Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#2721
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.
#2722
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.
#2723
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"tortrix" <tortrix@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9327eab3.0310291827.631fffde@posting.google.c om...
> "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.
CO2 is essential for plant life, so it is a life sustaining gas. Plant life
is essential to sustain animal life, so CO2 indirectly sustains human life.
You did not deserve your A's if you cannot see what he meant by his
statement.
> 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.
CO2 is nowhere near that level, nor will it ever be.
>
> > > 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>
So anyone you disagree with is an extremist? No one here has suggested nor
do they want to do as you suggest. What is desired is sensible, sane
management based on facts, not emotion or political bias.
>
> 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?
We have that now, at least I do. The world is looking much better now than
it did even a few years ago. Pollution levels are dropping, streams and
lakes are cleaner, more people every year are working to make Earth a little
nicer. Change takes time, extreme measures traditionally bring less than
desirable results. Loosen up a little, you'll live longer and enjoy it more,
plus you'll accomplish far more good than your present ranting will ever
achieve.
#2724
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"tortrix" <tortrix@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9327eab3.0310291827.631fffde@posting.google.c om...
> "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.
CO2 is essential for plant life, so it is a life sustaining gas. Plant life
is essential to sustain animal life, so CO2 indirectly sustains human life.
You did not deserve your A's if you cannot see what he meant by his
statement.
> 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.
CO2 is nowhere near that level, nor will it ever be.
>
> > > 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>
So anyone you disagree with is an extremist? No one here has suggested nor
do they want to do as you suggest. What is desired is sensible, sane
management based on facts, not emotion or political bias.
>
> 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?
We have that now, at least I do. The world is looking much better now than
it did even a few years ago. Pollution levels are dropping, streams and
lakes are cleaner, more people every year are working to make Earth a little
nicer. Change takes time, extreme measures traditionally bring less than
desirable results. Loosen up a little, you'll live longer and enjoy it more,
plus you'll accomplish far more good than your present ranting will ever
achieve.
#2725
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"tortrix" <tortrix@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9327eab3.0310291827.631fffde@posting.google.c om...
> "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.
CO2 is essential for plant life, so it is a life sustaining gas. Plant life
is essential to sustain animal life, so CO2 indirectly sustains human life.
You did not deserve your A's if you cannot see what he meant by his
statement.
> 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.
CO2 is nowhere near that level, nor will it ever be.
>
> > > 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>
So anyone you disagree with is an extremist? No one here has suggested nor
do they want to do as you suggest. What is desired is sensible, sane
management based on facts, not emotion or political bias.
>
> 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?
We have that now, at least I do. The world is looking much better now than
it did even a few years ago. Pollution levels are dropping, streams and
lakes are cleaner, more people every year are working to make Earth a little
nicer. Change takes time, extreme measures traditionally bring less than
desirable results. Loosen up a little, you'll live longer and enjoy it more,
plus you'll accomplish far more good than your present ranting will ever
achieve.
#2726
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b__nb.45699$ao4.111788@attbi_s51...
> In article <vq0qtnc1m8gd45@corp.supernews.com>, Douglas A. Shrader wrote:
> >
> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
> > news:bnnein02qe3@enews4.newsguy.com...
> >> Thanks for posting the link & text, Doug. Indeed, back in the mid-70's
> >> theses same looney greens took all the "global cooling" crap just as
> >> seriously as they do all the hand wringing carbon dioxide theories now.
> >>
> >
> > Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
> > before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
> > made such a claim.
> > This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even National
Academy of
> > Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From Lloyd about it. He
must
> > really hate being proven wrong on every statement he makes. ;-)
>
> I remember "global cooling" too. Got that in early grade school in the
> late 1970s. Much like they teach kids "global warming" today. But cites
> on the net were always few and far between due it being well prior to
> 1995.
Yep, they cried doom until it started warming up, then switched to global
warming and started crying doom again. I remember winters here as a kid,
temperatures normally 0 or below, snow on the ground for 60 days or more
without melting, just piling up deeper and deeper, always a fight to keep
the road here open to get to town.
We don't have weather like that now, but it will return soon, I'll bet on
that. Just a question of when. I like it better now, temperature around 30
and snowfall melts off in a few days to a week.
#2727
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b__nb.45699$ao4.111788@attbi_s51...
> 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.
Yep, they cried doom until it started warming up, then switched to global
warming and started crying doom again. I remember winters here as a kid,
temperatures normally 0 or below, snow on the ground for 60 days or more
without melting, just piling up deeper and deeper, always a fight to keep
the road here open to get to town.
We don't have weather like that now, but it will return soon, I'll bet on
that. Just a question of when. I like it better now, temperature around 30
and snowfall melts off in a few days to a week.
#2728
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b__nb.45699$ao4.111788@attbi_s51...
> 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.
Yep, they cried doom until it started warming up, then switched to global
warming and started crying doom again. I remember winters here as a kid,
temperatures normally 0 or below, snow on the ground for 60 days or more
without melting, just piling up deeper and deeper, always a fight to keep
the road here open to get to town.
We don't have weather like that now, but it will return soon, I'll bet on
that. Just a question of when. I like it better now, temperature around 30
and snowfall melts off in a few days to a week.
#2729
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <9327eab3.0310291827.631fffde@posting.google.com >, tortrix wrote:
> "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.
Someone is playing usenet games. Nobody is talking about "high enough
doses" in a closed box. In the global environnment he is correct so
long as one considers that plants are alive. CO2 is needed for life
on this planet, it is not poisonous in the levels being discussed (in
the atmosphere). If you think it's poisonous you shouldn't be in the
same room with yourself. Because you spew it every momement of every
day.
> 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?
Then why do developing nations get a pass? Why is the environmental movement
not *DEMANDING* that the developing world use known methods of
protecting the environment? Why is the environmental movement supporting
policies that will relocate factories from the USA and western europe
where the environment is protected to nations where it is not protected?
I want a clean world where the environment is protected and not destroyed.
This is why I try to buy products made in nations with at least a decent
level of regulation to achieve that goal. However the environmental
movement doesn't stand for that. They stand for some political and social
agenda where the USA is considered evil and the standard of living must
be knocked down several pegs. The environment is being used for an
excuse and it sickens me.
And then guess what happens when someone decides to build a wind farm
near the homes of some rich liberals? They throw a hissy fit.
> "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.
Someone is playing usenet games. Nobody is talking about "high enough
doses" in a closed box. In the global environnment he is correct so
long as one considers that plants are alive. CO2 is needed for life
on this planet, it is not poisonous in the levels being discussed (in
the atmosphere). If you think it's poisonous you shouldn't be in the
same room with yourself. Because you spew it every momement of every
day.
> 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?
Then why do developing nations get a pass? Why is the environmental movement
not *DEMANDING* that the developing world use known methods of
protecting the environment? Why is the environmental movement supporting
policies that will relocate factories from the USA and western europe
where the environment is protected to nations where it is not protected?
I want a clean world where the environment is protected and not destroyed.
This is why I try to buy products made in nations with at least a decent
level of regulation to achieve that goal. However the environmental
movement doesn't stand for that. They stand for some political and social
agenda where the USA is considered evil and the standard of living must
be knocked down several pegs. The environment is being used for an
excuse and it sickens me.
And then guess what happens when someone decides to build a wind farm
near the homes of some rich liberals? They throw a hissy fit.
#2730
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <9327eab3.0310291827.631fffde@posting.google.com >, tortrix wrote:
> "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.
Someone is playing usenet games. Nobody is talking about "high enough
doses" in a closed box. In the global environnment he is correct so
long as one considers that plants are alive. CO2 is needed for life
on this planet, it is not poisonous in the levels being discussed (in
the atmosphere). If you think it's poisonous you shouldn't be in the
same room with yourself. Because you spew it every momement of every
day.
> 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?
Then why do developing nations get a pass? Why is the environmental movement
not *DEMANDING* that the developing world use known methods of
protecting the environment? Why is the environmental movement supporting
policies that will relocate factories from the USA and western europe
where the environment is protected to nations where it is not protected?
I want a clean world where the environment is protected and not destroyed.
This is why I try to buy products made in nations with at least a decent
level of regulation to achieve that goal. However the environmental
movement doesn't stand for that. They stand for some political and social
agenda where the USA is considered evil and the standard of living must
be knocked down several pegs. The environment is being used for an
excuse and it sickens me.
And then guess what happens when someone decides to build a wind farm
near the homes of some rich liberals? They throw a hissy fit.
> "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.
Someone is playing usenet games. Nobody is talking about "high enough
doses" in a closed box. In the global environnment he is correct so
long as one considers that plants are alive. CO2 is needed for life
on this planet, it is not poisonous in the levels being discussed (in
the atmosphere). If you think it's poisonous you shouldn't be in the
same room with yourself. Because you spew it every momement of every
day.
> 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?
Then why do developing nations get a pass? Why is the environmental movement
not *DEMANDING* that the developing world use known methods of
protecting the environment? Why is the environmental movement supporting
policies that will relocate factories from the USA and western europe
where the environment is protected to nations where it is not protected?
I want a clean world where the environment is protected and not destroyed.
This is why I try to buy products made in nations with at least a decent
level of regulation to achieve that goal. However the environmental
movement doesn't stand for that. They stand for some political and social
agenda where the USA is considered evil and the standard of living must
be knocked down several pegs. The environment is being used for an
excuse and it sickens me.
And then guess what happens when someone decides to build a wind farm
near the homes of some rich liberals? They throw a hissy fit.