Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3241
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FA900DF.A19031A2@mindspring.com...
>
>
> 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
>
What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into the
air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any thinning
of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and contributing
to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.
#3242
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <hNbqb.10739$9M3.9268@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>, FDRanger92 wrote:
> What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into the
> air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any thinning
> of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and contributing
> to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
> truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.
You forget, it's the source and location of the CO2 that matters in
the political arguement. Not that it simply takes from a carbon sink
and releases CO2 to the atmosphere. A forest fire produces good CO2. An
automobile in the USA produces bad CO2. A factory in China produces good
CO2. A factory in the USA produces bad CO2. A tractor on a farm in the USA
produces bad CO2. A coal fired electric plant in china produces good
CO2. And on and on.
I'll believe that CO2 is bad when people promoting CO2 limitations
start being consistant and being against all CO2 production (where carbon
is moved from sink like a tree or fossil fuel into the atmosphere due
to human causes), not just the production that doesn't agree with their
politics.
> What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into the
> air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any thinning
> of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and contributing
> to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
> truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.
You forget, it's the source and location of the CO2 that matters in
the political arguement. Not that it simply takes from a carbon sink
and releases CO2 to the atmosphere. A forest fire produces good CO2. An
automobile in the USA produces bad CO2. A factory in China produces good
CO2. A factory in the USA produces bad CO2. A tractor on a farm in the USA
produces bad CO2. A coal fired electric plant in china produces good
CO2. And on and on.
I'll believe that CO2 is bad when people promoting CO2 limitations
start being consistant and being against all CO2 production (where carbon
is moved from sink like a tree or fossil fuel into the atmosphere due
to human causes), not just the production that doesn't agree with their
politics.
#3243
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <hNbqb.10739$9M3.9268@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>, FDRanger92 wrote:
> What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into the
> air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any thinning
> of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and contributing
> to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
> truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.
You forget, it's the source and location of the CO2 that matters in
the political arguement. Not that it simply takes from a carbon sink
and releases CO2 to the atmosphere. A forest fire produces good CO2. An
automobile in the USA produces bad CO2. A factory in China produces good
CO2. A factory in the USA produces bad CO2. A tractor on a farm in the USA
produces bad CO2. A coal fired electric plant in china produces good
CO2. And on and on.
I'll believe that CO2 is bad when people promoting CO2 limitations
start being consistant and being against all CO2 production (where carbon
is moved from sink like a tree or fossil fuel into the atmosphere due
to human causes), not just the production that doesn't agree with their
politics.
> What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into the
> air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any thinning
> of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and contributing
> to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
> truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.
You forget, it's the source and location of the CO2 that matters in
the political arguement. Not that it simply takes from a carbon sink
and releases CO2 to the atmosphere. A forest fire produces good CO2. An
automobile in the USA produces bad CO2. A factory in China produces good
CO2. A factory in the USA produces bad CO2. A tractor on a farm in the USA
produces bad CO2. A coal fired electric plant in china produces good
CO2. And on and on.
I'll believe that CO2 is bad when people promoting CO2 limitations
start being consistant and being against all CO2 production (where carbon
is moved from sink like a tree or fossil fuel into the atmosphere due
to human causes), not just the production that doesn't agree with their
politics.
#3244
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <hNbqb.10739$9M3.9268@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>, FDRanger92 wrote:
> What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into the
> air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any thinning
> of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and contributing
> to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
> truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.
You forget, it's the source and location of the CO2 that matters in
the political arguement. Not that it simply takes from a carbon sink
and releases CO2 to the atmosphere. A forest fire produces good CO2. An
automobile in the USA produces bad CO2. A factory in China produces good
CO2. A factory in the USA produces bad CO2. A tractor on a farm in the USA
produces bad CO2. A coal fired electric plant in china produces good
CO2. And on and on.
I'll believe that CO2 is bad when people promoting CO2 limitations
start being consistant and being against all CO2 production (where carbon
is moved from sink like a tree or fossil fuel into the atmosphere due
to human causes), not just the production that doesn't agree with their
politics.
> What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into the
> air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any thinning
> of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and contributing
> to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
> truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.
You forget, it's the source and location of the CO2 that matters in
the political arguement. Not that it simply takes from a carbon sink
and releases CO2 to the atmosphere. A forest fire produces good CO2. An
automobile in the USA produces bad CO2. A factory in China produces good
CO2. A factory in the USA produces bad CO2. A tractor on a farm in the USA
produces bad CO2. A coal fired electric plant in china produces good
CO2. And on and on.
I'll believe that CO2 is bad when people promoting CO2 limitations
start being consistant and being against all CO2 production (where carbon
is moved from sink like a tree or fossil fuel into the atmosphere due
to human causes), not just the production that doesn't agree with their
politics.
#3245
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
> >
>
> What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into the
> air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any
thinning
> of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and contributing
> to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
> truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.
>
>
I was thinking the same thing when I went out to get the paper on Sunday
morning and saw plumes of smoke the size of thunderheads all the way across
the horizon. There aren't enough SUV's in the world.... NO!.... in history
to put out the amount of greenhouse gases being released in one day! The
whole SUV/Greenhouse gases thing is a canard.
Ironically, one of the reasons SUV's are so popular is the supply of large
cars with powerful engines were so restricted starting with the1973 CAFE
regulations.
#3246
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
> >
>
> What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into the
> air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any
thinning
> of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and contributing
> to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
> truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.
>
>
I was thinking the same thing when I went out to get the paper on Sunday
morning and saw plumes of smoke the size of thunderheads all the way across
the horizon. There aren't enough SUV's in the world.... NO!.... in history
to put out the amount of greenhouse gases being released in one day! The
whole SUV/Greenhouse gases thing is a canard.
Ironically, one of the reasons SUV's are so popular is the supply of large
cars with powerful engines were so restricted starting with the1973 CAFE
regulations.
#3247
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
> >
>
> What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into the
> air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any
thinning
> of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and contributing
> to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
> truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.
>
>
I was thinking the same thing when I went out to get the paper on Sunday
morning and saw plumes of smoke the size of thunderheads all the way across
the horizon. There aren't enough SUV's in the world.... NO!.... in history
to put out the amount of greenhouse gases being released in one day! The
whole SUV/Greenhouse gases thing is a canard.
Ironically, one of the reasons SUV's are so popular is the supply of large
cars with powerful engines were so restricted starting with the1973 CAFE
regulations.
#3248
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <Sicqb.54272$Ub4.8985@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:
> Ironically, one of the reasons SUV's are so popular is the supply of large
> cars with powerful engines were so restricted starting with the1973 CAFE
> regulations.
1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
mid 1980s.
> Ironically, one of the reasons SUV's are so popular is the supply of large
> cars with powerful engines were so restricted starting with the1973 CAFE
> regulations.
1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
mid 1980s.
#3249
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <Sicqb.54272$Ub4.8985@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:
> Ironically, one of the reasons SUV's are so popular is the supply of large
> cars with powerful engines were so restricted starting with the1973 CAFE
> regulations.
1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
mid 1980s.
> Ironically, one of the reasons SUV's are so popular is the supply of large
> cars with powerful engines were so restricted starting with the1973 CAFE
> regulations.
1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
mid 1980s.
#3250
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <Sicqb.54272$Ub4.8985@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:
> Ironically, one of the reasons SUV's are so popular is the supply of large
> cars with powerful engines were so restricted starting with the1973 CAFE
> regulations.
1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
mid 1980s.
> Ironically, one of the reasons SUV's are so popular is the supply of large
> cars with powerful engines were so restricted starting with the1973 CAFE
> regulations.
1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
mid 1980s.