Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3031
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Jonesy wrote:
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bnuuae0m7h@enews4.newsguy.com>...
> > Or, an idealist who gets his first pay check and realizes he's just spent
> > 50% of his time working for the Government.
>
> Yet another right-wing lie.
>
> No beginning worker spends even half that amount to The Government.
In defense of Gerald, it dpends on your loaction and the starting pay. I'd guess some engineers in high
tax staes could be approaching 50% when you include Social Security (both sides, not just "your half") and
state and city taxes. And if you include all the taxes you pay, both direct annd indirect, I'd guess a lot
of people pay more than 50% of their income to various governments.
Ed
#3032
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Climatic change is a tremendously complicated matter, but the basic
tenets are given:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, i.e. it traps solar heat in the atmosphere.
The modern world is spewing huge amounts of CO2 in the air.
The atmospheric content of CO2 has risen some 30% in the last 50
years. This is a huge amount for such a short time.
Climate models predict a rise in average temperature if the
atmospheric content of CO2 is significantly raised. Also it predicts
that ice caps will start melting.
Average worldwide temperature has risen in the last 50 years. Also,
ice caps are thinning by 3% a decade since the 70s.
These are facts. They are not conclusive. Some scientists believe
that there may be other reasons for this temperature rise, or even
that we are only observing a natural temperature variation. They may
be right. Still, it is also a fact that the great majority of
scientists believe that there is already a clear increase in global
temperature and that human activity is responsible for it.
If worldwide temperature keeps rising the repercussions will be
catastrophic - a true catastrophe of biblical proportions, an
unmitigated disaster for the quality of living of all humanity. This
too is a fact.
People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
to protect it. Most industries have to prove the safety of their
product, so why should some industries be exempt?
Oil and automobile industries will not be able to prove the safety of
their product in the short term, which does not mean that we should
all go back to horse carriages. It means that while there is
reasonable suspicion that the emission of greenhouse gases can
destabilize the global climate, the prudent response of society would
be to limit such emissions until the repercussions are clearer.
Corrective actions will be expensive which only proves that we are now
not paying the full cost our life style - we are shifting this cost to
future generations and this is not right. There is a bill to be paid
and it is cheap to try to avoid paying it.
Visit the US government site about global warming (its message is loud
and clear): http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...t/climate.html
For a short and serious exposition about CO2 emissions and their
effect also see http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccour...bon/dmreg.html
Here is a site with an opposing view (this site does not look very
serious but it includes many of the arguments given against global
warming): http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bnsm7301ag5@enews2.newsguy.com>...
> > More like saying if you get cancer you will die from it, ignoring all the
> > cancer survivors out there. But you ignore all facts that don't agree with
> > what you already believe. You are not a scientist, you are a parrot. <
>
> "Lloyd want a CRACKER? Rawk!"
tenets are given:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, i.e. it traps solar heat in the atmosphere.
The modern world is spewing huge amounts of CO2 in the air.
The atmospheric content of CO2 has risen some 30% in the last 50
years. This is a huge amount for such a short time.
Climate models predict a rise in average temperature if the
atmospheric content of CO2 is significantly raised. Also it predicts
that ice caps will start melting.
Average worldwide temperature has risen in the last 50 years. Also,
ice caps are thinning by 3% a decade since the 70s.
These are facts. They are not conclusive. Some scientists believe
that there may be other reasons for this temperature rise, or even
that we are only observing a natural temperature variation. They may
be right. Still, it is also a fact that the great majority of
scientists believe that there is already a clear increase in global
temperature and that human activity is responsible for it.
If worldwide temperature keeps rising the repercussions will be
catastrophic - a true catastrophe of biblical proportions, an
unmitigated disaster for the quality of living of all humanity. This
too is a fact.
People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
to protect it. Most industries have to prove the safety of their
product, so why should some industries be exempt?
Oil and automobile industries will not be able to prove the safety of
their product in the short term, which does not mean that we should
all go back to horse carriages. It means that while there is
reasonable suspicion that the emission of greenhouse gases can
destabilize the global climate, the prudent response of society would
be to limit such emissions until the repercussions are clearer.
Corrective actions will be expensive which only proves that we are now
not paying the full cost our life style - we are shifting this cost to
future generations and this is not right. There is a bill to be paid
and it is cheap to try to avoid paying it.
Visit the US government site about global warming (its message is loud
and clear): http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...t/climate.html
For a short and serious exposition about CO2 emissions and their
effect also see http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccour...bon/dmreg.html
Here is a site with an opposing view (this site does not look very
serious but it includes many of the arguments given against global
warming): http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bnsm7301ag5@enews2.newsguy.com>...
> > More like saying if you get cancer you will die from it, ignoring all the
> > cancer survivors out there. But you ignore all facts that don't agree with
> > what you already believe. You are not a scientist, you are a parrot. <
>
> "Lloyd want a CRACKER? Rawk!"
#3033
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Climatic change is a tremendously complicated matter, but the basic
tenets are given:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, i.e. it traps solar heat in the atmosphere.
The modern world is spewing huge amounts of CO2 in the air.
The atmospheric content of CO2 has risen some 30% in the last 50
years. This is a huge amount for such a short time.
Climate models predict a rise in average temperature if the
atmospheric content of CO2 is significantly raised. Also it predicts
that ice caps will start melting.
Average worldwide temperature has risen in the last 50 years. Also,
ice caps are thinning by 3% a decade since the 70s.
These are facts. They are not conclusive. Some scientists believe
that there may be other reasons for this temperature rise, or even
that we are only observing a natural temperature variation. They may
be right. Still, it is also a fact that the great majority of
scientists believe that there is already a clear increase in global
temperature and that human activity is responsible for it.
If worldwide temperature keeps rising the repercussions will be
catastrophic - a true catastrophe of biblical proportions, an
unmitigated disaster for the quality of living of all humanity. This
too is a fact.
People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
to protect it. Most industries have to prove the safety of their
product, so why should some industries be exempt?
Oil and automobile industries will not be able to prove the safety of
their product in the short term, which does not mean that we should
all go back to horse carriages. It means that while there is
reasonable suspicion that the emission of greenhouse gases can
destabilize the global climate, the prudent response of society would
be to limit such emissions until the repercussions are clearer.
Corrective actions will be expensive which only proves that we are now
not paying the full cost our life style - we are shifting this cost to
future generations and this is not right. There is a bill to be paid
and it is cheap to try to avoid paying it.
Visit the US government site about global warming (its message is loud
and clear): http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...t/climate.html
For a short and serious exposition about CO2 emissions and their
effect also see http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccour...bon/dmreg.html
Here is a site with an opposing view (this site does not look very
serious but it includes many of the arguments given against global
warming): http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bnsm7301ag5@enews2.newsguy.com>...
> > More like saying if you get cancer you will die from it, ignoring all the
> > cancer survivors out there. But you ignore all facts that don't agree with
> > what you already believe. You are not a scientist, you are a parrot. <
>
> "Lloyd want a CRACKER? Rawk!"
tenets are given:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, i.e. it traps solar heat in the atmosphere.
The modern world is spewing huge amounts of CO2 in the air.
The atmospheric content of CO2 has risen some 30% in the last 50
years. This is a huge amount for such a short time.
Climate models predict a rise in average temperature if the
atmospheric content of CO2 is significantly raised. Also it predicts
that ice caps will start melting.
Average worldwide temperature has risen in the last 50 years. Also,
ice caps are thinning by 3% a decade since the 70s.
These are facts. They are not conclusive. Some scientists believe
that there may be other reasons for this temperature rise, or even
that we are only observing a natural temperature variation. They may
be right. Still, it is also a fact that the great majority of
scientists believe that there is already a clear increase in global
temperature and that human activity is responsible for it.
If worldwide temperature keeps rising the repercussions will be
catastrophic - a true catastrophe of biblical proportions, an
unmitigated disaster for the quality of living of all humanity. This
too is a fact.
People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
to protect it. Most industries have to prove the safety of their
product, so why should some industries be exempt?
Oil and automobile industries will not be able to prove the safety of
their product in the short term, which does not mean that we should
all go back to horse carriages. It means that while there is
reasonable suspicion that the emission of greenhouse gases can
destabilize the global climate, the prudent response of society would
be to limit such emissions until the repercussions are clearer.
Corrective actions will be expensive which only proves that we are now
not paying the full cost our life style - we are shifting this cost to
future generations and this is not right. There is a bill to be paid
and it is cheap to try to avoid paying it.
Visit the US government site about global warming (its message is loud
and clear): http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...t/climate.html
For a short and serious exposition about CO2 emissions and their
effect also see http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccour...bon/dmreg.html
Here is a site with an opposing view (this site does not look very
serious but it includes many of the arguments given against global
warming): http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bnsm7301ag5@enews2.newsguy.com>...
> > More like saying if you get cancer you will die from it, ignoring all the
> > cancer survivors out there. But you ignore all facts that don't agree with
> > what you already believe. You are not a scientist, you are a parrot. <
>
> "Lloyd want a CRACKER? Rawk!"
#3034
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Climatic change is a tremendously complicated matter, but the basic
tenets are given:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, i.e. it traps solar heat in the atmosphere.
The modern world is spewing huge amounts of CO2 in the air.
The atmospheric content of CO2 has risen some 30% in the last 50
years. This is a huge amount for such a short time.
Climate models predict a rise in average temperature if the
atmospheric content of CO2 is significantly raised. Also it predicts
that ice caps will start melting.
Average worldwide temperature has risen in the last 50 years. Also,
ice caps are thinning by 3% a decade since the 70s.
These are facts. They are not conclusive. Some scientists believe
that there may be other reasons for this temperature rise, or even
that we are only observing a natural temperature variation. They may
be right. Still, it is also a fact that the great majority of
scientists believe that there is already a clear increase in global
temperature and that human activity is responsible for it.
If worldwide temperature keeps rising the repercussions will be
catastrophic - a true catastrophe of biblical proportions, an
unmitigated disaster for the quality of living of all humanity. This
too is a fact.
People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
to protect it. Most industries have to prove the safety of their
product, so why should some industries be exempt?
Oil and automobile industries will not be able to prove the safety of
their product in the short term, which does not mean that we should
all go back to horse carriages. It means that while there is
reasonable suspicion that the emission of greenhouse gases can
destabilize the global climate, the prudent response of society would
be to limit such emissions until the repercussions are clearer.
Corrective actions will be expensive which only proves that we are now
not paying the full cost our life style - we are shifting this cost to
future generations and this is not right. There is a bill to be paid
and it is cheap to try to avoid paying it.
Visit the US government site about global warming (its message is loud
and clear): http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...t/climate.html
For a short and serious exposition about CO2 emissions and their
effect also see http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccour...bon/dmreg.html
Here is a site with an opposing view (this site does not look very
serious but it includes many of the arguments given against global
warming): http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bnsm7301ag5@enews2.newsguy.com>...
> > More like saying if you get cancer you will die from it, ignoring all the
> > cancer survivors out there. But you ignore all facts that don't agree with
> > what you already believe. You are not a scientist, you are a parrot. <
>
> "Lloyd want a CRACKER? Rawk!"
tenets are given:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, i.e. it traps solar heat in the atmosphere.
The modern world is spewing huge amounts of CO2 in the air.
The atmospheric content of CO2 has risen some 30% in the last 50
years. This is a huge amount for such a short time.
Climate models predict a rise in average temperature if the
atmospheric content of CO2 is significantly raised. Also it predicts
that ice caps will start melting.
Average worldwide temperature has risen in the last 50 years. Also,
ice caps are thinning by 3% a decade since the 70s.
These are facts. They are not conclusive. Some scientists believe
that there may be other reasons for this temperature rise, or even
that we are only observing a natural temperature variation. They may
be right. Still, it is also a fact that the great majority of
scientists believe that there is already a clear increase in global
temperature and that human activity is responsible for it.
If worldwide temperature keeps rising the repercussions will be
catastrophic - a true catastrophe of biblical proportions, an
unmitigated disaster for the quality of living of all humanity. This
too is a fact.
People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
to protect it. Most industries have to prove the safety of their
product, so why should some industries be exempt?
Oil and automobile industries will not be able to prove the safety of
their product in the short term, which does not mean that we should
all go back to horse carriages. It means that while there is
reasonable suspicion that the emission of greenhouse gases can
destabilize the global climate, the prudent response of society would
be to limit such emissions until the repercussions are clearer.
Corrective actions will be expensive which only proves that we are now
not paying the full cost our life style - we are shifting this cost to
future generations and this is not right. There is a bill to be paid
and it is cheap to try to avoid paying it.
Visit the US government site about global warming (its message is loud
and clear): http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...t/climate.html
For a short and serious exposition about CO2 emissions and their
effect also see http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccour...bon/dmreg.html
Here is a site with an opposing view (this site does not look very
serious but it includes many of the arguments given against global
warming): http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bnsm7301ag5@enews2.newsguy.com>...
> > More like saying if you get cancer you will die from it, ignoring all the
> > cancer survivors out there. But you ignore all facts that don't agree with
> > what you already believe. You are not a scientist, you are a parrot. <
>
> "Lloyd want a CRACKER? Rawk!"
#3035
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <5ac380ce.0311031151.38c36d1c@posting.google.com >, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> Climatic change is a tremendously complicated matter, but the basic
> tenets are given:
>
> CO2 is a greenhouse gas, i.e. it traps solar heat in the atmosphere.
> The modern world is spewing huge amounts of CO2 in the air.
> The atmospheric content of CO2 has risen some 30% in the last 50
> years. This is a huge amount for such a short time.
> Climate models predict a rise in average temperature if the
> atmospheric content of CO2 is significantly raised. Also it predicts
> that ice caps will start melting.
Climate models are based on temp rising with CO2 content. Just because
it comes out of a computer doesn't make it accurate or fact.
> Average worldwide temperature has risen in the last 50 years. Also,
> ice caps are thinning by 3% a decade since the 70s.
> These are facts. They are not conclusive. Some scientists believe
> that there may be other reasons for this temperature rise, or even
> that we are only observing a natural temperature variation. They may
> be right. Still, it is also a fact that the great majority of
> scientists believe that there is already a clear increase in global
> temperature and that human activity is responsible for it.
Well, here's today's news:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994321
I am sure parker will just call it a 'right-wing' publication
or something to dismiss it all.
> People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
> CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
> environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
> dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
> emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
> environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
> the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
> to protect it. Most industries have to prove the safety of their
> product, so why should some industries be exempt?
Have you, as a breathing human, puting CO2 into the atmosphere been
proven safe? CO2 is part of the carbon cycle on the planet, there's
nothing unsafe about it in and of itself. So the question becomes how much
CO2 being produced is too much if any? That's the question. With
regard to CO2 the products are safe, just as with regard to CO2
humans are safe. The question is do all these sources combined pose
a problem? Are the things that take CO2 from the air overwhelmed?
Will there be a balance point? etc etc etc. Do higher levels pose
a problem as well?
And that's the rub. that's where the *CONTROL* comes in. Where central
authority will control CO2 output and thusly practically everything.
> Oil and automobile industries will not be able to prove the safety of
> their product in the short term, which does not mean that we should
> all go back to horse carriages.
Then we'd have to regulate the CO2 output of the horses. (Because we'd
want to make sure more CO2 was being taken from the air than put back
in)
> It means that while there is
> reasonable suspicion that the emission of greenhouse gases can
> destabilize the global climate, the prudent response of society would
> be to limit such emissions until the repercussions are clearer.
> Corrective actions will be expensive which only proves that we are now
> not paying the full cost our life style - we are shifting this cost to
> future generations and this is not right. There is a bill to be paid
> and it is cheap to try to avoid paying it.
What it really gets down to is too many people. Not having enough
resources to go around will IMO constrain human activity earlier than
anything else.
> Climatic change is a tremendously complicated matter, but the basic
> tenets are given:
>
> CO2 is a greenhouse gas, i.e. it traps solar heat in the atmosphere.
> The modern world is spewing huge amounts of CO2 in the air.
> The atmospheric content of CO2 has risen some 30% in the last 50
> years. This is a huge amount for such a short time.
> Climate models predict a rise in average temperature if the
> atmospheric content of CO2 is significantly raised. Also it predicts
> that ice caps will start melting.
Climate models are based on temp rising with CO2 content. Just because
it comes out of a computer doesn't make it accurate or fact.
> Average worldwide temperature has risen in the last 50 years. Also,
> ice caps are thinning by 3% a decade since the 70s.
> These are facts. They are not conclusive. Some scientists believe
> that there may be other reasons for this temperature rise, or even
> that we are only observing a natural temperature variation. They may
> be right. Still, it is also a fact that the great majority of
> scientists believe that there is already a clear increase in global
> temperature and that human activity is responsible for it.
Well, here's today's news:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994321
I am sure parker will just call it a 'right-wing' publication
or something to dismiss it all.
> People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
> CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
> environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
> dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
> emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
> environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
> the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
> to protect it. Most industries have to prove the safety of their
> product, so why should some industries be exempt?
Have you, as a breathing human, puting CO2 into the atmosphere been
proven safe? CO2 is part of the carbon cycle on the planet, there's
nothing unsafe about it in and of itself. So the question becomes how much
CO2 being produced is too much if any? That's the question. With
regard to CO2 the products are safe, just as with regard to CO2
humans are safe. The question is do all these sources combined pose
a problem? Are the things that take CO2 from the air overwhelmed?
Will there be a balance point? etc etc etc. Do higher levels pose
a problem as well?
And that's the rub. that's where the *CONTROL* comes in. Where central
authority will control CO2 output and thusly practically everything.
> Oil and automobile industries will not be able to prove the safety of
> their product in the short term, which does not mean that we should
> all go back to horse carriages.
Then we'd have to regulate the CO2 output of the horses. (Because we'd
want to make sure more CO2 was being taken from the air than put back
in)
> It means that while there is
> reasonable suspicion that the emission of greenhouse gases can
> destabilize the global climate, the prudent response of society would
> be to limit such emissions until the repercussions are clearer.
> Corrective actions will be expensive which only proves that we are now
> not paying the full cost our life style - we are shifting this cost to
> future generations and this is not right. There is a bill to be paid
> and it is cheap to try to avoid paying it.
What it really gets down to is too many people. Not having enough
resources to go around will IMO constrain human activity earlier than
anything else.
#3036
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <5ac380ce.0311031151.38c36d1c@posting.google.com >, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> Climatic change is a tremendously complicated matter, but the basic
> tenets are given:
>
> CO2 is a greenhouse gas, i.e. it traps solar heat in the atmosphere.
> The modern world is spewing huge amounts of CO2 in the air.
> The atmospheric content of CO2 has risen some 30% in the last 50
> years. This is a huge amount for such a short time.
> Climate models predict a rise in average temperature if the
> atmospheric content of CO2 is significantly raised. Also it predicts
> that ice caps will start melting.
Climate models are based on temp rising with CO2 content. Just because
it comes out of a computer doesn't make it accurate or fact.
> Average worldwide temperature has risen in the last 50 years. Also,
> ice caps are thinning by 3% a decade since the 70s.
> These are facts. They are not conclusive. Some scientists believe
> that there may be other reasons for this temperature rise, or even
> that we are only observing a natural temperature variation. They may
> be right. Still, it is also a fact that the great majority of
> scientists believe that there is already a clear increase in global
> temperature and that human activity is responsible for it.
Well, here's today's news:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994321
I am sure parker will just call it a 'right-wing' publication
or something to dismiss it all.
> People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
> CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
> environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
> dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
> emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
> environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
> the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
> to protect it. Most industries have to prove the safety of their
> product, so why should some industries be exempt?
Have you, as a breathing human, puting CO2 into the atmosphere been
proven safe? CO2 is part of the carbon cycle on the planet, there's
nothing unsafe about it in and of itself. So the question becomes how much
CO2 being produced is too much if any? That's the question. With
regard to CO2 the products are safe, just as with regard to CO2
humans are safe. The question is do all these sources combined pose
a problem? Are the things that take CO2 from the air overwhelmed?
Will there be a balance point? etc etc etc. Do higher levels pose
a problem as well?
And that's the rub. that's where the *CONTROL* comes in. Where central
authority will control CO2 output and thusly practically everything.
> Oil and automobile industries will not be able to prove the safety of
> their product in the short term, which does not mean that we should
> all go back to horse carriages.
Then we'd have to regulate the CO2 output of the horses. (Because we'd
want to make sure more CO2 was being taken from the air than put back
in)
> It means that while there is
> reasonable suspicion that the emission of greenhouse gases can
> destabilize the global climate, the prudent response of society would
> be to limit such emissions until the repercussions are clearer.
> Corrective actions will be expensive which only proves that we are now
> not paying the full cost our life style - we are shifting this cost to
> future generations and this is not right. There is a bill to be paid
> and it is cheap to try to avoid paying it.
What it really gets down to is too many people. Not having enough
resources to go around will IMO constrain human activity earlier than
anything else.
> Climatic change is a tremendously complicated matter, but the basic
> tenets are given:
>
> CO2 is a greenhouse gas, i.e. it traps solar heat in the atmosphere.
> The modern world is spewing huge amounts of CO2 in the air.
> The atmospheric content of CO2 has risen some 30% in the last 50
> years. This is a huge amount for such a short time.
> Climate models predict a rise in average temperature if the
> atmospheric content of CO2 is significantly raised. Also it predicts
> that ice caps will start melting.
Climate models are based on temp rising with CO2 content. Just because
it comes out of a computer doesn't make it accurate or fact.
> Average worldwide temperature has risen in the last 50 years. Also,
> ice caps are thinning by 3% a decade since the 70s.
> These are facts. They are not conclusive. Some scientists believe
> that there may be other reasons for this temperature rise, or even
> that we are only observing a natural temperature variation. They may
> be right. Still, it is also a fact that the great majority of
> scientists believe that there is already a clear increase in global
> temperature and that human activity is responsible for it.
Well, here's today's news:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994321
I am sure parker will just call it a 'right-wing' publication
or something to dismiss it all.
> People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
> CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
> environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
> dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
> emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
> environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
> the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
> to protect it. Most industries have to prove the safety of their
> product, so why should some industries be exempt?
Have you, as a breathing human, puting CO2 into the atmosphere been
proven safe? CO2 is part of the carbon cycle on the planet, there's
nothing unsafe about it in and of itself. So the question becomes how much
CO2 being produced is too much if any? That's the question. With
regard to CO2 the products are safe, just as with regard to CO2
humans are safe. The question is do all these sources combined pose
a problem? Are the things that take CO2 from the air overwhelmed?
Will there be a balance point? etc etc etc. Do higher levels pose
a problem as well?
And that's the rub. that's where the *CONTROL* comes in. Where central
authority will control CO2 output and thusly practically everything.
> Oil and automobile industries will not be able to prove the safety of
> their product in the short term, which does not mean that we should
> all go back to horse carriages.
Then we'd have to regulate the CO2 output of the horses. (Because we'd
want to make sure more CO2 was being taken from the air than put back
in)
> It means that while there is
> reasonable suspicion that the emission of greenhouse gases can
> destabilize the global climate, the prudent response of society would
> be to limit such emissions until the repercussions are clearer.
> Corrective actions will be expensive which only proves that we are now
> not paying the full cost our life style - we are shifting this cost to
> future generations and this is not right. There is a bill to be paid
> and it is cheap to try to avoid paying it.
What it really gets down to is too many people. Not having enough
resources to go around will IMO constrain human activity earlier than
anything else.
#3037
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <5ac380ce.0311031151.38c36d1c@posting.google.com >, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> Climatic change is a tremendously complicated matter, but the basic
> tenets are given:
>
> CO2 is a greenhouse gas, i.e. it traps solar heat in the atmosphere.
> The modern world is spewing huge amounts of CO2 in the air.
> The atmospheric content of CO2 has risen some 30% in the last 50
> years. This is a huge amount for such a short time.
> Climate models predict a rise in average temperature if the
> atmospheric content of CO2 is significantly raised. Also it predicts
> that ice caps will start melting.
Climate models are based on temp rising with CO2 content. Just because
it comes out of a computer doesn't make it accurate or fact.
> Average worldwide temperature has risen in the last 50 years. Also,
> ice caps are thinning by 3% a decade since the 70s.
> These are facts. They are not conclusive. Some scientists believe
> that there may be other reasons for this temperature rise, or even
> that we are only observing a natural temperature variation. They may
> be right. Still, it is also a fact that the great majority of
> scientists believe that there is already a clear increase in global
> temperature and that human activity is responsible for it.
Well, here's today's news:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994321
I am sure parker will just call it a 'right-wing' publication
or something to dismiss it all.
> People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
> CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
> environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
> dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
> emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
> environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
> the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
> to protect it. Most industries have to prove the safety of their
> product, so why should some industries be exempt?
Have you, as a breathing human, puting CO2 into the atmosphere been
proven safe? CO2 is part of the carbon cycle on the planet, there's
nothing unsafe about it in and of itself. So the question becomes how much
CO2 being produced is too much if any? That's the question. With
regard to CO2 the products are safe, just as with regard to CO2
humans are safe. The question is do all these sources combined pose
a problem? Are the things that take CO2 from the air overwhelmed?
Will there be a balance point? etc etc etc. Do higher levels pose
a problem as well?
And that's the rub. that's where the *CONTROL* comes in. Where central
authority will control CO2 output and thusly practically everything.
> Oil and automobile industries will not be able to prove the safety of
> their product in the short term, which does not mean that we should
> all go back to horse carriages.
Then we'd have to regulate the CO2 output of the horses. (Because we'd
want to make sure more CO2 was being taken from the air than put back
in)
> It means that while there is
> reasonable suspicion that the emission of greenhouse gases can
> destabilize the global climate, the prudent response of society would
> be to limit such emissions until the repercussions are clearer.
> Corrective actions will be expensive which only proves that we are now
> not paying the full cost our life style - we are shifting this cost to
> future generations and this is not right. There is a bill to be paid
> and it is cheap to try to avoid paying it.
What it really gets down to is too many people. Not having enough
resources to go around will IMO constrain human activity earlier than
anything else.
> Climatic change is a tremendously complicated matter, but the basic
> tenets are given:
>
> CO2 is a greenhouse gas, i.e. it traps solar heat in the atmosphere.
> The modern world is spewing huge amounts of CO2 in the air.
> The atmospheric content of CO2 has risen some 30% in the last 50
> years. This is a huge amount for such a short time.
> Climate models predict a rise in average temperature if the
> atmospheric content of CO2 is significantly raised. Also it predicts
> that ice caps will start melting.
Climate models are based on temp rising with CO2 content. Just because
it comes out of a computer doesn't make it accurate or fact.
> Average worldwide temperature has risen in the last 50 years. Also,
> ice caps are thinning by 3% a decade since the 70s.
> These are facts. They are not conclusive. Some scientists believe
> that there may be other reasons for this temperature rise, or even
> that we are only observing a natural temperature variation. They may
> be right. Still, it is also a fact that the great majority of
> scientists believe that there is already a clear increase in global
> temperature and that human activity is responsible for it.
Well, here's today's news:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994321
I am sure parker will just call it a 'right-wing' publication
or something to dismiss it all.
> People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
> CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
> environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
> dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
> emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
> environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
> the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
> to protect it. Most industries have to prove the safety of their
> product, so why should some industries be exempt?
Have you, as a breathing human, puting CO2 into the atmosphere been
proven safe? CO2 is part of the carbon cycle on the planet, there's
nothing unsafe about it in and of itself. So the question becomes how much
CO2 being produced is too much if any? That's the question. With
regard to CO2 the products are safe, just as with regard to CO2
humans are safe. The question is do all these sources combined pose
a problem? Are the things that take CO2 from the air overwhelmed?
Will there be a balance point? etc etc etc. Do higher levels pose
a problem as well?
And that's the rub. that's where the *CONTROL* comes in. Where central
authority will control CO2 output and thusly practically everything.
> Oil and automobile industries will not be able to prove the safety of
> their product in the short term, which does not mean that we should
> all go back to horse carriages.
Then we'd have to regulate the CO2 output of the horses. (Because we'd
want to make sure more CO2 was being taken from the air than put back
in)
> It means that while there is
> reasonable suspicion that the emission of greenhouse gases can
> destabilize the global climate, the prudent response of society would
> be to limit such emissions until the repercussions are clearer.
> Corrective actions will be expensive which only proves that we are now
> not paying the full cost our life style - we are shifting this cost to
> future generations and this is not right. There is a bill to be paid
> and it is cheap to try to avoid paying it.
What it really gets down to is too many people. Not having enough
resources to go around will IMO constrain human activity earlier than
anything else.
#3038
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
I wasn't aware that morons were confined to one particular political party.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bnu1p902le1@enews3.newsguy.com...
[........]
> survive. Frankly, it's morons like this who vote for Democrats and believe
> in greenhouse gasses!
[.......]
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bnu1p902le1@enews3.newsguy.com...
[........]
> survive. Frankly, it's morons like this who vote for Democrats and believe
> in greenhouse gasses!
[.......]
#3039
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
I wasn't aware that morons were confined to one particular political party.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bnu1p902le1@enews3.newsguy.com...
[........]
> survive. Frankly, it's morons like this who vote for Democrats and believe
> in greenhouse gasses!
[.......]
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bnu1p902le1@enews3.newsguy.com...
[........]
> survive. Frankly, it's morons like this who vote for Democrats and believe
> in greenhouse gasses!
[.......]
#3040
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
I wasn't aware that morons were confined to one particular political party.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bnu1p902le1@enews3.newsguy.com...
[........]
> survive. Frankly, it's morons like this who vote for Democrats and believe
> in greenhouse gasses!
[.......]
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bnu1p902le1@enews3.newsguy.com...
[........]
> survive. Frankly, it's morons like this who vote for Democrats and believe
> in greenhouse gasses!
[.......]