Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#2791
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.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
#2792
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vq0vqunbmkhee3@corp.supernews.com>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
Another fool proudly showing off his ignorance:
>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:b__nb.45699$ao4.111788@attbi_s51...
>> In article <vq0qtnc1m8gd45@corp.supernews.com>, Douglas A. Shrader wrote:
>> >
>> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>> > news:bnnein02qe3@enews4.newsguy.com...
>> >> Thanks for posting the link & text, Doug. Indeed, back in the mid-70's
>> >> theses same looney greens took all the "global cooling" crap just as
>> >> seriously as they do all the hand wringing carbon dioxide theories now.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
>> > before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
>> > made such a claim.
>> > This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even National
>Academy of
>> > Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From Lloyd about it. He
>must
>> > really hate being proven wrong on every statement he makes. ;-)
>>
>> I remember "global cooling" too. Got that in early grade school in the
>> late 1970s. Much like they teach kids "global warming" today. But cites
>> on the net were always few and far between due it being well prior to
>> 1995.
>
>Yep, they cried doom until it started warming up, then switched to global
>warming and started crying doom again. I remember winters here as a kid,
>temperatures normally 0 or below, snow on the ground for 60 days or more
>without melting, just piling up deeper and deeper, always a fight to keep
>the road here open to get to town.
>We don't have weather like that now, but it will return soon, I'll bet on
>that. Just a question of when. I like it better now, temperature around 30
>and snowfall melts off in a few days to a week.
>
>
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
Another fool proudly showing off his ignorance:
>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:b__nb.45699$ao4.111788@attbi_s51...
>> In article <vq0qtnc1m8gd45@corp.supernews.com>, Douglas A. Shrader wrote:
>> >
>> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>> > news:bnnein02qe3@enews4.newsguy.com...
>> >> Thanks for posting the link & text, Doug. Indeed, back in the mid-70's
>> >> theses same looney greens took all the "global cooling" crap just as
>> >> seriously as they do all the hand wringing carbon dioxide theories now.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
>> > before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
>> > made such a claim.
>> > This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even National
>Academy of
>> > Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From Lloyd about it. He
>must
>> > really hate being proven wrong on every statement he makes. ;-)
>>
>> I remember "global cooling" too. Got that in early grade school in the
>> late 1970s. Much like they teach kids "global warming" today. But cites
>> on the net were always few and far between due it being well prior to
>> 1995.
>
>Yep, they cried doom until it started warming up, then switched to global
>warming and started crying doom again. I remember winters here as a kid,
>temperatures normally 0 or below, snow on the ground for 60 days or more
>without melting, just piling up deeper and deeper, always a fight to keep
>the road here open to get to town.
>We don't have weather like that now, but it will return soon, I'll bet on
>that. Just a question of when. I like it better now, temperature around 30
>and snowfall melts off in a few days to a week.
>
>
#2793
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vq0vqunbmkhee3@corp.supernews.com>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
Another fool proudly showing off his ignorance:
>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:b__nb.45699$ao4.111788@attbi_s51...
>> In article <vq0qtnc1m8gd45@corp.supernews.com>, Douglas A. Shrader wrote:
>> >
>> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>> > news:bnnein02qe3@enews4.newsguy.com...
>> >> Thanks for posting the link & text, Doug. Indeed, back in the mid-70's
>> >> theses same looney greens took all the "global cooling" crap just as
>> >> seriously as they do all the hand wringing carbon dioxide theories now.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
>> > before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
>> > made such a claim.
>> > This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even National
>Academy of
>> > Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From Lloyd about it. He
>must
>> > really hate being proven wrong on every statement he makes. ;-)
>>
>> I remember "global cooling" too. Got that in early grade school in the
>> late 1970s. Much like they teach kids "global warming" today. But cites
>> on the net were always few and far between due it being well prior to
>> 1995.
>
>Yep, they cried doom until it started warming up, then switched to global
>warming and started crying doom again. I remember winters here as a kid,
>temperatures normally 0 or below, snow on the ground for 60 days or more
>without melting, just piling up deeper and deeper, always a fight to keep
>the road here open to get to town.
>We don't have weather like that now, but it will return soon, I'll bet on
>that. Just a question of when. I like it better now, temperature around 30
>and snowfall melts off in a few days to a week.
>
>
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
Another fool proudly showing off his ignorance:
>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:b__nb.45699$ao4.111788@attbi_s51...
>> In article <vq0qtnc1m8gd45@corp.supernews.com>, Douglas A. Shrader wrote:
>> >
>> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>> > news:bnnein02qe3@enews4.newsguy.com...
>> >> Thanks for posting the link & text, Doug. Indeed, back in the mid-70's
>> >> theses same looney greens took all the "global cooling" crap just as
>> >> seriously as they do all the hand wringing carbon dioxide theories now.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
>> > before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
>> > made such a claim.
>> > This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even National
>Academy of
>> > Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From Lloyd about it. He
>must
>> > really hate being proven wrong on every statement he makes. ;-)
>>
>> I remember "global cooling" too. Got that in early grade school in the
>> late 1970s. Much like they teach kids "global warming" today. But cites
>> on the net were always few and far between due it being well prior to
>> 1995.
>
>Yep, they cried doom until it started warming up, then switched to global
>warming and started crying doom again. I remember winters here as a kid,
>temperatures normally 0 or below, snow on the ground for 60 days or more
>without melting, just piling up deeper and deeper, always a fight to keep
>the road here open to get to town.
>We don't have weather like that now, but it will return soon, I'll bet on
>that. Just a question of when. I like it better now, temperature around 30
>and snowfall melts off in a few days to a week.
>
>
#2794
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vq0vqunbmkhee3@corp.supernews.com>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
Another fool proudly showing off his ignorance:
>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:b__nb.45699$ao4.111788@attbi_s51...
>> In article <vq0qtnc1m8gd45@corp.supernews.com>, Douglas A. Shrader wrote:
>> >
>> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>> > news:bnnein02qe3@enews4.newsguy.com...
>> >> Thanks for posting the link & text, Doug. Indeed, back in the mid-70's
>> >> theses same looney greens took all the "global cooling" crap just as
>> >> seriously as they do all the hand wringing carbon dioxide theories now.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
>> > before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
>> > made such a claim.
>> > This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even National
>Academy of
>> > Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From Lloyd about it. He
>must
>> > really hate being proven wrong on every statement he makes. ;-)
>>
>> I remember "global cooling" too. Got that in early grade school in the
>> late 1970s. Much like they teach kids "global warming" today. But cites
>> on the net were always few and far between due it being well prior to
>> 1995.
>
>Yep, they cried doom until it started warming up, then switched to global
>warming and started crying doom again. I remember winters here as a kid,
>temperatures normally 0 or below, snow on the ground for 60 days or more
>without melting, just piling up deeper and deeper, always a fight to keep
>the road here open to get to town.
>We don't have weather like that now, but it will return soon, I'll bet on
>that. Just a question of when. I like it better now, temperature around 30
>and snowfall melts off in a few days to a week.
>
>
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
Another fool proudly showing off his ignorance:
>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:b__nb.45699$ao4.111788@attbi_s51...
>> In article <vq0qtnc1m8gd45@corp.supernews.com>, Douglas A. Shrader wrote:
>> >
>> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>> > news:bnnein02qe3@enews4.newsguy.com...
>> >> Thanks for posting the link & text, Doug. Indeed, back in the mid-70's
>> >> theses same looney greens took all the "global cooling" crap just as
>> >> seriously as they do all the hand wringing carbon dioxide theories now.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
>> > before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
>> > made such a claim.
>> > This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even National
>Academy of
>> > Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From Lloyd about it. He
>must
>> > really hate being proven wrong on every statement he makes. ;-)
>>
>> I remember "global cooling" too. Got that in early grade school in the
>> late 1970s. Much like they teach kids "global warming" today. But cites
>> on the net were always few and far between due it being well prior to
>> 1995.
>
>Yep, they cried doom until it started warming up, then switched to global
>warming and started crying doom again. I remember winters here as a kid,
>temperatures normally 0 or below, snow on the ground for 60 days or more
>without melting, just piling up deeper and deeper, always a fight to keep
>the road here open to get to town.
>We don't have weather like that now, but it will return soon, I'll bet on
>that. Just a question of when. I like it better now, temperature around 30
>and snowfall melts off in a few days to a week.
>
>
#2795
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F500D0A.D7B16BE2@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>rickety wrote:
>
>> istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel tank is
>> prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a big Pinto.
>
>When will you people quit promoting the false idea that Pinto's were
>particualrly prone to fires. They weren't. Ford made the mistake of
>proving this in court and having a jury ignore this and then award a
>huge amount of money to the parents of a teenager that was doing
>something stupid.
Uh, if a jury didn't buy it, how can you say Ford "proved" it?
>Ford presented evidence in court that the fuel tanks
>in Pinto were no more likely to rupture ina crash than other
>contemporary cars.
Too bad their own internal documents not only contradicted this, but talked
about how many deaths would be worth not installing a part costing a few
cents.
>The toatl number of people killed in Pinto fires is
>lcomparable to the total number of people killed in Chevette fires,
>although many more Pintos were sold. The only reason people think Pintos
>were unique is becasue Ford made the mistake of taking on scum sucking
>trial lawyers instead of just forking over the cash like GM routinely
>does. I guess Ford learned their lesson and now they do the same thing
>in most cases. Until juries are required to have a minimal level of
>intelligence, this will continue. And guess who utimately pays? It is
>not Ford - it is us, the suckers who let trial lawyer harvest victums to
>feed their greed.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed White
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>rickety wrote:
>
>> istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel tank is
>> prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a big Pinto.
>
>When will you people quit promoting the false idea that Pinto's were
>particualrly prone to fires. They weren't. Ford made the mistake of
>proving this in court and having a jury ignore this and then award a
>huge amount of money to the parents of a teenager that was doing
>something stupid.
Uh, if a jury didn't buy it, how can you say Ford "proved" it?
>Ford presented evidence in court that the fuel tanks
>in Pinto were no more likely to rupture ina crash than other
>contemporary cars.
Too bad their own internal documents not only contradicted this, but talked
about how many deaths would be worth not installing a part costing a few
cents.
>The toatl number of people killed in Pinto fires is
>lcomparable to the total number of people killed in Chevette fires,
>although many more Pintos were sold. The only reason people think Pintos
>were unique is becasue Ford made the mistake of taking on scum sucking
>trial lawyers instead of just forking over the cash like GM routinely
>does. I guess Ford learned their lesson and now they do the same thing
>in most cases. Until juries are required to have a minimal level of
>intelligence, this will continue. And guess who utimately pays? It is
>not Ford - it is us, the suckers who let trial lawyer harvest victums to
>feed their greed.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed White
#2796
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F500D0A.D7B16BE2@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>rickety wrote:
>
>> istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel tank is
>> prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a big Pinto.
>
>When will you people quit promoting the false idea that Pinto's were
>particualrly prone to fires. They weren't. Ford made the mistake of
>proving this in court and having a jury ignore this and then award a
>huge amount of money to the parents of a teenager that was doing
>something stupid.
Uh, if a jury didn't buy it, how can you say Ford "proved" it?
>Ford presented evidence in court that the fuel tanks
>in Pinto were no more likely to rupture ina crash than other
>contemporary cars.
Too bad their own internal documents not only contradicted this, but talked
about how many deaths would be worth not installing a part costing a few
cents.
>The toatl number of people killed in Pinto fires is
>lcomparable to the total number of people killed in Chevette fires,
>although many more Pintos were sold. The only reason people think Pintos
>were unique is becasue Ford made the mistake of taking on scum sucking
>trial lawyers instead of just forking over the cash like GM routinely
>does. I guess Ford learned their lesson and now they do the same thing
>in most cases. Until juries are required to have a minimal level of
>intelligence, this will continue. And guess who utimately pays? It is
>not Ford - it is us, the suckers who let trial lawyer harvest victums to
>feed their greed.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed White
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>rickety wrote:
>
>> istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel tank is
>> prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a big Pinto.
>
>When will you people quit promoting the false idea that Pinto's were
>particualrly prone to fires. They weren't. Ford made the mistake of
>proving this in court and having a jury ignore this and then award a
>huge amount of money to the parents of a teenager that was doing
>something stupid.
Uh, if a jury didn't buy it, how can you say Ford "proved" it?
>Ford presented evidence in court that the fuel tanks
>in Pinto were no more likely to rupture ina crash than other
>contemporary cars.
Too bad their own internal documents not only contradicted this, but talked
about how many deaths would be worth not installing a part costing a few
cents.
>The toatl number of people killed in Pinto fires is
>lcomparable to the total number of people killed in Chevette fires,
>although many more Pintos were sold. The only reason people think Pintos
>were unique is becasue Ford made the mistake of taking on scum sucking
>trial lawyers instead of just forking over the cash like GM routinely
>does. I guess Ford learned their lesson and now they do the same thing
>in most cases. Until juries are required to have a minimal level of
>intelligence, this will continue. And guess who utimately pays? It is
>not Ford - it is us, the suckers who let trial lawyer harvest victums to
>feed their greed.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed White
#2797
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F500D0A.D7B16BE2@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>rickety wrote:
>
>> istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel tank is
>> prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a big Pinto.
>
>When will you people quit promoting the false idea that Pinto's were
>particualrly prone to fires. They weren't. Ford made the mistake of
>proving this in court and having a jury ignore this and then award a
>huge amount of money to the parents of a teenager that was doing
>something stupid.
Uh, if a jury didn't buy it, how can you say Ford "proved" it?
>Ford presented evidence in court that the fuel tanks
>in Pinto were no more likely to rupture ina crash than other
>contemporary cars.
Too bad their own internal documents not only contradicted this, but talked
about how many deaths would be worth not installing a part costing a few
cents.
>The toatl number of people killed in Pinto fires is
>lcomparable to the total number of people killed in Chevette fires,
>although many more Pintos were sold. The only reason people think Pintos
>were unique is becasue Ford made the mistake of taking on scum sucking
>trial lawyers instead of just forking over the cash like GM routinely
>does. I guess Ford learned their lesson and now they do the same thing
>in most cases. Until juries are required to have a minimal level of
>intelligence, this will continue. And guess who utimately pays? It is
>not Ford - it is us, the suckers who let trial lawyer harvest victums to
>feed their greed.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed White
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>rickety wrote:
>
>> istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel tank is
>> prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a big Pinto.
>
>When will you people quit promoting the false idea that Pinto's were
>particualrly prone to fires. They weren't. Ford made the mistake of
>proving this in court and having a jury ignore this and then award a
>huge amount of money to the parents of a teenager that was doing
>something stupid.
Uh, if a jury didn't buy it, how can you say Ford "proved" it?
>Ford presented evidence in court that the fuel tanks
>in Pinto were no more likely to rupture ina crash than other
>contemporary cars.
Too bad their own internal documents not only contradicted this, but talked
about how many deaths would be worth not installing a part costing a few
cents.
>The toatl number of people killed in Pinto fires is
>lcomparable to the total number of people killed in Chevette fires,
>although many more Pintos were sold. The only reason people think Pintos
>were unique is becasue Ford made the mistake of taking on scum sucking
>trial lawyers instead of just forking over the cash like GM routinely
>does. I guess Ford learned their lesson and now they do the same thing
>in most cases. Until juries are required to have a minimal level of
>intelligence, this will continue. And guess who utimately pays? It is
>not Ford - it is us, the suckers who let trial lawyer harvest victums to
>feed their greed.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed White
#2798
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <Cj0ob.59593$Fm2.41498@attbi_s04>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
Another fool who believes what he reads on right-wing web sites:
>In article <bnpmk701sae@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>
>> Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key research
>> green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming theory.
>> In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
>> global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the
second
>> half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
>> reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.
>
>I think I've found the paper mentioned in the article:
>http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm
>http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf
>
>
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
Another fool who believes what he reads on right-wing web sites:
>In article <bnpmk701sae@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>
>> Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key research
>> green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming theory.
>> In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
>> global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the
second
>> half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
>> reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.
>
>I think I've found the paper mentioned in the article:
>http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm
>http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf
>
>
#2799
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <Cj0ob.59593$Fm2.41498@attbi_s04>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
Another fool who believes what he reads on right-wing web sites:
>In article <bnpmk701sae@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>I think I've found the paper mentioned in the article:
>http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm
>http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf
>
>
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
Another fool who believes what he reads on right-wing web sites:
>In article <bnpmk701sae@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>I think I've found the paper mentioned in the article:
>http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm
>http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf
>
>
#2800
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <Cj0ob.59593$Fm2.41498@attbi_s04>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
Another fool who believes what he reads on right-wing web sites:
>In article <bnpmk701sae@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>I think I've found the paper mentioned in the article:
>http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm
>http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf
>
>
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
Another fool who believes what he reads on right-wing web sites:
>In article <bnpmk701sae@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>I think I've found the paper mentioned in the article:
>http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm
>http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf
>
>