Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#2821
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd, the world trembles at the searing intellect behind your pithy
posts....
Hey, don't worry, one of those 9 morons the Democrats have out there wagging
their tax & spend, cut & run gums might get elected and save your whole
little comfy green peer group from further humiliation.
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4k9$kba$6@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> 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.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
posts....
Hey, don't worry, one of those 9 morons the Democrats have out there wagging
their tax & spend, cut & run gums might get elected and save your whole
little comfy green peer group from further humiliation.
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4k9$kba$6@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> 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.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
#2822
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
C. E. White wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> The big problem for ford with the pinto was a known failure mode (the
>> long seatbelt hold down bolt) that they didn't correct, but instead
>> did a cost calculation on. But true, pintos were no more prone to
>> fire than other cars of that size class and era.
>
> This isn't even right. There was no cost calculation related directly
> to the Pinto and it wasn't necessarily a seat belt bolt that ruptured
> the tank. There were supposedly three modes of failure that could
> cause a problem - 1) the fuel tank was shoved into the rear axle or
> body hardware and ruptured, 2) the fuel filler tube pulled out of the
> tank during a violent crash and fuel spilled from the opening in the
> side of the tank, and 3) the fuel filler detached from the body
> leaving the gas cap behind and fuel spilled from the open tube. Early
> Pintos were recalled and fitted with three things to address these
> problem - 1) a polyethylene shield that wrapped around the bottom of
> the tank and up to the front to reduce potential damage from the rear
> axle or body hardware, 2) a longer filler pipe, and 3) a
> reinforcement ring and security screws to secure the filler neck to
> the body. I was very familiar with the fixes (we owned two Pintos).
> Also I worked at Ford for a brief period during the peak of the trial
> hysteria. You would not believe how many perfectly good cars Ford
> crashed in order to gather supporting evidence for the trial. I
> particularly lusted after the remains of a Datsun 240Z they crashed.
> Unfortunately truth and justice had little or nothing to do with the
> outcome of the trial. Ford lost and we all pay.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed White
OK, if I understand this (and it was my fault the Pinto was named!) Ford
lost a court case that did involve a fire. They then did a recall designed
to protect the fuel tank from other components in a rear end collision, so
that if another accident caused a fire they couldn't be blamed for not doing
something. In litigious times, this is certainly a valid business response.
I certainly didn't intend to imply that a Pinto, casually driving along
would suddenly burst into flames (was that in Naked Gun?).
Presumably, from your comments, the Ford position was that the Pinto was no
more prone to fire than other vehicles of the same class, but they could not
afford not to do something. (Sorry about the double negative).
Was any organisation (such as the NUTS) used to validate what Ford did, or
was it just evaluated within Ford that this would be sufficient to avoid
losing other cases?
--
Rickety
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> The big problem for ford with the pinto was a known failure mode (the
>> long seatbelt hold down bolt) that they didn't correct, but instead
>> did a cost calculation on. But true, pintos were no more prone to
>> fire than other cars of that size class and era.
>
> This isn't even right. There was no cost calculation related directly
> to the Pinto and it wasn't necessarily a seat belt bolt that ruptured
> the tank. There were supposedly three modes of failure that could
> cause a problem - 1) the fuel tank was shoved into the rear axle or
> body hardware and ruptured, 2) the fuel filler tube pulled out of the
> tank during a violent crash and fuel spilled from the opening in the
> side of the tank, and 3) the fuel filler detached from the body
> leaving the gas cap behind and fuel spilled from the open tube. Early
> Pintos were recalled and fitted with three things to address these
> problem - 1) a polyethylene shield that wrapped around the bottom of
> the tank and up to the front to reduce potential damage from the rear
> axle or body hardware, 2) a longer filler pipe, and 3) a
> reinforcement ring and security screws to secure the filler neck to
> the body. I was very familiar with the fixes (we owned two Pintos).
> Also I worked at Ford for a brief period during the peak of the trial
> hysteria. You would not believe how many perfectly good cars Ford
> crashed in order to gather supporting evidence for the trial. I
> particularly lusted after the remains of a Datsun 240Z they crashed.
> Unfortunately truth and justice had little or nothing to do with the
> outcome of the trial. Ford lost and we all pay.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed White
OK, if I understand this (and it was my fault the Pinto was named!) Ford
lost a court case that did involve a fire. They then did a recall designed
to protect the fuel tank from other components in a rear end collision, so
that if another accident caused a fire they couldn't be blamed for not doing
something. In litigious times, this is certainly a valid business response.
I certainly didn't intend to imply that a Pinto, casually driving along
would suddenly burst into flames (was that in Naked Gun?).
Presumably, from your comments, the Ford position was that the Pinto was no
more prone to fire than other vehicles of the same class, but they could not
afford not to do something. (Sorry about the double negative).
Was any organisation (such as the NUTS) used to validate what Ford did, or
was it just evaluated within Ford that this would be sufficient to avoid
losing other cases?
--
Rickety
#2823
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
C. E. White wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> The big problem for ford with the pinto was a known failure mode (the
>> long seatbelt hold down bolt) that they didn't correct, but instead
>> did a cost calculation on. But true, pintos were no more prone to
>> fire than other cars of that size class and era.
>
> This isn't even right. There was no cost calculation related directly
> to the Pinto and it wasn't necessarily a seat belt bolt that ruptured
> the tank. There were supposedly three modes of failure that could
> cause a problem - 1) the fuel tank was shoved into the rear axle or
> body hardware and ruptured, 2) the fuel filler tube pulled out of the
> tank during a violent crash and fuel spilled from the opening in the
> side of the tank, and 3) the fuel filler detached from the body
> leaving the gas cap behind and fuel spilled from the open tube. Early
> Pintos were recalled and fitted with three things to address these
> problem - 1) a polyethylene shield that wrapped around the bottom of
> the tank and up to the front to reduce potential damage from the rear
> axle or body hardware, 2) a longer filler pipe, and 3) a
> reinforcement ring and security screws to secure the filler neck to
> the body. I was very familiar with the fixes (we owned two Pintos).
> Also I worked at Ford for a brief period during the peak of the trial
> hysteria. You would not believe how many perfectly good cars Ford
> crashed in order to gather supporting evidence for the trial. I
> particularly lusted after the remains of a Datsun 240Z they crashed.
> Unfortunately truth and justice had little or nothing to do with the
> outcome of the trial. Ford lost and we all pay.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed White
OK, if I understand this (and it was my fault the Pinto was named!) Ford
lost a court case that did involve a fire. They then did a recall designed
to protect the fuel tank from other components in a rear end collision, so
that if another accident caused a fire they couldn't be blamed for not doing
something. In litigious times, this is certainly a valid business response.
I certainly didn't intend to imply that a Pinto, casually driving along
would suddenly burst into flames (was that in Naked Gun?).
Presumably, from your comments, the Ford position was that the Pinto was no
more prone to fire than other vehicles of the same class, but they could not
afford not to do something. (Sorry about the double negative).
Was any organisation (such as the NUTS) used to validate what Ford did, or
was it just evaluated within Ford that this would be sufficient to avoid
losing other cases?
--
Rickety
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> The big problem for ford with the pinto was a known failure mode (the
>> long seatbelt hold down bolt) that they didn't correct, but instead
>> did a cost calculation on. But true, pintos were no more prone to
>> fire than other cars of that size class and era.
>
> This isn't even right. There was no cost calculation related directly
> to the Pinto and it wasn't necessarily a seat belt bolt that ruptured
> the tank. There were supposedly three modes of failure that could
> cause a problem - 1) the fuel tank was shoved into the rear axle or
> body hardware and ruptured, 2) the fuel filler tube pulled out of the
> tank during a violent crash and fuel spilled from the opening in the
> side of the tank, and 3) the fuel filler detached from the body
> leaving the gas cap behind and fuel spilled from the open tube. Early
> Pintos were recalled and fitted with three things to address these
> problem - 1) a polyethylene shield that wrapped around the bottom of
> the tank and up to the front to reduce potential damage from the rear
> axle or body hardware, 2) a longer filler pipe, and 3) a
> reinforcement ring and security screws to secure the filler neck to
> the body. I was very familiar with the fixes (we owned two Pintos).
> Also I worked at Ford for a brief period during the peak of the trial
> hysteria. You would not believe how many perfectly good cars Ford
> crashed in order to gather supporting evidence for the trial. I
> particularly lusted after the remains of a Datsun 240Z they crashed.
> Unfortunately truth and justice had little or nothing to do with the
> outcome of the trial. Ford lost and we all pay.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed White
OK, if I understand this (and it was my fault the Pinto was named!) Ford
lost a court case that did involve a fire. They then did a recall designed
to protect the fuel tank from other components in a rear end collision, so
that if another accident caused a fire they couldn't be blamed for not doing
something. In litigious times, this is certainly a valid business response.
I certainly didn't intend to imply that a Pinto, casually driving along
would suddenly burst into flames (was that in Naked Gun?).
Presumably, from your comments, the Ford position was that the Pinto was no
more prone to fire than other vehicles of the same class, but they could not
afford not to do something. (Sorry about the double negative).
Was any organisation (such as the NUTS) used to validate what Ford did, or
was it just evaluated within Ford that this would be sufficient to avoid
losing other cases?
--
Rickety
#2824
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
C. E. White wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> The big problem for ford with the pinto was a known failure mode (the
>> long seatbelt hold down bolt) that they didn't correct, but instead
>> did a cost calculation on. But true, pintos were no more prone to
>> fire than other cars of that size class and era.
>
> This isn't even right. There was no cost calculation related directly
> to the Pinto and it wasn't necessarily a seat belt bolt that ruptured
> the tank. There were supposedly three modes of failure that could
> cause a problem - 1) the fuel tank was shoved into the rear axle or
> body hardware and ruptured, 2) the fuel filler tube pulled out of the
> tank during a violent crash and fuel spilled from the opening in the
> side of the tank, and 3) the fuel filler detached from the body
> leaving the gas cap behind and fuel spilled from the open tube. Early
> Pintos were recalled and fitted with three things to address these
> problem - 1) a polyethylene shield that wrapped around the bottom of
> the tank and up to the front to reduce potential damage from the rear
> axle or body hardware, 2) a longer filler pipe, and 3) a
> reinforcement ring and security screws to secure the filler neck to
> the body. I was very familiar with the fixes (we owned two Pintos).
> Also I worked at Ford for a brief period during the peak of the trial
> hysteria. You would not believe how many perfectly good cars Ford
> crashed in order to gather supporting evidence for the trial. I
> particularly lusted after the remains of a Datsun 240Z they crashed.
> Unfortunately truth and justice had little or nothing to do with the
> outcome of the trial. Ford lost and we all pay.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed White
OK, if I understand this (and it was my fault the Pinto was named!) Ford
lost a court case that did involve a fire. They then did a recall designed
to protect the fuel tank from other components in a rear end collision, so
that if another accident caused a fire they couldn't be blamed for not doing
something. In litigious times, this is certainly a valid business response.
I certainly didn't intend to imply that a Pinto, casually driving along
would suddenly burst into flames (was that in Naked Gun?).
Presumably, from your comments, the Ford position was that the Pinto was no
more prone to fire than other vehicles of the same class, but they could not
afford not to do something. (Sorry about the double negative).
Was any organisation (such as the NUTS) used to validate what Ford did, or
was it just evaluated within Ford that this would be sufficient to avoid
losing other cases?
--
Rickety
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> The big problem for ford with the pinto was a known failure mode (the
>> long seatbelt hold down bolt) that they didn't correct, but instead
>> did a cost calculation on. But true, pintos were no more prone to
>> fire than other cars of that size class and era.
>
> This isn't even right. There was no cost calculation related directly
> to the Pinto and it wasn't necessarily a seat belt bolt that ruptured
> the tank. There were supposedly three modes of failure that could
> cause a problem - 1) the fuel tank was shoved into the rear axle or
> body hardware and ruptured, 2) the fuel filler tube pulled out of the
> tank during a violent crash and fuel spilled from the opening in the
> side of the tank, and 3) the fuel filler detached from the body
> leaving the gas cap behind and fuel spilled from the open tube. Early
> Pintos were recalled and fitted with three things to address these
> problem - 1) a polyethylene shield that wrapped around the bottom of
> the tank and up to the front to reduce potential damage from the rear
> axle or body hardware, 2) a longer filler pipe, and 3) a
> reinforcement ring and security screws to secure the filler neck to
> the body. I was very familiar with the fixes (we owned two Pintos).
> Also I worked at Ford for a brief period during the peak of the trial
> hysteria. You would not believe how many perfectly good cars Ford
> crashed in order to gather supporting evidence for the trial. I
> particularly lusted after the remains of a Datsun 240Z they crashed.
> Unfortunately truth and justice had little or nothing to do with the
> outcome of the trial. Ford lost and we all pay.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed White
OK, if I understand this (and it was my fault the Pinto was named!) Ford
lost a court case that did involve a fire. They then did a recall designed
to protect the fuel tank from other components in a rear end collision, so
that if another accident caused a fire they couldn't be blamed for not doing
something. In litigious times, this is certainly a valid business response.
I certainly didn't intend to imply that a Pinto, casually driving along
would suddenly burst into flames (was that in Naked Gun?).
Presumably, from your comments, the Ford position was that the Pinto was no
more prone to fire than other vehicles of the same class, but they could not
afford not to do something. (Sorry about the double negative).
Was any organisation (such as the NUTS) used to validate what Ford did, or
was it just evaluated within Ford that this would be sufficient to avoid
losing other cases?
--
Rickety
#2825
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Brent P wrote:
> In article <3F501989.737DAFEF@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>
>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> If you look at the data (I know that's a foreign concept to you),
>>> global warming began around the middle of the 19th century, as
>>> human combustion activities started picking up.
>>
>>
>> Ahh yes, more support for my theory that baseball is responsible for
>> global warming! After all didn't baseball get started around the
>> middle of the 19th century. Didn't global warming really begin to
>> accelerate as professional teams were formed? And look at the most
>> recent spike - doesn't it correlate well to the addition of the
>> Marlins, Diamondbacks, and Devil Rays? Adding hot weather teams was
>> obviously the stray that will destroy our climate. At all cost we
>> must keep the Expos out of Puerto Rico.
>
> All we need is a plot of baseball games played vs. global mean temp.
>
> Oh and to add to this, according to the global warming true believers
> it really started ramping up in the post war years.... this fits the
> baseball model as the sport was introduced to new populations.
>
> We just need to gather all this baseball data and plot it agains mann,
> 1998. :)
Was it baseball in general, or home runs? Shouldn't we plot those against
temperature. Trouble is, I think I sense some global cooling coming on.
--
Rickety
> In article <3F501989.737DAFEF@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>
>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> If you look at the data (I know that's a foreign concept to you),
>>> global warming began around the middle of the 19th century, as
>>> human combustion activities started picking up.
>>
>>
>> Ahh yes, more support for my theory that baseball is responsible for
>> global warming! After all didn't baseball get started around the
>> middle of the 19th century. Didn't global warming really begin to
>> accelerate as professional teams were formed? And look at the most
>> recent spike - doesn't it correlate well to the addition of the
>> Marlins, Diamondbacks, and Devil Rays? Adding hot weather teams was
>> obviously the stray that will destroy our climate. At all cost we
>> must keep the Expos out of Puerto Rico.
>
> All we need is a plot of baseball games played vs. global mean temp.
>
> Oh and to add to this, according to the global warming true believers
> it really started ramping up in the post war years.... this fits the
> baseball model as the sport was introduced to new populations.
>
> We just need to gather all this baseball data and plot it agains mann,
> 1998. :)
Was it baseball in general, or home runs? Shouldn't we plot those against
temperature. Trouble is, I think I sense some global cooling coming on.
--
Rickety
#2826
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Brent P wrote:
> In article <3F501989.737DAFEF@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>
>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> If you look at the data (I know that's a foreign concept to you),
>>> global warming began around the middle of the 19th century, as
>>> human combustion activities started picking up.
>>
>>
>> Ahh yes, more support for my theory that baseball is responsible for
>> global warming! After all didn't baseball get started around the
>> middle of the 19th century. Didn't global warming really begin to
>> accelerate as professional teams were formed? And look at the most
>> recent spike - doesn't it correlate well to the addition of the
>> Marlins, Diamondbacks, and Devil Rays? Adding hot weather teams was
>> obviously the stray that will destroy our climate. At all cost we
>> must keep the Expos out of Puerto Rico.
>
> All we need is a plot of baseball games played vs. global mean temp.
>
> Oh and to add to this, according to the global warming true believers
> it really started ramping up in the post war years.... this fits the
> baseball model as the sport was introduced to new populations.
>
> We just need to gather all this baseball data and plot it agains mann,
> 1998. :)
Was it baseball in general, or home runs? Shouldn't we plot those against
temperature. Trouble is, I think I sense some global cooling coming on.
--
Rickety
> In article <3F501989.737DAFEF@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>
>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> If you look at the data (I know that's a foreign concept to you),
>>> global warming began around the middle of the 19th century, as
>>> human combustion activities started picking up.
>>
>>
>> Ahh yes, more support for my theory that baseball is responsible for
>> global warming! After all didn't baseball get started around the
>> middle of the 19th century. Didn't global warming really begin to
>> accelerate as professional teams were formed? And look at the most
>> recent spike - doesn't it correlate well to the addition of the
>> Marlins, Diamondbacks, and Devil Rays? Adding hot weather teams was
>> obviously the stray that will destroy our climate. At all cost we
>> must keep the Expos out of Puerto Rico.
>
> All we need is a plot of baseball games played vs. global mean temp.
>
> Oh and to add to this, according to the global warming true believers
> it really started ramping up in the post war years.... this fits the
> baseball model as the sport was introduced to new populations.
>
> We just need to gather all this baseball data and plot it agains mann,
> 1998. :)
Was it baseball in general, or home runs? Shouldn't we plot those against
temperature. Trouble is, I think I sense some global cooling coming on.
--
Rickety
#2827
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Brent P wrote:
> In article <3F501989.737DAFEF@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>
>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> If you look at the data (I know that's a foreign concept to you),
>>> global warming began around the middle of the 19th century, as
>>> human combustion activities started picking up.
>>
>>
>> Ahh yes, more support for my theory that baseball is responsible for
>> global warming! After all didn't baseball get started around the
>> middle of the 19th century. Didn't global warming really begin to
>> accelerate as professional teams were formed? And look at the most
>> recent spike - doesn't it correlate well to the addition of the
>> Marlins, Diamondbacks, and Devil Rays? Adding hot weather teams was
>> obviously the stray that will destroy our climate. At all cost we
>> must keep the Expos out of Puerto Rico.
>
> All we need is a plot of baseball games played vs. global mean temp.
>
> Oh and to add to this, according to the global warming true believers
> it really started ramping up in the post war years.... this fits the
> baseball model as the sport was introduced to new populations.
>
> We just need to gather all this baseball data and plot it agains mann,
> 1998. :)
Was it baseball in general, or home runs? Shouldn't we plot those against
temperature. Trouble is, I think I sense some global cooling coming on.
--
Rickety
> In article <3F501989.737DAFEF@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>
>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> If you look at the data (I know that's a foreign concept to you),
>>> global warming began around the middle of the 19th century, as
>>> human combustion activities started picking up.
>>
>>
>> Ahh yes, more support for my theory that baseball is responsible for
>> global warming! After all didn't baseball get started around the
>> middle of the 19th century. Didn't global warming really begin to
>> accelerate as professional teams were formed? And look at the most
>> recent spike - doesn't it correlate well to the addition of the
>> Marlins, Diamondbacks, and Devil Rays? Adding hot weather teams was
>> obviously the stray that will destroy our climate. At all cost we
>> must keep the Expos out of Puerto Rico.
>
> All we need is a plot of baseball games played vs. global mean temp.
>
> Oh and to add to this, according to the global warming true believers
> it really started ramping up in the post war years.... this fits the
> baseball model as the sport was introduced to new populations.
>
> We just need to gather all this baseball data and plot it agains mann,
> 1998. :)
Was it baseball in general, or home runs? Shouldn't we plot those against
temperature. Trouble is, I think I sense some global cooling coming on.
--
Rickety
#2828
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <b__nb.45699$ao4.111788@attbi_s51>,
Brent P <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>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.
I have some Analog magazine articles from 1972 on the coming ice age.
Then there's the theory expressed in Niven's _Falling Angels_ --
humans ARE causing global warming, AND we're set to go into a new ice
age. But they cancel out, until those pesky environmentalists get
their way.
(Yes, _Falling Angels_ is a work of fiction, and Analog is known as an
SF magazine, though the articles were "fact" articles. Climatological
predictions are also works of fiction -- the climate is a chaotic
system and we have only the foggiest idea what the initial conditions are).
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Brent P <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>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.
I have some Analog magazine articles from 1972 on the coming ice age.
Then there's the theory expressed in Niven's _Falling Angels_ --
humans ARE causing global warming, AND we're set to go into a new ice
age. But they cancel out, until those pesky environmentalists get
their way.
(Yes, _Falling Angels_ is a work of fiction, and Analog is known as an
SF magazine, though the articles were "fact" articles. Climatological
predictions are also works of fiction -- the climate is a chaotic
system and we have only the foggiest idea what the initial conditions are).
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#2829
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <b__nb.45699$ao4.111788@attbi_s51>,
Brent P <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>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.
I have some Analog magazine articles from 1972 on the coming ice age.
Then there's the theory expressed in Niven's _Falling Angels_ --
humans ARE causing global warming, AND we're set to go into a new ice
age. But they cancel out, until those pesky environmentalists get
their way.
(Yes, _Falling Angels_ is a work of fiction, and Analog is known as an
SF magazine, though the articles were "fact" articles. Climatological
predictions are also works of fiction -- the climate is a chaotic
system and we have only the foggiest idea what the initial conditions are).
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Brent P <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>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.
I have some Analog magazine articles from 1972 on the coming ice age.
Then there's the theory expressed in Niven's _Falling Angels_ --
humans ARE causing global warming, AND we're set to go into a new ice
age. But they cancel out, until those pesky environmentalists get
their way.
(Yes, _Falling Angels_ is a work of fiction, and Analog is known as an
SF magazine, though the articles were "fact" articles. Climatological
predictions are also works of fiction -- the climate is a chaotic
system and we have only the foggiest idea what the initial conditions are).
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#2830
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <b__nb.45699$ao4.111788@attbi_s51>,
Brent P <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>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.
I have some Analog magazine articles from 1972 on the coming ice age.
Then there's the theory expressed in Niven's _Falling Angels_ --
humans ARE causing global warming, AND we're set to go into a new ice
age. But they cancel out, until those pesky environmentalists get
their way.
(Yes, _Falling Angels_ is a work of fiction, and Analog is known as an
SF magazine, though the articles were "fact" articles. Climatological
predictions are also works of fiction -- the climate is a chaotic
system and we have only the foggiest idea what the initial conditions are).
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Brent P <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>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.
I have some Analog magazine articles from 1972 on the coming ice age.
Then there's the theory expressed in Niven's _Falling Angels_ --
humans ARE causing global warming, AND we're set to go into a new ice
age. But they cancel out, until those pesky environmentalists get
their way.
(Yes, _Falling Angels_ is a work of fiction, and Analog is known as an
SF magazine, though the articles were "fact" articles. Climatological
predictions are also works of fiction -- the climate is a chaotic
system and we have only the foggiest idea what the initial conditions are).
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.