Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3641
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <boe9ib0veg@enews4.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>
>> Totally false. I suggest remedial reading for you. <
>
>Sorry, Mr. Scientist, but volcanic and other geothermal activity are one of
>the greatest contributors to climatic shifts. The eruption of Krakatoa
>caused global COOLING on a massive scale, the total effect of which lasted
>several years, indeed the first year was referred to in Europe as the "Year
>Without Summer". More recently the eruption of Mt Pinatubo caused almost
>instantaneous weather pattern changes and had an extreme effect on upper
>atmosphere conditions globally.
Sorry, but we're discussing greenhouse gases, and humans put out more each
year than volcanoes.
>
>Hey, you're supposed to be the scientist around here and you don't know this
>stuff? Hey, REMEDIAL READING FOR YOU!!!!
>
And your scientific degree is?
>
>
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>
>> Totally false. I suggest remedial reading for you. <
>
>Sorry, Mr. Scientist, but volcanic and other geothermal activity are one of
>the greatest contributors to climatic shifts. The eruption of Krakatoa
>caused global COOLING on a massive scale, the total effect of which lasted
>several years, indeed the first year was referred to in Europe as the "Year
>Without Summer". More recently the eruption of Mt Pinatubo caused almost
>instantaneous weather pattern changes and had an extreme effect on upper
>atmosphere conditions globally.
Sorry, but we're discussing greenhouse gases, and humans put out more each
year than volcanoes.
>
>Hey, you're supposed to be the scientist around here and you don't know this
>stuff? Hey, REMEDIAL READING FOR YOU!!!!
>
And your scientific degree is?
>
>
#3642
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <boe9ib0veg@enews4.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>
>> Totally false. I suggest remedial reading for you. <
>
>Sorry, Mr. Scientist, but volcanic and other geothermal activity are one of
>the greatest contributors to climatic shifts. The eruption of Krakatoa
>caused global COOLING on a massive scale, the total effect of which lasted
>several years, indeed the first year was referred to in Europe as the "Year
>Without Summer". More recently the eruption of Mt Pinatubo caused almost
>instantaneous weather pattern changes and had an extreme effect on upper
>atmosphere conditions globally.
Sorry, but we're discussing greenhouse gases, and humans put out more each
year than volcanoes.
>
>Hey, you're supposed to be the scientist around here and you don't know this
>stuff? Hey, REMEDIAL READING FOR YOU!!!!
>
And your scientific degree is?
>
>
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>
>> Totally false. I suggest remedial reading for you. <
>
>Sorry, Mr. Scientist, but volcanic and other geothermal activity are one of
>the greatest contributors to climatic shifts. The eruption of Krakatoa
>caused global COOLING on a massive scale, the total effect of which lasted
>several years, indeed the first year was referred to in Europe as the "Year
>Without Summer". More recently the eruption of Mt Pinatubo caused almost
>instantaneous weather pattern changes and had an extreme effect on upper
>atmosphere conditions globally.
Sorry, but we're discussing greenhouse gases, and humans put out more each
year than volcanoes.
>
>Hey, you're supposed to be the scientist around here and you don't know this
>stuff? Hey, REMEDIAL READING FOR YOU!!!!
>
And your scientific degree is?
>
>
#3643
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <boe9ib0veg@enews4.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>
>> Totally false. I suggest remedial reading for you. <
>
>Sorry, Mr. Scientist, but volcanic and other geothermal activity are one of
>the greatest contributors to climatic shifts. The eruption of Krakatoa
>caused global COOLING on a massive scale, the total effect of which lasted
>several years, indeed the first year was referred to in Europe as the "Year
>Without Summer". More recently the eruption of Mt Pinatubo caused almost
>instantaneous weather pattern changes and had an extreme effect on upper
>atmosphere conditions globally.
Sorry, but we're discussing greenhouse gases, and humans put out more each
year than volcanoes.
>
>Hey, you're supposed to be the scientist around here and you don't know this
>stuff? Hey, REMEDIAL READING FOR YOU!!!!
>
And your scientific degree is?
>
>
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>
>> Totally false. I suggest remedial reading for you. <
>
>Sorry, Mr. Scientist, but volcanic and other geothermal activity are one of
>the greatest contributors to climatic shifts. The eruption of Krakatoa
>caused global COOLING on a massive scale, the total effect of which lasted
>several years, indeed the first year was referred to in Europe as the "Year
>Without Summer". More recently the eruption of Mt Pinatubo caused almost
>instantaneous weather pattern changes and had an extreme effect on upper
>atmosphere conditions globally.
Sorry, but we're discussing greenhouse gases, and humans put out more each
year than volcanoes.
>
>Hey, you're supposed to be the scientist around here and you don't know this
>stuff? Hey, REMEDIAL READING FOR YOU!!!!
>
And your scientific degree is?
>
>
#3644
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <boe9os0vt8@enews4.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> Not proven. <
>
>Was proven and confirmed. The resulting squeal you jeard was Joan Claybrook
>and her idiot friends at the Center for Auto Safety making up more lies.
>
>> And the NAS looked at it and said NHTSA's study was flawed -- they lumped
>together cars of different weights, they lumped together model years with
>different safety features, etc. <
>
>Not true, the NAS had no role in either the original or sunbsequent
>research.
They analyzed it.
>These people died because the cars lacked mass.
Not so.
>Simple, end of
>argument fact, Lloyd, they're DEAD because they got forced into death traps
>by meddling, know-nothing Socialists.
People are dead because fascists like you herded them into death camps.
>
>
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> Not proven. <
>
>Was proven and confirmed. The resulting squeal you jeard was Joan Claybrook
>and her idiot friends at the Center for Auto Safety making up more lies.
>
>> And the NAS looked at it and said NHTSA's study was flawed -- they lumped
>together cars of different weights, they lumped together model years with
>different safety features, etc. <
>
>Not true, the NAS had no role in either the original or sunbsequent
>research.
They analyzed it.
>These people died because the cars lacked mass.
Not so.
>Simple, end of
>argument fact, Lloyd, they're DEAD because they got forced into death traps
>by meddling, know-nothing Socialists.
People are dead because fascists like you herded them into death camps.
>
>
#3645
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <boe9os0vt8@enews4.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> Not proven. <
>
>Was proven and confirmed. The resulting squeal you jeard was Joan Claybrook
>and her idiot friends at the Center for Auto Safety making up more lies.
>
>> And the NAS looked at it and said NHTSA's study was flawed -- they lumped
>together cars of different weights, they lumped together model years with
>different safety features, etc. <
>
>Not true, the NAS had no role in either the original or sunbsequent
>research.
They analyzed it.
>These people died because the cars lacked mass.
Not so.
>Simple, end of
>argument fact, Lloyd, they're DEAD because they got forced into death traps
>by meddling, know-nothing Socialists.
People are dead because fascists like you herded them into death camps.
>
>
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> Not proven. <
>
>Was proven and confirmed. The resulting squeal you jeard was Joan Claybrook
>and her idiot friends at the Center for Auto Safety making up more lies.
>
>> And the NAS looked at it and said NHTSA's study was flawed -- they lumped
>together cars of different weights, they lumped together model years with
>different safety features, etc. <
>
>Not true, the NAS had no role in either the original or sunbsequent
>research.
They analyzed it.
>These people died because the cars lacked mass.
Not so.
>Simple, end of
>argument fact, Lloyd, they're DEAD because they got forced into death traps
>by meddling, know-nothing Socialists.
People are dead because fascists like you herded them into death camps.
>
>
#3646
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <boe9os0vt8@enews4.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> Not proven. <
>
>Was proven and confirmed. The resulting squeal you jeard was Joan Claybrook
>and her idiot friends at the Center for Auto Safety making up more lies.
>
>> And the NAS looked at it and said NHTSA's study was flawed -- they lumped
>together cars of different weights, they lumped together model years with
>different safety features, etc. <
>
>Not true, the NAS had no role in either the original or sunbsequent
>research.
They analyzed it.
>These people died because the cars lacked mass.
Not so.
>Simple, end of
>argument fact, Lloyd, they're DEAD because they got forced into death traps
>by meddling, know-nothing Socialists.
People are dead because fascists like you herded them into death camps.
>
>
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> Not proven. <
>
>Was proven and confirmed. The resulting squeal you jeard was Joan Claybrook
>and her idiot friends at the Center for Auto Safety making up more lies.
>
>> And the NAS looked at it and said NHTSA's study was flawed -- they lumped
>together cars of different weights, they lumped together model years with
>different safety features, etc. <
>
>Not true, the NAS had no role in either the original or sunbsequent
>research.
They analyzed it.
>These people died because the cars lacked mass.
Not so.
>Simple, end of
>argument fact, Lloyd, they're DEAD because they got forced into death traps
>by meddling, know-nothing Socialists.
People are dead because fascists like you herded them into death camps.
>
>
#3647
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <boea07010g0@enews4.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>
>> Do you have any idea how few estates are subject to the estate tax? <
>
>Well, Lloyd, I'm sure when you've amassed roughly $650k in combined net
>worth (easy to do with either coast's real estate market) your heirs will be
>more than happy to fork over 50% of it to the Socialists to spend on
>patronage jobs for their leftist cronies.
Sorry, there's a $2 million exemption. And even then, the 50% tax doesn't
come in until much higher levels.
>
>MILLIONS of normal, everyday folks are worth this much and their heirs
>either have to give it away in terms of $10k gifts, of sell the family
>residence to pay the ------- taxes.
>
Lie. Less than 1% of all estates are subject to that.
>
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>
>> Do you have any idea how few estates are subject to the estate tax? <
>
>Well, Lloyd, I'm sure when you've amassed roughly $650k in combined net
>worth (easy to do with either coast's real estate market) your heirs will be
>more than happy to fork over 50% of it to the Socialists to spend on
>patronage jobs for their leftist cronies.
Sorry, there's a $2 million exemption. And even then, the 50% tax doesn't
come in until much higher levels.
>
>MILLIONS of normal, everyday folks are worth this much and their heirs
>either have to give it away in terms of $10k gifts, of sell the family
>residence to pay the ------- taxes.
>
Lie. Less than 1% of all estates are subject to that.
>
#3648
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <boea07010g0@enews4.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>
>> Do you have any idea how few estates are subject to the estate tax? <
>
>Well, Lloyd, I'm sure when you've amassed roughly $650k in combined net
>worth (easy to do with either coast's real estate market) your heirs will be
>more than happy to fork over 50% of it to the Socialists to spend on
>patronage jobs for their leftist cronies.
Sorry, there's a $2 million exemption. And even then, the 50% tax doesn't
come in until much higher levels.
>
>MILLIONS of normal, everyday folks are worth this much and their heirs
>either have to give it away in terms of $10k gifts, of sell the family
>residence to pay the ------- taxes.
>
Lie. Less than 1% of all estates are subject to that.
>
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>
>> Do you have any idea how few estates are subject to the estate tax? <
>
>Well, Lloyd, I'm sure when you've amassed roughly $650k in combined net
>worth (easy to do with either coast's real estate market) your heirs will be
>more than happy to fork over 50% of it to the Socialists to spend on
>patronage jobs for their leftist cronies.
Sorry, there's a $2 million exemption. And even then, the 50% tax doesn't
come in until much higher levels.
>
>MILLIONS of normal, everyday folks are worth this much and their heirs
>either have to give it away in terms of $10k gifts, of sell the family
>residence to pay the ------- taxes.
>
Lie. Less than 1% of all estates are subject to that.
>
#3649
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <boea07010g0@enews4.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>
>> Do you have any idea how few estates are subject to the estate tax? <
>
>Well, Lloyd, I'm sure when you've amassed roughly $650k in combined net
>worth (easy to do with either coast's real estate market) your heirs will be
>more than happy to fork over 50% of it to the Socialists to spend on
>patronage jobs for their leftist cronies.
Sorry, there's a $2 million exemption. And even then, the 50% tax doesn't
come in until much higher levels.
>
>MILLIONS of normal, everyday folks are worth this much and their heirs
>either have to give it away in terms of $10k gifts, of sell the family
>residence to pay the ------- taxes.
>
Lie. Less than 1% of all estates are subject to that.
>
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>
>> Do you have any idea how few estates are subject to the estate tax? <
>
>Well, Lloyd, I'm sure when you've amassed roughly $650k in combined net
>worth (easy to do with either coast's real estate market) your heirs will be
>more than happy to fork over 50% of it to the Socialists to spend on
>patronage jobs for their leftist cronies.
Sorry, there's a $2 million exemption. And even then, the 50% tax doesn't
come in until much higher levels.
>
>MILLIONS of normal, everyday folks are worth this much and their heirs
>either have to give it away in terms of $10k gifts, of sell the family
>residence to pay the ------- taxes.
>
Lie. Less than 1% of all estates are subject to that.
>
#3650
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FAAAB43.B4072C31@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>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.
>
>You'll have to explain what you mean by "balance." The concentration of CO2
has
>never been static.
For half a million years, CO2 was around 280 ppm, without much variation. In
the last 120 years, it's increased to 350 ppm.
>In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
>concentration until about 10,000 years ago.
Wrong.
>CO2 is constantly being more or less
>permanently removed from the atmosphere and tied up in corral reefs,
limestone,
>coal, oil, peat, etc., etc., etc. Recently mankind has released some of the
>stored CO2. Maybe we are actually helping to restore the balance. At any rate
the
>era of fossil fuel will sooner or later come to an end. It may take another
200
>years or 1000 years, but it will end. On the geologic time scale it will just
be
>a blip.
>
>I don't doubt that an increase in the concentration of CO2 might cause a
change
>in the climate. However, climate change will occur whether there is or is not
a
>change in the CO2 concentration. The component of climate change attributable
to
>human activity may actually be beneficial. It might counter some "natural
change"
>(whatever that means) or reinforce the "natural change" or it may be trivial
>compared to the "natural change." The manmade component might be a good
thing, a
>bad thing, or an insignificant thing. I object to what I perceive to be a
>hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it
as an
>excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals. I think the potential for
harm
>is deliberately overstated. I think the science supporting global warming is
not
>subject to the sort of scrutiny that it should be because it is a "popular
>theory" with liberals.
And you're not qualified to judge any science, are you?
> I think the new medias trumpets global warming because it
>generates a lot interest. I think a lot of scientist promote global warming
>because they can get money to study it.
>
>If I am wrong and the worst case scenario happens, the sea level will rise 10
>feet and millions of people will have to move. Fortunately, it won't rise
over
>night, so they can move. If you believe in global warming, I suggest you buy
land
>in Kansas now. If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
>happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
>rearranged for no reason. If the global warming people are right, rearranging
the
>lives of millions of Americans to meet the terms of the Kyoto treaty won't
have
>any affect on the end results. We will just continue to move most of our CO2
>generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will
still be
>underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.
>
>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse
than
>the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case is
being
>dramatically overstated.
>
>Ed
>
Your opinion on a scientific issue is as valid as mine on say, whether
Chrysler should issue 30-year bonds or 20-year ones.
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>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.
>
>You'll have to explain what you mean by "balance." The concentration of CO2
has
>never been static.
For half a million years, CO2 was around 280 ppm, without much variation. In
the last 120 years, it's increased to 350 ppm.
>In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
>concentration until about 10,000 years ago.
Wrong.
>CO2 is constantly being more or less
>permanently removed from the atmosphere and tied up in corral reefs,
limestone,
>coal, oil, peat, etc., etc., etc. Recently mankind has released some of the
>stored CO2. Maybe we are actually helping to restore the balance. At any rate
the
>era of fossil fuel will sooner or later come to an end. It may take another
200
>years or 1000 years, but it will end. On the geologic time scale it will just
be
>a blip.
>
>I don't doubt that an increase in the concentration of CO2 might cause a
change
>in the climate. However, climate change will occur whether there is or is not
a
>change in the CO2 concentration. The component of climate change attributable
to
>human activity may actually be beneficial. It might counter some "natural
change"
>(whatever that means) or reinforce the "natural change" or it may be trivial
>compared to the "natural change." The manmade component might be a good
thing, a
>bad thing, or an insignificant thing. I object to what I perceive to be a
>hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it
as an
>excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals. I think the potential for
harm
>is deliberately overstated. I think the science supporting global warming is
not
>subject to the sort of scrutiny that it should be because it is a "popular
>theory" with liberals.
And you're not qualified to judge any science, are you?
> I think the new medias trumpets global warming because it
>generates a lot interest. I think a lot of scientist promote global warming
>because they can get money to study it.
>
>If I am wrong and the worst case scenario happens, the sea level will rise 10
>feet and millions of people will have to move. Fortunately, it won't rise
over
>night, so they can move. If you believe in global warming, I suggest you buy
land
>in Kansas now. If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
>happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
>rearranged for no reason. If the global warming people are right, rearranging
the
>lives of millions of Americans to meet the terms of the Kyoto treaty won't
have
>any affect on the end results. We will just continue to move most of our CO2
>generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will
still be
>underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.
>
>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse
than
>the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case is
being
>dramatically overstated.
>
>Ed
>
Your opinion on a scientific issue is as valid as mine on say, whether
Chrysler should issue 30-year bonds or 20-year ones.