Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3161
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bo8jlm$3lv$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>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.
> Why not read something a real scientific group says? IPCC, or EPA, or
> National Academy of Sciences? Afraid?
You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier. You know,
the one that shows there were statistical errors in Mann. Why not
parker? You've also neglected to reply to every branch of this thread
where I replied to you in favor of this tired old snipe? Affraid Parker?
Do you have something that shows that the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
is not a "real" scientific organization Dr. Parker? Affraid to prove your
assertions?
And what about you parker, still using consumer reports and road and
track over engineering journals? Are you affraid to read engineering
journals parker?
>>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.
> Arsenic is natural too; want to eat a pound of it?
Parker knows the truth, knows he cannot argue or dismiss my statement
so he pulls this lame debate tatic. Hey llyod go have a smoke in a pure
oxygen environment.
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>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.
> Why not read something a real scientific group says? IPCC, or EPA, or
> National Academy of Sciences? Afraid?
You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier. You know,
the one that shows there were statistical errors in Mann. Why not
parker? You've also neglected to reply to every branch of this thread
where I replied to you in favor of this tired old snipe? Affraid Parker?
Do you have something that shows that the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
is not a "real" scientific organization Dr. Parker? Affraid to prove your
assertions?
And what about you parker, still using consumer reports and road and
track over engineering journals? Are you affraid to read engineering
journals parker?
>>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.
> Arsenic is natural too; want to eat a pound of it?
Parker knows the truth, knows he cannot argue or dismiss my statement
so he pulls this lame debate tatic. Hey llyod go have a smoke in a pure
oxygen environment.
#3162
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bo8jlm$3lv$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>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.
> Why not read something a real scientific group says? IPCC, or EPA, or
> National Academy of Sciences? Afraid?
You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier. You know,
the one that shows there were statistical errors in Mann. Why not
parker? You've also neglected to reply to every branch of this thread
where I replied to you in favor of this tired old snipe? Affraid Parker?
Do you have something that shows that the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
is not a "real" scientific organization Dr. Parker? Affraid to prove your
assertions?
And what about you parker, still using consumer reports and road and
track over engineering journals? Are you affraid to read engineering
journals parker?
>>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.
> Arsenic is natural too; want to eat a pound of it?
Parker knows the truth, knows he cannot argue or dismiss my statement
so he pulls this lame debate tatic. Hey llyod go have a smoke in a pure
oxygen environment.
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>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.
> Why not read something a real scientific group says? IPCC, or EPA, or
> National Academy of Sciences? Afraid?
You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier. You know,
the one that shows there were statistical errors in Mann. Why not
parker? You've also neglected to reply to every branch of this thread
where I replied to you in favor of this tired old snipe? Affraid Parker?
Do you have something that shows that the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
is not a "real" scientific organization Dr. Parker? Affraid to prove your
assertions?
And what about you parker, still using consumer reports and road and
track over engineering journals? Are you affraid to read engineering
journals parker?
>>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.
> Arsenic is natural too; want to eat a pound of it?
Parker knows the truth, knows he cannot argue or dismiss my statement
so he pulls this lame debate tatic. Hey llyod go have a smoke in a pure
oxygen environment.
#3163
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bo8jlm$3lv$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>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.
> Why not read something a real scientific group says? IPCC, or EPA, or
> National Academy of Sciences? Afraid?
You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier. You know,
the one that shows there were statistical errors in Mann. Why not
parker? You've also neglected to reply to every branch of this thread
where I replied to you in favor of this tired old snipe? Affraid Parker?
Do you have something that shows that the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
is not a "real" scientific organization Dr. Parker? Affraid to prove your
assertions?
And what about you parker, still using consumer reports and road and
track over engineering journals? Are you affraid to read engineering
journals parker?
>>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.
> Arsenic is natural too; want to eat a pound of it?
Parker knows the truth, knows he cannot argue or dismiss my statement
so he pulls this lame debate tatic. Hey llyod go have a smoke in a pure
oxygen environment.
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>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.
> Why not read something a real scientific group says? IPCC, or EPA, or
> National Academy of Sciences? Afraid?
You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier. You know,
the one that shows there were statistical errors in Mann. Why not
parker? You've also neglected to reply to every branch of this thread
where I replied to you in favor of this tired old snipe? Affraid Parker?
Do you have something that shows that the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
is not a "real" scientific organization Dr. Parker? Affraid to prove your
assertions?
And what about you parker, still using consumer reports and road and
track over engineering journals? Are you affraid to read engineering
journals parker?
>>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.
> Arsenic is natural too; want to eat a pound of it?
Parker knows the truth, knows he cannot argue or dismiss my statement
so he pulls this lame debate tatic. Hey llyod go have a smoke in a pure
oxygen environment.
#3164
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> You're still clutching onto the old "popular vote" complaint Lloyd. We
didn't have a popular vote. There wasn't a popular election, so there's no
popular vote. Counting up the aggregate of individual state votes and
calling it a "popular vote" doesn't make it so. We've had this argument
before and you always ignore this pertinent fact. >
Well, first, Llyod prefers indictrination to facts. ;-) If we add up the
poopular vote Gore is ALLEGED to have won by around 500,000. I say alleged,
because the 2000 Presidential vote total was never verified. Had we NOT had
an Elctoral College, as of course we do, that 500,000 represented about 1/2
of 1 percent of the total vote, satistically insignificant and therefore it
would have necessitated a National recount. Given the corrupt Democrat
machines in the urban areas of the Country wher there political base is,
it's doubtful those 500,000 votes would have survived.
Nontheless, with the exception of Clinton's re-election in '96 the Democrats
have lost every major campaign since '94 and are now out of power and can
mount no effective opposition other than obstruction. Their recent hero,
Clinton, was a pragmatist and closet conservative, anything so long as it
got him power. So, other than the biggest tax increase in history, name ONE
major liberal adgenda item he either championed or got signed into law. You
can't, becuase he simply co-opted the conservatvive's popular agenda,
repackaged it and called it "progressive". After his stupid cigar tricks
even the women he gave wet panties to in '92 & '96 dropped his *** like a
bad habit.
>
didn't have a popular vote. There wasn't a popular election, so there's no
popular vote. Counting up the aggregate of individual state votes and
calling it a "popular vote" doesn't make it so. We've had this argument
before and you always ignore this pertinent fact. >
Well, first, Llyod prefers indictrination to facts. ;-) If we add up the
poopular vote Gore is ALLEGED to have won by around 500,000. I say alleged,
because the 2000 Presidential vote total was never verified. Had we NOT had
an Elctoral College, as of course we do, that 500,000 represented about 1/2
of 1 percent of the total vote, satistically insignificant and therefore it
would have necessitated a National recount. Given the corrupt Democrat
machines in the urban areas of the Country wher there political base is,
it's doubtful those 500,000 votes would have survived.
Nontheless, with the exception of Clinton's re-election in '96 the Democrats
have lost every major campaign since '94 and are now out of power and can
mount no effective opposition other than obstruction. Their recent hero,
Clinton, was a pragmatist and closet conservative, anything so long as it
got him power. So, other than the biggest tax increase in history, name ONE
major liberal adgenda item he either championed or got signed into law. You
can't, becuase he simply co-opted the conservatvive's popular agenda,
repackaged it and called it "progressive". After his stupid cigar tricks
even the women he gave wet panties to in '92 & '96 dropped his *** like a
bad habit.
>
#3165
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> You're still clutching onto the old "popular vote" complaint Lloyd. We
didn't have a popular vote. There wasn't a popular election, so there's no
popular vote. Counting up the aggregate of individual state votes and
calling it a "popular vote" doesn't make it so. We've had this argument
before and you always ignore this pertinent fact. >
Well, first, Llyod prefers indictrination to facts. ;-) If we add up the
poopular vote Gore is ALLEGED to have won by around 500,000. I say alleged,
because the 2000 Presidential vote total was never verified. Had we NOT had
an Elctoral College, as of course we do, that 500,000 represented about 1/2
of 1 percent of the total vote, satistically insignificant and therefore it
would have necessitated a National recount. Given the corrupt Democrat
machines in the urban areas of the Country wher there political base is,
it's doubtful those 500,000 votes would have survived.
Nontheless, with the exception of Clinton's re-election in '96 the Democrats
have lost every major campaign since '94 and are now out of power and can
mount no effective opposition other than obstruction. Their recent hero,
Clinton, was a pragmatist and closet conservative, anything so long as it
got him power. So, other than the biggest tax increase in history, name ONE
major liberal adgenda item he either championed or got signed into law. You
can't, becuase he simply co-opted the conservatvive's popular agenda,
repackaged it and called it "progressive". After his stupid cigar tricks
even the women he gave wet panties to in '92 & '96 dropped his *** like a
bad habit.
>
didn't have a popular vote. There wasn't a popular election, so there's no
popular vote. Counting up the aggregate of individual state votes and
calling it a "popular vote" doesn't make it so. We've had this argument
before and you always ignore this pertinent fact. >
Well, first, Llyod prefers indictrination to facts. ;-) If we add up the
poopular vote Gore is ALLEGED to have won by around 500,000. I say alleged,
because the 2000 Presidential vote total was never verified. Had we NOT had
an Elctoral College, as of course we do, that 500,000 represented about 1/2
of 1 percent of the total vote, satistically insignificant and therefore it
would have necessitated a National recount. Given the corrupt Democrat
machines in the urban areas of the Country wher there political base is,
it's doubtful those 500,000 votes would have survived.
Nontheless, with the exception of Clinton's re-election in '96 the Democrats
have lost every major campaign since '94 and are now out of power and can
mount no effective opposition other than obstruction. Their recent hero,
Clinton, was a pragmatist and closet conservative, anything so long as it
got him power. So, other than the biggest tax increase in history, name ONE
major liberal adgenda item he either championed or got signed into law. You
can't, becuase he simply co-opted the conservatvive's popular agenda,
repackaged it and called it "progressive". After his stupid cigar tricks
even the women he gave wet panties to in '92 & '96 dropped his *** like a
bad habit.
>
#3166
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> You're still clutching onto the old "popular vote" complaint Lloyd. We
didn't have a popular vote. There wasn't a popular election, so there's no
popular vote. Counting up the aggregate of individual state votes and
calling it a "popular vote" doesn't make it so. We've had this argument
before and you always ignore this pertinent fact. >
Well, first, Llyod prefers indictrination to facts. ;-) If we add up the
poopular vote Gore is ALLEGED to have won by around 500,000. I say alleged,
because the 2000 Presidential vote total was never verified. Had we NOT had
an Elctoral College, as of course we do, that 500,000 represented about 1/2
of 1 percent of the total vote, satistically insignificant and therefore it
would have necessitated a National recount. Given the corrupt Democrat
machines in the urban areas of the Country wher there political base is,
it's doubtful those 500,000 votes would have survived.
Nontheless, with the exception of Clinton's re-election in '96 the Democrats
have lost every major campaign since '94 and are now out of power and can
mount no effective opposition other than obstruction. Their recent hero,
Clinton, was a pragmatist and closet conservative, anything so long as it
got him power. So, other than the biggest tax increase in history, name ONE
major liberal adgenda item he either championed or got signed into law. You
can't, becuase he simply co-opted the conservatvive's popular agenda,
repackaged it and called it "progressive". After his stupid cigar tricks
even the women he gave wet panties to in '92 & '96 dropped his *** like a
bad habit.
>
didn't have a popular vote. There wasn't a popular election, so there's no
popular vote. Counting up the aggregate of individual state votes and
calling it a "popular vote" doesn't make it so. We've had this argument
before and you always ignore this pertinent fact. >
Well, first, Llyod prefers indictrination to facts. ;-) If we add up the
poopular vote Gore is ALLEGED to have won by around 500,000. I say alleged,
because the 2000 Presidential vote total was never verified. Had we NOT had
an Elctoral College, as of course we do, that 500,000 represented about 1/2
of 1 percent of the total vote, satistically insignificant and therefore it
would have necessitated a National recount. Given the corrupt Democrat
machines in the urban areas of the Country wher there political base is,
it's doubtful those 500,000 votes would have survived.
Nontheless, with the exception of Clinton's re-election in '96 the Democrats
have lost every major campaign since '94 and are now out of power and can
mount no effective opposition other than obstruction. Their recent hero,
Clinton, was a pragmatist and closet conservative, anything so long as it
got him power. So, other than the biggest tax increase in history, name ONE
major liberal adgenda item he either championed or got signed into law. You
can't, becuase he simply co-opted the conservatvive's popular agenda,
repackaged it and called it "progressive". After his stupid cigar tricks
even the women he gave wet panties to in '92 & '96 dropped his *** like a
bad habit.
>
#3167
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Joe wrote:
>
> "Nature doesn't extinguish fires started by lightening "
> if this were true, there would be no vegitation on the planet. It would
> have burned off long before humans showed up.
Yeah - well, see what happens if lightening strikes in the deserts of
California. BTW - when I was in San Diego last week, there were reports
on the news that a sheriff's helicopter in the air spotted the start of
one of the fires and radio'd for a water-dumping chopper that was
already in the air. It was 5 minutes past the curfew for the
helicopters to be allowed to fly, so they did not let the helicopter go
and dump water on the (at that moment) small fire. Only in California!
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#3168
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Joe wrote:
>
> "Nature doesn't extinguish fires started by lightening "
> if this were true, there would be no vegitation on the planet. It would
> have burned off long before humans showed up.
Yeah - well, see what happens if lightening strikes in the deserts of
California. BTW - when I was in San Diego last week, there were reports
on the news that a sheriff's helicopter in the air spotted the start of
one of the fires and radio'd for a water-dumping chopper that was
already in the air. It was 5 minutes past the curfew for the
helicopters to be allowed to fly, so they did not let the helicopter go
and dump water on the (at that moment) small fire. Only in California!
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#3169
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Joe wrote:
>
> "Nature doesn't extinguish fires started by lightening "
> if this were true, there would be no vegitation on the planet. It would
> have burned off long before humans showed up.
Yeah - well, see what happens if lightening strikes in the deserts of
California. BTW - when I was in San Diego last week, there were reports
on the news that a sheriff's helicopter in the air spotted the start of
one of the fires and radio'd for a water-dumping chopper that was
already in the air. It was 5 minutes past the curfew for the
helicopters to be allowed to fly, so they did not let the helicopter go
and dump water on the (at that moment) small fire. Only in California!
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#3170
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bo8tr4$dku$11@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier.
> Because it's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You know, the kind real
> scientists publish in.
Please provide proof that "Energy and Environment" is not a peer-reviewed
journal. But of course instead of addressing the actual paper,
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf, you decide to attack
where it's published. In other words, you once again put your politics
before science. A real scienist would find arguement with the work itself.
>>You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier.
> Because it's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You know, the kind real
> scientists publish in.
Please provide proof that "Energy and Environment" is not a peer-reviewed
journal. But of course instead of addressing the actual paper,
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf, you decide to attack
where it's published. In other words, you once again put your politics
before science. A real scienist would find arguement with the work itself.