Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#2751
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F501989.737DAFEF@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> If you look at the data (I know that's a foreign concept to you), global
>> warming began around the middle of the 19th century, as human combustion
>> activities started picking up.
>
>
> Ahh yes, more support for my theory that baseball is responsible for
> global warming! After all didn't baseball get started around the middle
> of the 19th century. Didn't global warming really begin to accelerate as
> professional teams were formed? And look at the most recent spike -
> doesn't it correlate well to the addition of the Marlins, Diamondbacks,
> and Devil Rays? Adding hot weather teams was obviously the stray that
> will destroy our climate. At all cost we must keep the Expos out of
> Puerto Rico.
All we need is a plot of baseball games played vs. global mean temp.
Oh and to add to this, according to the global warming true believers
it really started ramping up in the post war years.... this fits the
baseball model as the sport was introduced to new populations.
We just need to gather all this baseball data and plot it agains mann,
1998. :)
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> If you look at the data (I know that's a foreign concept to you), global
>> warming began around the middle of the 19th century, as human combustion
>> activities started picking up.
>
>
> Ahh yes, more support for my theory that baseball is responsible for
> global warming! After all didn't baseball get started around the middle
> of the 19th century. Didn't global warming really begin to accelerate as
> professional teams were formed? And look at the most recent spike -
> doesn't it correlate well to the addition of the Marlins, Diamondbacks,
> and Devil Rays? Adding hot weather teams was obviously the stray that
> will destroy our climate. At all cost we must keep the Expos out of
> Puerto Rico.
All we need is a plot of baseball games played vs. global mean temp.
Oh and to add to this, according to the global warming true believers
it really started ramping up in the post war years.... this fits the
baseball model as the sport was introduced to new populations.
We just need to gather all this baseball data and plot it agains mann,
1998. :)
#2752
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F501989.737DAFEF@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> If you look at the data (I know that's a foreign concept to you), global
>> warming began around the middle of the 19th century, as human combustion
>> activities started picking up.
>
>
> Ahh yes, more support for my theory that baseball is responsible for
> global warming! After all didn't baseball get started around the middle
> of the 19th century. Didn't global warming really begin to accelerate as
> professional teams were formed? And look at the most recent spike -
> doesn't it correlate well to the addition of the Marlins, Diamondbacks,
> and Devil Rays? Adding hot weather teams was obviously the stray that
> will destroy our climate. At all cost we must keep the Expos out of
> Puerto Rico.
All we need is a plot of baseball games played vs. global mean temp.
Oh and to add to this, according to the global warming true believers
it really started ramping up in the post war years.... this fits the
baseball model as the sport was introduced to new populations.
We just need to gather all this baseball data and plot it agains mann,
1998. :)
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> If you look at the data (I know that's a foreign concept to you), global
>> warming began around the middle of the 19th century, as human combustion
>> activities started picking up.
>
>
> Ahh yes, more support for my theory that baseball is responsible for
> global warming! After all didn't baseball get started around the middle
> of the 19th century. Didn't global warming really begin to accelerate as
> professional teams were formed? And look at the most recent spike -
> doesn't it correlate well to the addition of the Marlins, Diamondbacks,
> and Devil Rays? Adding hot weather teams was obviously the stray that
> will destroy our climate. At all cost we must keep the Expos out of
> Puerto Rico.
All we need is a plot of baseball games played vs. global mean temp.
Oh and to add to this, according to the global warming true believers
it really started ramping up in the post war years.... this fits the
baseball model as the sport was introduced to new populations.
We just need to gather all this baseball data and plot it agains mann,
1998. :)
#2753
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> 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. ;-) >
LOL! I remember this "new ice age" scam well, I was in Collee at the time
and all the Socialist faculty were flapping their gloom & doom gums about
it, claiming if we didn't all stsrt driving VWs we'd all freeze to death
come 1990.Typical hogwash, sure glad you posted the link.
BTW, read today's USA Today. It has a prominent piece on how the gas (bag)
theorists pet study from the '80's has been proven faulty and that theris no
evidence global average temps of the second half of the 20th century were
anything but perfectly normal. (Notice how quiet Lloyd's been today?)
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. ;-) >
LOL! I remember this "new ice age" scam well, I was in Collee at the time
and all the Socialist faculty were flapping their gloom & doom gums about
it, claiming if we didn't all stsrt driving VWs we'd all freeze to death
come 1990.Typical hogwash, sure glad you posted the link.
BTW, read today's USA Today. It has a prominent piece on how the gas (bag)
theorists pet study from the '80's has been proven faulty and that theris no
evidence global average temps of the second half of the 20th century were
anything but perfectly normal. (Notice how quiet Lloyd's been today?)
#2754
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> 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. ;-) >
LOL! I remember this "new ice age" scam well, I was in Collee at the time
and all the Socialist faculty were flapping their gloom & doom gums about
it, claiming if we didn't all stsrt driving VWs we'd all freeze to death
come 1990.Typical hogwash, sure glad you posted the link.
BTW, read today's USA Today. It has a prominent piece on how the gas (bag)
theorists pet study from the '80's has been proven faulty and that theris no
evidence global average temps of the second half of the 20th century were
anything but perfectly normal. (Notice how quiet Lloyd's been today?)
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. ;-) >
LOL! I remember this "new ice age" scam well, I was in Collee at the time
and all the Socialist faculty were flapping their gloom & doom gums about
it, claiming if we didn't all stsrt driving VWs we'd all freeze to death
come 1990.Typical hogwash, sure glad you posted the link.
BTW, read today's USA Today. It has a prominent piece on how the gas (bag)
theorists pet study from the '80's has been proven faulty and that theris no
evidence global average temps of the second half of the 20th century were
anything but perfectly normal. (Notice how quiet Lloyd's been today?)
#2755
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> 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. ;-) >
LOL! I remember this "new ice age" scam well, I was in Collee at the time
and all the Socialist faculty were flapping their gloom & doom gums about
it, claiming if we didn't all stsrt driving VWs we'd all freeze to death
come 1990.Typical hogwash, sure glad you posted the link.
BTW, read today's USA Today. It has a prominent piece on how the gas (bag)
theorists pet study from the '80's has been proven faulty and that theris no
evidence global average temps of the second half of the 20th century were
anything but perfectly normal. (Notice how quiet Lloyd's been today?)
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. ;-) >
LOL! I remember this "new ice age" scam well, I was in Collee at the time
and all the Socialist faculty were flapping their gloom & doom gums about
it, claiming if we didn't all stsrt driving VWs we'd all freeze to death
come 1990.Typical hogwash, sure glad you posted the link.
BTW, read today's USA Today. It has a prominent piece on how the gas (bag)
theorists pet study from the '80's has been proven faulty and that theris no
evidence global average temps of the second half of the 20th century were
anything but perfectly normal. (Notice how quiet Lloyd's been today?)
#2756
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
The more you nail this stuff, Doug, the more ranting you'll hear!
> > <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.
>
>
> > <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.
>
>
#2757
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
The more you nail this stuff, Doug, the more ranting you'll hear!
> > <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.
>
>
> > <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.
>
>
#2758
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
The more you nail this stuff, Doug, the more ranting you'll hear!
> > <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.
>
>
> > <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.
>
>
#2759
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Great reply, Brent. Ask Ted Kennedy & his Hyannisport chums why they're
blocking off shore wind turbines. Just another bunch of Liberal NIMBY
hypocrites.
> 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.
>
>
>
blocking off shore wind turbines. Just another bunch of Liberal NIMBY
hypocrites.
> 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.
>
>
>
#2760
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Great reply, Brent. Ask Ted Kennedy & his Hyannisport chums why they're
blocking off shore wind turbines. Just another bunch of Liberal NIMBY
hypocrites.
> 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.
>
>
>
blocking off shore wind turbines. Just another bunch of Liberal NIMBY
hypocrites.
> 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.
>
>
>