Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#2771
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
This is pointless to debate with you, I'd be arguing with a close-minded
leftist green zealot. Fact is, none of these global catastrophe hypotheses
hold water, but they sure make great copy in the leftist controlled media.
Look, we'd all like live in an environmentally pure world, but it can't
happen unless we all head back to the caves, go back to eating grass & dung
and have 15 year life expectancies. No one endorses poisoning water or air,
but when looney tunes start distorting facts to claim saying we're warming
the planet with life sustaining gasses someone's got to challenge this
tripe. Their real agenda is clear, and Kyoto proves it.
Now, for political reasons it might be a good idea to stop depending upon
middle east oil. To do that in the short term we'd have to tap our own oil
sources, like off shore, ANWAR, etc. Would the greens support this? Hell no!
They'd prefer total and complete economic dislocation of developed nations
because their vision is some ludicrous "citizens of the world" salvation for
the planet. It's a complete load of crap and sensible people have had enough
of it.
So, now, what happens when we begin to deploy massive numbers of solar
panels around the world, how is the environment going to cope with all that
HEAT??? Well, none of the greens want to answer that question, nor can they
address where all the space will come from to actually deploy these things.
Solar power is hugely inefficient in terms of it's actual power generation
capability vs. space requirements, and production of solar panels is hugely
toxic.
Next, where, pray tell, will we place all of the so-called "green" wind
generating stations, hmmmm???? Oh, not anywhere near a green's home, no sir,
too unsightly, threatening to birds and the noise, WELL!!!
When greens get off their anti-society high horses and start working for
real conservation maybe then there can be some discourse. All I know is that
for over 30 years the same zealots have been waving their arms and flapping
their gums yet have not proposed a single realistic solution. As it is now,
no one can drill, mine, cut, dam, etc. All venues are off and the greens
can't propose a single alternative save go live in yurt by the river
somewhere and live on sprouts. Give me a break!
"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.
> 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?
leftist green zealot. Fact is, none of these global catastrophe hypotheses
hold water, but they sure make great copy in the leftist controlled media.
Look, we'd all like live in an environmentally pure world, but it can't
happen unless we all head back to the caves, go back to eating grass & dung
and have 15 year life expectancies. No one endorses poisoning water or air,
but when looney tunes start distorting facts to claim saying we're warming
the planet with life sustaining gasses someone's got to challenge this
tripe. Their real agenda is clear, and Kyoto proves it.
Now, for political reasons it might be a good idea to stop depending upon
middle east oil. To do that in the short term we'd have to tap our own oil
sources, like off shore, ANWAR, etc. Would the greens support this? Hell no!
They'd prefer total and complete economic dislocation of developed nations
because their vision is some ludicrous "citizens of the world" salvation for
the planet. It's a complete load of crap and sensible people have had enough
of it.
So, now, what happens when we begin to deploy massive numbers of solar
panels around the world, how is the environment going to cope with all that
HEAT??? Well, none of the greens want to answer that question, nor can they
address where all the space will come from to actually deploy these things.
Solar power is hugely inefficient in terms of it's actual power generation
capability vs. space requirements, and production of solar panels is hugely
toxic.
Next, where, pray tell, will we place all of the so-called "green" wind
generating stations, hmmmm???? Oh, not anywhere near a green's home, no sir,
too unsightly, threatening to birds and the noise, WELL!!!
When greens get off their anti-society high horses and start working for
real conservation maybe then there can be some discourse. All I know is that
for over 30 years the same zealots have been waving their arms and flapping
their gums yet have not proposed a single realistic solution. As it is now,
no one can drill, mine, cut, dam, etc. All venues are off and the greens
can't propose a single alternative save go live in yurt by the river
somewhere and live on sprouts. Give me a break!
"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.
> 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?
#2772
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
This is pointless to debate with you, I'd be arguing with a close-minded
leftist green zealot. Fact is, none of these global catastrophe hypotheses
hold water, but they sure make great copy in the leftist controlled media.
Look, we'd all like live in an environmentally pure world, but it can't
happen unless we all head back to the caves, go back to eating grass & dung
and have 15 year life expectancies. No one endorses poisoning water or air,
but when looney tunes start distorting facts to claim saying we're warming
the planet with life sustaining gasses someone's got to challenge this
tripe. Their real agenda is clear, and Kyoto proves it.
Now, for political reasons it might be a good idea to stop depending upon
middle east oil. To do that in the short term we'd have to tap our own oil
sources, like off shore, ANWAR, etc. Would the greens support this? Hell no!
They'd prefer total and complete economic dislocation of developed nations
because their vision is some ludicrous "citizens of the world" salvation for
the planet. It's a complete load of crap and sensible people have had enough
of it.
So, now, what happens when we begin to deploy massive numbers of solar
panels around the world, how is the environment going to cope with all that
HEAT??? Well, none of the greens want to answer that question, nor can they
address where all the space will come from to actually deploy these things.
Solar power is hugely inefficient in terms of it's actual power generation
capability vs. space requirements, and production of solar panels is hugely
toxic.
Next, where, pray tell, will we place all of the so-called "green" wind
generating stations, hmmmm???? Oh, not anywhere near a green's home, no sir,
too unsightly, threatening to birds and the noise, WELL!!!
When greens get off their anti-society high horses and start working for
real conservation maybe then there can be some discourse. All I know is that
for over 30 years the same zealots have been waving their arms and flapping
their gums yet have not proposed a single realistic solution. As it is now,
no one can drill, mine, cut, dam, etc. All venues are off and the greens
can't propose a single alternative save go live in yurt by the river
somewhere and live on sprouts. Give me a break!
"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.
> 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?
leftist green zealot. Fact is, none of these global catastrophe hypotheses
hold water, but they sure make great copy in the leftist controlled media.
Look, we'd all like live in an environmentally pure world, but it can't
happen unless we all head back to the caves, go back to eating grass & dung
and have 15 year life expectancies. No one endorses poisoning water or air,
but when looney tunes start distorting facts to claim saying we're warming
the planet with life sustaining gasses someone's got to challenge this
tripe. Their real agenda is clear, and Kyoto proves it.
Now, for political reasons it might be a good idea to stop depending upon
middle east oil. To do that in the short term we'd have to tap our own oil
sources, like off shore, ANWAR, etc. Would the greens support this? Hell no!
They'd prefer total and complete economic dislocation of developed nations
because their vision is some ludicrous "citizens of the world" salvation for
the planet. It's a complete load of crap and sensible people have had enough
of it.
So, now, what happens when we begin to deploy massive numbers of solar
panels around the world, how is the environment going to cope with all that
HEAT??? Well, none of the greens want to answer that question, nor can they
address where all the space will come from to actually deploy these things.
Solar power is hugely inefficient in terms of it's actual power generation
capability vs. space requirements, and production of solar panels is hugely
toxic.
Next, where, pray tell, will we place all of the so-called "green" wind
generating stations, hmmmm???? Oh, not anywhere near a green's home, no sir,
too unsightly, threatening to birds and the noise, WELL!!!
When greens get off their anti-society high horses and start working for
real conservation maybe then there can be some discourse. All I know is that
for over 30 years the same zealots have been waving their arms and flapping
their gums yet have not proposed a single realistic solution. As it is now,
no one can drill, mine, cut, dam, etc. All venues are off and the greens
can't propose a single alternative save go live in yurt by the river
somewhere and live on sprouts. Give me a break!
"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.
> 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?
#2773
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
This is pointless to debate with you, I'd be arguing with a close-minded
leftist green zealot. Fact is, none of these global catastrophe hypotheses
hold water, but they sure make great copy in the leftist controlled media.
Look, we'd all like live in an environmentally pure world, but it can't
happen unless we all head back to the caves, go back to eating grass & dung
and have 15 year life expectancies. No one endorses poisoning water or air,
but when looney tunes start distorting facts to claim saying we're warming
the planet with life sustaining gasses someone's got to challenge this
tripe. Their real agenda is clear, and Kyoto proves it.
Now, for political reasons it might be a good idea to stop depending upon
middle east oil. To do that in the short term we'd have to tap our own oil
sources, like off shore, ANWAR, etc. Would the greens support this? Hell no!
They'd prefer total and complete economic dislocation of developed nations
because their vision is some ludicrous "citizens of the world" salvation for
the planet. It's a complete load of crap and sensible people have had enough
of it.
So, now, what happens when we begin to deploy massive numbers of solar
panels around the world, how is the environment going to cope with all that
HEAT??? Well, none of the greens want to answer that question, nor can they
address where all the space will come from to actually deploy these things.
Solar power is hugely inefficient in terms of it's actual power generation
capability vs. space requirements, and production of solar panels is hugely
toxic.
Next, where, pray tell, will we place all of the so-called "green" wind
generating stations, hmmmm???? Oh, not anywhere near a green's home, no sir,
too unsightly, threatening to birds and the noise, WELL!!!
When greens get off their anti-society high horses and start working for
real conservation maybe then there can be some discourse. All I know is that
for over 30 years the same zealots have been waving their arms and flapping
their gums yet have not proposed a single realistic solution. As it is now,
no one can drill, mine, cut, dam, etc. All venues are off and the greens
can't propose a single alternative save go live in yurt by the river
somewhere and live on sprouts. Give me a break!
"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.
> 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?
leftist green zealot. Fact is, none of these global catastrophe hypotheses
hold water, but they sure make great copy in the leftist controlled media.
Look, we'd all like live in an environmentally pure world, but it can't
happen unless we all head back to the caves, go back to eating grass & dung
and have 15 year life expectancies. No one endorses poisoning water or air,
but when looney tunes start distorting facts to claim saying we're warming
the planet with life sustaining gasses someone's got to challenge this
tripe. Their real agenda is clear, and Kyoto proves it.
Now, for political reasons it might be a good idea to stop depending upon
middle east oil. To do that in the short term we'd have to tap our own oil
sources, like off shore, ANWAR, etc. Would the greens support this? Hell no!
They'd prefer total and complete economic dislocation of developed nations
because their vision is some ludicrous "citizens of the world" salvation for
the planet. It's a complete load of crap and sensible people have had enough
of it.
So, now, what happens when we begin to deploy massive numbers of solar
panels around the world, how is the environment going to cope with all that
HEAT??? Well, none of the greens want to answer that question, nor can they
address where all the space will come from to actually deploy these things.
Solar power is hugely inefficient in terms of it's actual power generation
capability vs. space requirements, and production of solar panels is hugely
toxic.
Next, where, pray tell, will we place all of the so-called "green" wind
generating stations, hmmmm???? Oh, not anywhere near a green's home, no sir,
too unsightly, threatening to birds and the noise, WELL!!!
When greens get off their anti-society high horses and start working for
real conservation maybe then there can be some discourse. All I know is that
for over 30 years the same zealots have been waving their arms and flapping
their gums yet have not proposed a single realistic solution. As it is now,
no one can drill, mine, cut, dam, etc. All venues are off and the greens
can't propose a single alternative save go live in yurt by the river
somewhere and live on sprouts. Give me a break!
"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.
> 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?
#2774
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
Here's one of the fools:
>Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
>
>These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
>masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll use
>any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
>gain political control.
>
>The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
>morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
>When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
>had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2 emissions
>are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
>caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
>housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse for
>wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
>"communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
>paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
>sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to think
>I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
>
>
>> Global warming theory is being used for a political agenda because it
>allows for _control_ of the population, control of economies, central
>control by self appointed elites. It allows them to micro manage everyone's
>life for the good of the planet. Meanwhile they get to continue living the
>way they want. Note how dr. parker screams about putting too much CO2 into
>the air yet drives a mercedes benz. This is rather typical. There'd be alot
>more credibility if drove an insight or a metro.
>>
>> Then there are all the environmental policies designed to constrain
>developed western nations while allowing 'developing' nations to make all
>the same mistakes that were made in the west. We know better now. If it were
>about the environment the policies would not be structured this way.
>Needless harm to the environment simply would not be allowed. <
>
>
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
Here's one of the fools:
>Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
>
>These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
>masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll use
>any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
>gain political control.
>
>The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
>morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
>When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
>had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2 emissions
>are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
>caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
>housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse for
>wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
>"communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
>paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
>sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to think
>I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
>
>
>> Global warming theory is being used for a political agenda because it
>allows for _control_ of the population, control of economies, central
>control by self appointed elites. It allows them to micro manage everyone's
>life for the good of the planet. Meanwhile they get to continue living the
>way they want. Note how dr. parker screams about putting too much CO2 into
>the air yet drives a mercedes benz. This is rather typical. There'd be alot
>more credibility if drove an insight or a metro.
>>
>> Then there are all the environmental policies designed to constrain
>developed western nations while allowing 'developing' nations to make all
>the same mistakes that were made in the west. We know better now. If it were
>about the environment the policies would not be structured this way.
>Needless harm to the environment simply would not be allowed. <
>
>
#2775
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
Here's one of the fools:
>Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
>
>These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
>masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll use
>any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
>gain political control.
>
>The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
>morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
>When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
>had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2 emissions
>are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
>caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
>housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse for
>wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
>"communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
>paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
>sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to think
>I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
>
>
>> Global warming theory is being used for a political agenda because it
>allows for _control_ of the population, control of economies, central
>control by self appointed elites. It allows them to micro manage everyone's
>life for the good of the planet. Meanwhile they get to continue living the
>way they want. Note how dr. parker screams about putting too much CO2 into
>the air yet drives a mercedes benz. This is rather typical. There'd be alot
>more credibility if drove an insight or a metro.
>>
>> Then there are all the environmental policies designed to constrain
>developed western nations while allowing 'developing' nations to make all
>the same mistakes that were made in the west. We know better now. If it were
>about the environment the policies would not be structured this way.
>Needless harm to the environment simply would not be allowed. <
>
>
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
Here's one of the fools:
>Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
>
>These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
>masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll use
>any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
>gain political control.
>
>The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
>morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
>When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
>had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2 emissions
>are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
>caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
>housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse for
>wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
>"communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
>paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
>sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to think
>I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
>
>
>> Global warming theory is being used for a political agenda because it
>allows for _control_ of the population, control of economies, central
>control by self appointed elites. It allows them to micro manage everyone's
>life for the good of the planet. Meanwhile they get to continue living the
>way they want. Note how dr. parker screams about putting too much CO2 into
>the air yet drives a mercedes benz. This is rather typical. There'd be alot
>more credibility if drove an insight or a metro.
>>
>> Then there are all the environmental policies designed to constrain
>developed western nations while allowing 'developing' nations to make all
>the same mistakes that were made in the west. We know better now. If it were
>about the environment the policies would not be structured this way.
>Needless harm to the environment simply would not be allowed. <
>
>
#2776
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
Here's one of the fools:
>Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
>
>These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
>masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll use
>any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
>gain political control.
>
>The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
>morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
>When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
>had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2 emissions
>are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
>caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
>housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse for
>wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
>"communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
>paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
>sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to think
>I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
>
>
>> Global warming theory is being used for a political agenda because it
>allows for _control_ of the population, control of economies, central
>control by self appointed elites. It allows them to micro manage everyone's
>life for the good of the planet. Meanwhile they get to continue living the
>way they want. Note how dr. parker screams about putting too much CO2 into
>the air yet drives a mercedes benz. This is rather typical. There'd be alot
>more credibility if drove an insight or a metro.
>>
>> Then there are all the environmental policies designed to constrain
>developed western nations while allowing 'developing' nations to make all
>the same mistakes that were made in the west. We know better now. If it were
>about the environment the policies would not be structured this way.
>Needless harm to the environment simply would not be allowed. <
>
>
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
Here's one of the fools:
>Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
>
>These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
>masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll use
>any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
>gain political control.
>
>The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
>morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
>When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
>had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2 emissions
>are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
>caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
>housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse for
>wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
>"communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
>paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
>sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to think
>I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
>
>
>> Global warming theory is being used for a political agenda because it
>allows for _control_ of the population, control of economies, central
>control by self appointed elites. It allows them to micro manage everyone's
>life for the good of the planet. Meanwhile they get to continue living the
>way they want. Note how dr. parker screams about putting too much CO2 into
>the air yet drives a mercedes benz. This is rather typical. There'd be alot
>more credibility if drove an insight or a metro.
>>
>> Then there are all the environmental policies designed to constrain
>developed western nations while allowing 'developing' nations to make all
>the same mistakes that were made in the west. We know better now. If it were
>about the environment the policies would not be structured this way.
>Needless harm to the environment simply would not be allowed. <
>
>
#2777
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <aBWnb.57501$Fm2.35469@attbi_s04>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
And another fool:
>In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>> Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
>
>Thanks.
>
>> These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
>> masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll use
>> any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
>> gain political control.
>
>I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
>seems to be a favoring of China IMO.
>
>> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
>> morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
>> When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
>> had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2 emissions
>> are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
>> caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
>> housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse for
>> wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
>> "communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
>> paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
>> sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
think
>> I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
>
>There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
>all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
>it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
>environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
>different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
>This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.
>
>CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
>Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
>for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
>released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
>however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
>environment second. It's the only explaination.
>
>Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
>chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
>releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
>CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
>global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
>and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
>made.
>
>On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
>about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
>things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
>hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
>also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
>'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?
>
>To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
>any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
>do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
>when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
>See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
>even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
>the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
>combustion. ;)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
And another fool:
>In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>> Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
>
>Thanks.
>
>> These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
>> masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll use
>> any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
>> gain political control.
>
>I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
>seems to be a favoring of China IMO.
>
>> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
>> morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
>> When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
>> had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2 emissions
>> are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
>> caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
>> housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse for
>> wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
>> "communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
>> paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
>> sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
think
>> I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
>
>There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
>all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
>it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
>environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
>different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
>This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.
>
>CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
>Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
>for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
>released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
>however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
>environment second. It's the only explaination.
>
>Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
>chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
>releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
>CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
>global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
>and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
>made.
>
>On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
>about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
>things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
>hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
>also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
>'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?
>
>To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
>any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
>do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
>when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
>See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
>even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
>the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
>combustion. ;)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
#2778
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <aBWnb.57501$Fm2.35469@attbi_s04>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
And another fool:
>In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>> Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
>
>Thanks.
>
>> These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
>> masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll use
>> any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
>> gain political control.
>
>I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
>seems to be a favoring of China IMO.
>
>> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
>> morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
>> When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
>> had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2 emissions
>> are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
>> caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
>> housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse for
>> wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
>> "communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
>> paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
>> sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
think
>> I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
>
>There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
>all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
>it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
>environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
>different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
>This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.
>
>CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
>Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
>for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
>released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
>however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
>environment second. It's the only explaination.
>
>Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
>chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
>releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
>CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
>global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
>and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
>made.
>
>On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
>about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
>things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
>hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
>also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
>'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?
>
>To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
>any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
>do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
>when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
>See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
>even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
>the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
>combustion. ;)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
And another fool:
>In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>> Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
>
>Thanks.
>
>> These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
>> masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll use
>> any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
>> gain political control.
>
>I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
>seems to be a favoring of China IMO.
>
>> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
>> morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
>> When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
>> had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2 emissions
>> are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
>> caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
>> housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse for
>> wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
>> "communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
>> paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
>> sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
think
>> I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
>
>There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
>all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
>it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
>environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
>different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
>This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.
>
>CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
>Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
>for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
>released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
>however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
>environment second. It's the only explaination.
>
>Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
>chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
>releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
>CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
>global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
>and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
>made.
>
>On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
>about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
>things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
>hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
>also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
>'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?
>
>To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
>any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
>do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
>when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
>See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
>even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
>the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
>combustion. ;)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
#2779
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <aBWnb.57501$Fm2.35469@attbi_s04>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
And another fool:
>In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>> Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
>
>Thanks.
>
>> These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
>> masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll use
>> any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
>> gain political control.
>
>I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
>seems to be a favoring of China IMO.
>
>> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
>> morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
>> When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
>> had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2 emissions
>> are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
>> caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
>> housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse for
>> wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
>> "communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
>> paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
>> sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
think
>> I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
>
>There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
>all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
>it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
>environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
>different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
>This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.
>
>CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
>Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
>for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
>released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
>however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
>environment second. It's the only explaination.
>
>Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
>chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
>releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
>CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
>global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
>and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
>made.
>
>On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
>about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
>things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
>hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
>also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
>'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?
>
>To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
>any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
>do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
>when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
>See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
>even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
>the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
>combustion. ;)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
And another fool:
>In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>> Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
>
>Thanks.
>
>> These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
>> masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll use
>> any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
>> gain political control.
>
>I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
>seems to be a favoring of China IMO.
>
>> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
>> morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
>> When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
>> had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2 emissions
>> are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
>> caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
>> housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse for
>> wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
>> "communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
>> paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
>> sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
think
>> I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
>
>There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
>all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
>it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
>environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
>different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
>This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.
>
>CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
>Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
>for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
>released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
>however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
>environment second. It's the only explaination.
>
>Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
>chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
>releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
>CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
>global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
>and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
>made.
>
>On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
>about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
>things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
>hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
>also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
>'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?
>
>To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
>any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
>do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
>when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
>See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
>even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
>the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
>combustion. ;)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
#2780
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3FA03D91.3080807@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
More BS:
>> Bravo!
>>
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:3F4ECCD1.AB1C303@mindspring.com...
>>
>>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Perhaps if you knew some science, we could have an intelligent
>>>
>> discussion
>>
>>>>about science.
>>>
>>>Explain to me the methods being used to measure the average global
>>>temperature that are both precise enough and consistent enough to
>>>separate a 0.4 degree C temperature rise out of the normal background
>>>variation over the past 1000 years. Explain to me any computer model
>>>that can predict 1 degree C average global temperature rises with any
>>>certainty when they can't even predict tomorrow's temperatures with 3
>>>degrees on a consistent basis.
>>>
>>>I assume you don't know any scientist who adjust their data to fit their
>>>preconceived notions.
>>>
>>>Weren't those cold fusion guys "scientist"? Heck I think they were even
>>>honest scientist.
>>>
>>>Do you honestly think the Earth's environment has ever been static and
>>>unchanging? Can you say with any certainty that global warming is worse
>>>than the environmental changes that would occur in its absence?
>>>
>>>Literally billions of tons of carbon have been effectively removed from
>>>the atmosphere over the last few billion years. At some point, might me
>>>have too little CO2?
>>>
>>>History is full of widely accepted theories that turned out to be wrong.
>>>Why are you so sure that Global Warming isn't one of these?
>>>
>>>I assume you believe that all scientist and government agency are
>>>completely honest and that they would never jump on a popular bandwagon
>>>as means of securing funding to support their careers/agencies? It has
>>>been my experience that people who say things are OK tend not to secure
>>>funding and soon need to find something else to do.
>>>
>>>Even if you are 100% right about global warming, might not the fixes be
>>>worse than doing nothing?
>>>
>>>Ed
>>>
>>>None of us is as dumb as all of us
>>
>>
>>
>
>And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
>
>http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
>
>They still can't shake the ingrained notion that man has caused this,
>but they'll come around eventually and likely add new "causes" as well.
> Trouble is, it is very hard to separate causes from correlation,
>especially in areas like this where it is pretty hard to run controlled
>experiments. Simple observation of data can easily lead to such
>confusion. I suspect many other things can be found to correlate with
>global climate changes, but I'll also bet that few of them are causes.
>
>
>Matt
>
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
More BS:
>> Bravo!
>>
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:3F4ECCD1.AB1C303@mindspring.com...
>>
>>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Perhaps if you knew some science, we could have an intelligent
>>>
>> discussion
>>
>>>>about science.
>>>
>>>Explain to me the methods being used to measure the average global
>>>temperature that are both precise enough and consistent enough to
>>>separate a 0.4 degree C temperature rise out of the normal background
>>>variation over the past 1000 years. Explain to me any computer model
>>>that can predict 1 degree C average global temperature rises with any
>>>certainty when they can't even predict tomorrow's temperatures with 3
>>>degrees on a consistent basis.
>>>
>>>I assume you don't know any scientist who adjust their data to fit their
>>>preconceived notions.
>>>
>>>Weren't those cold fusion guys "scientist"? Heck I think they were even
>>>honest scientist.
>>>
>>>Do you honestly think the Earth's environment has ever been static and
>>>unchanging? Can you say with any certainty that global warming is worse
>>>than the environmental changes that would occur in its absence?
>>>
>>>Literally billions of tons of carbon have been effectively removed from
>>>the atmosphere over the last few billion years. At some point, might me
>>>have too little CO2?
>>>
>>>History is full of widely accepted theories that turned out to be wrong.
>>>Why are you so sure that Global Warming isn't one of these?
>>>
>>>I assume you believe that all scientist and government agency are
>>>completely honest and that they would never jump on a popular bandwagon
>>>as means of securing funding to support their careers/agencies? It has
>>>been my experience that people who say things are OK tend not to secure
>>>funding and soon need to find something else to do.
>>>
>>>Even if you are 100% right about global warming, might not the fixes be
>>>worse than doing nothing?
>>>
>>>Ed
>>>
>>>None of us is as dumb as all of us
>>
>>
>>
>
>And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
>
>http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
>
>They still can't shake the ingrained notion that man has caused this,
>but they'll come around eventually and likely add new "causes" as well.
> Trouble is, it is very hard to separate causes from correlation,
>especially in areas like this where it is pretty hard to run controlled
>experiments. Simple observation of data can easily lead to such
>confusion. I suspect many other things can be found to correlate with
>global climate changes, but I'll also bet that few of them are causes.
>
>
>Matt
>