Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3621
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:boeqp202ha5@enews2.newsguy.com...
> > Thank heaven for a Republican congress and for the fact that Clinton was
> less devoted to liberalism (tax & spend) than he was to staying in power.
Of
> course we can't forget that that much of that booming economy was built on
> unsound economic principles, like speculation and overstated earnings.
What
> did he call it? Irrational exhuberance! <
>
> Actually it was Greenspan that called it "irrational exuberance", for
which
> the Clintonites roundly condemned him...
>
> We can also note that the Enron, Tyco, Worldcom & Global Crossing scams
ALL
> occured during the Clinton Presidency.....Oh, how Lloyd hopes we'll all
> blame it on Bush....
>
I actually was infering Greenspan, but didn't make it clear. And Lloyd
already has blamed it on Bush. His argument says Wall Streets anticipation
of a Bush presidency is what caused the market decline. We all know how
Democrats are good for business and Republicans are bad for business :-D
They love those higher taxes and tougher regulations and product liability
lawsuits!
Oh, and some of us remember 4 years of Carter and 8 years of Reagan.
#3622
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:boeqp202ha5@enews2.newsguy.com...
> > Thank heaven for a Republican congress and for the fact that Clinton was
> less devoted to liberalism (tax & spend) than he was to staying in power.
Of
> course we can't forget that that much of that booming economy was built on
> unsound economic principles, like speculation and overstated earnings.
What
> did he call it? Irrational exhuberance! <
>
> Actually it was Greenspan that called it "irrational exuberance", for
which
> the Clintonites roundly condemned him...
>
> We can also note that the Enron, Tyco, Worldcom & Global Crossing scams
ALL
> occured during the Clinton Presidency.....Oh, how Lloyd hopes we'll all
> blame it on Bush....
>
I actually was infering Greenspan, but didn't make it clear. And Lloyd
already has blamed it on Bush. His argument says Wall Streets anticipation
of a Bush presidency is what caused the market decline. We all know how
Democrats are good for business and Republicans are bad for business :-D
They love those higher taxes and tougher regulations and product liability
lawsuits!
Oh, and some of us remember 4 years of Carter and 8 years of Reagan.
#3623
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vqm35kmsssh84a@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:lKBqb.108210$ZH4.85369@twister.socal.rr.com.. .
> >
> > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> > news:boe681$i0q$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > > In article <66mqb.54771$Ub4.47968@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> > > "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> > > >Thanks! Of course these are old arguments. Lloyd's arguments look
> like
> > > >cut/paste jobs from previous posts he's made. He always says the
same
> > thing
> > > >over and over. And he always degenerates to name calling....
> > > >"right-winger", "fascist", "hate-monger", etc.
> > >
> > > Only when your side starts with the "socialist" or "communist" name
> > calling.
> > >
> > Ok. I'll hold you to that.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >or self-agrandizement being
> > > >that he's such an intelligent guy....Phd and all.... "What are YOUR
> > > >credentials?" or "Take a science class!".
> > >
> > > If you're going to challenge established science, you need some
> expertise.
> > >
> >
> > Face it Lloyd. There is no expertise that comes from taking a "science
> > course", whatever that is. The only course I've seen called "science"
is
> at
> > my daughters middle school. Heck, I took 5 quarters of physics... not
> just
> > physics, but Berkely Physics... in college and that certainly didn't
make
> me
> > an expert in physics.
> >
> > In many areas, there is no level of expertise that gets to the real
> answers,
> > i.e, there's more we don't know that we do know; there's no
"established
> > science" yet; or it's wrong. Just because one can wave a degree in
> > "science" around doesn't give you a level of expertise required to know
> the
> > answers to questions like global warming or economics or whatever.
> >
> > For you to generalize your expertise because you have a phd is like
> > presuming there's money in your account because you have checks. The
> Phd's
> > I've worked with are usually people who have expertise in narrow,
focused
> > areas. For them to claim expertise in any other area is like writing a
> > check on an account with insufficient funds.
>
>
> You've described LP to a T. He knows a little Chemistry, that does not
make
> him an expert on any of the subjects he claims to know all about. Someday
I
> really must write Emory a letter concerning our good Doctor Lloyd, let
them
> in on how much he has damaged their reputation with his -------- posting.
>
>
Or how much time he spends posting on usenet during work hours.
#3624
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vqm35kmsssh84a@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:lKBqb.108210$ZH4.85369@twister.socal.rr.com.. .
> >
> > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> > news:boe681$i0q$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > > In article <66mqb.54771$Ub4.47968@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> > > "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> > > >Thanks! Of course these are old arguments. Lloyd's arguments look
> like
> > > >cut/paste jobs from previous posts he's made. He always says the
same
> > thing
> > > >over and over. And he always degenerates to name calling....
> > > >"right-winger", "fascist", "hate-monger", etc.
> > >
> > > Only when your side starts with the "socialist" or "communist" name
> > calling.
> > >
> > Ok. I'll hold you to that.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >or self-agrandizement being
> > > >that he's such an intelligent guy....Phd and all.... "What are YOUR
> > > >credentials?" or "Take a science class!".
> > >
> > > If you're going to challenge established science, you need some
> expertise.
> > >
> >
> > Face it Lloyd. There is no expertise that comes from taking a "science
> > course", whatever that is. The only course I've seen called "science"
is
> at
> > my daughters middle school. Heck, I took 5 quarters of physics... not
> just
> > physics, but Berkely Physics... in college and that certainly didn't
make
> me
> > an expert in physics.
> >
> > In many areas, there is no level of expertise that gets to the real
> answers,
> > i.e, there's more we don't know that we do know; there's no
"established
> > science" yet; or it's wrong. Just because one can wave a degree in
> > "science" around doesn't give you a level of expertise required to know
> the
> > answers to questions like global warming or economics or whatever.
> >
> > For you to generalize your expertise because you have a phd is like
> > presuming there's money in your account because you have checks. The
> Phd's
> > I've worked with are usually people who have expertise in narrow,
focused
> > areas. For them to claim expertise in any other area is like writing a
> > check on an account with insufficient funds.
>
>
> You've described LP to a T. He knows a little Chemistry, that does not
make
> him an expert on any of the subjects he claims to know all about. Someday
I
> really must write Emory a letter concerning our good Doctor Lloyd, let
them
> in on how much he has damaged their reputation with his -------- posting.
>
>
Or how much time he spends posting on usenet during work hours.
#3625
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vqm35kmsssh84a@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:lKBqb.108210$ZH4.85369@twister.socal.rr.com.. .
> >
> > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> > news:boe681$i0q$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > > In article <66mqb.54771$Ub4.47968@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> > > "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> > > >Thanks! Of course these are old arguments. Lloyd's arguments look
> like
> > > >cut/paste jobs from previous posts he's made. He always says the
same
> > thing
> > > >over and over. And he always degenerates to name calling....
> > > >"right-winger", "fascist", "hate-monger", etc.
> > >
> > > Only when your side starts with the "socialist" or "communist" name
> > calling.
> > >
> > Ok. I'll hold you to that.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >or self-agrandizement being
> > > >that he's such an intelligent guy....Phd and all.... "What are YOUR
> > > >credentials?" or "Take a science class!".
> > >
> > > If you're going to challenge established science, you need some
> expertise.
> > >
> >
> > Face it Lloyd. There is no expertise that comes from taking a "science
> > course", whatever that is. The only course I've seen called "science"
is
> at
> > my daughters middle school. Heck, I took 5 quarters of physics... not
> just
> > physics, but Berkely Physics... in college and that certainly didn't
make
> me
> > an expert in physics.
> >
> > In many areas, there is no level of expertise that gets to the real
> answers,
> > i.e, there's more we don't know that we do know; there's no
"established
> > science" yet; or it's wrong. Just because one can wave a degree in
> > "science" around doesn't give you a level of expertise required to know
> the
> > answers to questions like global warming or economics or whatever.
> >
> > For you to generalize your expertise because you have a phd is like
> > presuming there's money in your account because you have checks. The
> Phd's
> > I've worked with are usually people who have expertise in narrow,
focused
> > areas. For them to claim expertise in any other area is like writing a
> > check on an account with insufficient funds.
>
>
> You've described LP to a T. He knows a little Chemistry, that does not
make
> him an expert on any of the subjects he claims to know all about. Someday
I
> really must write Emory a letter concerning our good Doctor Lloyd, let
them
> in on how much he has damaged their reputation with his -------- posting.
>
>
Or how much time he spends posting on usenet during work hours.
#3626
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vql718crgh8be9@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe5bg$i0q$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <Sicqb.54272$Ub4.8985@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > 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.
>> >
>> >
>> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.
>
>Prove it.
>
>
http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/ag...o_Peanuts.html
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe5bg$i0q$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <Sicqb.54272$Ub4.8985@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > 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.
>> >
>> >
>> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.
>
>Prove it.
>
>
http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/ag...o_Peanuts.html
#3627
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vql718crgh8be9@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe5bg$i0q$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <Sicqb.54272$Ub4.8985@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > 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.
>> >
>> >
>> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.
>
>Prove it.
>
>
http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/ag...o_Peanuts.html
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe5bg$i0q$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <Sicqb.54272$Ub4.8985@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > 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.
>> >
>> >
>> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.
>
>Prove it.
>
>
http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/ag...o_Peanuts.html
#3628
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vql718crgh8be9@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe5bg$i0q$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <Sicqb.54272$Ub4.8985@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > 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.
>> >
>> >
>> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.
>
>Prove it.
>
>
http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/ag...o_Peanuts.html
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe5bg$i0q$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <Sicqb.54272$Ub4.8985@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > 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.
>> >
>> >
>> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.
>
>Prove it.
>
>
http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/ag...o_Peanuts.html
#3629
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <Khxqb.91903$mZ5.602598@attbi_s54>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <boe5a7$i0q$4@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> CO2 put into the air by nature has been in balance for millions of years.
>> It's man changing this equilibrium that's the problem.
>
>CO2 content of the atmosphere been changing for millions years.
It's been around 280 ppm for half a million years; now it's up to 350 ppm in
the last 120 years.
>Did you not
>look at the data you keep harping on?
>
Yes. Have you?
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <boe5a7$i0q$4@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> CO2 put into the air by nature has been in balance for millions of years.
>> It's man changing this equilibrium that's the problem.
>
>CO2 content of the atmosphere been changing for millions years.
It's been around 280 ppm for half a million years; now it's up to 350 ppm in
the last 120 years.
>Did you not
>look at the data you keep harping on?
>
Yes. Have you?
#3630
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <Khxqb.91903$mZ5.602598@attbi_s54>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <boe5a7$i0q$4@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> CO2 put into the air by nature has been in balance for millions of years.
>> It's man changing this equilibrium that's the problem.
>
>CO2 content of the atmosphere been changing for millions years.
It's been around 280 ppm for half a million years; now it's up to 350 ppm in
the last 120 years.
>Did you not
>look at the data you keep harping on?
>
Yes. Have you?
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <boe5a7$i0q$4@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> CO2 put into the air by nature has been in balance for millions of years.
>> It's man changing this equilibrium that's the problem.
>
>CO2 content of the atmosphere been changing for millions years.
It's been around 280 ppm for half a million years; now it's up to 350 ppm in
the last 120 years.
>Did you not
>look at the data you keep harping on?
>
Yes. Have you?