Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#2781
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
>
#2782
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
>
#2783
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bnpmk701sae@enews3.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>A very lucid post, Brent.
>
>To me the whole Kyoto con job was simply an attempt by the UN and it's
>minions to hobble the wealthier nations and impose an "un-level" commercial
>playing field under the guise of "carbon credits", etc. In reality it gave
>China, India and other so-called "underdeveloped" nations a pass. Much
>ranting comes from the green community that the USA represents 6 percent of
>the global population but consumes 30 percent of the resources. Hmmm....and
>what percent of the worlds goods & services does the USA produce? Oh, right,
>about 30 - 40 percent! Seems a logical and fair trade-off, unless you're
>trying to legally gain an unfair advantage via "Kyoto Fiat" as your ticket
>to imposition of Socialism.
>
>As for your "what about the water" issue, I've also floated this argument to
>green zealots and get no answer, same as I get no response regarding the
>creation of the Sahara 7-10,000 years ago.
>
>Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key research
>green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming theory.
>In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
>global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the second
>half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
>reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.
>
>The entire greenhouse gas THEORY will remain "bunkum" in my book until some
>conclusive piece of research can withstand all challenges. Melting glaciers?
>Happened before, unprecedented heatwaves? Nope, it's happened before, on &
>on, & on. Just pray these people never gain real political power!
>
>
>
>
>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:aBWnb.57501$Fm2.35469@attbi_s04...
>> In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>> > Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> > These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control
>the
>> > masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll
>use
>> > any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
>> > gain political control.
>>
>> I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
>> seems to be a favoring of China IMO.
>>
>> > The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
>> > morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's &
>70's.
>> > When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily,
>they
>> > had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2
>emissions
>> > are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into
>the
>> > caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
>> > housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse
>for
>> > wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
>> > "communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
>> > paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
>> > sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
>think
>> > I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
>> all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
>> it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
>> environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
>> different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
>> This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.
>>
>> CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
>> Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
>> for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
>> released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
>> however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
>> environment second. It's the only explaination.
>>
>> Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
>> chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
>> releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
>> CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
>> global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
>> and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
>> made.
>>
>> On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
>> about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
>> things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
>> hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
>> also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
>> 'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?
>>
>> To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
>> any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
>> do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
>> when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
>> See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
>> even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
>> the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
>> combustion. ;)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>A very lucid post, Brent.
>
>To me the whole Kyoto con job was simply an attempt by the UN and it's
>minions to hobble the wealthier nations and impose an "un-level" commercial
>playing field under the guise of "carbon credits", etc. In reality it gave
>China, India and other so-called "underdeveloped" nations a pass. Much
>ranting comes from the green community that the USA represents 6 percent of
>the global population but consumes 30 percent of the resources. Hmmm....and
>what percent of the worlds goods & services does the USA produce? Oh, right,
>about 30 - 40 percent! Seems a logical and fair trade-off, unless you're
>trying to legally gain an unfair advantage via "Kyoto Fiat" as your ticket
>to imposition of Socialism.
>
>As for your "what about the water" issue, I've also floated this argument to
>green zealots and get no answer, same as I get no response regarding the
>creation of the Sahara 7-10,000 years ago.
>
>Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key research
>green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming theory.
>In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
>global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the second
>half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
>reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.
>
>The entire greenhouse gas THEORY will remain "bunkum" in my book until some
>conclusive piece of research can withstand all challenges. Melting glaciers?
>Happened before, unprecedented heatwaves? Nope, it's happened before, on &
>on, & on. Just pray these people never gain real political power!
>
>
>
>
>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:aBWnb.57501$Fm2.35469@attbi_s04...
>> In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>> > Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> > These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control
>the
>> > masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll
>use
>> > any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
>> > gain political control.
>>
>> I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
>> seems to be a favoring of China IMO.
>>
>> > The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
>> > morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's &
>70's.
>> > When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily,
>they
>> > had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2
>emissions
>> > are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into
>the
>> > caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
>> > housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse
>for
>> > wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
>> > "communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
>> > paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
>> > sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
>think
>> > I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
>> all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
>> it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
>> environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
>> different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
>> This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.
>>
>> CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
>> Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
>> for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
>> released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
>> however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
>> environment second. It's the only explaination.
>>
>> Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
>> chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
>> releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
>> CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
>> global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
>> and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
>> made.
>>
>> On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
>> about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
>> things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
>> hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
>> also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
>> 'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?
>>
>> To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
>> any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
>> do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
>> when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
>> See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
>> even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
>> the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
>> combustion. ;)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
#2784
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bnpmk701sae@enews3.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>A very lucid post, Brent.
>
>To me the whole Kyoto con job was simply an attempt by the UN and it's
>minions to hobble the wealthier nations and impose an "un-level" commercial
>playing field under the guise of "carbon credits", etc. In reality it gave
>China, India and other so-called "underdeveloped" nations a pass. Much
>ranting comes from the green community that the USA represents 6 percent of
>the global population but consumes 30 percent of the resources. Hmmm....and
>what percent of the worlds goods & services does the USA produce? Oh, right,
>about 30 - 40 percent! Seems a logical and fair trade-off, unless you're
>trying to legally gain an unfair advantage via "Kyoto Fiat" as your ticket
>to imposition of Socialism.
>
>As for your "what about the water" issue, I've also floated this argument to
>green zealots and get no answer, same as I get no response regarding the
>creation of the Sahara 7-10,000 years ago.
>
>Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key research
>green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming theory.
>In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
>global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the second
>half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
>reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.
>
>The entire greenhouse gas THEORY will remain "bunkum" in my book until some
>conclusive piece of research can withstand all challenges. Melting glaciers?
>Happened before, unprecedented heatwaves? Nope, it's happened before, on &
>on, & on. Just pray these people never gain real political power!
>
>
>
>
>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:aBWnb.57501$Fm2.35469@attbi_s04...
>> In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>> > Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> > These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control
>the
>> > masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll
>use
>> > any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
>> > gain political control.
>>
>> I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
>> seems to be a favoring of China IMO.
>>
>> > The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
>> > morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's &
>70's.
>> > When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily,
>they
>> > had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2
>emissions
>> > are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into
>the
>> > caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
>> > housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse
>for
>> > wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
>> > "communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
>> > paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
>> > sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
>think
>> > I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
>> all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
>> it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
>> environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
>> different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
>> This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.
>>
>> CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
>> Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
>> for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
>> released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
>> however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
>> environment second. It's the only explaination.
>>
>> Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
>> chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
>> releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
>> CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
>> global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
>> and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
>> made.
>>
>> On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
>> about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
>> things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
>> hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
>> also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
>> 'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?
>>
>> To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
>> any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
>> do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
>> when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
>> See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
>> even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
>> the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
>> combustion. ;)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>A very lucid post, Brent.
>
>To me the whole Kyoto con job was simply an attempt by the UN and it's
>minions to hobble the wealthier nations and impose an "un-level" commercial
>playing field under the guise of "carbon credits", etc. In reality it gave
>China, India and other so-called "underdeveloped" nations a pass. Much
>ranting comes from the green community that the USA represents 6 percent of
>the global population but consumes 30 percent of the resources. Hmmm....and
>what percent of the worlds goods & services does the USA produce? Oh, right,
>about 30 - 40 percent! Seems a logical and fair trade-off, unless you're
>trying to legally gain an unfair advantage via "Kyoto Fiat" as your ticket
>to imposition of Socialism.
>
>As for your "what about the water" issue, I've also floated this argument to
>green zealots and get no answer, same as I get no response regarding the
>creation of the Sahara 7-10,000 years ago.
>
>Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key research
>green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming theory.
>In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
>global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the second
>half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
>reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.
>
>The entire greenhouse gas THEORY will remain "bunkum" in my book until some
>conclusive piece of research can withstand all challenges. Melting glaciers?
>Happened before, unprecedented heatwaves? Nope, it's happened before, on &
>on, & on. Just pray these people never gain real political power!
>
>
>
>
>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:aBWnb.57501$Fm2.35469@attbi_s04...
>> In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>> > Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> > These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control
>the
>> > masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll
>use
>> > any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
>> > gain political control.
>>
>> I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
>> seems to be a favoring of China IMO.
>>
>> > The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
>> > morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's &
>70's.
>> > When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily,
>they
>> > had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2
>emissions
>> > are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into
>the
>> > caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
>> > housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse
>for
>> > wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
>> > "communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
>> > paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
>> > sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
>think
>> > I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
>> all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
>> it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
>> environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
>> different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
>> This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.
>>
>> CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
>> Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
>> for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
>> released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
>> however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
>> environment second. It's the only explaination.
>>
>> Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
>> chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
>> releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
>> CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
>> global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
>> and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
>> made.
>>
>> On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
>> about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
>> things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
>> hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
>> also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
>> 'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?
>>
>> To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
>> any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
>> do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
>> when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
>> See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
>> even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
>> the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
>> combustion. ;)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
#2785
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bnpmk701sae@enews3.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>A very lucid post, Brent.
>
>To me the whole Kyoto con job was simply an attempt by the UN and it's
>minions to hobble the wealthier nations and impose an "un-level" commercial
>playing field under the guise of "carbon credits", etc. In reality it gave
>China, India and other so-called "underdeveloped" nations a pass. Much
>ranting comes from the green community that the USA represents 6 percent of
>the global population but consumes 30 percent of the resources. Hmmm....and
>what percent of the worlds goods & services does the USA produce? Oh, right,
>about 30 - 40 percent! Seems a logical and fair trade-off, unless you're
>trying to legally gain an unfair advantage via "Kyoto Fiat" as your ticket
>to imposition of Socialism.
>
>As for your "what about the water" issue, I've also floated this argument to
>green zealots and get no answer, same as I get no response regarding the
>creation of the Sahara 7-10,000 years ago.
>
>Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key research
>green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming theory.
>In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
>global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the second
>half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
>reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.
>
>The entire greenhouse gas THEORY will remain "bunkum" in my book until some
>conclusive piece of research can withstand all challenges. Melting glaciers?
>Happened before, unprecedented heatwaves? Nope, it's happened before, on &
>on, & on. Just pray these people never gain real political power!
>
>
>
>
>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:aBWnb.57501$Fm2.35469@attbi_s04...
>> In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>> > Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> > These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control
>the
>> > masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll
>use
>> > any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
>> > gain political control.
>>
>> I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
>> seems to be a favoring of China IMO.
>>
>> > The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
>> > morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's &
>70's.
>> > When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily,
>they
>> > had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2
>emissions
>> > are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into
>the
>> > caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
>> > housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse
>for
>> > wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
>> > "communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
>> > paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
>> > sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
>think
>> > I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
>> all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
>> it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
>> environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
>> different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
>> This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.
>>
>> CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
>> Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
>> for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
>> released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
>> however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
>> environment second. It's the only explaination.
>>
>> Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
>> chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
>> releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
>> CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
>> global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
>> and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
>> made.
>>
>> On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
>> about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
>> things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
>> hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
>> also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
>> 'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?
>>
>> To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
>> any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
>> do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
>> when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
>> See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
>> even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
>> the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
>> combustion. ;)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>A very lucid post, Brent.
>
>To me the whole Kyoto con job was simply an attempt by the UN and it's
>minions to hobble the wealthier nations and impose an "un-level" commercial
>playing field under the guise of "carbon credits", etc. In reality it gave
>China, India and other so-called "underdeveloped" nations a pass. Much
>ranting comes from the green community that the USA represents 6 percent of
>the global population but consumes 30 percent of the resources. Hmmm....and
>what percent of the worlds goods & services does the USA produce? Oh, right,
>about 30 - 40 percent! Seems a logical and fair trade-off, unless you're
>trying to legally gain an unfair advantage via "Kyoto Fiat" as your ticket
>to imposition of Socialism.
>
>As for your "what about the water" issue, I've also floated this argument to
>green zealots and get no answer, same as I get no response regarding the
>creation of the Sahara 7-10,000 years ago.
>
>Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key research
>green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming theory.
>In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
>global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the second
>half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
>reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.
>
>The entire greenhouse gas THEORY will remain "bunkum" in my book until some
>conclusive piece of research can withstand all challenges. Melting glaciers?
>Happened before, unprecedented heatwaves? Nope, it's happened before, on &
>on, & on. Just pray these people never gain real political power!
>
>
>
>
>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:aBWnb.57501$Fm2.35469@attbi_s04...
>> In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>> > Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> > These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control
>the
>> > masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll
>use
>> > any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
>> > gain political control.
>>
>> I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
>> seems to be a favoring of China IMO.
>>
>> > The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
>> > morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's &
>70's.
>> > When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily,
>they
>> > had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2
>emissions
>> > are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into
>the
>> > caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
>> > housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse
>for
>> > wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
>> > "communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
>> > paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
>> > sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
>think
>> > I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
>> all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
>> it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
>> environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
>> different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
>> This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.
>>
>> CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
>> Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
>> for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
>> released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
>> however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
>> environment second. It's the only explaination.
>>
>> Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
>> chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
>> releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
>> CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
>> global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
>> and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
>> made.
>>
>> On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
>> about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
>> things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
>> hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
>> also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
>> 'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?
>>
>> To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
>> any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
>> do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
>> when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
>> See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
>> even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
>> the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
>> combustion. ;)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
#2786
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vq0qfm4infl337@corp.supernews.com>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
>news:newscache$0hjinh$261$1@news.ipinc.net...
>>
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:vptf3thq39cab0@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> >
>> > WE know he had them, we don't know what he did with them. If you owned a
>> > house twelve years ago, and you could not provide evidence that you had
>> sold
>> > it, would it not be logical to assume you still owned it?
>> >
>>
>> Not if it was a mobile trailer house, WMD's are generally pretty mobile.
>
>Moving them does not change ownership, nor does it make them cease to exist.
>
>>
>> In any case who is "we". The CIA certainly wasn't claiming that Saddam
>had
>> WMD's
>
>In the case of Saddam his chemical and biological weapons are and have
>always been called WMD's, and yes the CIA knew he had them, he has used them
>at least 12 times.
Did he have them in 2003? If so, where are they?
>
>> and why did the Bush administraton blow a deep-CIA agent's cover in
>revenge?
>
>Speculation
>
>> And
>> why haven't they come up with the name of the person in the Bush
>> administration who
>> released the name?
>
>You just claimed Bush was responsible, now you admit the identity is
>unknown. I leave speculation to others, the truth will be known eventually.
>
>>
>> Your wasting your time attempting to use WMD's as a justification for
>going
>> to war
>> in Iraq. Nukes might have been there 10 years ago, or partial nukes, but
>> it's preposterous
>> to suggest they were there before the war.
>
>No one, including Bush, has ever claimed Sadam has or ever had Nukes. The
>claim was that Saddam was trying to aquire them.
Which turned out to be a lie.
>
>The case is a bit stronger for
>> bio agents,
>> but still inconclusive.
>
>How so, when he has used them several times already?
Where are they?
>What further proof could you possibly require that Saddam has them than the
>fact he has used them repeatedly, both against his own people and Iran?
"Has" is present tense. Where are they?
>
> It is clearly obvious to anyone with any education
>> that basing the
>> Iraq invasion on WMD was a lie.
>
>Your opinion.
>
>>
>> However what is not clear to most people, even now it seems, is that WMD's
>> are not
>> the only justification for a unilateral invasion of another country.
>
>I know of no one who thought it was. WMD were only one of the reasons.
The one given to us by Bush.
>
> Lloyd
>> may be able to
>> make a coherent argument that Bush was lying when Bush used WMD's as
>pretext
>> for
>> going to war in Iraq.
>
>Lloyd is incapable of coherant thought, much less arqument.
>
> But there is absolutely no logical, reasonable, or
>> moral argument
>> Lloyd can make for allowing a dictator to remain in power who for fun
>would
>> cut the eyes
>> and tongues of people out of their heads, who killed his own brother in
>> broad daylight
>> and who committed numerous other atrocities. It was a terrible terrible
>> thing for the
>> nations of the world to stand idly by and allow this to continue year
>after
>> year, and they
>> damn well know it, they know it even now because they all want to pretend
>> that Iraq
>> doesen't exist right now. The invasion of Iraq was justified on moral and
>> human rights
>> grounds, and does not need further justification. Iraqi's today, despite
>> the mess in the
>> country, are better off now than they were under Saddam.
>
>I fully agree with you here.
>
>
>>
>> It is a shame that the President has not made this clear. But I can tell
>> you why he has not,
>> because if he did, then he would have to hold his own administration up to
>> the same moral
>> standards. This is why people in the Bush administration have no problem
>> with basically
>> committing treason by revealing the name of one of our better CIA agents,
>> thank God she
>> was in the country when they did it. In short, the Bush administration is
>> totally morally
>> bankrupt. They do not believe that the invasion of Iraq was justified on
>> moral grounds
>> simply because they themselves give absolutely no credit to morality. All
>> they care about
>> is personal power and greed.
>>
>> Ted
>
>Your opinion. But if Bush is as bad as you think, how much worse was
>Clinton? In my opinion Clinton was by far the worse President this country
>has ever had, bar none. That is my opinion.
Yes, thank goodness our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity under
Clinton is over.
>My opinion of Lloyd is simple, he is a lying hypocrit.
>Why do I say this? If Al Gore had won the election, and had then proceded to
>deal with Iraq exactly the way Bush has done, Lloyd would be singing his
>praises. To Lloyd, as a Liberal he must publicly support any decision made
>by a Liberal, and he must oppose any decision made by a Conservative. Bush
>is wrong simply because he is a Repulican instead of a Democrat. I would
>support the President in Iraq regardless, not because I wanted this war, I
>didn't, but because I do feel it had to be done, and better now than latter.
> You are an intelligent person Ted, I respect your opinion on this, even the
>parts I disagree with you on.
>Lloyd believes himself superior to anyone who isn't a Liberal or a
>scientist, so I can't help but take him down a few pegs. Beyond that I
>really have no interest in discussing Iraq or politics in general, and I
>vote for as many Democrats come election time as I do Republicans, depends
>on who I think is better qualified.
>
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
>news:newscache$0hjinh$261$1@news.ipinc.net...
>>
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:vptf3thq39cab0@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> >
>> > WE know he had them, we don't know what he did with them. If you owned a
>> > house twelve years ago, and you could not provide evidence that you had
>> sold
>> > it, would it not be logical to assume you still owned it?
>> >
>>
>> Not if it was a mobile trailer house, WMD's are generally pretty mobile.
>
>Moving them does not change ownership, nor does it make them cease to exist.
>
>>
>> In any case who is "we". The CIA certainly wasn't claiming that Saddam
>had
>> WMD's
>
>In the case of Saddam his chemical and biological weapons are and have
>always been called WMD's, and yes the CIA knew he had them, he has used them
>at least 12 times.
Did he have them in 2003? If so, where are they?
>
>> and why did the Bush administraton blow a deep-CIA agent's cover in
>revenge?
>
>Speculation
>
>> And
>> why haven't they come up with the name of the person in the Bush
>> administration who
>> released the name?
>
>You just claimed Bush was responsible, now you admit the identity is
>unknown. I leave speculation to others, the truth will be known eventually.
>
>>
>> Your wasting your time attempting to use WMD's as a justification for
>going
>> to war
>> in Iraq. Nukes might have been there 10 years ago, or partial nukes, but
>> it's preposterous
>> to suggest they were there before the war.
>
>No one, including Bush, has ever claimed Sadam has or ever had Nukes. The
>claim was that Saddam was trying to aquire them.
Which turned out to be a lie.
>
>The case is a bit stronger for
>> bio agents,
>> but still inconclusive.
>
>How so, when he has used them several times already?
Where are they?
>What further proof could you possibly require that Saddam has them than the
>fact he has used them repeatedly, both against his own people and Iran?
"Has" is present tense. Where are they?
>
> It is clearly obvious to anyone with any education
>> that basing the
>> Iraq invasion on WMD was a lie.
>
>Your opinion.
>
>>
>> However what is not clear to most people, even now it seems, is that WMD's
>> are not
>> the only justification for a unilateral invasion of another country.
>
>I know of no one who thought it was. WMD were only one of the reasons.
The one given to us by Bush.
>
> Lloyd
>> may be able to
>> make a coherent argument that Bush was lying when Bush used WMD's as
>pretext
>> for
>> going to war in Iraq.
>
>Lloyd is incapable of coherant thought, much less arqument.
>
> But there is absolutely no logical, reasonable, or
>> moral argument
>> Lloyd can make for allowing a dictator to remain in power who for fun
>would
>> cut the eyes
>> and tongues of people out of their heads, who killed his own brother in
>> broad daylight
>> and who committed numerous other atrocities. It was a terrible terrible
>> thing for the
>> nations of the world to stand idly by and allow this to continue year
>after
>> year, and they
>> damn well know it, they know it even now because they all want to pretend
>> that Iraq
>> doesen't exist right now. The invasion of Iraq was justified on moral and
>> human rights
>> grounds, and does not need further justification. Iraqi's today, despite
>> the mess in the
>> country, are better off now than they were under Saddam.
>
>I fully agree with you here.
>
>
>>
>> It is a shame that the President has not made this clear. But I can tell
>> you why he has not,
>> because if he did, then he would have to hold his own administration up to
>> the same moral
>> standards. This is why people in the Bush administration have no problem
>> with basically
>> committing treason by revealing the name of one of our better CIA agents,
>> thank God she
>> was in the country when they did it. In short, the Bush administration is
>> totally morally
>> bankrupt. They do not believe that the invasion of Iraq was justified on
>> moral grounds
>> simply because they themselves give absolutely no credit to morality. All
>> they care about
>> is personal power and greed.
>>
>> Ted
>
>Your opinion. But if Bush is as bad as you think, how much worse was
>Clinton? In my opinion Clinton was by far the worse President this country
>has ever had, bar none. That is my opinion.
Yes, thank goodness our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity under
Clinton is over.
>My opinion of Lloyd is simple, he is a lying hypocrit.
>Why do I say this? If Al Gore had won the election, and had then proceded to
>deal with Iraq exactly the way Bush has done, Lloyd would be singing his
>praises. To Lloyd, as a Liberal he must publicly support any decision made
>by a Liberal, and he must oppose any decision made by a Conservative. Bush
>is wrong simply because he is a Repulican instead of a Democrat. I would
>support the President in Iraq regardless, not because I wanted this war, I
>didn't, but because I do feel it had to be done, and better now than latter.
> You are an intelligent person Ted, I respect your opinion on this, even the
>parts I disagree with you on.
>Lloyd believes himself superior to anyone who isn't a Liberal or a
>scientist, so I can't help but take him down a few pegs. Beyond that I
>really have no interest in discussing Iraq or politics in general, and I
>vote for as many Democrats come election time as I do Republicans, depends
>on who I think is better qualified.
>
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
#2787
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vq0qfm4infl337@corp.supernews.com>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
>news:newscache$0hjinh$261$1@news.ipinc.net...
>>
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:vptf3thq39cab0@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> >
>> > WE know he had them, we don't know what he did with them. If you owned a
>> > house twelve years ago, and you could not provide evidence that you had
>> sold
>> > it, would it not be logical to assume you still owned it?
>> >
>>
>> Not if it was a mobile trailer house, WMD's are generally pretty mobile.
>
>Moving them does not change ownership, nor does it make them cease to exist.
>
>>
>> In any case who is "we". The CIA certainly wasn't claiming that Saddam
>had
>> WMD's
>
>In the case of Saddam his chemical and biological weapons are and have
>always been called WMD's, and yes the CIA knew he had them, he has used them
>at least 12 times.
Did he have them in 2003? If so, where are they?
>
>> and why did the Bush administraton blow a deep-CIA agent's cover in
>revenge?
>
>Speculation
>
>> And
>> why haven't they come up with the name of the person in the Bush
>> administration who
>> released the name?
>
>You just claimed Bush was responsible, now you admit the identity is
>unknown. I leave speculation to others, the truth will be known eventually.
>
>>
>> Your wasting your time attempting to use WMD's as a justification for
>going
>> to war
>> in Iraq. Nukes might have been there 10 years ago, or partial nukes, but
>> it's preposterous
>> to suggest they were there before the war.
>
>No one, including Bush, has ever claimed Sadam has or ever had Nukes. The
>claim was that Saddam was trying to aquire them.
Which turned out to be a lie.
>
>The case is a bit stronger for
>> bio agents,
>> but still inconclusive.
>
>How so, when he has used them several times already?
Where are they?
>What further proof could you possibly require that Saddam has them than the
>fact he has used them repeatedly, both against his own people and Iran?
"Has" is present tense. Where are they?
>
> It is clearly obvious to anyone with any education
>> that basing the
>> Iraq invasion on WMD was a lie.
>
>Your opinion.
>
>>
>> However what is not clear to most people, even now it seems, is that WMD's
>> are not
>> the only justification for a unilateral invasion of another country.
>
>I know of no one who thought it was. WMD were only one of the reasons.
The one given to us by Bush.
>
> Lloyd
>> may be able to
>> make a coherent argument that Bush was lying when Bush used WMD's as
>pretext
>> for
>> going to war in Iraq.
>
>Lloyd is incapable of coherant thought, much less arqument.
>
> But there is absolutely no logical, reasonable, or
>> moral argument
>> Lloyd can make for allowing a dictator to remain in power who for fun
>would
>> cut the eyes
>> and tongues of people out of their heads, who killed his own brother in
>> broad daylight
>> and who committed numerous other atrocities. It was a terrible terrible
>> thing for the
>> nations of the world to stand idly by and allow this to continue year
>after
>> year, and they
>> damn well know it, they know it even now because they all want to pretend
>> that Iraq
>> doesen't exist right now. The invasion of Iraq was justified on moral and
>> human rights
>> grounds, and does not need further justification. Iraqi's today, despite
>> the mess in the
>> country, are better off now than they were under Saddam.
>
>I fully agree with you here.
>
>
>>
>> It is a shame that the President has not made this clear. But I can tell
>> you why he has not,
>> because if he did, then he would have to hold his own administration up to
>> the same moral
>> standards. This is why people in the Bush administration have no problem
>> with basically
>> committing treason by revealing the name of one of our better CIA agents,
>> thank God she
>> was in the country when they did it. In short, the Bush administration is
>> totally morally
>> bankrupt. They do not believe that the invasion of Iraq was justified on
>> moral grounds
>> simply because they themselves give absolutely no credit to morality. All
>> they care about
>> is personal power and greed.
>>
>> Ted
>
>Your opinion. But if Bush is as bad as you think, how much worse was
>Clinton? In my opinion Clinton was by far the worse President this country
>has ever had, bar none. That is my opinion.
Yes, thank goodness our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity under
Clinton is over.
>My opinion of Lloyd is simple, he is a lying hypocrit.
>Why do I say this? If Al Gore had won the election, and had then proceded to
>deal with Iraq exactly the way Bush has done, Lloyd would be singing his
>praises. To Lloyd, as a Liberal he must publicly support any decision made
>by a Liberal, and he must oppose any decision made by a Conservative. Bush
>is wrong simply because he is a Repulican instead of a Democrat. I would
>support the President in Iraq regardless, not because I wanted this war, I
>didn't, but because I do feel it had to be done, and better now than latter.
> You are an intelligent person Ted, I respect your opinion on this, even the
>parts I disagree with you on.
>Lloyd believes himself superior to anyone who isn't a Liberal or a
>scientist, so I can't help but take him down a few pegs. Beyond that I
>really have no interest in discussing Iraq or politics in general, and I
>vote for as many Democrats come election time as I do Republicans, depends
>on who I think is better qualified.
>
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
>news:newscache$0hjinh$261$1@news.ipinc.net...
>>
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:vptf3thq39cab0@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> >
>> > WE know he had them, we don't know what he did with them. If you owned a
>> > house twelve years ago, and you could not provide evidence that you had
>> sold
>> > it, would it not be logical to assume you still owned it?
>> >
>>
>> Not if it was a mobile trailer house, WMD's are generally pretty mobile.
>
>Moving them does not change ownership, nor does it make them cease to exist.
>
>>
>> In any case who is "we". The CIA certainly wasn't claiming that Saddam
>had
>> WMD's
>
>In the case of Saddam his chemical and biological weapons are and have
>always been called WMD's, and yes the CIA knew he had them, he has used them
>at least 12 times.
Did he have them in 2003? If so, where are they?
>
>> and why did the Bush administraton blow a deep-CIA agent's cover in
>revenge?
>
>Speculation
>
>> And
>> why haven't they come up with the name of the person in the Bush
>> administration who
>> released the name?
>
>You just claimed Bush was responsible, now you admit the identity is
>unknown. I leave speculation to others, the truth will be known eventually.
>
>>
>> Your wasting your time attempting to use WMD's as a justification for
>going
>> to war
>> in Iraq. Nukes might have been there 10 years ago, or partial nukes, but
>> it's preposterous
>> to suggest they were there before the war.
>
>No one, including Bush, has ever claimed Sadam has or ever had Nukes. The
>claim was that Saddam was trying to aquire them.
Which turned out to be a lie.
>
>The case is a bit stronger for
>> bio agents,
>> but still inconclusive.
>
>How so, when he has used them several times already?
Where are they?
>What further proof could you possibly require that Saddam has them than the
>fact he has used them repeatedly, both against his own people and Iran?
"Has" is present tense. Where are they?
>
> It is clearly obvious to anyone with any education
>> that basing the
>> Iraq invasion on WMD was a lie.
>
>Your opinion.
>
>>
>> However what is not clear to most people, even now it seems, is that WMD's
>> are not
>> the only justification for a unilateral invasion of another country.
>
>I know of no one who thought it was. WMD were only one of the reasons.
The one given to us by Bush.
>
> Lloyd
>> may be able to
>> make a coherent argument that Bush was lying when Bush used WMD's as
>pretext
>> for
>> going to war in Iraq.
>
>Lloyd is incapable of coherant thought, much less arqument.
>
> But there is absolutely no logical, reasonable, or
>> moral argument
>> Lloyd can make for allowing a dictator to remain in power who for fun
>would
>> cut the eyes
>> and tongues of people out of their heads, who killed his own brother in
>> broad daylight
>> and who committed numerous other atrocities. It was a terrible terrible
>> thing for the
>> nations of the world to stand idly by and allow this to continue year
>after
>> year, and they
>> damn well know it, they know it even now because they all want to pretend
>> that Iraq
>> doesen't exist right now. The invasion of Iraq was justified on moral and
>> human rights
>> grounds, and does not need further justification. Iraqi's today, despite
>> the mess in the
>> country, are better off now than they were under Saddam.
>
>I fully agree with you here.
>
>
>>
>> It is a shame that the President has not made this clear. But I can tell
>> you why he has not,
>> because if he did, then he would have to hold his own administration up to
>> the same moral
>> standards. This is why people in the Bush administration have no problem
>> with basically
>> committing treason by revealing the name of one of our better CIA agents,
>> thank God she
>> was in the country when they did it. In short, the Bush administration is
>> totally morally
>> bankrupt. They do not believe that the invasion of Iraq was justified on
>> moral grounds
>> simply because they themselves give absolutely no credit to morality. All
>> they care about
>> is personal power and greed.
>>
>> Ted
>
>Your opinion. But if Bush is as bad as you think, how much worse was
>Clinton? In my opinion Clinton was by far the worse President this country
>has ever had, bar none. That is my opinion.
Yes, thank goodness our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity under
Clinton is over.
>My opinion of Lloyd is simple, he is a lying hypocrit.
>Why do I say this? If Al Gore had won the election, and had then proceded to
>deal with Iraq exactly the way Bush has done, Lloyd would be singing his
>praises. To Lloyd, as a Liberal he must publicly support any decision made
>by a Liberal, and he must oppose any decision made by a Conservative. Bush
>is wrong simply because he is a Repulican instead of a Democrat. I would
>support the President in Iraq regardless, not because I wanted this war, I
>didn't, but because I do feel it had to be done, and better now than latter.
> You are an intelligent person Ted, I respect your opinion on this, even the
>parts I disagree with you on.
>Lloyd believes himself superior to anyone who isn't a Liberal or a
>scientist, so I can't help but take him down a few pegs. Beyond that I
>really have no interest in discussing Iraq or politics in general, and I
>vote for as many Democrats come election time as I do Republicans, depends
>on who I think is better qualified.
>
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
#2788
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vq0qfm4infl337@corp.supernews.com>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
>news:newscache$0hjinh$261$1@news.ipinc.net...
>>
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:vptf3thq39cab0@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> >
>> > WE know he had them, we don't know what he did with them. If you owned a
>> > house twelve years ago, and you could not provide evidence that you had
>> sold
>> > it, would it not be logical to assume you still owned it?
>> >
>>
>> Not if it was a mobile trailer house, WMD's are generally pretty mobile.
>
>Moving them does not change ownership, nor does it make them cease to exist.
>
>>
>> In any case who is "we". The CIA certainly wasn't claiming that Saddam
>had
>> WMD's
>
>In the case of Saddam his chemical and biological weapons are and have
>always been called WMD's, and yes the CIA knew he had them, he has used them
>at least 12 times.
Did he have them in 2003? If so, where are they?
>
>> and why did the Bush administraton blow a deep-CIA agent's cover in
>revenge?
>
>Speculation
>
>> And
>> why haven't they come up with the name of the person in the Bush
>> administration who
>> released the name?
>
>You just claimed Bush was responsible, now you admit the identity is
>unknown. I leave speculation to others, the truth will be known eventually.
>
>>
>> Your wasting your time attempting to use WMD's as a justification for
>going
>> to war
>> in Iraq. Nukes might have been there 10 years ago, or partial nukes, but
>> it's preposterous
>> to suggest they were there before the war.
>
>No one, including Bush, has ever claimed Sadam has or ever had Nukes. The
>claim was that Saddam was trying to aquire them.
Which turned out to be a lie.
>
>The case is a bit stronger for
>> bio agents,
>> but still inconclusive.
>
>How so, when he has used them several times already?
Where are they?
>What further proof could you possibly require that Saddam has them than the
>fact he has used them repeatedly, both against his own people and Iran?
"Has" is present tense. Where are they?
>
> It is clearly obvious to anyone with any education
>> that basing the
>> Iraq invasion on WMD was a lie.
>
>Your opinion.
>
>>
>> However what is not clear to most people, even now it seems, is that WMD's
>> are not
>> the only justification for a unilateral invasion of another country.
>
>I know of no one who thought it was. WMD were only one of the reasons.
The one given to us by Bush.
>
> Lloyd
>> may be able to
>> make a coherent argument that Bush was lying when Bush used WMD's as
>pretext
>> for
>> going to war in Iraq.
>
>Lloyd is incapable of coherant thought, much less arqument.
>
> But there is absolutely no logical, reasonable, or
>> moral argument
>> Lloyd can make for allowing a dictator to remain in power who for fun
>would
>> cut the eyes
>> and tongues of people out of their heads, who killed his own brother in
>> broad daylight
>> and who committed numerous other atrocities. It was a terrible terrible
>> thing for the
>> nations of the world to stand idly by and allow this to continue year
>after
>> year, and they
>> damn well know it, they know it even now because they all want to pretend
>> that Iraq
>> doesen't exist right now. The invasion of Iraq was justified on moral and
>> human rights
>> grounds, and does not need further justification. Iraqi's today, despite
>> the mess in the
>> country, are better off now than they were under Saddam.
>
>I fully agree with you here.
>
>
>>
>> It is a shame that the President has not made this clear. But I can tell
>> you why he has not,
>> because if he did, then he would have to hold his own administration up to
>> the same moral
>> standards. This is why people in the Bush administration have no problem
>> with basically
>> committing treason by revealing the name of one of our better CIA agents,
>> thank God she
>> was in the country when they did it. In short, the Bush administration is
>> totally morally
>> bankrupt. They do not believe that the invasion of Iraq was justified on
>> moral grounds
>> simply because they themselves give absolutely no credit to morality. All
>> they care about
>> is personal power and greed.
>>
>> Ted
>
>Your opinion. But if Bush is as bad as you think, how much worse was
>Clinton? In my opinion Clinton was by far the worse President this country
>has ever had, bar none. That is my opinion.
Yes, thank goodness our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity under
Clinton is over.
>My opinion of Lloyd is simple, he is a lying hypocrit.
>Why do I say this? If Al Gore had won the election, and had then proceded to
>deal with Iraq exactly the way Bush has done, Lloyd would be singing his
>praises. To Lloyd, as a Liberal he must publicly support any decision made
>by a Liberal, and he must oppose any decision made by a Conservative. Bush
>is wrong simply because he is a Repulican instead of a Democrat. I would
>support the President in Iraq regardless, not because I wanted this war, I
>didn't, but because I do feel it had to be done, and better now than latter.
> You are an intelligent person Ted, I respect your opinion on this, even the
>parts I disagree with you on.
>Lloyd believes himself superior to anyone who isn't a Liberal or a
>scientist, so I can't help but take him down a few pegs. Beyond that I
>really have no interest in discussing Iraq or politics in general, and I
>vote for as many Democrats come election time as I do Republicans, depends
>on who I think is better qualified.
>
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
>news:newscache$0hjinh$261$1@news.ipinc.net...
>>
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:vptf3thq39cab0@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> >
>> > WE know he had them, we don't know what he did with them. If you owned a
>> > house twelve years ago, and you could not provide evidence that you had
>> sold
>> > it, would it not be logical to assume you still owned it?
>> >
>>
>> Not if it was a mobile trailer house, WMD's are generally pretty mobile.
>
>Moving them does not change ownership, nor does it make them cease to exist.
>
>>
>> In any case who is "we". The CIA certainly wasn't claiming that Saddam
>had
>> WMD's
>
>In the case of Saddam his chemical and biological weapons are and have
>always been called WMD's, and yes the CIA knew he had them, he has used them
>at least 12 times.
Did he have them in 2003? If so, where are they?
>
>> and why did the Bush administraton blow a deep-CIA agent's cover in
>revenge?
>
>Speculation
>
>> And
>> why haven't they come up with the name of the person in the Bush
>> administration who
>> released the name?
>
>You just claimed Bush was responsible, now you admit the identity is
>unknown. I leave speculation to others, the truth will be known eventually.
>
>>
>> Your wasting your time attempting to use WMD's as a justification for
>going
>> to war
>> in Iraq. Nukes might have been there 10 years ago, or partial nukes, but
>> it's preposterous
>> to suggest they were there before the war.
>
>No one, including Bush, has ever claimed Sadam has or ever had Nukes. The
>claim was that Saddam was trying to aquire them.
Which turned out to be a lie.
>
>The case is a bit stronger for
>> bio agents,
>> but still inconclusive.
>
>How so, when he has used them several times already?
Where are they?
>What further proof could you possibly require that Saddam has them than the
>fact he has used them repeatedly, both against his own people and Iran?
"Has" is present tense. Where are they?
>
> It is clearly obvious to anyone with any education
>> that basing the
>> Iraq invasion on WMD was a lie.
>
>Your opinion.
>
>>
>> However what is not clear to most people, even now it seems, is that WMD's
>> are not
>> the only justification for a unilateral invasion of another country.
>
>I know of no one who thought it was. WMD were only one of the reasons.
The one given to us by Bush.
>
> Lloyd
>> may be able to
>> make a coherent argument that Bush was lying when Bush used WMD's as
>pretext
>> for
>> going to war in Iraq.
>
>Lloyd is incapable of coherant thought, much less arqument.
>
> But there is absolutely no logical, reasonable, or
>> moral argument
>> Lloyd can make for allowing a dictator to remain in power who for fun
>would
>> cut the eyes
>> and tongues of people out of their heads, who killed his own brother in
>> broad daylight
>> and who committed numerous other atrocities. It was a terrible terrible
>> thing for the
>> nations of the world to stand idly by and allow this to continue year
>after
>> year, and they
>> damn well know it, they know it even now because they all want to pretend
>> that Iraq
>> doesen't exist right now. The invasion of Iraq was justified on moral and
>> human rights
>> grounds, and does not need further justification. Iraqi's today, despite
>> the mess in the
>> country, are better off now than they were under Saddam.
>
>I fully agree with you here.
>
>
>>
>> It is a shame that the President has not made this clear. But I can tell
>> you why he has not,
>> because if he did, then he would have to hold his own administration up to
>> the same moral
>> standards. This is why people in the Bush administration have no problem
>> with basically
>> committing treason by revealing the name of one of our better CIA agents,
>> thank God she
>> was in the country when they did it. In short, the Bush administration is
>> totally morally
>> bankrupt. They do not believe that the invasion of Iraq was justified on
>> moral grounds
>> simply because they themselves give absolutely no credit to morality. All
>> they care about
>> is personal power and greed.
>>
>> Ted
>
>Your opinion. But if Bush is as bad as you think, how much worse was
>Clinton? In my opinion Clinton was by far the worse President this country
>has ever had, bar none. That is my opinion.
Yes, thank goodness our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity under
Clinton is over.
>My opinion of Lloyd is simple, he is a lying hypocrit.
>Why do I say this? If Al Gore had won the election, and had then proceded to
>deal with Iraq exactly the way Bush has done, Lloyd would be singing his
>praises. To Lloyd, as a Liberal he must publicly support any decision made
>by a Liberal, and he must oppose any decision made by a Conservative. Bush
>is wrong simply because he is a Repulican instead of a Democrat. I would
>support the President in Iraq regardless, not because I wanted this war, I
>didn't, but because I do feel it had to be done, and better now than latter.
> You are an intelligent person Ted, I respect your opinion on this, even the
>parts I disagree with you on.
>Lloyd believes himself superior to anyone who isn't a Liberal or a
>scientist, so I can't help but take him down a few pegs. Beyond that I
>really have no interest in discussing Iraq or politics in general, and I
>vote for as many Democrats come election time as I do Republicans, depends
>on who I think is better qualified.
>
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
#2789
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vq0qtnc1m8gd45@corp.supernews.com>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
Same old, same old.
>
>"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>news:bnnein02qe3@enews4.newsguy.com...
>> Thanks for posting the link & text, Doug. Indeed, back in the mid-70's
>> theses same looney greens took all the "global cooling" crap just as
>> seriously as they do all the hand wringing carbon dioxide theories now.
>>
>
>Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
>before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
>made such a claim.
>This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even National Academy of
>Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From Lloyd about it. He must
>really hate being proven wrong on every statement he makes. ;-)
>
>
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:vpu8qml6qbn381@corp.supernews.com...
>> >
>> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>> > news:bnn0hd01qbc@enews4.newsguy.com...
>> > > Mr. Parker:
>> > >
>> > > > Are you saying the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, EPA, NOAA,
>> etc.,
>> > > have jumped onto something that's not proven? <
>> > >
>> > > Yes, and despite the bleatings of certain mavens of socialist dogma
>(for
>> > > whom this entire theory has become a convenint mantra) those agencies
>> look
>> > > upon the greenhouse gas theory as just that, a THEORY among others. No
>> one
>> > > has conclusiely proven that "global warming" even exists. Indeed, the
>> temp
>> > > fluctuations gas (bag) theorists espouse aren't even significant
>within
>> > the
>> > > margin of error of their measuiring techniques.
>> > >
>> > > Might I remind you, my over zealous, green friend, 25 years ago these
>> same
>> > > social and scientific radicals were predicting the dawn of a NEW ICE
>> AGE,
>> > > becuase, they theorized, global temps were falling due to man made
>gases
>> > > blocking the sun. Funny how it turned out that at that same time we
>were
>> > in
>> > > a period of low solar activity....
>> >
>> > Just for Lloyd:
>> >
>> > http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm
>> >
>> > For those who don't use links, here it is, but it is a little long:
>> >
>> > FROM
>> > Newsweek
>> > April 28, 1975 Studies
>> > Facts & Figures
>> > Selected Links
>> > Weather
>> > Health
>> >
>> > The Cooling World
>> > There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns
>> > have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a
>> > drastic decline in food production- with serious political implications
>> for
>> > just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin
>> quite
>> > soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its
>> > impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in
>> the
>> > North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical
>areas -
>> > parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where
>the
>> > growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
>> >
>> > The evidence in support of these predictions has now
>begun
>> to
>> > accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up
>> with
>> > it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about
>> two
>> > weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production
>> > estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the
>> average
>> > temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree - a
>> > fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April,
>> in
>> > the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters
>> > killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of
>> > damage in 13 U.S. states.
>> >
>> > To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents
>> represent
>> > the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather.
>> > Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well
>
>> as
>> > over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are
>almost
>> > unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural
>productivity
>> > for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as
>some
>> > of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A
>> > major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a
>> > worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of
>> Sciences,
>> > "because the global patterns of food production and population that have
>> > evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."
>> >
>> > A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of
>the
>> > National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a
>> > degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between
>> > 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University,
>satellite
>> > photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow
>> cover
>> > in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA
>> > scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the
>> > continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
>> >
>> > To the layman, the relatively small changes in
>temperature
>> > and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of
>> > Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the
>great
>> > Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest
>eras -
>> > and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the
>way
>> > toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to
>> the
>> > "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of
>Europe
>> > and northern America between 1600 and 1900 - years when the Thames used
>to
>> > freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when
>iceboats
>> > sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
>> >
>> > Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages
>> > remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change
>is
>> at
>> > least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of
>> Sciences
>> > report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered,
>> but
>> > in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."
>> >
>> > Meteorologists think that they can forecast the
>short-term
>> > results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by
>> noting
>> > the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of
>> > pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow
>> of
>> > westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this
>way
>> > causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts,
>floods,
>> > extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local
>> > temperature increases - all of which have a direct impact on food
>> supplies.
>> >
>> > "The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D.
>> > McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is
>> much
>> > more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago."
>> > Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national
>> > boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their
>> > devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
>> >
>> > Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders
>will
>> > take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even
>to
>> > allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular
>> solutions
>> > proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black
>> soot
>> > or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those
>> > they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders
>> > anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling
>food
>> > or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic
>> > projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the
>> more
>> > difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the
>results
>> > become grim reality.
>> >
>> > Reprinted from Financial Post - Canada, Jun 21, 2000
>> >
>> > All Material Subject to Copyright.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > > The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. <
>> > >
>> > > How about this: there is NO solution, because 1) there may not even be
>a
>> > > problem, 2) if it is actually occuring, then natural forces, such as
>> > > geothermal and solar activity, may be the primary, indeed the only
>> source.
>> > >
>> > > > That means driving less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles,
>using
>> > coal
>> > > less, using more renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not
>> > > clear-cutting forests... <
>> > >
>> > > On, and how convenient all of those solutions will be in making the
>> > > Draconian, confiscatory dreams of social radicals come true!
>> > >
>> > > > >GGM: Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming
>has
>> a
>> > > perfect correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity. <
>> > >
>> > > > Parker: Funny how that's nonexistent. <
>> > >
>> > > Might I refer you, my science-spouting, but ill-informed friend, to
>all
>> > of
>> > > the studies being done that show we are just leaving a period of high
>> > solar
>> > > activity, which began in the early '80's. Funny how this activty
>> PRECISLY
>> > > parallels data showing a rise in global temps. (Look it up, if you can
>> > stand
>> > > the truth.)
>> > >
>> > > > GGM: Two Danish scientists (Friz-Christiansen & Lassen) have proven
>a
>> > > direct cause & effect between periods of high solar activity and earth
>> > > temps, going back hundreds of years. <
>> > >
>> > > > Parker: Which has been studied and cannot account for all the
>current
>> > > warming. <
>> > >
>> > > It has NOT been studied by the gas (bag) theorists, they even tried to
>> > quash
>> > > the two scientists findings because it was too shocking to their pet
>> > > theories. However, objective greehouse gas theorists has been forced
>to
>> > > admit the accuracy of their findings and they cannot explain away
>their
>> > > findings of a direct correlation between periods of high solar
>activity
>> /
>> > > low cloud formation and vice versa. Tree ring data, etc. have all been
>> > > studied and the correlation has been proven...the gas (bag) theorists
>> just
>> > > don't want to accept it because it puts the lie to all of their
>carping.
>> > >
>> > > > GGM: How arrogant (but typical) of anti-society, socialist green
>> zealots
>> > > to assume the puny effect of man vs. the absolute effect of the sun on
>> > > global climatic norms.
>> > >
>> > > > Parker: Like we almost destroyed the ozone layer? Or don't you
>> believe
>> > > that either? <
>> > >
>> > > You again hope the world will ignore recent findings that the entire
>> scare
>> > > was over blown and more likely caused by naturally occuring events.
>> > >
>> > > > GGM: So, tell me oh green ones, 10,000 years ago, how many
>primitives
>> > > driving gas-guzzling SUVs did it take to turn the Sahara from a lush
>> oasis
>> > > into a desert? (Oh, I see, you're hoping no one knows about that
>event,
>> > > aren't you?) <<
>> > >
>> > > > Parker: No answer ....what a surprise. <
>> > >
>> > > I will point out that Mr Parker has conveniently ignored my point re:
>> the
>> > > Sahara's transformation from a lush, green oasis into a desert some
>7 -
>> > 10k
>> > > years ago. The Sahara was created by totally naturally occuring
>changes
>> in
>> > > weather patterns that had NOTHING to do with the insignificant effects
>> of
>> > > man. It just must be really hard for people like this to grasp that in
>> the
>> > > total scheme of things, man and his puny, insignificant activities
>> really
>> > > don't matter at all.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
Same old, same old.
>
>"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>news:bnnein02qe3@enews4.newsguy.com...
>> Thanks for posting the link & text, Doug. Indeed, back in the mid-70's
>> theses same looney greens took all the "global cooling" crap just as
>> seriously as they do all the hand wringing carbon dioxide theories now.
>>
>
>Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
>before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
>made such a claim.
>This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even National Academy of
>Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From Lloyd about it. He must
>really hate being proven wrong on every statement he makes. ;-)
>
>
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:vpu8qml6qbn381@corp.supernews.com...
>> >
>> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>> > news:bnn0hd01qbc@enews4.newsguy.com...
>> > > Mr. Parker:
>> > >
>> > > > Are you saying the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, EPA, NOAA,
>> etc.,
>> > > have jumped onto something that's not proven? <
>> > >
>> > > Yes, and despite the bleatings of certain mavens of socialist dogma
>(for
>> > > whom this entire theory has become a convenint mantra) those agencies
>> look
>> > > upon the greenhouse gas theory as just that, a THEORY among others. No
>> one
>> > > has conclusiely proven that "global warming" even exists. Indeed, the
>> temp
>> > > fluctuations gas (bag) theorists espouse aren't even significant
>within
>> > the
>> > > margin of error of their measuiring techniques.
>> > >
>> > > Might I remind you, my over zealous, green friend, 25 years ago these
>> same
>> > > social and scientific radicals were predicting the dawn of a NEW ICE
>> AGE,
>> > > becuase, they theorized, global temps were falling due to man made
>gases
>> > > blocking the sun. Funny how it turned out that at that same time we
>were
>> > in
>> > > a period of low solar activity....
>> >
>> > Just for Lloyd:
>> >
>> > http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm
>> >
>> > For those who don't use links, here it is, but it is a little long:
>> >
>> > FROM
>> > Newsweek
>> > April 28, 1975 Studies
>> > Facts & Figures
>> > Selected Links
>> > Weather
>> > Health
>> >
>> > The Cooling World
>> > There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns
>> > have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a
>> > drastic decline in food production- with serious political implications
>> for
>> > just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin
>> quite
>> > soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its
>> > impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in
>> the
>> > North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical
>areas -
>> > parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where
>the
>> > growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
>> >
>> > The evidence in support of these predictions has now
>begun
>> to
>> > accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up
>> with
>> > it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about
>> two
>> > weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production
>> > estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the
>> average
>> > temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree - a
>> > fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April,
>> in
>> > the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters
>> > killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of
>> > damage in 13 U.S. states.
>> >
>> > To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents
>> represent
>> > the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather.
>> > Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well
>
>> as
>> > over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are
>almost
>> > unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural
>productivity
>> > for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as
>some
>> > of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A
>> > major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a
>> > worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of
>> Sciences,
>> > "because the global patterns of food production and population that have
>> > evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."
>> >
>> > A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of
>the
>> > National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a
>> > degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between
>> > 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University,
>satellite
>> > photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow
>> cover
>> > in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA
>> > scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the
>> > continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
>> >
>> > To the layman, the relatively small changes in
>temperature
>> > and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of
>> > Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the
>great
>> > Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest
>eras -
>> > and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the
>way
>> > toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to
>> the
>> > "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of
>Europe
>> > and northern America between 1600 and 1900 - years when the Thames used
>to
>> > freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when
>iceboats
>> > sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
>> >
>> > Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages
>> > remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change
>is
>> at
>> > least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of
>> Sciences
>> > report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered,
>> but
>> > in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."
>> >
>> > Meteorologists think that they can forecast the
>short-term
>> > results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by
>> noting
>> > the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of
>> > pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow
>> of
>> > westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this
>way
>> > causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts,
>floods,
>> > extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local
>> > temperature increases - all of which have a direct impact on food
>> supplies.
>> >
>> > "The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D.
>> > McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is
>> much
>> > more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago."
>> > Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national
>> > boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their
>> > devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
>> >
>> > Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders
>will
>> > take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even
>to
>> > allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular
>> solutions
>> > proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black
>> soot
>> > or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those
>> > they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders
>> > anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling
>food
>> > or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic
>> > projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the
>> more
>> > difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the
>results
>> > become grim reality.
>> >
>> > Reprinted from Financial Post - Canada, Jun 21, 2000
>> >
>> > All Material Subject to Copyright.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > > The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. <
>> > >
>> > > How about this: there is NO solution, because 1) there may not even be
>a
>> > > problem, 2) if it is actually occuring, then natural forces, such as
>> > > geothermal and solar activity, may be the primary, indeed the only
>> source.
>> > >
>> > > > That means driving less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles,
>using
>> > coal
>> > > less, using more renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not
>> > > clear-cutting forests... <
>> > >
>> > > On, and how convenient all of those solutions will be in making the
>> > > Draconian, confiscatory dreams of social radicals come true!
>> > >
>> > > > >GGM: Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming
>has
>> a
>> > > perfect correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity. <
>> > >
>> > > > Parker: Funny how that's nonexistent. <
>> > >
>> > > Might I refer you, my science-spouting, but ill-informed friend, to
>all
>> > of
>> > > the studies being done that show we are just leaving a period of high
>> > solar
>> > > activity, which began in the early '80's. Funny how this activty
>> PRECISLY
>> > > parallels data showing a rise in global temps. (Look it up, if you can
>> > stand
>> > > the truth.)
>> > >
>> > > > GGM: Two Danish scientists (Friz-Christiansen & Lassen) have proven
>a
>> > > direct cause & effect between periods of high solar activity and earth
>> > > temps, going back hundreds of years. <
>> > >
>> > > > Parker: Which has been studied and cannot account for all the
>current
>> > > warming. <
>> > >
>> > > It has NOT been studied by the gas (bag) theorists, they even tried to
>> > quash
>> > > the two scientists findings because it was too shocking to their pet
>> > > theories. However, objective greehouse gas theorists has been forced
>to
>> > > admit the accuracy of their findings and they cannot explain away
>their
>> > > findings of a direct correlation between periods of high solar
>activity
>> /
>> > > low cloud formation and vice versa. Tree ring data, etc. have all been
>> > > studied and the correlation has been proven...the gas (bag) theorists
>> just
>> > > don't want to accept it because it puts the lie to all of their
>carping.
>> > >
>> > > > GGM: How arrogant (but typical) of anti-society, socialist green
>> zealots
>> > > to assume the puny effect of man vs. the absolute effect of the sun on
>> > > global climatic norms.
>> > >
>> > > > Parker: Like we almost destroyed the ozone layer? Or don't you
>> believe
>> > > that either? <
>> > >
>> > > You again hope the world will ignore recent findings that the entire
>> scare
>> > > was over blown and more likely caused by naturally occuring events.
>> > >
>> > > > GGM: So, tell me oh green ones, 10,000 years ago, how many
>primitives
>> > > driving gas-guzzling SUVs did it take to turn the Sahara from a lush
>> oasis
>> > > into a desert? (Oh, I see, you're hoping no one knows about that
>event,
>> > > aren't you?) <<
>> > >
>> > > > Parker: No answer ....what a surprise. <
>> > >
>> > > I will point out that Mr Parker has conveniently ignored my point re:
>> the
>> > > Sahara's transformation from a lush, green oasis into a desert some
>7 -
>> > 10k
>> > > years ago. The Sahara was created by totally naturally occuring
>changes
>> in
>> > > weather patterns that had NOTHING to do with the insignificant effects
>> of
>> > > man. It just must be really hard for people like this to grasp that in
>> the
>> > > total scheme of things, man and his puny, insignificant activities
>> really
>> > > don't matter at all.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
#2790
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vq0qtnc1m8gd45@corp.supernews.com>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
Same old, same old.
>
>"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>news:bnnein02qe3@enews4.newsguy.com...
>> Thanks for posting the link & text, Doug. Indeed, back in the mid-70's
>> theses same looney greens took all the "global cooling" crap just as
>> seriously as they do all the hand wringing carbon dioxide theories now.
>>
>
>Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
>before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
>made such a claim.
>This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even National Academy of
>Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From Lloyd about it. He must
>really hate being proven wrong on every statement he makes. ;-)
>
>
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:vpu8qml6qbn381@corp.supernews.com...
>> >
>> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>> > news:bnn0hd01qbc@enews4.newsguy.com...
>> > > Mr. Parker:
>> > >
>> > > > Are you saying the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, EPA, NOAA,
>> etc.,
>> > > have jumped onto something that's not proven? <
>> > >
>> > > Yes, and despite the bleatings of certain mavens of socialist dogma
>(for
>> > > whom this entire theory has become a convenint mantra) those agencies
>> look
>> > > upon the greenhouse gas theory as just that, a THEORY among others. No
>> one
>> > > has conclusiely proven that "global warming" even exists. Indeed, the
>> temp
>> > > fluctuations gas (bag) theorists espouse aren't even significant
>within
>> > the
>> > > margin of error of their measuiring techniques.
>> > >
>> > > Might I remind you, my over zealous, green friend, 25 years ago these
>> same
>> > > social and scientific radicals were predicting the dawn of a NEW ICE
>> AGE,
>> > > becuase, they theorized, global temps were falling due to man made
>gases
>> > > blocking the sun. Funny how it turned out that at that same time we
>were
>> > in
>> > > a period of low solar activity....
>> >
>> > Just for Lloyd:
>> >
>> > http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm
>> >
>> > For those who don't use links, here it is, but it is a little long:
>> >
>> > FROM
>> > Newsweek
>> > April 28, 1975 Studies
>> > Facts & Figures
>> > Selected Links
>> > Weather
>> > Health
>> >
>> > The Cooling World
>> > There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns
>> > have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a
>> > drastic decline in food production- with serious political implications
>> for
>> > just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin
>> quite
>> > soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its
>> > impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in
>> the
>> > North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical
>areas -
>> > parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where
>the
>> > growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
>> >
>> > The evidence in support of these predictions has now
>begun
>> to
>> > accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up
>> with
>> > it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about
>> two
>> > weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production
>> > estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the
>> average
>> > temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree - a
>> > fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April,
>> in
>> > the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters
>> > killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of
>> > damage in 13 U.S. states.
>> >
>> > To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents
>> represent
>> > the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather.
>> > Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well
>
>> as
>> > over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are
>almost
>> > unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural
>productivity
>> > for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as
>some
>> > of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A
>> > major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a
>> > worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of
>> Sciences,
>> > "because the global patterns of food production and population that have
>> > evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."
>> >
>> > A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of
>the
>> > National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a
>> > degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between
>> > 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University,
>satellite
>> > photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow
>> cover
>> > in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA
>> > scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the
>> > continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
>> >
>> > To the layman, the relatively small changes in
>temperature
>> > and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of
>> > Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the
>great
>> > Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest
>eras -
>> > and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the
>way
>> > toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to
>> the
>> > "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of
>Europe
>> > and northern America between 1600 and 1900 - years when the Thames used
>to
>> > freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when
>iceboats
>> > sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
>> >
>> > Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages
>> > remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change
>is
>> at
>> > least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of
>> Sciences
>> > report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered,
>> but
>> > in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."
>> >
>> > Meteorologists think that they can forecast the
>short-term
>> > results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by
>> noting
>> > the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of
>> > pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow
>> of
>> > westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this
>way
>> > causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts,
>floods,
>> > extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local
>> > temperature increases - all of which have a direct impact on food
>> supplies.
>> >
>> > "The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D.
>> > McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is
>> much
>> > more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago."
>> > Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national
>> > boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their
>> > devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
>> >
>> > Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders
>will
>> > take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even
>to
>> > allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular
>> solutions
>> > proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black
>> soot
>> > or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those
>> > they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders
>> > anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling
>food
>> > or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic
>> > projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the
>> more
>> > difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the
>results
>> > become grim reality.
>> >
>> > Reprinted from Financial Post - Canada, Jun 21, 2000
>> >
>> > All Material Subject to Copyright.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > > The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. <
>> > >
>> > > How about this: there is NO solution, because 1) there may not even be
>a
>> > > problem, 2) if it is actually occuring, then natural forces, such as
>> > > geothermal and solar activity, may be the primary, indeed the only
>> source.
>> > >
>> > > > That means driving less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles,
>using
>> > coal
>> > > less, using more renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not
>> > > clear-cutting forests... <
>> > >
>> > > On, and how convenient all of those solutions will be in making the
>> > > Draconian, confiscatory dreams of social radicals come true!
>> > >
>> > > > >GGM: Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming
>has
>> a
>> > > perfect correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity. <
>> > >
>> > > > Parker: Funny how that's nonexistent. <
>> > >
>> > > Might I refer you, my science-spouting, but ill-informed friend, to
>all
>> > of
>> > > the studies being done that show we are just leaving a period of high
>> > solar
>> > > activity, which began in the early '80's. Funny how this activty
>> PRECISLY
>> > > parallels data showing a rise in global temps. (Look it up, if you can
>> > stand
>> > > the truth.)
>> > >
>> > > > GGM: Two Danish scientists (Friz-Christiansen & Lassen) have proven
>a
>> > > direct cause & effect between periods of high solar activity and earth
>> > > temps, going back hundreds of years. <
>> > >
>> > > > Parker: Which has been studied and cannot account for all the
>current
>> > > warming. <
>> > >
>> > > It has NOT been studied by the gas (bag) theorists, they even tried to
>> > quash
>> > > the two scientists findings because it was too shocking to their pet
>> > > theories. However, objective greehouse gas theorists has been forced
>to
>> > > admit the accuracy of their findings and they cannot explain away
>their
>> > > findings of a direct correlation between periods of high solar
>activity
>> /
>> > > low cloud formation and vice versa. Tree ring data, etc. have all been
>> > > studied and the correlation has been proven...the gas (bag) theorists
>> just
>> > > don't want to accept it because it puts the lie to all of their
>carping.
>> > >
>> > > > GGM: How arrogant (but typical) of anti-society, socialist green
>> zealots
>> > > to assume the puny effect of man vs. the absolute effect of the sun on
>> > > global climatic norms.
>> > >
>> > > > Parker: Like we almost destroyed the ozone layer? Or don't you
>> believe
>> > > that either? <
>> > >
>> > > You again hope the world will ignore recent findings that the entire
>> scare
>> > > was over blown and more likely caused by naturally occuring events.
>> > >
>> > > > GGM: So, tell me oh green ones, 10,000 years ago, how many
>primitives
>> > > driving gas-guzzling SUVs did it take to turn the Sahara from a lush
>> oasis
>> > > into a desert? (Oh, I see, you're hoping no one knows about that
>event,
>> > > aren't you?) <<
>> > >
>> > > > Parker: No answer ....what a surprise. <
>> > >
>> > > I will point out that Mr Parker has conveniently ignored my point re:
>> the
>> > > Sahara's transformation from a lush, green oasis into a desert some
>7 -
>> > 10k
>> > > years ago. The Sahara was created by totally naturally occuring
>changes
>> in
>> > > weather patterns that had NOTHING to do with the insignificant effects
>> of
>> > > man. It just must be really hard for people like this to grasp that in
>> the
>> > > total scheme of things, man and his puny, insignificant activities
>> really
>> > > don't matter at all.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
Same old, same old.
>
>"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>news:bnnein02qe3@enews4.newsguy.com...
>> Thanks for posting the link & text, Doug. Indeed, back in the mid-70's
>> theses same looney greens took all the "global cooling" crap just as
>> seriously as they do all the hand wringing carbon dioxide theories now.
>>
>
>Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
>before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
>made such a claim.
>This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even National Academy of
>Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From Lloyd about it. He must
>really hate being proven wrong on every statement he makes. ;-)
>
>
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:vpu8qml6qbn381@corp.supernews.com...
>> >
>> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>> > news:bnn0hd01qbc@enews4.newsguy.com...
>> > > Mr. Parker:
>> > >
>> > > > Are you saying the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, EPA, NOAA,
>> etc.,
>> > > have jumped onto something that's not proven? <
>> > >
>> > > Yes, and despite the bleatings of certain mavens of socialist dogma
>(for
>> > > whom this entire theory has become a convenint mantra) those agencies
>> look
>> > > upon the greenhouse gas theory as just that, a THEORY among others. No
>> one
>> > > has conclusiely proven that "global warming" even exists. Indeed, the
>> temp
>> > > fluctuations gas (bag) theorists espouse aren't even significant
>within
>> > the
>> > > margin of error of their measuiring techniques.
>> > >
>> > > Might I remind you, my over zealous, green friend, 25 years ago these
>> same
>> > > social and scientific radicals were predicting the dawn of a NEW ICE
>> AGE,
>> > > becuase, they theorized, global temps were falling due to man made
>gases
>> > > blocking the sun. Funny how it turned out that at that same time we
>were
>> > in
>> > > a period of low solar activity....
>> >
>> > Just for Lloyd:
>> >
>> > http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm
>> >
>> > For those who don't use links, here it is, but it is a little long:
>> >
>> > FROM
>> > Newsweek
>> > April 28, 1975 Studies
>> > Facts & Figures
>> > Selected Links
>> > Weather
>> > Health
>> >
>> > The Cooling World
>> > There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns
>> > have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a
>> > drastic decline in food production- with serious political implications
>> for
>> > just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin
>> quite
>> > soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its
>> > impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in
>> the
>> > North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical
>areas -
>> > parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where
>the
>> > growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
>> >
>> > The evidence in support of these predictions has now
>begun
>> to
>> > accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up
>> with
>> > it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about
>> two
>> > weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production
>> > estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the
>> average
>> > temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree - a
>> > fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April,
>> in
>> > the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters
>> > killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of
>> > damage in 13 U.S. states.
>> >
>> > To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents
>> represent
>> > the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather.
>> > Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well
>
>> as
>> > over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are
>almost
>> > unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural
>productivity
>> > for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as
>some
>> > of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A
>> > major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a
>> > worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of
>> Sciences,
>> > "because the global patterns of food production and population that have
>> > evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."
>> >
>> > A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of
>the
>> > National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a
>> > degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between
>> > 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University,
>satellite
>> > photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow
>> cover
>> > in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA
>> > scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the
>> > continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
>> >
>> > To the layman, the relatively small changes in
>temperature
>> > and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of
>> > Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the
>great
>> > Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest
>eras -
>> > and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the
>way
>> > toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to
>> the
>> > "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of
>Europe
>> > and northern America between 1600 and 1900 - years when the Thames used
>to
>> > freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when
>iceboats
>> > sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
>> >
>> > Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages
>> > remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change
>is
>> at
>> > least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of
>> Sciences
>> > report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered,
>> but
>> > in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."
>> >
>> > Meteorologists think that they can forecast the
>short-term
>> > results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by
>> noting
>> > the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of
>> > pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow
>> of
>> > westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this
>way
>> > causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts,
>floods,
>> > extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local
>> > temperature increases - all of which have a direct impact on food
>> supplies.
>> >
>> > "The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D.
>> > McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is
>> much
>> > more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago."
>> > Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national
>> > boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their
>> > devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
>> >
>> > Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders
>will
>> > take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even
>to
>> > allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular
>> solutions
>> > proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black
>> soot
>> > or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those
>> > they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders
>> > anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling
>food
>> > or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic
>> > projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the
>> more
>> > difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the
>results
>> > become grim reality.
>> >
>> > Reprinted from Financial Post - Canada, Jun 21, 2000
>> >
>> > All Material Subject to Copyright.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > > The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. <
>> > >
>> > > How about this: there is NO solution, because 1) there may not even be
>a
>> > > problem, 2) if it is actually occuring, then natural forces, such as
>> > > geothermal and solar activity, may be the primary, indeed the only
>> source.
>> > >
>> > > > That means driving less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles,
>using
>> > coal
>> > > less, using more renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not
>> > > clear-cutting forests... <
>> > >
>> > > On, and how convenient all of those solutions will be in making the
>> > > Draconian, confiscatory dreams of social radicals come true!
>> > >
>> > > > >GGM: Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming
>has
>> a
>> > > perfect correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity. <
>> > >
>> > > > Parker: Funny how that's nonexistent. <
>> > >
>> > > Might I refer you, my science-spouting, but ill-informed friend, to
>all
>> > of
>> > > the studies being done that show we are just leaving a period of high
>> > solar
>> > > activity, which began in the early '80's. Funny how this activty
>> PRECISLY
>> > > parallels data showing a rise in global temps. (Look it up, if you can
>> > stand
>> > > the truth.)
>> > >
>> > > > GGM: Two Danish scientists (Friz-Christiansen & Lassen) have proven
>a
>> > > direct cause & effect between periods of high solar activity and earth
>> > > temps, going back hundreds of years. <
>> > >
>> > > > Parker: Which has been studied and cannot account for all the
>current
>> > > warming. <
>> > >
>> > > It has NOT been studied by the gas (bag) theorists, they even tried to
>> > quash
>> > > the two scientists findings because it was too shocking to their pet
>> > > theories. However, objective greehouse gas theorists has been forced
>to
>> > > admit the accuracy of their findings and they cannot explain away
>their
>> > > findings of a direct correlation between periods of high solar
>activity
>> /
>> > > low cloud formation and vice versa. Tree ring data, etc. have all been
>> > > studied and the correlation has been proven...the gas (bag) theorists
>> just
>> > > don't want to accept it because it puts the lie to all of their
>carping.
>> > >
>> > > > GGM: How arrogant (but typical) of anti-society, socialist green
>> zealots
>> > > to assume the puny effect of man vs. the absolute effect of the sun on
>> > > global climatic norms.
>> > >
>> > > > Parker: Like we almost destroyed the ozone layer? Or don't you
>> believe
>> > > that either? <
>> > >
>> > > You again hope the world will ignore recent findings that the entire
>> scare
>> > > was over blown and more likely caused by naturally occuring events.
>> > >
>> > > > GGM: So, tell me oh green ones, 10,000 years ago, how many
>primitives
>> > > driving gas-guzzling SUVs did it take to turn the Sahara from a lush
>> oasis
>> > > into a desert? (Oh, I see, you're hoping no one knows about that
>event,
>> > > aren't you?) <<
>> > >
>> > > > Parker: No answer ....what a surprise. <
>> > >
>> > > I will point out that Mr Parker has conveniently ignored my point re:
>> the
>> > > Sahara's transformation from a lush, green oasis into a desert some
>7 -
>> > 10k
>> > > years ago. The Sahara was created by totally naturally occuring
>changes
>> in
>> > > weather patterns that had NOTHING to do with the insignificant effects
>> of
>> > > man. It just must be really hard for people like this to grasp that in
>> the
>> > > total scheme of things, man and his puny, insignificant activities
>> really
>> > > don't matter at all.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>