Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4221
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FAFE3B4.A42DF686@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Wrong. The last 120 years have shown warming, and the hottest years on
>> record have all occurred in the last decade.
>
> There are a lot of problems with this claim. By biggest concern is the source of
> the data. A lot of the old data is being inferred from unreliable sources. The
> newer data is better, but it is not always corrected for changes in the micro
> environment around the reporting station.
After someone altered me to a recent paper via a USA today article I
hunted it down and posted the URL. It was published in the journal
energy and environment. the authors fixed a number of errors in the
original analysis that's the basis for many of the claims lloyd has
made. Some of those claims then fall apart.
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Wrong. The last 120 years have shown warming, and the hottest years on
>> record have all occurred in the last decade.
>
> There are a lot of problems with this claim. By biggest concern is the source of
> the data. A lot of the old data is being inferred from unreliable sources. The
> newer data is better, but it is not always corrected for changes in the micro
> environment around the reporting station.
After someone altered me to a recent paper via a USA today article I
hunted it down and posted the URL. It was published in the journal
energy and environment. the authors fixed a number of errors in the
original analysis that's the basis for many of the claims lloyd has
made. Some of those claims then fall apart.
#4222
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FAFE3B4.A42DF686@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Wrong. The last 120 years have shown warming, and the hottest years on
>> record have all occurred in the last decade.
>
> There are a lot of problems with this claim. By biggest concern is the source of
> the data. A lot of the old data is being inferred from unreliable sources. The
> newer data is better, but it is not always corrected for changes in the micro
> environment around the reporting station.
After someone altered me to a recent paper via a USA today article I
hunted it down and posted the URL. It was published in the journal
energy and environment. the authors fixed a number of errors in the
original analysis that's the basis for many of the claims lloyd has
made. Some of those claims then fall apart.
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Wrong. The last 120 years have shown warming, and the hottest years on
>> record have all occurred in the last decade.
>
> There are a lot of problems with this claim. By biggest concern is the source of
> the data. A lot of the old data is being inferred from unreliable sources. The
> newer data is better, but it is not always corrected for changes in the micro
> environment around the reporting station.
After someone altered me to a recent paper via a USA today article I
hunted it down and posted the URL. It was published in the journal
energy and environment. the authors fixed a number of errors in the
original analysis that's the basis for many of the claims lloyd has
made. Some of those claims then fall apart.
#4223
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?
In article <Pine.SOL.4.44.0311101338540.719-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu>, Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> If absolute reductions in CO2 emissions are desireable, then reasonable
> and proper standards must be applied to processes, not locations. Spacely
> Sprockets' sprocket saponification process must emit no more than "n"
> amount of CO2 per saponified sprocket, whether they're saponifying
> sprockets in Shangai or Sarnia or St. Louis. And Ming Tsian Xiao's
> thiotimolene resublimation process must emit no more than Amalgamated
> Bizcorp Companyco's thiotimolene resublimation process, and both
> companies' processes must be below "x" amount of CO2 per cubic metre of
> resublimated thiotimolene if they are to be permitted to manufacture *or*
> sell it in any country that is a party to the agreement.
Exactly. I was trying to find the words to express that well earlier
but couldn't. The above describes it perfectly.
> This argument gets rejected by Kyoto proponents, however, on the grounds
> that it would be unfair or impossible for "developing" countries to live
> up to the same emission standards as developed countries. There are all
> kinds of ways of dealing with this -- all it takes is a little creativity
> and realism.
Exactly what I was trying to express earlier by saying that
environmentalists should be striving to keep the developing countries
from making the same mistakes as those that developed in the last
two centuries.
> Suppose the rest of the world refuses to play along, saying "It's Kyoto as
> written, no ifs ands or buts". Some might say that would tie the US' hands
> and force the country to do nothing. Not so - it would serve nicely as a
> defensible basis for Local Content laws of the type with which Australia
> had excellent success starting in the 1960s.
China also has these local content laws.
> There would be differences,
> of course; the primary goal of the Australian regulations was to protect
> Australian industry, while the protection of American industry would be a
> mere byproduct of regulations preventing sidestepping of US antipollution
> laws in the production of goods for the US market. As under Kyoto,
> consumers would very likely wind up paying more for their goods. But
> with Local Content laws instead of Kyoto, they wouldn't be paying to
> eliminate American jobs -- they'd be paying to create them.
I am sure the whine would change then.
> Ironically, first-world environmentalists rail against what they see as a
> tendency for Americans in particular to think the waste products of human
> activity -- garbage, exhaust, industrial waste, sewage and so forth -- go
> to a magical place called "away" when we're done with them, never to
> bother anyone again. Of course this isn't so, but it is exactly the sort
> of head-in-the-sand behaviour Kyoto seeks to codify. Cut down on CO2
> emissions in Georgia, and we'll just pretend the reduction isn't reversed
> by the resultant increase in Guangdong. That they claim this is the
> enlightened position only redoubles their arrogance and lack of
> perspective.
I think they pretend it isn't reversed because their goal has nothing
to do with the environment. The environment is the tool. But I suppose
it could just be stupidity.
> If absolute reductions in CO2 emissions are desireable, then reasonable
> and proper standards must be applied to processes, not locations. Spacely
> Sprockets' sprocket saponification process must emit no more than "n"
> amount of CO2 per saponified sprocket, whether they're saponifying
> sprockets in Shangai or Sarnia or St. Louis. And Ming Tsian Xiao's
> thiotimolene resublimation process must emit no more than Amalgamated
> Bizcorp Companyco's thiotimolene resublimation process, and both
> companies' processes must be below "x" amount of CO2 per cubic metre of
> resublimated thiotimolene if they are to be permitted to manufacture *or*
> sell it in any country that is a party to the agreement.
Exactly. I was trying to find the words to express that well earlier
but couldn't. The above describes it perfectly.
> This argument gets rejected by Kyoto proponents, however, on the grounds
> that it would be unfair or impossible for "developing" countries to live
> up to the same emission standards as developed countries. There are all
> kinds of ways of dealing with this -- all it takes is a little creativity
> and realism.
Exactly what I was trying to express earlier by saying that
environmentalists should be striving to keep the developing countries
from making the same mistakes as those that developed in the last
two centuries.
> Suppose the rest of the world refuses to play along, saying "It's Kyoto as
> written, no ifs ands or buts". Some might say that would tie the US' hands
> and force the country to do nothing. Not so - it would serve nicely as a
> defensible basis for Local Content laws of the type with which Australia
> had excellent success starting in the 1960s.
China also has these local content laws.
> There would be differences,
> of course; the primary goal of the Australian regulations was to protect
> Australian industry, while the protection of American industry would be a
> mere byproduct of regulations preventing sidestepping of US antipollution
> laws in the production of goods for the US market. As under Kyoto,
> consumers would very likely wind up paying more for their goods. But
> with Local Content laws instead of Kyoto, they wouldn't be paying to
> eliminate American jobs -- they'd be paying to create them.
I am sure the whine would change then.
> Ironically, first-world environmentalists rail against what they see as a
> tendency for Americans in particular to think the waste products of human
> activity -- garbage, exhaust, industrial waste, sewage and so forth -- go
> to a magical place called "away" when we're done with them, never to
> bother anyone again. Of course this isn't so, but it is exactly the sort
> of head-in-the-sand behaviour Kyoto seeks to codify. Cut down on CO2
> emissions in Georgia, and we'll just pretend the reduction isn't reversed
> by the resultant increase in Guangdong. That they claim this is the
> enlightened position only redoubles their arrogance and lack of
> perspective.
I think they pretend it isn't reversed because their goal has nothing
to do with the environment. The environment is the tool. But I suppose
it could just be stupidity.
#4224
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?
In article <Pine.SOL.4.44.0311101338540.719-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu>, Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> If absolute reductions in CO2 emissions are desireable, then reasonable
> and proper standards must be applied to processes, not locations. Spacely
> Sprockets' sprocket saponification process must emit no more than "n"
> amount of CO2 per saponified sprocket, whether they're saponifying
> sprockets in Shangai or Sarnia or St. Louis. And Ming Tsian Xiao's
> thiotimolene resublimation process must emit no more than Amalgamated
> Bizcorp Companyco's thiotimolene resublimation process, and both
> companies' processes must be below "x" amount of CO2 per cubic metre of
> resublimated thiotimolene if they are to be permitted to manufacture *or*
> sell it in any country that is a party to the agreement.
Exactly. I was trying to find the words to express that well earlier
but couldn't. The above describes it perfectly.
> This argument gets rejected by Kyoto proponents, however, on the grounds
> that it would be unfair or impossible for "developing" countries to live
> up to the same emission standards as developed countries. There are all
> kinds of ways of dealing with this -- all it takes is a little creativity
> and realism.
Exactly what I was trying to express earlier by saying that
environmentalists should be striving to keep the developing countries
from making the same mistakes as those that developed in the last
two centuries.
> Suppose the rest of the world refuses to play along, saying "It's Kyoto as
> written, no ifs ands or buts". Some might say that would tie the US' hands
> and force the country to do nothing. Not so - it would serve nicely as a
> defensible basis for Local Content laws of the type with which Australia
> had excellent success starting in the 1960s.
China also has these local content laws.
> There would be differences,
> of course; the primary goal of the Australian regulations was to protect
> Australian industry, while the protection of American industry would be a
> mere byproduct of regulations preventing sidestepping of US antipollution
> laws in the production of goods for the US market. As under Kyoto,
> consumers would very likely wind up paying more for their goods. But
> with Local Content laws instead of Kyoto, they wouldn't be paying to
> eliminate American jobs -- they'd be paying to create them.
I am sure the whine would change then.
> Ironically, first-world environmentalists rail against what they see as a
> tendency for Americans in particular to think the waste products of human
> activity -- garbage, exhaust, industrial waste, sewage and so forth -- go
> to a magical place called "away" when we're done with them, never to
> bother anyone again. Of course this isn't so, but it is exactly the sort
> of head-in-the-sand behaviour Kyoto seeks to codify. Cut down on CO2
> emissions in Georgia, and we'll just pretend the reduction isn't reversed
> by the resultant increase in Guangdong. That they claim this is the
> enlightened position only redoubles their arrogance and lack of
> perspective.
I think they pretend it isn't reversed because their goal has nothing
to do with the environment. The environment is the tool. But I suppose
it could just be stupidity.
> If absolute reductions in CO2 emissions are desireable, then reasonable
> and proper standards must be applied to processes, not locations. Spacely
> Sprockets' sprocket saponification process must emit no more than "n"
> amount of CO2 per saponified sprocket, whether they're saponifying
> sprockets in Shangai or Sarnia or St. Louis. And Ming Tsian Xiao's
> thiotimolene resublimation process must emit no more than Amalgamated
> Bizcorp Companyco's thiotimolene resublimation process, and both
> companies' processes must be below "x" amount of CO2 per cubic metre of
> resublimated thiotimolene if they are to be permitted to manufacture *or*
> sell it in any country that is a party to the agreement.
Exactly. I was trying to find the words to express that well earlier
but couldn't. The above describes it perfectly.
> This argument gets rejected by Kyoto proponents, however, on the grounds
> that it would be unfair or impossible for "developing" countries to live
> up to the same emission standards as developed countries. There are all
> kinds of ways of dealing with this -- all it takes is a little creativity
> and realism.
Exactly what I was trying to express earlier by saying that
environmentalists should be striving to keep the developing countries
from making the same mistakes as those that developed in the last
two centuries.
> Suppose the rest of the world refuses to play along, saying "It's Kyoto as
> written, no ifs ands or buts". Some might say that would tie the US' hands
> and force the country to do nothing. Not so - it would serve nicely as a
> defensible basis for Local Content laws of the type with which Australia
> had excellent success starting in the 1960s.
China also has these local content laws.
> There would be differences,
> of course; the primary goal of the Australian regulations was to protect
> Australian industry, while the protection of American industry would be a
> mere byproduct of regulations preventing sidestepping of US antipollution
> laws in the production of goods for the US market. As under Kyoto,
> consumers would very likely wind up paying more for their goods. But
> with Local Content laws instead of Kyoto, they wouldn't be paying to
> eliminate American jobs -- they'd be paying to create them.
I am sure the whine would change then.
> Ironically, first-world environmentalists rail against what they see as a
> tendency for Americans in particular to think the waste products of human
> activity -- garbage, exhaust, industrial waste, sewage and so forth -- go
> to a magical place called "away" when we're done with them, never to
> bother anyone again. Of course this isn't so, but it is exactly the sort
> of head-in-the-sand behaviour Kyoto seeks to codify. Cut down on CO2
> emissions in Georgia, and we'll just pretend the reduction isn't reversed
> by the resultant increase in Guangdong. That they claim this is the
> enlightened position only redoubles their arrogance and lack of
> perspective.
I think they pretend it isn't reversed because their goal has nothing
to do with the environment. The environment is the tool. But I suppose
it could just be stupidity.
#4225
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?
In article <Pine.SOL.4.44.0311101338540.719-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu>, Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> If absolute reductions in CO2 emissions are desireable, then reasonable
> and proper standards must be applied to processes, not locations. Spacely
> Sprockets' sprocket saponification process must emit no more than "n"
> amount of CO2 per saponified sprocket, whether they're saponifying
> sprockets in Shangai or Sarnia or St. Louis. And Ming Tsian Xiao's
> thiotimolene resublimation process must emit no more than Amalgamated
> Bizcorp Companyco's thiotimolene resublimation process, and both
> companies' processes must be below "x" amount of CO2 per cubic metre of
> resublimated thiotimolene if they are to be permitted to manufacture *or*
> sell it in any country that is a party to the agreement.
Exactly. I was trying to find the words to express that well earlier
but couldn't. The above describes it perfectly.
> This argument gets rejected by Kyoto proponents, however, on the grounds
> that it would be unfair or impossible for "developing" countries to live
> up to the same emission standards as developed countries. There are all
> kinds of ways of dealing with this -- all it takes is a little creativity
> and realism.
Exactly what I was trying to express earlier by saying that
environmentalists should be striving to keep the developing countries
from making the same mistakes as those that developed in the last
two centuries.
> Suppose the rest of the world refuses to play along, saying "It's Kyoto as
> written, no ifs ands or buts". Some might say that would tie the US' hands
> and force the country to do nothing. Not so - it would serve nicely as a
> defensible basis for Local Content laws of the type with which Australia
> had excellent success starting in the 1960s.
China also has these local content laws.
> There would be differences,
> of course; the primary goal of the Australian regulations was to protect
> Australian industry, while the protection of American industry would be a
> mere byproduct of regulations preventing sidestepping of US antipollution
> laws in the production of goods for the US market. As under Kyoto,
> consumers would very likely wind up paying more for their goods. But
> with Local Content laws instead of Kyoto, they wouldn't be paying to
> eliminate American jobs -- they'd be paying to create them.
I am sure the whine would change then.
> Ironically, first-world environmentalists rail against what they see as a
> tendency for Americans in particular to think the waste products of human
> activity -- garbage, exhaust, industrial waste, sewage and so forth -- go
> to a magical place called "away" when we're done with them, never to
> bother anyone again. Of course this isn't so, but it is exactly the sort
> of head-in-the-sand behaviour Kyoto seeks to codify. Cut down on CO2
> emissions in Georgia, and we'll just pretend the reduction isn't reversed
> by the resultant increase in Guangdong. That they claim this is the
> enlightened position only redoubles their arrogance and lack of
> perspective.
I think they pretend it isn't reversed because their goal has nothing
to do with the environment. The environment is the tool. But I suppose
it could just be stupidity.
> If absolute reductions in CO2 emissions are desireable, then reasonable
> and proper standards must be applied to processes, not locations. Spacely
> Sprockets' sprocket saponification process must emit no more than "n"
> amount of CO2 per saponified sprocket, whether they're saponifying
> sprockets in Shangai or Sarnia or St. Louis. And Ming Tsian Xiao's
> thiotimolene resublimation process must emit no more than Amalgamated
> Bizcorp Companyco's thiotimolene resublimation process, and both
> companies' processes must be below "x" amount of CO2 per cubic metre of
> resublimated thiotimolene if they are to be permitted to manufacture *or*
> sell it in any country that is a party to the agreement.
Exactly. I was trying to find the words to express that well earlier
but couldn't. The above describes it perfectly.
> This argument gets rejected by Kyoto proponents, however, on the grounds
> that it would be unfair or impossible for "developing" countries to live
> up to the same emission standards as developed countries. There are all
> kinds of ways of dealing with this -- all it takes is a little creativity
> and realism.
Exactly what I was trying to express earlier by saying that
environmentalists should be striving to keep the developing countries
from making the same mistakes as those that developed in the last
two centuries.
> Suppose the rest of the world refuses to play along, saying "It's Kyoto as
> written, no ifs ands or buts". Some might say that would tie the US' hands
> and force the country to do nothing. Not so - it would serve nicely as a
> defensible basis for Local Content laws of the type with which Australia
> had excellent success starting in the 1960s.
China also has these local content laws.
> There would be differences,
> of course; the primary goal of the Australian regulations was to protect
> Australian industry, while the protection of American industry would be a
> mere byproduct of regulations preventing sidestepping of US antipollution
> laws in the production of goods for the US market. As under Kyoto,
> consumers would very likely wind up paying more for their goods. But
> with Local Content laws instead of Kyoto, they wouldn't be paying to
> eliminate American jobs -- they'd be paying to create them.
I am sure the whine would change then.
> Ironically, first-world environmentalists rail against what they see as a
> tendency for Americans in particular to think the waste products of human
> activity -- garbage, exhaust, industrial waste, sewage and so forth -- go
> to a magical place called "away" when we're done with them, never to
> bother anyone again. Of course this isn't so, but it is exactly the sort
> of head-in-the-sand behaviour Kyoto seeks to codify. Cut down on CO2
> emissions in Georgia, and we'll just pretend the reduction isn't reversed
> by the resultant increase in Guangdong. That they claim this is the
> enlightened position only redoubles their arrogance and lack of
> perspective.
I think they pretend it isn't reversed because their goal has nothing
to do with the environment. The environment is the tool. But I suppose
it could just be stupidity.
#4226
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
> including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and
property.
Unless you live in the Empire of Pataki, New York
> including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and
property.
Unless you live in the Empire of Pataki, New York
#4227
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
> including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and
property.
Unless you live in the Empire of Pataki, New York
> including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and
property.
Unless you live in the Empire of Pataki, New York
#4228
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
> including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and
property.
Unless you live in the Empire of Pataki, New York
> including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and
property.
Unless you live in the Empire of Pataki, New York