Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3271
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> 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.
BrentP nails the issue once again!
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.
BrentP nails the issue once again!
#3272
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> The whole SUV/Greenhouse gases thing is a canard. <
Of course it is, but anyone even suggesting this becomes a
"right-winger".
> 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. >
Absolutely. Back then the left figured that by now they could have forced
everyone into micro-cars and mass transit.
Of course it is, but anyone even suggesting this becomes a
"right-winger".
> 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. >
Absolutely. Back then the left figured that by now they could have forced
everyone into micro-cars and mass transit.
#3273
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> The whole SUV/Greenhouse gases thing is a canard. <
Of course it is, but anyone even suggesting this becomes a
"right-winger".
> 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. >
Absolutely. Back then the left figured that by now they could have forced
everyone into micro-cars and mass transit.
Of course it is, but anyone even suggesting this becomes a
"right-winger".
> 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. >
Absolutely. Back then the left figured that by now they could have forced
everyone into micro-cars and mass transit.
#3274
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> The whole SUV/Greenhouse gases thing is a canard. <
Of course it is, but anyone even suggesting this becomes a
"right-winger".
> 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. >
Absolutely. Back then the left figured that by now they could have forced
everyone into micro-cars and mass transit.
Of course it is, but anyone even suggesting this becomes a
"right-winger".
> 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. >
Absolutely. Back then the left figured that by now they could have forced
everyone into micro-cars and mass transit.
#3275
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:m48qb.84211$9E1.419351@attbi_s52...
> In article <bob0ko$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.
Of course. As Parker says, real scientists are published, Lloyd is not
published. Lloyd is a wannabe scientist.
>
>
#3276
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:m48qb.84211$9E1.419351@attbi_s52...
> In article <bob0ko$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.
Of course. As Parker says, real scientists are published, Lloyd is not
published. Lloyd is a wannabe scientist.
>
>
#3277
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:m48qb.84211$9E1.419351@attbi_s52...
> In article <bob0ko$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.
Of course. As Parker says, real scientists are published, Lloyd is not
published. Lloyd is a wannabe scientist.
>
>
#3278
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
mid 1980s. <
Right, and to achieve this result mfrs had to "downsize" all their cars.
However this put drivers at much elevated risk of death & serious injury,
even the Clinton-era NHTSA reported findings that concluded the forced
downsizing resulted in the unnecessary deaths of nearly 20,000 people. They
concluded the increases in milage achieved by weight reduction could have
been easily achieved through powertrain management systems that by the time
of thewir report, 2000, were already in production. You cn stick the entire
fiasco on the backs of liberals like Hopward Metzenbaum of Ohio (who gave
us the 55 mph speed limit... remember THAT fiasco?) and that @$$#01e Joan
Claybrook.
>
>
mid 1980s. <
Right, and to achieve this result mfrs had to "downsize" all their cars.
However this put drivers at much elevated risk of death & serious injury,
even the Clinton-era NHTSA reported findings that concluded the forced
downsizing resulted in the unnecessary deaths of nearly 20,000 people. They
concluded the increases in milage achieved by weight reduction could have
been easily achieved through powertrain management systems that by the time
of thewir report, 2000, were already in production. You cn stick the entire
fiasco on the backs of liberals like Hopward Metzenbaum of Ohio (who gave
us the 55 mph speed limit... remember THAT fiasco?) and that @$$#01e Joan
Claybrook.
>
>
#3279
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
mid 1980s. <
Right, and to achieve this result mfrs had to "downsize" all their cars.
However this put drivers at much elevated risk of death & serious injury,
even the Clinton-era NHTSA reported findings that concluded the forced
downsizing resulted in the unnecessary deaths of nearly 20,000 people. They
concluded the increases in milage achieved by weight reduction could have
been easily achieved through powertrain management systems that by the time
of thewir report, 2000, were already in production. You cn stick the entire
fiasco on the backs of liberals like Hopward Metzenbaum of Ohio (who gave
us the 55 mph speed limit... remember THAT fiasco?) and that @$$#01e Joan
Claybrook.
>
>
mid 1980s. <
Right, and to achieve this result mfrs had to "downsize" all their cars.
However this put drivers at much elevated risk of death & serious injury,
even the Clinton-era NHTSA reported findings that concluded the forced
downsizing resulted in the unnecessary deaths of nearly 20,000 people. They
concluded the increases in milage achieved by weight reduction could have
been easily achieved through powertrain management systems that by the time
of thewir report, 2000, were already in production. You cn stick the entire
fiasco on the backs of liberals like Hopward Metzenbaum of Ohio (who gave
us the 55 mph speed limit... remember THAT fiasco?) and that @$$#01e Joan
Claybrook.
>
>
#3280
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
mid 1980s. <
Right, and to achieve this result mfrs had to "downsize" all their cars.
However this put drivers at much elevated risk of death & serious injury,
even the Clinton-era NHTSA reported findings that concluded the forced
downsizing resulted in the unnecessary deaths of nearly 20,000 people. They
concluded the increases in milage achieved by weight reduction could have
been easily achieved through powertrain management systems that by the time
of thewir report, 2000, were already in production. You cn stick the entire
fiasco on the backs of liberals like Hopward Metzenbaum of Ohio (who gave
us the 55 mph speed limit... remember THAT fiasco?) and that @$$#01e Joan
Claybrook.
>
>
mid 1980s. <
Right, and to achieve this result mfrs had to "downsize" all their cars.
However this put drivers at much elevated risk of death & serious injury,
even the Clinton-era NHTSA reported findings that concluded the forced
downsizing resulted in the unnecessary deaths of nearly 20,000 people. They
concluded the increases in milage achieved by weight reduction could have
been easily achieved through powertrain management systems that by the time
of thewir report, 2000, were already in production. You cn stick the entire
fiasco on the backs of liberals like Hopward Metzenbaum of Ohio (who gave
us the 55 mph speed limit... remember THAT fiasco?) and that @$$#01e Joan
Claybrook.
>
>