Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#2711
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$0hjinh$261$1@news.ipinc.net...
>
> "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.
Moving them does not change ownership, nor does it make them cease to exist.
>
> In any case who is "we". The CIA certainly wasn't claiming that Saddam
had
> WMD's
In the case of Saddam his chemical and biological weapons are and have
always been called WMD's, and yes the CIA knew he had them, he has used them
at least 12 times.
> and why did the Bush administraton blow a deep-CIA agent's cover in
revenge?
Speculation
> And
> why haven't they come up with the name of the person in the Bush
> administration who
> released the name?
You just claimed Bush was responsible, now you admit the identity is
unknown. I leave speculation to others, the truth will be known eventually.
>
> 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.
No one, including Bush, has ever claimed Sadam has or ever had Nukes. The
claim was that Saddam was trying to aquire them.
The case is a bit stronger for
> bio agents,
> but still inconclusive.
How so, when he has used them several times already?
What further proof could you possibly require that Saddam has them than the
fact he has used them repeatedly, both against his own people and Iran?
It is clearly obvious to anyone with any education
> that basing the
> Iraq invasion on WMD was a lie.
Your opinion.
>
> 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.
I know of no one who thought it was. WMD were only one of the reasons.
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.
Lloyd is incapable of coherant thought, much less arqument.
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.
I fully agree with you here.
>
> 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
Your opinion. But if Bush is as bad as you think, how much worse was
Clinton? In my opinion Clinton was by far the worse President this country
has ever had, bar none. That is my opinion.
My opinion of Lloyd is simple, he is a lying hypocrit.
Why do I say this? If Al Gore had won the election, and had then proceded to
deal with Iraq exactly the way Bush has done, Lloyd would be singing his
praises. To Lloyd, as a Liberal he must publicly support any decision made
by a Liberal, and he must oppose any decision made by a Conservative. Bush
is wrong simply because he is a Repulican instead of a Democrat. I would
support the President in Iraq regardless, not because I wanted this war, I
didn't, but because I do feel it had to be done, and better now than latter.
You are an intelligent person Ted, I respect your opinion on this, even the
parts I disagree with you on.
Lloyd believes himself superior to anyone who isn't a Liberal or a
scientist, so I can't help but take him down a few pegs. Beyond that I
really have no interest in discussing Iraq or politics in general, and I
vote for as many Democrats come election time as I do Republicans, depends
on who I think is better qualified.
>
> >
>
>
#2712
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$0hjinh$261$1@news.ipinc.net...
>
> "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.
Moving them does not change ownership, nor does it make them cease to exist.
>
> In any case who is "we". The CIA certainly wasn't claiming that Saddam
had
> WMD's
In the case of Saddam his chemical and biological weapons are and have
always been called WMD's, and yes the CIA knew he had them, he has used them
at least 12 times.
> and why did the Bush administraton blow a deep-CIA agent's cover in
revenge?
Speculation
> And
> why haven't they come up with the name of the person in the Bush
> administration who
> released the name?
You just claimed Bush was responsible, now you admit the identity is
unknown. I leave speculation to others, the truth will be known eventually.
>
> 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.
No one, including Bush, has ever claimed Sadam has or ever had Nukes. The
claim was that Saddam was trying to aquire them.
The case is a bit stronger for
> bio agents,
> but still inconclusive.
How so, when he has used them several times already?
What further proof could you possibly require that Saddam has them than the
fact he has used them repeatedly, both against his own people and Iran?
It is clearly obvious to anyone with any education
> that basing the
> Iraq invasion on WMD was a lie.
Your opinion.
>
> 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.
I know of no one who thought it was. WMD were only one of the reasons.
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.
Lloyd is incapable of coherant thought, much less arqument.
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.
I fully agree with you here.
>
> 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
Your opinion. But if Bush is as bad as you think, how much worse was
Clinton? In my opinion Clinton was by far the worse President this country
has ever had, bar none. That is my opinion.
My opinion of Lloyd is simple, he is a lying hypocrit.
Why do I say this? If Al Gore had won the election, and had then proceded to
deal with Iraq exactly the way Bush has done, Lloyd would be singing his
praises. To Lloyd, as a Liberal he must publicly support any decision made
by a Liberal, and he must oppose any decision made by a Conservative. Bush
is wrong simply because he is a Repulican instead of a Democrat. I would
support the President in Iraq regardless, not because I wanted this war, I
didn't, but because I do feel it had to be done, and better now than latter.
You are an intelligent person Ted, I respect your opinion on this, even the
parts I disagree with you on.
Lloyd believes himself superior to anyone who isn't a Liberal or a
scientist, so I can't help but take him down a few pegs. Beyond that I
really have no interest in discussing Iraq or politics in general, and I
vote for as many Democrats come election time as I do Republicans, depends
on who I think is better qualified.
>
> >
>
>
#2713
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$0hjinh$261$1@news.ipinc.net...
>
> "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.
Moving them does not change ownership, nor does it make them cease to exist.
>
> In any case who is "we". The CIA certainly wasn't claiming that Saddam
had
> WMD's
In the case of Saddam his chemical and biological weapons are and have
always been called WMD's, and yes the CIA knew he had them, he has used them
at least 12 times.
> and why did the Bush administraton blow a deep-CIA agent's cover in
revenge?
Speculation
> And
> why haven't they come up with the name of the person in the Bush
> administration who
> released the name?
You just claimed Bush was responsible, now you admit the identity is
unknown. I leave speculation to others, the truth will be known eventually.
>
> 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.
No one, including Bush, has ever claimed Sadam has or ever had Nukes. The
claim was that Saddam was trying to aquire them.
The case is a bit stronger for
> bio agents,
> but still inconclusive.
How so, when he has used them several times already?
What further proof could you possibly require that Saddam has them than the
fact he has used them repeatedly, both against his own people and Iran?
It is clearly obvious to anyone with any education
> that basing the
> Iraq invasion on WMD was a lie.
Your opinion.
>
> 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.
I know of no one who thought it was. WMD were only one of the reasons.
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.
Lloyd is incapable of coherant thought, much less arqument.
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.
I fully agree with you here.
>
> 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
Your opinion. But if Bush is as bad as you think, how much worse was
Clinton? In my opinion Clinton was by far the worse President this country
has ever had, bar none. That is my opinion.
My opinion of Lloyd is simple, he is a lying hypocrit.
Why do I say this? If Al Gore had won the election, and had then proceded to
deal with Iraq exactly the way Bush has done, Lloyd would be singing his
praises. To Lloyd, as a Liberal he must publicly support any decision made
by a Liberal, and he must oppose any decision made by a Conservative. Bush
is wrong simply because he is a Repulican instead of a Democrat. I would
support the President in Iraq regardless, not because I wanted this war, I
didn't, but because I do feel it had to be done, and better now than latter.
You are an intelligent person Ted, I respect your opinion on this, even the
parts I disagree with you on.
Lloyd believes himself superior to anyone who isn't a Liberal or a
scientist, so I can't help but take him down a few pegs. Beyond that I
really have no interest in discussing Iraq or politics in general, and I
vote for as many Democrats come election time as I do Republicans, depends
on who I think is better qualified.
>
> >
>
>
#2714
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bnnein02qe3@enews4.newsguy.com...
> Thanks for posting the link & text, Doug. Indeed, back in the mid-70's
> theses same looney greens took all the "global cooling" crap just as
> seriously as they do all the hand wringing carbon dioxide theories now.
>
Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
made such a claim.
This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even National Academy of
Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From Lloyd about it. He must
really hate being proven wrong on every statement he makes. ;-)
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:vpu8qml6qbn381@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
> > news:bnn0hd01qbc@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > > Mr. Parker:
> > >
> > > > Are you saying the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, EPA, NOAA,
> etc.,
> > > have jumped onto something that's not proven? <
> > >
> > > Yes, and despite the bleatings of certain mavens of socialist dogma
(for
> > > whom this entire theory has become a convenint mantra) those agencies
> look
> > > upon the greenhouse gas theory as just that, a THEORY among others. No
> one
> > > has conclusiely proven that "global warming" even exists. Indeed, the
> temp
> > > fluctuations gas (bag) theorists espouse aren't even significant
within
> > the
> > > margin of error of their measuiring techniques.
> > >
> > > Might I remind you, my over zealous, green friend, 25 years ago these
> same
> > > social and scientific radicals were predicting the dawn of a NEW ICE
> AGE,
> > > becuase, they theorized, global temps were falling due to man made
gases
> > > blocking the sun. Funny how it turned out that at that same time we
were
> > in
> > > a period of low solar activity....
> >
> > Just for Lloyd:
> >
> > http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm
> >
> > For those who don't use links, here it is, but it is a little long:
> >
> > FROM
> > Newsweek
> > April 28, 1975 Studies
> > Facts & Figures
> > Selected Links
> > Weather
> > Health
> >
> > The Cooling World
> > There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns
> > have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a
> > drastic decline in food production- with serious political implications
> for
> > just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin
> quite
> > soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its
> > impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in
> the
> > North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical
areas -
> > parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where
the
> > growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
> >
> > The evidence in support of these predictions has now
begun
> to
> > accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up
> with
> > it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about
> two
> > weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production
> > estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the
> average
> > temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree - a
> > fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April,
> in
> > the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters
> > killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of
> > damage in 13 U.S. states.
> >
> > To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents
> represent
> > the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather.
> > Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well
> as
> > over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are
almost
> > unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural
productivity
> > for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as
some
> > of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A
> > major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a
> > worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of
> Sciences,
> > "because the global patterns of food production and population that have
> > evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."
> >
> > A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of
the
> > National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a
> > degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between
> > 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University,
satellite
> > photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow
> cover
> > in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA
> > scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the
> > continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
> >
> > To the layman, the relatively small changes in
temperature
> > and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of
> > Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the
great
> > Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest
eras -
> > and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the
way
> > toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to
> the
> > "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of
Europe
> > and northern America between 1600 and 1900 - years when the Thames used
to
> > freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when
iceboats
> > sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
> >
> > Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages
> > remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change
is
> at
> > least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of
> Sciences
> > report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered,
> but
> > in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."
> >
> > Meteorologists think that they can forecast the
short-term
> > results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by
> noting
> > the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of
> > pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow
> of
> > westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this
way
> > causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts,
floods,
> > extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local
> > temperature increases - all of which have a direct impact on food
> supplies.
> >
> > "The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D.
> > McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is
> much
> > more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago."
> > Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national
> > boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their
> > devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
> >
> > Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders
will
> > take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even
to
> > allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular
> solutions
> > proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black
> soot
> > or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those
> > they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders
> > anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling
food
> > or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic
> > projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the
> more
> > difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the
results
> > become grim reality.
> >
> > Reprinted from Financial Post - Canada, Jun 21, 2000
> >
> > All Material Subject to Copyright.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. <
> > >
> > > How about this: there is NO solution, because 1) there may not even be
a
> > > problem, 2) if it is actually occuring, then natural forces, such as
> > > geothermal and solar activity, may be the primary, indeed the only
> source.
> > >
> > > > That means driving less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles,
using
> > coal
> > > less, using more renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not
> > > clear-cutting forests... <
> > >
> > > On, and how convenient all of those solutions will be in making the
> > > Draconian, confiscatory dreams of social radicals come true!
> > >
> > > > >GGM: Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming
has
> a
> > > perfect correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity. <
> > >
> > > > Parker: Funny how that's nonexistent. <
> > >
> > > Might I refer you, my science-spouting, but ill-informed friend, to
all
> > of
> > > the studies being done that show we are just leaving a period of high
> > solar
> > > activity, which began in the early '80's. Funny how this activty
> PRECISLY
> > > parallels data showing a rise in global temps. (Look it up, if you can
> > stand
> > > the truth.)
> > >
> > > > GGM: Two Danish scientists (Friz-Christiansen & Lassen) have proven
a
> > > direct cause & effect between periods of high solar activity and earth
> > > temps, going back hundreds of years. <
> > >
> > > > Parker: Which has been studied and cannot account for all the
current
> > > warming. <
> > >
> > > It has NOT been studied by the gas (bag) theorists, they even tried to
> > quash
> > > the two scientists findings because it was too shocking to their pet
> > > theories. However, objective greehouse gas theorists has been forced
to
> > > admit the accuracy of their findings and they cannot explain away
their
> > > findings of a direct correlation between periods of high solar
activity
> /
> > > low cloud formation and vice versa. Tree ring data, etc. have all been
> > > studied and the correlation has been proven...the gas (bag) theorists
> just
> > > don't want to accept it because it puts the lie to all of their
carping.
> > >
> > > > GGM: How arrogant (but typical) of anti-society, socialist green
> zealots
> > > to assume the puny effect of man vs. the absolute effect of the sun on
> > > global climatic norms.
> > >
> > > > Parker: Like we almost destroyed the ozone layer? Or don't you
> believe
> > > that either? <
> > >
> > > You again hope the world will ignore recent findings that the entire
> scare
> > > was over blown and more likely caused by naturally occuring events.
> > >
> > > > GGM: So, tell me oh green ones, 10,000 years ago, how many
primitives
> > > driving gas-guzzling SUVs did it take to turn the Sahara from a lush
> oasis
> > > into a desert? (Oh, I see, you're hoping no one knows about that
event,
> > > aren't you?) <<
> > >
> > > > Parker: No answer ....what a surprise. <
> > >
> > > I will point out that Mr Parker has conveniently ignored my point re:
> the
> > > Sahara's transformation from a lush, green oasis into a desert some
7 -
> > 10k
> > > years ago. The Sahara was created by totally naturally occuring
changes
> in
> > > weather patterns that had NOTHING to do with the insignificant effects
> of
> > > man. It just must be really hard for people like this to grasp that in
> the
> > > total scheme of things, man and his puny, insignificant activities
> really
> > > don't matter at all.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
#2715
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bnnein02qe3@enews4.newsguy.com...
> Thanks for posting the link & text, Doug. Indeed, back in the mid-70's
> theses same looney greens took all the "global cooling" crap just as
> seriously as they do all the hand wringing carbon dioxide theories now.
>
Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
made such a claim.
This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even National Academy of
Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From Lloyd about it. He must
really hate being proven wrong on every statement he makes. ;-)
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:vpu8qml6qbn381@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
> > news:bnn0hd01qbc@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > > Mr. Parker:
> > >
> > > > Are you saying the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, EPA, NOAA,
> etc.,
> > > have jumped onto something that's not proven? <
> > >
> > > Yes, and despite the bleatings of certain mavens of socialist dogma
(for
> > > whom this entire theory has become a convenint mantra) those agencies
> look
> > > upon the greenhouse gas theory as just that, a THEORY among others. No
> one
> > > has conclusiely proven that "global warming" even exists. Indeed, the
> temp
> > > fluctuations gas (bag) theorists espouse aren't even significant
within
> > the
> > > margin of error of their measuiring techniques.
> > >
> > > Might I remind you, my over zealous, green friend, 25 years ago these
> same
> > > social and scientific radicals were predicting the dawn of a NEW ICE
> AGE,
> > > becuase, they theorized, global temps were falling due to man made
gases
> > > blocking the sun. Funny how it turned out that at that same time we
were
> > in
> > > a period of low solar activity....
> >
> > Just for Lloyd:
> >
> > http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm
> >
> > For those who don't use links, here it is, but it is a little long:
> >
> > FROM
> > Newsweek
> > April 28, 1975 Studies
> > Facts & Figures
> > Selected Links
> > Weather
> > Health
> >
> > The Cooling World
> > There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns
> > have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a
> > drastic decline in food production- with serious political implications
> for
> > just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin
> quite
> > soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its
> > impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in
> the
> > North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical
areas -
> > parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where
the
> > growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
> >
> > The evidence in support of these predictions has now
begun
> to
> > accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up
> with
> > it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about
> two
> > weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production
> > estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the
> average
> > temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree - a
> > fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April,
> in
> > the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters
> > killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of
> > damage in 13 U.S. states.
> >
> > To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents
> represent
> > the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather.
> > Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well
> as
> > over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are
almost
> > unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural
productivity
> > for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as
some
> > of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A
> > major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a
> > worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of
> Sciences,
> > "because the global patterns of food production and population that have
> > evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."
> >
> > A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of
the
> > National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a
> > degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between
> > 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University,
satellite
> > photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow
> cover
> > in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA
> > scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the
> > continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
> >
> > To the layman, the relatively small changes in
temperature
> > and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of
> > Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the
great
> > Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest
eras -
> > and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the
way
> > toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to
> the
> > "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of
Europe
> > and northern America between 1600 and 1900 - years when the Thames used
to
> > freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when
iceboats
> > sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
> >
> > Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages
> > remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change
is
> at
> > least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of
> Sciences
> > report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered,
> but
> > in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."
> >
> > Meteorologists think that they can forecast the
short-term
> > results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by
> noting
> > the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of
> > pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow
> of
> > westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this
way
> > causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts,
floods,
> > extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local
> > temperature increases - all of which have a direct impact on food
> supplies.
> >
> > "The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D.
> > McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is
> much
> > more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago."
> > Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national
> > boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their
> > devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
> >
> > Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders
will
> > take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even
to
> > allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular
> solutions
> > proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black
> soot
> > or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those
> > they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders
> > anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling
food
> > or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic
> > projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the
> more
> > difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the
results
> > become grim reality.
> >
> > Reprinted from Financial Post - Canada, Jun 21, 2000
> >
> > All Material Subject to Copyright.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. <
> > >
> > > How about this: there is NO solution, because 1) there may not even be
a
> > > problem, 2) if it is actually occuring, then natural forces, such as
> > > geothermal and solar activity, may be the primary, indeed the only
> source.
> > >
> > > > That means driving less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles,
using
> > coal
> > > less, using more renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not
> > > clear-cutting forests... <
> > >
> > > On, and how convenient all of those solutions will be in making the
> > > Draconian, confiscatory dreams of social radicals come true!
> > >
> > > > >GGM: Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming
has
> a
> > > perfect correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity. <
> > >
> > > > Parker: Funny how that's nonexistent. <
> > >
> > > Might I refer you, my science-spouting, but ill-informed friend, to
all
> > of
> > > the studies being done that show we are just leaving a period of high
> > solar
> > > activity, which began in the early '80's. Funny how this activty
> PRECISLY
> > > parallels data showing a rise in global temps. (Look it up, if you can
> > stand
> > > the truth.)
> > >
> > > > GGM: Two Danish scientists (Friz-Christiansen & Lassen) have proven
a
> > > direct cause & effect between periods of high solar activity and earth
> > > temps, going back hundreds of years. <
> > >
> > > > Parker: Which has been studied and cannot account for all the
current
> > > warming. <
> > >
> > > It has NOT been studied by the gas (bag) theorists, they even tried to
> > quash
> > > the two scientists findings because it was too shocking to their pet
> > > theories. However, objective greehouse gas theorists has been forced
to
> > > admit the accuracy of their findings and they cannot explain away
their
> > > findings of a direct correlation between periods of high solar
activity
> /
> > > low cloud formation and vice versa. Tree ring data, etc. have all been
> > > studied and the correlation has been proven...the gas (bag) theorists
> just
> > > don't want to accept it because it puts the lie to all of their
carping.
> > >
> > > > GGM: How arrogant (but typical) of anti-society, socialist green
> zealots
> > > to assume the puny effect of man vs. the absolute effect of the sun on
> > > global climatic norms.
> > >
> > > > Parker: Like we almost destroyed the ozone layer? Or don't you
> believe
> > > that either? <
> > >
> > > You again hope the world will ignore recent findings that the entire
> scare
> > > was over blown and more likely caused by naturally occuring events.
> > >
> > > > GGM: So, tell me oh green ones, 10,000 years ago, how many
primitives
> > > driving gas-guzzling SUVs did it take to turn the Sahara from a lush
> oasis
> > > into a desert? (Oh, I see, you're hoping no one knows about that
event,
> > > aren't you?) <<
> > >
> > > > Parker: No answer ....what a surprise. <
> > >
> > > I will point out that Mr Parker has conveniently ignored my point re:
> the
> > > Sahara's transformation from a lush, green oasis into a desert some
7 -
> > 10k
> > > years ago. The Sahara was created by totally naturally occuring
changes
> in
> > > weather patterns that had NOTHING to do with the insignificant effects
> of
> > > man. It just must be really hard for people like this to grasp that in
> the
> > > total scheme of things, man and his puny, insignificant activities
> really
> > > don't matter at all.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
#2716
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bnnein02qe3@enews4.newsguy.com...
> Thanks for posting the link & text, Doug. Indeed, back in the mid-70's
> theses same looney greens took all the "global cooling" crap just as
> seriously as they do all the hand wringing carbon dioxide theories now.
>
Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
made such a claim.
This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even National Academy of
Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From Lloyd about it. He must
really hate being proven wrong on every statement he makes. ;-)
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:vpu8qml6qbn381@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
> > news:bnn0hd01qbc@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > > Mr. Parker:
> > >
> > > > Are you saying the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, EPA, NOAA,
> etc.,
> > > have jumped onto something that's not proven? <
> > >
> > > Yes, and despite the bleatings of certain mavens of socialist dogma
(for
> > > whom this entire theory has become a convenint mantra) those agencies
> look
> > > upon the greenhouse gas theory as just that, a THEORY among others. No
> one
> > > has conclusiely proven that "global warming" even exists. Indeed, the
> temp
> > > fluctuations gas (bag) theorists espouse aren't even significant
within
> > the
> > > margin of error of their measuiring techniques.
> > >
> > > Might I remind you, my over zealous, green friend, 25 years ago these
> same
> > > social and scientific radicals were predicting the dawn of a NEW ICE
> AGE,
> > > becuase, they theorized, global temps were falling due to man made
gases
> > > blocking the sun. Funny how it turned out that at that same time we
were
> > in
> > > a period of low solar activity....
> >
> > Just for Lloyd:
> >
> > http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm
> >
> > For those who don't use links, here it is, but it is a little long:
> >
> > FROM
> > Newsweek
> > April 28, 1975 Studies
> > Facts & Figures
> > Selected Links
> > Weather
> > Health
> >
> > The Cooling World
> > There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns
> > have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a
> > drastic decline in food production- with serious political implications
> for
> > just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin
> quite
> > soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its
> > impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in
> the
> > North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical
areas -
> > parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where
the
> > growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
> >
> > The evidence in support of these predictions has now
begun
> to
> > accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up
> with
> > it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about
> two
> > weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production
> > estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the
> average
> > temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree - a
> > fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April,
> in
> > the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters
> > killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of
> > damage in 13 U.S. states.
> >
> > To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents
> represent
> > the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather.
> > Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well
> as
> > over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are
almost
> > unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural
productivity
> > for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as
some
> > of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A
> > major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a
> > worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of
> Sciences,
> > "because the global patterns of food production and population that have
> > evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."
> >
> > A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of
the
> > National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a
> > degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between
> > 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University,
satellite
> > photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow
> cover
> > in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA
> > scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the
> > continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
> >
> > To the layman, the relatively small changes in
temperature
> > and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of
> > Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the
great
> > Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest
eras -
> > and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the
way
> > toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to
> the
> > "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of
Europe
> > and northern America between 1600 and 1900 - years when the Thames used
to
> > freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when
iceboats
> > sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
> >
> > Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages
> > remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change
is
> at
> > least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of
> Sciences
> > report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered,
> but
> > in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."
> >
> > Meteorologists think that they can forecast the
short-term
> > results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by
> noting
> > the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of
> > pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow
> of
> > westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this
way
> > causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts,
floods,
> > extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local
> > temperature increases - all of which have a direct impact on food
> supplies.
> >
> > "The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D.
> > McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is
> much
> > more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago."
> > Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national
> > boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their
> > devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
> >
> > Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders
will
> > take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even
to
> > allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular
> solutions
> > proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black
> soot
> > or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those
> > they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders
> > anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling
food
> > or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic
> > projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the
> more
> > difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the
results
> > become grim reality.
> >
> > Reprinted from Financial Post - Canada, Jun 21, 2000
> >
> > All Material Subject to Copyright.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. <
> > >
> > > How about this: there is NO solution, because 1) there may not even be
a
> > > problem, 2) if it is actually occuring, then natural forces, such as
> > > geothermal and solar activity, may be the primary, indeed the only
> source.
> > >
> > > > That means driving less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles,
using
> > coal
> > > less, using more renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not
> > > clear-cutting forests... <
> > >
> > > On, and how convenient all of those solutions will be in making the
> > > Draconian, confiscatory dreams of social radicals come true!
> > >
> > > > >GGM: Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming
has
> a
> > > perfect correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity. <
> > >
> > > > Parker: Funny how that's nonexistent. <
> > >
> > > Might I refer you, my science-spouting, but ill-informed friend, to
all
> > of
> > > the studies being done that show we are just leaving a period of high
> > solar
> > > activity, which began in the early '80's. Funny how this activty
> PRECISLY
> > > parallels data showing a rise in global temps. (Look it up, if you can
> > stand
> > > the truth.)
> > >
> > > > GGM: Two Danish scientists (Friz-Christiansen & Lassen) have proven
a
> > > direct cause & effect between periods of high solar activity and earth
> > > temps, going back hundreds of years. <
> > >
> > > > Parker: Which has been studied and cannot account for all the
current
> > > warming. <
> > >
> > > It has NOT been studied by the gas (bag) theorists, they even tried to
> > quash
> > > the two scientists findings because it was too shocking to their pet
> > > theories. However, objective greehouse gas theorists has been forced
to
> > > admit the accuracy of their findings and they cannot explain away
their
> > > findings of a direct correlation between periods of high solar
activity
> /
> > > low cloud formation and vice versa. Tree ring data, etc. have all been
> > > studied and the correlation has been proven...the gas (bag) theorists
> just
> > > don't want to accept it because it puts the lie to all of their
carping.
> > >
> > > > GGM: How arrogant (but typical) of anti-society, socialist green
> zealots
> > > to assume the puny effect of man vs. the absolute effect of the sun on
> > > global climatic norms.
> > >
> > > > Parker: Like we almost destroyed the ozone layer? Or don't you
> believe
> > > that either? <
> > >
> > > You again hope the world will ignore recent findings that the entire
> scare
> > > was over blown and more likely caused by naturally occuring events.
> > >
> > > > GGM: So, tell me oh green ones, 10,000 years ago, how many
primitives
> > > driving gas-guzzling SUVs did it take to turn the Sahara from a lush
> oasis
> > > into a desert? (Oh, I see, you're hoping no one knows about that
event,
> > > aren't you?) <<
> > >
> > > > Parker: No answer ....what a surprise. <
> > >
> > > I will point out that Mr Parker has conveniently ignored my point re:
> the
> > > Sahara's transformation from a lush, green oasis into a desert some
7 -
> > 10k
> > > years ago. The Sahara was created by totally naturally occuring
changes
> in
> > > weather patterns that had NOTHING to do with the insignificant effects
> of
> > > man. It just must be really hard for people like this to grasp that in
> the
> > > total scheme of things, man and his puny, insignificant activities
> really
> > > don't matter at all.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
#2717
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>...
<fanatical anti-socialist, anti-communist crap snipped>
> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas.
Tell that to the Apollo 13 astronauts.
What biology course did YOU take? I got two A's in biology.
I saw NOWHERE that humans breathe CO2.
Get a clue: even chemical engineering and chemistry departments
teach us that ANY chemical is toxic enough in high enough doses:
even O2 for humans and CO2 for deciduous trees.
> > Global warming theory is being used for a political agenda
<more me-me-me anti-environmental lunacy from a pro-capitalist extremist
caring only about their freedom to consume and pollute the world
leaving nothing else for everybody else
snipped>
How about the freedom to live in a world with a few trees left,
some clean air and water, some privacy free of overpopulation,
and where the quality of life is better than death?
<fanatical anti-socialist, anti-communist crap snipped>
> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas.
Tell that to the Apollo 13 astronauts.
What biology course did YOU take? I got two A's in biology.
I saw NOWHERE that humans breathe CO2.
Get a clue: even chemical engineering and chemistry departments
teach us that ANY chemical is toxic enough in high enough doses:
even O2 for humans and CO2 for deciduous trees.
> > Global warming theory is being used for a political agenda
<more me-me-me anti-environmental lunacy from a pro-capitalist extremist
caring only about their freedom to consume and pollute the world
leaving nothing else for everybody else
snipped>
How about the freedom to live in a world with a few trees left,
some clean air and water, some privacy free of overpopulation,
and where the quality of life is better than death?
#2718
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>...
<fanatical anti-socialist, anti-communist crap snipped>
> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas.
Tell that to the Apollo 13 astronauts.
What biology course did YOU take? I got two A's in biology.
I saw NOWHERE that humans breathe CO2.
Get a clue: even chemical engineering and chemistry departments
teach us that ANY chemical is toxic enough in high enough doses:
even O2 for humans and CO2 for deciduous trees.
> > Global warming theory is being used for a political agenda
<more me-me-me anti-environmental lunacy from a pro-capitalist extremist
caring only about their freedom to consume and pollute the world
leaving nothing else for everybody else
snipped>
How about the freedom to live in a world with a few trees left,
some clean air and water, some privacy free of overpopulation,
and where the quality of life is better than death?
<fanatical anti-socialist, anti-communist crap snipped>
> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas.
Tell that to the Apollo 13 astronauts.
What biology course did YOU take? I got two A's in biology.
I saw NOWHERE that humans breathe CO2.
Get a clue: even chemical engineering and chemistry departments
teach us that ANY chemical is toxic enough in high enough doses:
even O2 for humans and CO2 for deciduous trees.
> > Global warming theory is being used for a political agenda
<more me-me-me anti-environmental lunacy from a pro-capitalist extremist
caring only about their freedom to consume and pollute the world
leaving nothing else for everybody else
snipped>
How about the freedom to live in a world with a few trees left,
some clean air and water, some privacy free of overpopulation,
and where the quality of life is better than death?
#2719
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>...
<fanatical anti-socialist, anti-communist crap snipped>
> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas.
Tell that to the Apollo 13 astronauts.
What biology course did YOU take? I got two A's in biology.
I saw NOWHERE that humans breathe CO2.
Get a clue: even chemical engineering and chemistry departments
teach us that ANY chemical is toxic enough in high enough doses:
even O2 for humans and CO2 for deciduous trees.
> > Global warming theory is being used for a political agenda
<more me-me-me anti-environmental lunacy from a pro-capitalist extremist
caring only about their freedom to consume and pollute the world
leaving nothing else for everybody else
snipped>
How about the freedom to live in a world with a few trees left,
some clean air and water, some privacy free of overpopulation,
and where the quality of life is better than death?
<fanatical anti-socialist, anti-communist crap snipped>
> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas.
Tell that to the Apollo 13 astronauts.
What biology course did YOU take? I got two A's in biology.
I saw NOWHERE that humans breathe CO2.
Get a clue: even chemical engineering and chemistry departments
teach us that ANY chemical is toxic enough in high enough doses:
even O2 for humans and CO2 for deciduous trees.
> > Global warming theory is being used for a political agenda
<more me-me-me anti-environmental lunacy from a pro-capitalist extremist
caring only about their freedom to consume and pollute the world
leaving nothing else for everybody else
snipped>
How about the freedom to live in a world with a few trees left,
some clean air and water, some privacy free of overpopulation,
and where the quality of life is better than death?
#2720
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vq0qtnc1m8gd45@corp.supernews.com>, Douglas A. Shrader wrote:
>
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:bnnein02qe3@enews4.newsguy.com...
>> Thanks for posting the link & text, Doug. Indeed, back in the mid-70's
>> theses same looney greens took all the "global cooling" crap just as
>> seriously as they do all the hand wringing carbon dioxide theories now.
>>
>
> Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
> before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
> made such a claim.
> This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even National Academy of
> Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From Lloyd about it. He must
> really hate being proven wrong on every statement he makes. ;-)
I remember "global cooling" too. Got that in early grade school in the
late 1970s. Much like they teach kids "global warming" today. But cites
on the net were always few and far between due it being well prior to
1995.
>
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:bnnein02qe3@enews4.newsguy.com...
>> Thanks for posting the link & text, Doug. Indeed, back in the mid-70's
>> theses same looney greens took all the "global cooling" crap just as
>> seriously as they do all the hand wringing carbon dioxide theories now.
>>
>
> Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
> before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
> made such a claim.
> This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even National Academy of
> Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From Lloyd about it. He must
> really hate being proven wrong on every statement he makes. ;-)
I remember "global cooling" too. Got that in early grade school in the
late 1970s. Much like they teach kids "global warming" today. But cites
on the net were always few and far between due it being well prior to
1995.