Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#2871
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4q5$kba$9@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <Cj0ob.59593$Fm2.41498@attbi_s04>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> Another fool who believes what he reads on right-wing web sites:
As opposed to your left wing sites heh?
>
> >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
> >
> >
#2872
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4q5$kba$9@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <Cj0ob.59593$Fm2.41498@attbi_s04>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> Another fool who believes what he reads on right-wing web sites:
As opposed to your left wing sites heh?
>
> >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
> >
> >
#2873
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4di$kba$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <aBWnb.57501$Fm2.35469@attbi_s04>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> And another fool:
Nope, still just you Lloyd.
>
> >In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> >> Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >> These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control
the
> >> masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll
use
> >> any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt
to
> >> gain political control.
> >
> >I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
> >seems to be a favoring of China IMO.
> >
> >> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
> >> morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's &
70's.
> >> When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily,
they
> >> had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2
emissions
> >> are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into
the
> >> caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
> >> housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse
for
> >> wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
> >> "communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
> >> paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
> >> sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
> think
> >> I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
> >
> >There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
> >all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
> >it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
> >environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
> >different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
> >This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.
> >
> >CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
> >Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
> >for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
> >released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
> >however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
> >environment second. It's the only explaination.
> >
> >Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
> >chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
> >releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
> >CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
> >global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
> >and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
> >made.
> >
> >On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
> >about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
> >things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
> >hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
> >also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
> >'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?
> >
> >To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
> >any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
> >do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
> >when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
> >See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
> >even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
> >the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
> >combustion. ;)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
#2874
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4di$kba$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <aBWnb.57501$Fm2.35469@attbi_s04>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> And another fool:
Nope, still just you Lloyd.
>
> >In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> >> Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >> These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control
the
> >> masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll
use
> >> any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt
to
> >> gain political control.
> >
> >I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
> >seems to be a favoring of China IMO.
> >
> >> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
> >> morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's &
70's.
> >> When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily,
they
> >> had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2
emissions
> >> are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into
the
> >> caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
> >> housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse
for
> >> wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
> >> "communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
> >> paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
> >> sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
> think
> >> I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
> >
> >There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
> >all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
> >it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
> >environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
> >different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
> >This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.
> >
> >CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
> >Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
> >for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
> >released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
> >however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
> >environment second. It's the only explaination.
> >
> >Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
> >chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
> >releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
> >CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
> >global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
> >and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
> >made.
> >
> >On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
> >about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
> >things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
> >hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
> >also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
> >'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?
> >
> >To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
> >any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
> >do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
> >when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
> >See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
> >even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
> >the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
> >combustion. ;)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
#2875
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4di$kba$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <aBWnb.57501$Fm2.35469@attbi_s04>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> And another fool:
Nope, still just you Lloyd.
>
> >In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> >> Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >> These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control
the
> >> masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll
use
> >> any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt
to
> >> gain political control.
> >
> >I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
> >seems to be a favoring of China IMO.
> >
> >> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
> >> morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's &
70's.
> >> When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily,
they
> >> had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2
emissions
> >> are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into
the
> >> caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
> >> housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse
for
> >> wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
> >> "communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
> >> paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
> >> sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
> think
> >> I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
> >
> >There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
> >all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
> >it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
> >environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
> >different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
> >This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.
> >
> >CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
> >Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
> >for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
> >released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
> >however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
> >environment second. It's the only explaination.
> >
> >Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
> >chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
> >releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
> >CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
> >global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
> >and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
> >made.
> >
> >On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
> >about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
> >things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
> >hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
> >also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
> >'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?
> >
> >To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
> >any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
> >do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
> >when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
> >See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
> >even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
> >the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
> >combustion. ;)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
#2876
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bnq73506s9@enews1.newsguy.com...
> Great reply, Brent. Ask Ted Kennedy & his Hyannisport chums why they're
> blocking off shore wind turbines. Just another bunch of Liberal NIMBY
> hypocrites.
The same Ted Kennedy who murded that girl at Chappaquidik and used his name
to get off.
>
> > I want a clean world where the environment is protected and not
destroyed.
> > This is why I try to buy products made in nations with at least a decent
> > level of regulation to achieve that goal. However the environmental
> > movement doesn't stand for that. They stand for some political and
social
> > agenda where the USA is considered evil and the standard of living must
> > be knocked down several pegs. The environment is being used for an
> > excuse and it sickens me.
> >
> > And then guess what happens when someone decides to build a wind farm
> > near the homes of some rich liberals? They throw a hissy fit.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
#2877
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bnq73506s9@enews1.newsguy.com...
> Great reply, Brent. Ask Ted Kennedy & his Hyannisport chums why they're
> blocking off shore wind turbines. Just another bunch of Liberal NIMBY
> hypocrites.
The same Ted Kennedy who murded that girl at Chappaquidik and used his name
to get off.
>
> > I want a clean world where the environment is protected and not
destroyed.
> > This is why I try to buy products made in nations with at least a decent
> > level of regulation to achieve that goal. However the environmental
> > movement doesn't stand for that. They stand for some political and
social
> > agenda where the USA is considered evil and the standard of living must
> > be knocked down several pegs. The environment is being used for an
> > excuse and it sickens me.
> >
> > And then guess what happens when someone decides to build a wind farm
> > near the homes of some rich liberals? They throw a hissy fit.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
#2878
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bnq73506s9@enews1.newsguy.com...
> Great reply, Brent. Ask Ted Kennedy & his Hyannisport chums why they're
> blocking off shore wind turbines. Just another bunch of Liberal NIMBY
> hypocrites.
The same Ted Kennedy who murded that girl at Chappaquidik and used his name
to get off.
>
> > I want a clean world where the environment is protected and not
destroyed.
> > This is why I try to buy products made in nations with at least a decent
> > level of regulation to achieve that goal. However the environmental
> > movement doesn't stand for that. They stand for some political and
social
> > agenda where the USA is considered evil and the standard of living must
> > be knocked down several pegs. The environment is being used for an
> > excuse and it sickens me.
> >
> > And then guess what happens when someone decides to build a wind farm
> > near the homes of some rich liberals? They throw a hissy fit.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
#2879
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4bt$kba$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>
> Here's one of the fools:
We know your here Lloyd, you don't need to introduce yourself every time you
post.
>
> >Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
> >
> >These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
> >masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll
use
> >any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
> >gain political control.
> >
> >The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
> >morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
> >When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
> >had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2
emissions
> >are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
> >caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
> >housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse
for
> >wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
> >"communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
> >paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
> >sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
think
> >I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
> >
> >
> >> Global warming theory is being used for a political agenda because it
> >allows for _control_ of the population, control of economies, central
> >control by self appointed elites. It allows them to micro manage
everyone's
> >life for the good of the planet. Meanwhile they get to continue living
the
> >way they want. Note how dr. parker screams about putting too much CO2
into
> >the air yet drives a mercedes benz. This is rather typical. There'd be
alot
> >more credibility if drove an insight or a metro.
> >>
> >> Then there are all the environmental policies designed to constrain
> >developed western nations while allowing 'developing' nations to make all
> >the same mistakes that were made in the west. We know better now. If it
were
> >about the environment the policies would not be structured this way.
> >Needless harm to the environment simply would not be allowed. <
> >
> >
#2880
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4bt$kba$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>
> Here's one of the fools:
We know your here Lloyd, you don't need to introduce yourself every time you
post.
>
> >Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
> >
> >These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
> >masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll
use
> >any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
> >gain political control.
> >
> >The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
> >morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
> >When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
> >had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2
emissions
> >are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
> >caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
> >housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse
for
> >wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
> >"communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
> >paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
> >sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
think
> >I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
> >
> >
> >> Global warming theory is being used for a political agenda because it
> >allows for _control_ of the population, control of economies, central
> >control by self appointed elites. It allows them to micro manage
everyone's
> >life for the good of the planet. Meanwhile they get to continue living
the
> >way they want. Note how dr. parker screams about putting too much CO2
into
> >the air yet drives a mercedes benz. This is rather typical. There'd be
alot
> >more credibility if drove an insight or a metro.
> >>
> >> Then there are all the environmental policies designed to constrain
> >developed western nations while allowing 'developing' nations to make all
> >the same mistakes that were made in the west. We know better now. If it
were
> >about the environment the policies would not be structured this way.
> >Needless harm to the environment simply would not be allowed. <
> >
> >