Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3671
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <4gdlqvgd2sp10por0pn9u03v90rtnsa4d3@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "C. E. White"
><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>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
>
>I don't think there's any question that global warming is happening.
>But there are a lot of questions about that:
>
>*Why* is it happening? Truth is, we don't know. We can *model*
>scenarios that say we are at fault, but those models don't admit that
>it's happened in the past, without the possibility of us interfering
>at all.
Actually, they don't need to. Something can have more than one cause. For
example, your body temp. can rise due to many factors; just because factor A
caused it to rise yesterday doesn't mean factor B can't be the cause today.
>*How long* will it last? Again, we don't know.
>Will reducing the CO2 output from our manufacturing/transportation
>slow/reverse the warming? Again, we don't know. And, we have
>absolutely no idea of what would happen if we were to reverse it.
>Would we enter another ice age? We simply don't know.
>
>Models can be made to say anything the people making the models want
>to hear. That's reality.
The models now predict current conditions quite well; the test of a model.
>It's stupid to say that CO2 that we are putting out is the cause of
>global; warming, then push something like Kyoto, which merely shifts
>the location of the CO2 production. Yet, that's what the tree-huggers
>want.
Shifts location? Huh? It would require cuts.
>
>Maybe if we had more facts about what the problem is, we could come up
>with some workable answers.
>
Maybe if more people would read what the scientists say -- IPCC, EPA, NASA,
NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, etc. -- they'd
know we already have "more facts." Reading right-wing web sites and thinking
that constitutes science would be laughable if it were not such a pathetic
commentary on the state of education today.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "C. E. White"
><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>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
>
>I don't think there's any question that global warming is happening.
>But there are a lot of questions about that:
>
>*Why* is it happening? Truth is, we don't know. We can *model*
>scenarios that say we are at fault, but those models don't admit that
>it's happened in the past, without the possibility of us interfering
>at all.
Actually, they don't need to. Something can have more than one cause. For
example, your body temp. can rise due to many factors; just because factor A
caused it to rise yesterday doesn't mean factor B can't be the cause today.
>*How long* will it last? Again, we don't know.
>Will reducing the CO2 output from our manufacturing/transportation
>slow/reverse the warming? Again, we don't know. And, we have
>absolutely no idea of what would happen if we were to reverse it.
>Would we enter another ice age? We simply don't know.
>
>Models can be made to say anything the people making the models want
>to hear. That's reality.
The models now predict current conditions quite well; the test of a model.
>It's stupid to say that CO2 that we are putting out is the cause of
>global; warming, then push something like Kyoto, which merely shifts
>the location of the CO2 production. Yet, that's what the tree-huggers
>want.
Shifts location? Huh? It would require cuts.
>
>Maybe if we had more facts about what the problem is, we could come up
>with some workable answers.
>
Maybe if more people would read what the scientists say -- IPCC, EPA, NASA,
NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, etc. -- they'd
know we already have "more facts." Reading right-wing web sites and thinking
that constitutes science would be laughable if it were not such a pathetic
commentary on the state of education today.
#3672
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <4gdlqvgd2sp10por0pn9u03v90rtnsa4d3@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "C. E. White"
><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>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
>
>I don't think there's any question that global warming is happening.
>But there are a lot of questions about that:
>
>*Why* is it happening? Truth is, we don't know. We can *model*
>scenarios that say we are at fault, but those models don't admit that
>it's happened in the past, without the possibility of us interfering
>at all.
Actually, they don't need to. Something can have more than one cause. For
example, your body temp. can rise due to many factors; just because factor A
caused it to rise yesterday doesn't mean factor B can't be the cause today.
>*How long* will it last? Again, we don't know.
>Will reducing the CO2 output from our manufacturing/transportation
>slow/reverse the warming? Again, we don't know. And, we have
>absolutely no idea of what would happen if we were to reverse it.
>Would we enter another ice age? We simply don't know.
>
>Models can be made to say anything the people making the models want
>to hear. That's reality.
The models now predict current conditions quite well; the test of a model.
>It's stupid to say that CO2 that we are putting out is the cause of
>global; warming, then push something like Kyoto, which merely shifts
>the location of the CO2 production. Yet, that's what the tree-huggers
>want.
Shifts location? Huh? It would require cuts.
>
>Maybe if we had more facts about what the problem is, we could come up
>with some workable answers.
>
Maybe if more people would read what the scientists say -- IPCC, EPA, NASA,
NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, etc. -- they'd
know we already have "more facts." Reading right-wing web sites and thinking
that constitutes science would be laughable if it were not such a pathetic
commentary on the state of education today.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "C. E. White"
><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>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
>
>I don't think there's any question that global warming is happening.
>But there are a lot of questions about that:
>
>*Why* is it happening? Truth is, we don't know. We can *model*
>scenarios that say we are at fault, but those models don't admit that
>it's happened in the past, without the possibility of us interfering
>at all.
Actually, they don't need to. Something can have more than one cause. For
example, your body temp. can rise due to many factors; just because factor A
caused it to rise yesterday doesn't mean factor B can't be the cause today.
>*How long* will it last? Again, we don't know.
>Will reducing the CO2 output from our manufacturing/transportation
>slow/reverse the warming? Again, we don't know. And, we have
>absolutely no idea of what would happen if we were to reverse it.
>Would we enter another ice age? We simply don't know.
>
>Models can be made to say anything the people making the models want
>to hear. That's reality.
The models now predict current conditions quite well; the test of a model.
>It's stupid to say that CO2 that we are putting out is the cause of
>global; warming, then push something like Kyoto, which merely shifts
>the location of the CO2 production. Yet, that's what the tree-huggers
>want.
Shifts location? Huh? It would require cuts.
>
>Maybe if we had more facts about what the problem is, we could come up
>with some workable answers.
>
Maybe if more people would read what the scientists say -- IPCC, EPA, NASA,
NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, etc. -- they'd
know we already have "more facts." Reading right-wing web sites and thinking
that constitutes science would be laughable if it were not such a pathetic
commentary on the state of education today.
#3673
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <4gdlqvgd2sp10por0pn9u03v90rtnsa4d3@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "C. E. White"
><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>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
>
>I don't think there's any question that global warming is happening.
>But there are a lot of questions about that:
>
>*Why* is it happening? Truth is, we don't know. We can *model*
>scenarios that say we are at fault, but those models don't admit that
>it's happened in the past, without the possibility of us interfering
>at all.
Actually, they don't need to. Something can have more than one cause. For
example, your body temp. can rise due to many factors; just because factor A
caused it to rise yesterday doesn't mean factor B can't be the cause today.
>*How long* will it last? Again, we don't know.
>Will reducing the CO2 output from our manufacturing/transportation
>slow/reverse the warming? Again, we don't know. And, we have
>absolutely no idea of what would happen if we were to reverse it.
>Would we enter another ice age? We simply don't know.
>
>Models can be made to say anything the people making the models want
>to hear. That's reality.
The models now predict current conditions quite well; the test of a model.
>It's stupid to say that CO2 that we are putting out is the cause of
>global; warming, then push something like Kyoto, which merely shifts
>the location of the CO2 production. Yet, that's what the tree-huggers
>want.
Shifts location? Huh? It would require cuts.
>
>Maybe if we had more facts about what the problem is, we could come up
>with some workable answers.
>
Maybe if more people would read what the scientists say -- IPCC, EPA, NASA,
NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, etc. -- they'd
know we already have "more facts." Reading right-wing web sites and thinking
that constitutes science would be laughable if it were not such a pathetic
commentary on the state of education today.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "C. E. White"
><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>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
>
>I don't think there's any question that global warming is happening.
>But there are a lot of questions about that:
>
>*Why* is it happening? Truth is, we don't know. We can *model*
>scenarios that say we are at fault, but those models don't admit that
>it's happened in the past, without the possibility of us interfering
>at all.
Actually, they don't need to. Something can have more than one cause. For
example, your body temp. can rise due to many factors; just because factor A
caused it to rise yesterday doesn't mean factor B can't be the cause today.
>*How long* will it last? Again, we don't know.
>Will reducing the CO2 output from our manufacturing/transportation
>slow/reverse the warming? Again, we don't know. And, we have
>absolutely no idea of what would happen if we were to reverse it.
>Would we enter another ice age? We simply don't know.
>
>Models can be made to say anything the people making the models want
>to hear. That's reality.
The models now predict current conditions quite well; the test of a model.
>It's stupid to say that CO2 that we are putting out is the cause of
>global; warming, then push something like Kyoto, which merely shifts
>the location of the CO2 production. Yet, that's what the tree-huggers
>want.
Shifts location? Huh? It would require cuts.
>
>Maybe if we had more facts about what the problem is, we could come up
>with some workable answers.
>
Maybe if more people would read what the scientists say -- IPCC, EPA, NASA,
NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, etc. -- they'd
know we already have "more facts." Reading right-wing web sites and thinking
that constitutes science would be laughable if it were not such a pathetic
commentary on the state of education today.
#3674
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <ktglqvgiho3qpc77fm3kkjeajqjto76ei1@4ax.com>,
Matt Mead <mdmead@DELETETHIScharter.net> wrote:
>This was a great response. One I have believed in for years. One
>that will never satisfy those that have an agenda that the "global
>warming" myth supports. Too bad too.
>\
Yeah, too bad we've got science on our side and you've got ignorance on yours.
>Matt
>99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4
>
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "C. E. White"
><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>>You'll have to explain what you mean by "balance." The concentration of CO2
has
>>never been static. In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
>>concentration until about 10,000 years ago. 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. 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
>
Matt Mead <mdmead@DELETETHIScharter.net> wrote:
>This was a great response. One I have believed in for years. One
>that will never satisfy those that have an agenda that the "global
>warming" myth supports. Too bad too.
>\
Yeah, too bad we've got science on our side and you've got ignorance on yours.
>Matt
>99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4
>
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "C. E. White"
><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>>You'll have to explain what you mean by "balance." The concentration of CO2
has
>>never been static. In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
>>concentration until about 10,000 years ago. 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. 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
>
#3675
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <ktglqvgiho3qpc77fm3kkjeajqjto76ei1@4ax.com>,
Matt Mead <mdmead@DELETETHIScharter.net> wrote:
>This was a great response. One I have believed in for years. One
>that will never satisfy those that have an agenda that the "global
>warming" myth supports. Too bad too.
>\
Yeah, too bad we've got science on our side and you've got ignorance on yours.
>Matt
>99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4
>
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "C. E. White"
><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>>You'll have to explain what you mean by "balance." The concentration of CO2
has
>>never been static. In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
>>concentration until about 10,000 years ago. 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. 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
>
Matt Mead <mdmead@DELETETHIScharter.net> wrote:
>This was a great response. One I have believed in for years. One
>that will never satisfy those that have an agenda that the "global
>warming" myth supports. Too bad too.
>\
Yeah, too bad we've got science on our side and you've got ignorance on yours.
>Matt
>99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4
>
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "C. E. White"
><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>>You'll have to explain what you mean by "balance." The concentration of CO2
has
>>never been static. In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
>>concentration until about 10,000 years ago. 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. 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
>
#3676
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <ktglqvgiho3qpc77fm3kkjeajqjto76ei1@4ax.com>,
Matt Mead <mdmead@DELETETHIScharter.net> wrote:
>This was a great response. One I have believed in for years. One
>that will never satisfy those that have an agenda that the "global
>warming" myth supports. Too bad too.
>\
Yeah, too bad we've got science on our side and you've got ignorance on yours.
>Matt
>99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4
>
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "C. E. White"
><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>>You'll have to explain what you mean by "balance." The concentration of CO2
has
>>never been static. In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
>>concentration until about 10,000 years ago. 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. 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
>
Matt Mead <mdmead@DELETETHIScharter.net> wrote:
>This was a great response. One I have believed in for years. One
>that will never satisfy those that have an agenda that the "global
>warming" myth supports. Too bad too.
>\
Yeah, too bad we've got science on our side and you've got ignorance on yours.
>Matt
>99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4
>
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "C. E. White"
><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>>You'll have to explain what you mean by "balance." The concentration of CO2
has
>>never been static. In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
>>concentration until about 10,000 years ago. 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. 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
>
#3677
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <Pine.SOL.4.44.0311061658470.2412-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu>,
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote:
>On 6 Nov 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03@san.rr.com> wrote
>> > 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.
>
>> OK, but would you then agree that a government that tries to take away
>> women's right to choose is being fascist?
>
>Let's hold off on the spin and call a carrot a carrot, OK? Regardless of
>where you stand on the issue, the issue is *abortion*, not
>"awomansrighttochoose".
>
>> I am only trying to point out that in the real world governments do try
>> and do succeed in imposing laws according to the prevalent value system
>> and not only according to the welfare of the people, as they probably
>> should.
>
>That's because too many people childishly refuse to accept that absolutist
>or extreme positions on any side of any issue are seldom workable.
Tell that to the anarchists (oops, "libertarians"), or those who claim all
taxes are bad, or those who want no environmental protection, or those who
want to let poor kids starve.
> In
>other words, there are too many people who aren't content to live as they
>choose, and wish to impose their wishes on others. With such a mindset,
>compromise becomes impossible and society lurches from one extreme to the
>other and back again.
>
>
>> Income disparity is one of the worse signs about the health
>> of a society.
>
>"worse"??
>
>> Health is the single greatest good. People in almost all civilized
>> countries, including Canada, Europe, Australia, etc., enjoy universal
>> health care. Sure Americans living in the richest country of all can
>> afford it too.
>
>We can scarcely afford the crapmess we've got now. Study after study after
>study finds that Americans pay more for health care and get less for their
>dollar than citizens of virtually every other first-world country.
Exactly. So why does every other western nation spend less per capita yet
cover every person?
>
>> In a way I do agree with your sentiment. I hate it when people just
>> exclaim "this is my right". People should earn whatever they get -
>
>Suppose a particular group of people -- people over 6-foot-2 tall, for
>instance -- are systematically and pervasively discriminated against. They
>get fired for no reason other than being over 6-foot-2, they get rejected
>when applying to buy or rent housing because they're over 6-foot-2, they
>are blamed for crime and violence, they are the frequent target of street
>violence.
>
>How would you propose people over 6-foot-2 "earn" the right to be free of
>these sorts of tyrranies?
>
>> taxes but rather their offspring who get the dough). Why should
>> they not have to pay taxes for daddy's (or mommy's) fortune
>> they are about to get?
>
>Because the money's already been taxed, often several times. Estate taxes
>constitute double-dipping.
Gee, if you work for Wal-Mart, your employer pays tax on the money they make,
so you shouldn't have to pay taxes on the salary (double dipping). I've
already paid taxes on my salary, so I shouldn't have to pay sales tax when I
use it to buy something.
>
>DS
>
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote:
>On 6 Nov 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03@san.rr.com> wrote
>> > 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.
>
>> OK, but would you then agree that a government that tries to take away
>> women's right to choose is being fascist?
>
>Let's hold off on the spin and call a carrot a carrot, OK? Regardless of
>where you stand on the issue, the issue is *abortion*, not
>"awomansrighttochoose".
>
>> I am only trying to point out that in the real world governments do try
>> and do succeed in imposing laws according to the prevalent value system
>> and not only according to the welfare of the people, as they probably
>> should.
>
>That's because too many people childishly refuse to accept that absolutist
>or extreme positions on any side of any issue are seldom workable.
Tell that to the anarchists (oops, "libertarians"), or those who claim all
taxes are bad, or those who want no environmental protection, or those who
want to let poor kids starve.
> In
>other words, there are too many people who aren't content to live as they
>choose, and wish to impose their wishes on others. With such a mindset,
>compromise becomes impossible and society lurches from one extreme to the
>other and back again.
>
>
>> Income disparity is one of the worse signs about the health
>> of a society.
>
>"worse"??
>
>> Health is the single greatest good. People in almost all civilized
>> countries, including Canada, Europe, Australia, etc., enjoy universal
>> health care. Sure Americans living in the richest country of all can
>> afford it too.
>
>We can scarcely afford the crapmess we've got now. Study after study after
>study finds that Americans pay more for health care and get less for their
>dollar than citizens of virtually every other first-world country.
Exactly. So why does every other western nation spend less per capita yet
cover every person?
>
>> In a way I do agree with your sentiment. I hate it when people just
>> exclaim "this is my right". People should earn whatever they get -
>
>Suppose a particular group of people -- people over 6-foot-2 tall, for
>instance -- are systematically and pervasively discriminated against. They
>get fired for no reason other than being over 6-foot-2, they get rejected
>when applying to buy or rent housing because they're over 6-foot-2, they
>are blamed for crime and violence, they are the frequent target of street
>violence.
>
>How would you propose people over 6-foot-2 "earn" the right to be free of
>these sorts of tyrranies?
>
>> taxes but rather their offspring who get the dough). Why should
>> they not have to pay taxes for daddy's (or mommy's) fortune
>> they are about to get?
>
>Because the money's already been taxed, often several times. Estate taxes
>constitute double-dipping.
Gee, if you work for Wal-Mart, your employer pays tax on the money they make,
so you shouldn't have to pay taxes on the salary (double dipping). I've
already paid taxes on my salary, so I shouldn't have to pay sales tax when I
use it to buy something.
>
>DS
>
#3678
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <Pine.SOL.4.44.0311061658470.2412-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu>,
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote:
>On 6 Nov 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03@san.rr.com> wrote
>> > 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.
>
>> OK, but would you then agree that a government that tries to take away
>> women's right to choose is being fascist?
>
>Let's hold off on the spin and call a carrot a carrot, OK? Regardless of
>where you stand on the issue, the issue is *abortion*, not
>"awomansrighttochoose".
>
>> I am only trying to point out that in the real world governments do try
>> and do succeed in imposing laws according to the prevalent value system
>> and not only according to the welfare of the people, as they probably
>> should.
>
>That's because too many people childishly refuse to accept that absolutist
>or extreme positions on any side of any issue are seldom workable.
Tell that to the anarchists (oops, "libertarians"), or those who claim all
taxes are bad, or those who want no environmental protection, or those who
want to let poor kids starve.
> In
>other words, there are too many people who aren't content to live as they
>choose, and wish to impose their wishes on others. With such a mindset,
>compromise becomes impossible and society lurches from one extreme to the
>other and back again.
>
>
>> Income disparity is one of the worse signs about the health
>> of a society.
>
>"worse"??
>
>> Health is the single greatest good. People in almost all civilized
>> countries, including Canada, Europe, Australia, etc., enjoy universal
>> health care. Sure Americans living in the richest country of all can
>> afford it too.
>
>We can scarcely afford the crapmess we've got now. Study after study after
>study finds that Americans pay more for health care and get less for their
>dollar than citizens of virtually every other first-world country.
Exactly. So why does every other western nation spend less per capita yet
cover every person?
>
>> In a way I do agree with your sentiment. I hate it when people just
>> exclaim "this is my right". People should earn whatever they get -
>
>Suppose a particular group of people -- people over 6-foot-2 tall, for
>instance -- are systematically and pervasively discriminated against. They
>get fired for no reason other than being over 6-foot-2, they get rejected
>when applying to buy or rent housing because they're over 6-foot-2, they
>are blamed for crime and violence, they are the frequent target of street
>violence.
>
>How would you propose people over 6-foot-2 "earn" the right to be free of
>these sorts of tyrranies?
>
>> taxes but rather their offspring who get the dough). Why should
>> they not have to pay taxes for daddy's (or mommy's) fortune
>> they are about to get?
>
>Because the money's already been taxed, often several times. Estate taxes
>constitute double-dipping.
Gee, if you work for Wal-Mart, your employer pays tax on the money they make,
so you shouldn't have to pay taxes on the salary (double dipping). I've
already paid taxes on my salary, so I shouldn't have to pay sales tax when I
use it to buy something.
>
>DS
>
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote:
>On 6 Nov 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03@san.rr.com> wrote
>> > 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.
>
>> OK, but would you then agree that a government that tries to take away
>> women's right to choose is being fascist?
>
>Let's hold off on the spin and call a carrot a carrot, OK? Regardless of
>where you stand on the issue, the issue is *abortion*, not
>"awomansrighttochoose".
>
>> I am only trying to point out that in the real world governments do try
>> and do succeed in imposing laws according to the prevalent value system
>> and not only according to the welfare of the people, as they probably
>> should.
>
>That's because too many people childishly refuse to accept that absolutist
>or extreme positions on any side of any issue are seldom workable.
Tell that to the anarchists (oops, "libertarians"), or those who claim all
taxes are bad, or those who want no environmental protection, or those who
want to let poor kids starve.
> In
>other words, there are too many people who aren't content to live as they
>choose, and wish to impose their wishes on others. With such a mindset,
>compromise becomes impossible and society lurches from one extreme to the
>other and back again.
>
>
>> Income disparity is one of the worse signs about the health
>> of a society.
>
>"worse"??
>
>> Health is the single greatest good. People in almost all civilized
>> countries, including Canada, Europe, Australia, etc., enjoy universal
>> health care. Sure Americans living in the richest country of all can
>> afford it too.
>
>We can scarcely afford the crapmess we've got now. Study after study after
>study finds that Americans pay more for health care and get less for their
>dollar than citizens of virtually every other first-world country.
Exactly. So why does every other western nation spend less per capita yet
cover every person?
>
>> In a way I do agree with your sentiment. I hate it when people just
>> exclaim "this is my right". People should earn whatever they get -
>
>Suppose a particular group of people -- people over 6-foot-2 tall, for
>instance -- are systematically and pervasively discriminated against. They
>get fired for no reason other than being over 6-foot-2, they get rejected
>when applying to buy or rent housing because they're over 6-foot-2, they
>are blamed for crime and violence, they are the frequent target of street
>violence.
>
>How would you propose people over 6-foot-2 "earn" the right to be free of
>these sorts of tyrranies?
>
>> taxes but rather their offspring who get the dough). Why should
>> they not have to pay taxes for daddy's (or mommy's) fortune
>> they are about to get?
>
>Because the money's already been taxed, often several times. Estate taxes
>constitute double-dipping.
Gee, if you work for Wal-Mart, your employer pays tax on the money they make,
so you shouldn't have to pay taxes on the salary (double dipping). I've
already paid taxes on my salary, so I shouldn't have to pay sales tax when I
use it to buy something.
>
>DS
>
#3679
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <Pine.SOL.4.44.0311061658470.2412-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu>,
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote:
>On 6 Nov 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03@san.rr.com> wrote
>> > 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.
>
>> OK, but would you then agree that a government that tries to take away
>> women's right to choose is being fascist?
>
>Let's hold off on the spin and call a carrot a carrot, OK? Regardless of
>where you stand on the issue, the issue is *abortion*, not
>"awomansrighttochoose".
>
>> I am only trying to point out that in the real world governments do try
>> and do succeed in imposing laws according to the prevalent value system
>> and not only according to the welfare of the people, as they probably
>> should.
>
>That's because too many people childishly refuse to accept that absolutist
>or extreme positions on any side of any issue are seldom workable.
Tell that to the anarchists (oops, "libertarians"), or those who claim all
taxes are bad, or those who want no environmental protection, or those who
want to let poor kids starve.
> In
>other words, there are too many people who aren't content to live as they
>choose, and wish to impose their wishes on others. With such a mindset,
>compromise becomes impossible and society lurches from one extreme to the
>other and back again.
>
>
>> Income disparity is one of the worse signs about the health
>> of a society.
>
>"worse"??
>
>> Health is the single greatest good. People in almost all civilized
>> countries, including Canada, Europe, Australia, etc., enjoy universal
>> health care. Sure Americans living in the richest country of all can
>> afford it too.
>
>We can scarcely afford the crapmess we've got now. Study after study after
>study finds that Americans pay more for health care and get less for their
>dollar than citizens of virtually every other first-world country.
Exactly. So why does every other western nation spend less per capita yet
cover every person?
>
>> In a way I do agree with your sentiment. I hate it when people just
>> exclaim "this is my right". People should earn whatever they get -
>
>Suppose a particular group of people -- people over 6-foot-2 tall, for
>instance -- are systematically and pervasively discriminated against. They
>get fired for no reason other than being over 6-foot-2, they get rejected
>when applying to buy or rent housing because they're over 6-foot-2, they
>are blamed for crime and violence, they are the frequent target of street
>violence.
>
>How would you propose people over 6-foot-2 "earn" the right to be free of
>these sorts of tyrranies?
>
>> taxes but rather their offspring who get the dough). Why should
>> they not have to pay taxes for daddy's (or mommy's) fortune
>> they are about to get?
>
>Because the money's already been taxed, often several times. Estate taxes
>constitute double-dipping.
Gee, if you work for Wal-Mart, your employer pays tax on the money they make,
so you shouldn't have to pay taxes on the salary (double dipping). I've
already paid taxes on my salary, so I shouldn't have to pay sales tax when I
use it to buy something.
>
>DS
>
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote:
>On 6 Nov 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03@san.rr.com> wrote
>> > 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.
>
>> OK, but would you then agree that a government that tries to take away
>> women's right to choose is being fascist?
>
>Let's hold off on the spin and call a carrot a carrot, OK? Regardless of
>where you stand on the issue, the issue is *abortion*, not
>"awomansrighttochoose".
>
>> I am only trying to point out that in the real world governments do try
>> and do succeed in imposing laws according to the prevalent value system
>> and not only according to the welfare of the people, as they probably
>> should.
>
>That's because too many people childishly refuse to accept that absolutist
>or extreme positions on any side of any issue are seldom workable.
Tell that to the anarchists (oops, "libertarians"), or those who claim all
taxes are bad, or those who want no environmental protection, or those who
want to let poor kids starve.
> In
>other words, there are too many people who aren't content to live as they
>choose, and wish to impose their wishes on others. With such a mindset,
>compromise becomes impossible and society lurches from one extreme to the
>other and back again.
>
>
>> Income disparity is one of the worse signs about the health
>> of a society.
>
>"worse"??
>
>> Health is the single greatest good. People in almost all civilized
>> countries, including Canada, Europe, Australia, etc., enjoy universal
>> health care. Sure Americans living in the richest country of all can
>> afford it too.
>
>We can scarcely afford the crapmess we've got now. Study after study after
>study finds that Americans pay more for health care and get less for their
>dollar than citizens of virtually every other first-world country.
Exactly. So why does every other western nation spend less per capita yet
cover every person?
>
>> In a way I do agree with your sentiment. I hate it when people just
>> exclaim "this is my right". People should earn whatever they get -
>
>Suppose a particular group of people -- people over 6-foot-2 tall, for
>instance -- are systematically and pervasively discriminated against. They
>get fired for no reason other than being over 6-foot-2, they get rejected
>when applying to buy or rent housing because they're over 6-foot-2, they
>are blamed for crime and violence, they are the frequent target of street
>violence.
>
>How would you propose people over 6-foot-2 "earn" the right to be free of
>these sorts of tyrranies?
>
>> taxes but rather their offspring who get the dough). Why should
>> they not have to pay taxes for daddy's (or mommy's) fortune
>> they are about to get?
>
>Because the money's already been taxed, often several times. Estate taxes
>constitute double-dipping.
Gee, if you work for Wal-Mart, your employer pays tax on the money they make,
so you shouldn't have to pay taxes on the salary (double dipping). I've
already paid taxes on my salary, so I shouldn't have to pay sales tax when I
use it to buy something.
>
>DS
>
#3680
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <pcAqb.107087$ZH4.92096@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >The Brady Bill and assault weapons ban are a joke, if you actually got
>out
>> >of that ivory tower you're holed up in you might realize it. If it were
>up
>> >to you I could think of three people off the top of my head who might be
>> >dead at the moment if they didn't have a firearm handy.
>> >An Atlanta police officer's wife who killed her would be rapist.
>> >A man who shot a would be carjacker on the northside of Atlanta somewhere
>in
>> >a Wal-Fart parking lot.
>> >A wal-Fart employee in Florida somewhere IIRC who was being stabbed by
>some
>> >nutcase who was foiled by an old lady w/ a pistol.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> And for each of those, there are family members shot in anger or
>accidentally,
>> suicides with a handy gun, children shooting children with a gun found in
>the
>> house, shooting of a neighbor the homeowner thought was a burglar, etc.
>
>You forget that the government doesn't have the power to prohibit the right
>of people to bear arms.
Really? Tell that to the states and cities that have done so. Tell that to
the courts that have ruled they can do so.
> Just because bad things happen with guns doesn't
>mean the government has the power to prohibit them.
>
>
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >The Brady Bill and assault weapons ban are a joke, if you actually got
>out
>> >of that ivory tower you're holed up in you might realize it. If it were
>up
>> >to you I could think of three people off the top of my head who might be
>> >dead at the moment if they didn't have a firearm handy.
>> >An Atlanta police officer's wife who killed her would be rapist.
>> >A man who shot a would be carjacker on the northside of Atlanta somewhere
>in
>> >a Wal-Fart parking lot.
>> >A wal-Fart employee in Florida somewhere IIRC who was being stabbed by
>some
>> >nutcase who was foiled by an old lady w/ a pistol.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> And for each of those, there are family members shot in anger or
>accidentally,
>> suicides with a handy gun, children shooting children with a gun found in
>the
>> house, shooting of a neighbor the homeowner thought was a burglar, etc.
>
>You forget that the government doesn't have the power to prohibit the right
>of people to bear arms.
Really? Tell that to the states and cities that have done so. Tell that to
the courts that have ruled they can do so.
> Just because bad things happen with guns doesn't
>mean the government has the power to prohibit them.
>
>