Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3211
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.
OK, you got me. I should have said something like "nature lets fires burn until
rain storms put them out and doesn't fight them just becasue they are in
national forests or near populated areas or becasue they dump lots of pollution
into the environment." But I bet you understood what I menat in the first
place....didn't you?
Ed
#3212
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bob0ko$s2a$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <iSTpb.107445$e01.369342@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bo8tr4$dku$11@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier.
>>> Because it's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You know, the kind real
>>> scientists publish in.
>>Please provide proof that "Energy and Environment" is not a peer-reviewed
>>journal.
> Go to their web site and read about it.
I have. where is your evidence that papers published by them are not
reviewed?
But just in case you were wondering parker, we already know about
this specific paper:
"When asked about the paper, which had undergone review by other
scientists before being published, Mann said he had heard about it but
had not seen it."
(http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/2...9/5631011s.htm)
>>But of course instead of addressing the actual paper,
>>http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf, you decide to attack
>>where it's published. In other words, you once again put your politics
>>before science. A real scienist would find arguement with the work itself.
No response from parker, of course.
> In article <iSTpb.107445$e01.369342@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bo8tr4$dku$11@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier.
>>> Because it's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You know, the kind real
>>> scientists publish in.
>>Please provide proof that "Energy and Environment" is not a peer-reviewed
>>journal.
> Go to their web site and read about it.
I have. where is your evidence that papers published by them are not
reviewed?
But just in case you were wondering parker, we already know about
this specific paper:
"When asked about the paper, which had undergone review by other
scientists before being published, Mann said he had heard about it but
had not seen it."
(http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/2...9/5631011s.htm)
>>But of course instead of addressing the actual paper,
>>http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf, you decide to attack
>>where it's published. In other words, you once again put your politics
>>before science. A real scienist would find arguement with the work itself.
No response from parker, of course.
#3213
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bob0ko$s2a$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <iSTpb.107445$e01.369342@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bo8tr4$dku$11@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier.
>>> Because it's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You know, the kind real
>>> scientists publish in.
>>Please provide proof that "Energy and Environment" is not a peer-reviewed
>>journal.
> Go to their web site and read about it.
I have. where is your evidence that papers published by them are not
reviewed?
But just in case you were wondering parker, we already know about
this specific paper:
"When asked about the paper, which had undergone review by other
scientists before being published, Mann said he had heard about it but
had not seen it."
(http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/2...9/5631011s.htm)
>>But of course instead of addressing the actual paper,
>>http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf, you decide to attack
>>where it's published. In other words, you once again put your politics
>>before science. A real scienist would find arguement with the work itself.
No response from parker, of course.
> In article <iSTpb.107445$e01.369342@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bo8tr4$dku$11@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier.
>>> Because it's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You know, the kind real
>>> scientists publish in.
>>Please provide proof that "Energy and Environment" is not a peer-reviewed
>>journal.
> Go to their web site and read about it.
I have. where is your evidence that papers published by them are not
reviewed?
But just in case you were wondering parker, we already know about
this specific paper:
"When asked about the paper, which had undergone review by other
scientists before being published, Mann said he had heard about it but
had not seen it."
(http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/2...9/5631011s.htm)
>>But of course instead of addressing the actual paper,
>>http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf, you decide to attack
>>where it's published. In other words, you once again put your politics
>>before science. A real scienist would find arguement with the work itself.
No response from parker, of course.
#3214
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bob0ko$s2a$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <iSTpb.107445$e01.369342@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bo8tr4$dku$11@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier.
>>> Because it's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You know, the kind real
>>> scientists publish in.
>>Please provide proof that "Energy and Environment" is not a peer-reviewed
>>journal.
> Go to their web site and read about it.
I have. where is your evidence that papers published by them are not
reviewed?
But just in case you were wondering parker, we already know about
this specific paper:
"When asked about the paper, which had undergone review by other
scientists before being published, Mann said he had heard about it but
had not seen it."
(http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/2...9/5631011s.htm)
>>But of course instead of addressing the actual paper,
>>http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf, you decide to attack
>>where it's published. In other words, you once again put your politics
>>before science. A real scienist would find arguement with the work itself.
No response from parker, of course.
> In article <iSTpb.107445$e01.369342@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>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.
> Go to their web site and read about it.
I have. where is your evidence that papers published by them are not
reviewed?
But just in case you were wondering parker, we already know about
this specific paper:
"When asked about the paper, which had undergone review by other
scientists before being published, Mann said he had heard about it but
had not seen it."
(http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/2...9/5631011s.htm)
>>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.
No response from parker, of course.
#3215
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> OK, ask the middle class <<
And, who might the "middle class" be Lloyd? By the tax code the liar
Clinton and the Democrats rammed down everyone's throats, anyone making $50k
a year is Rich"! We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
middle class tax cut. As soon as the worm got elected he promptly went on TV
and abandoned it, then signed into law the biggest tax increase in history.
> if they want college grants and scholarships cut. If they want their
parents' Medicare and Medicaid benefits cut. If they want workplace safety
not enforced. If they want no meat inspections. If they want to eliminate
prisons, or aid to local schools, or law enforcement.>
This rant is precisely why the Liberals are out of power, everyone (even the
elderly) see through these typical Liberal scare tactics and lies. Fact is,
all these people know to do is create more useless Federal agancies, fill
them full of lazy-*** patronage workers and pause taxts to pay for it all.
And, who might the "middle class" be Lloyd? By the tax code the liar
Clinton and the Democrats rammed down everyone's throats, anyone making $50k
a year is Rich"! We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
middle class tax cut. As soon as the worm got elected he promptly went on TV
and abandoned it, then signed into law the biggest tax increase in history.
> if they want college grants and scholarships cut. If they want their
parents' Medicare and Medicaid benefits cut. If they want workplace safety
not enforced. If they want no meat inspections. If they want to eliminate
prisons, or aid to local schools, or law enforcement.>
This rant is precisely why the Liberals are out of power, everyone (even the
elderly) see through these typical Liberal scare tactics and lies. Fact is,
all these people know to do is create more useless Federal agancies, fill
them full of lazy-*** patronage workers and pause taxts to pay for it all.
#3216
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> OK, ask the middle class <<
And, who might the "middle class" be Lloyd? By the tax code the liar
Clinton and the Democrats rammed down everyone's throats, anyone making $50k
a year is Rich"! We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
middle class tax cut. As soon as the worm got elected he promptly went on TV
and abandoned it, then signed into law the biggest tax increase in history.
> if they want college grants and scholarships cut. If they want their
parents' Medicare and Medicaid benefits cut. If they want workplace safety
not enforced. If they want no meat inspections. If they want to eliminate
prisons, or aid to local schools, or law enforcement.>
This rant is precisely why the Liberals are out of power, everyone (even the
elderly) see through these typical Liberal scare tactics and lies. Fact is,
all these people know to do is create more useless Federal agancies, fill
them full of lazy-*** patronage workers and pause taxts to pay for it all.
And, who might the "middle class" be Lloyd? By the tax code the liar
Clinton and the Democrats rammed down everyone's throats, anyone making $50k
a year is Rich"! We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
middle class tax cut. As soon as the worm got elected he promptly went on TV
and abandoned it, then signed into law the biggest tax increase in history.
> if they want college grants and scholarships cut. If they want their
parents' Medicare and Medicaid benefits cut. If they want workplace safety
not enforced. If they want no meat inspections. If they want to eliminate
prisons, or aid to local schools, or law enforcement.>
This rant is precisely why the Liberals are out of power, everyone (even the
elderly) see through these typical Liberal scare tactics and lies. Fact is,
all these people know to do is create more useless Federal agancies, fill
them full of lazy-*** patronage workers and pause taxts to pay for it all.
#3217
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> OK, ask the middle class <<
And, who might the "middle class" be Lloyd? By the tax code the liar
Clinton and the Democrats rammed down everyone's throats, anyone making $50k
a year is Rich"! We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
middle class tax cut. As soon as the worm got elected he promptly went on TV
and abandoned it, then signed into law the biggest tax increase in history.
> if they want college grants and scholarships cut. If they want their
parents' Medicare and Medicaid benefits cut. If they want workplace safety
not enforced. If they want no meat inspections. If they want to eliminate
prisons, or aid to local schools, or law enforcement.>
This rant is precisely why the Liberals are out of power, everyone (even the
elderly) see through these typical Liberal scare tactics and lies. Fact is,
all these people know to do is create more useless Federal agancies, fill
them full of lazy-*** patronage workers and pause taxts to pay for it all.
And, who might the "middle class" be Lloyd? By the tax code the liar
Clinton and the Democrats rammed down everyone's throats, anyone making $50k
a year is Rich"! We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
middle class tax cut. As soon as the worm got elected he promptly went on TV
and abandoned it, then signed into law the biggest tax increase in history.
> if they want college grants and scholarships cut. If they want their
parents' Medicare and Medicaid benefits cut. If they want workplace safety
not enforced. If they want no meat inspections. If they want to eliminate
prisons, or aid to local schools, or law enforcement.>
This rant is precisely why the Liberals are out of power, everyone (even the
elderly) see through these typical Liberal scare tactics and lies. Fact is,
all these people know to do is create more useless Federal agancies, fill
them full of lazy-*** patronage workers and pause taxts to pay for it all.
#3218
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> >> >
> >> >
> >> I doubt many agree with you and your fascist buddies either.
> >
> >Do you even know what a fascist is Lloyd?
> >
> >
> Yes, but you right-wingers obviously do not know what a socialist is.
Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government as
able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
systems. That puts both of them on the opposite side of conservatism where
government is limited precisely because of it's belief in God given,
individual, indivisible, inalienable rights that government as no
jurisdiction over. Fascism and Socialism both reject that notion as
government is the vehicle to compel their values on people.
Democrats are in a constant dance on the edge of socialism. Their values
include rejecting the unfairness of their being a large disparity between
rich and poor, which isn't a bad value.... but their answer is to use
government to compel "charity" or the "transfer of wealth" through taxes.
The effort includes finding "rights" to justify this, like rights to
employment, rights to minimum wages, rights of healthcare, rights to
shelter, right to education, ad infinitum, which rights have to be "found"
in the constitution via "activist", "progressive" judges.
> >> >
> >> I doubt many agree with you and your fascist buddies either.
> >
> >Do you even know what a fascist is Lloyd?
> >
> >
> Yes, but you right-wingers obviously do not know what a socialist is.
Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government as
able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
systems. That puts both of them on the opposite side of conservatism where
government is limited precisely because of it's belief in God given,
individual, indivisible, inalienable rights that government as no
jurisdiction over. Fascism and Socialism both reject that notion as
government is the vehicle to compel their values on people.
Democrats are in a constant dance on the edge of socialism. Their values
include rejecting the unfairness of their being a large disparity between
rich and poor, which isn't a bad value.... but their answer is to use
government to compel "charity" or the "transfer of wealth" through taxes.
The effort includes finding "rights" to justify this, like rights to
employment, rights to minimum wages, rights of healthcare, rights to
shelter, right to education, ad infinitum, which rights have to be "found"
in the constitution via "activist", "progressive" judges.
#3219
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> >> >
> >> >
> >> I doubt many agree with you and your fascist buddies either.
> >
> >Do you even know what a fascist is Lloyd?
> >
> >
> Yes, but you right-wingers obviously do not know what a socialist is.
Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government as
able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
systems. That puts both of them on the opposite side of conservatism where
government is limited precisely because of it's belief in God given,
individual, indivisible, inalienable rights that government as no
jurisdiction over. Fascism and Socialism both reject that notion as
government is the vehicle to compel their values on people.
Democrats are in a constant dance on the edge of socialism. Their values
include rejecting the unfairness of their being a large disparity between
rich and poor, which isn't a bad value.... but their answer is to use
government to compel "charity" or the "transfer of wealth" through taxes.
The effort includes finding "rights" to justify this, like rights to
employment, rights to minimum wages, rights of healthcare, rights to
shelter, right to education, ad infinitum, which rights have to be "found"
in the constitution via "activist", "progressive" judges.
> >> >
> >> I doubt many agree with you and your fascist buddies either.
> >
> >Do you even know what a fascist is Lloyd?
> >
> >
> Yes, but you right-wingers obviously do not know what a socialist is.
Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government as
able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
systems. That puts both of them on the opposite side of conservatism where
government is limited precisely because of it's belief in God given,
individual, indivisible, inalienable rights that government as no
jurisdiction over. Fascism and Socialism both reject that notion as
government is the vehicle to compel their values on people.
Democrats are in a constant dance on the edge of socialism. Their values
include rejecting the unfairness of their being a large disparity between
rich and poor, which isn't a bad value.... but their answer is to use
government to compel "charity" or the "transfer of wealth" through taxes.
The effort includes finding "rights" to justify this, like rights to
employment, rights to minimum wages, rights of healthcare, rights to
shelter, right to education, ad infinitum, which rights have to be "found"
in the constitution via "activist", "progressive" judges.
#3220
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> >> >
> >> >
> >> I doubt many agree with you and your fascist buddies either.
> >
> >Do you even know what a fascist is Lloyd?
> >
> >
> Yes, but you right-wingers obviously do not know what a socialist is.
Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government as
able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
systems. That puts both of them on the opposite side of conservatism where
government is limited precisely because of it's belief in God given,
individual, indivisible, inalienable rights that government as no
jurisdiction over. Fascism and Socialism both reject that notion as
government is the vehicle to compel their values on people.
Democrats are in a constant dance on the edge of socialism. Their values
include rejecting the unfairness of their being a large disparity between
rich and poor, which isn't a bad value.... but their answer is to use
government to compel "charity" or the "transfer of wealth" through taxes.
The effort includes finding "rights" to justify this, like rights to
employment, rights to minimum wages, rights of healthcare, rights to
shelter, right to education, ad infinitum, which rights have to be "found"
in the constitution via "activist", "progressive" judges.
> >> >
> >> I doubt many agree with you and your fascist buddies either.
> >
> >Do you even know what a fascist is Lloyd?
> >
> >
> Yes, but you right-wingers obviously do not know what a socialist is.
Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government as
able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
systems. That puts both of them on the opposite side of conservatism where
government is limited precisely because of it's belief in God given,
individual, indivisible, inalienable rights that government as no
jurisdiction over. Fascism and Socialism both reject that notion as
government is the vehicle to compel their values on people.
Democrats are in a constant dance on the edge of socialism. Their values
include rejecting the unfairness of their being a large disparity between
rich and poor, which isn't a bad value.... but their answer is to use
government to compel "charity" or the "transfer of wealth" through taxes.
The effort includes finding "rights" to justify this, like rights to
employment, rights to minimum wages, rights of healthcare, rights to
shelter, right to education, ad infinitum, which rights have to be "found"
in the constitution via "activist", "progressive" judges.