argument to
green zealots and get no answer, same as I get no response regarding the
creation of the Sahara 7-10,000 years ago.
Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key research
green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming theory.
In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the second
half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.
The entire greenhouse gas THEORY will remain "bunkum" in my book until some
conclusive piece of research can withstand all challenges. Melting glaciers?
Happened before, unprecedented heatwaves? Nope, it's happened before, on &
on, & on. Just pray these people never gain real political power!
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aBWnb.57501$Fm2.35469@attbi_s04...
> 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. ;)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
#2710
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
A very lucid post, Brent.
To me the whole Kyoto con job was simply an attempt by the UN and it's
minions to hobble the wealthier nations and impose an "un-level" commercial
playing field under the guise of "carbon credits", etc. In reality it gave
China, India and other so-called "underdeveloped" nations a pass. Much
ranting comes from the green community that the USA represents 6 percent of
the global population but consumes 30 percent of the resources. Hmmm....and
what percent of the worlds goods & services does the USA produce? Oh, right,
about 30 - 40 percent! Seems a logical and fair trade-off, unless you're
trying to legally gain an unfair advantage via "Kyoto Fiat" as your ticket
to imposition of Socialism.
As for your "what about the water" issue, I've also floated this argument to
green zealots and get no answer, same as I get no response regarding the
creation of the Sahara 7-10,000 years ago.
Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key research
green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming theory.
In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the second
half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.
The entire greenhouse gas THEORY will remain "bunkum" in my book until some
conclusive piece of research can withstand all challenges. Melting glaciers?
Happened before, unprecedented heatwaves? Nope, it's happened before, on &
on, & on. Just pray these people never gain real political power!
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aBWnb.57501$Fm2.35469@attbi_s04...
> 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. ;)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
To me the whole Kyoto con job was simply an attempt by the UN and it's
minions to hobble the wealthier nations and impose an "un-level" commercial
playing field under the guise of "carbon credits", etc. In reality it gave
China, India and other so-called "underdeveloped" nations a pass. Much
ranting comes from the green community that the USA represents 6 percent of
the global population but consumes 30 percent of the resources. Hmmm....and
what percent of the worlds goods & services does the USA produce? Oh, right,
about 30 - 40 percent! Seems a logical and fair trade-off, unless you're
trying to legally gain an unfair advantage via "Kyoto Fiat" as your ticket
to imposition of Socialism.
As for your "what about the water" issue, I've also floated this argument to
green zealots and get no answer, same as I get no response regarding the
creation of the Sahara 7-10,000 years ago.
Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key research
green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming theory.
In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the second
half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.
The entire greenhouse gas THEORY will remain "bunkum" in my book until some
conclusive piece of research can withstand all challenges. Melting glaciers?
Happened before, unprecedented heatwaves? Nope, it's happened before, on &
on, & on. Just pray these people never gain real political power!
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aBWnb.57501$Fm2.35469@attbi_s04...
> 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. ;)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>