Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4271
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message news:<kmPrb.10444$pE3.2189@twister.socal.rr.com>.. .
> > >>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
> > >>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
> > >
> >
>
> I've always thought this accusation against the US, that it, being a
> minority of the worlds population but uses a majority of the resources and
> produces a majority of the waste, was meant to pander to envy of and anger
> against the US.
No, it's just pointing out that developed countries make more of a
mess than undeveloped countries. And that we have a responsibility as
global citizens to look at the mess we're making, and do our best to
reduce it. That's all.
>
>
> Ironically, it's the US that has led the way in cleaning up industry
> emissions and auto emissions.
I would have thought it was places like some Scandinavian countries
and Germany that have led the way in cleaning up industry emissions.
California probably leads the way in cleaning up auto emissions, I'd
guess.
> The tax the US places on it's own economy in
> striving for clean air and clean water is enormous.
If you want to maintain your strong economy, it makes sense, too.
There is a strong correlation between fresh water supplies and
strength of the economy, worldwide.
> Finding newer
> technologies to reduce or illiminate pollution is great, but there's
> currently nothing that can replace oil as a source of energy without killing
> the world economy.
Well, totally replace? Yeah, you're right. We can, however, use the
oil we have more efficiently, and use alternative sources where
possible.
>
> And like it or not, it's the power of the US economy that has protected the
> world from despotism... from the ***** and from the Communists. And now
> from Islamic extremists. They are more dangerous than ***** or Communists
> because they understand that destroying the US economy is what will give
> them the ability to push back and defeat the "infidel" west and impose an
> Islamic empire. If you're looking for greed, look there.
Yeah, yeah, yeah...
At the risk of going off on a BIG tangent, keep in mind it was a US
foreign policy (concentrated on stamping out Communism) that lost
sight of the long term picture, putting Islamic extremists into the
positions of power that they now have. If you're looking for
solutions to the Islamic extremist problem, look to the sources of the
troubles first. Still, this is getting so far OT, that I probably
won't respond further to that particular issue here. Feel free to
email me if you want a little donnybrook over that one! :)
Cheers,
Steve
> > >>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
> > >>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
> > >
> >
>
> I've always thought this accusation against the US, that it, being a
> minority of the worlds population but uses a majority of the resources and
> produces a majority of the waste, was meant to pander to envy of and anger
> against the US.
No, it's just pointing out that developed countries make more of a
mess than undeveloped countries. And that we have a responsibility as
global citizens to look at the mess we're making, and do our best to
reduce it. That's all.
>
>
> Ironically, it's the US that has led the way in cleaning up industry
> emissions and auto emissions.
I would have thought it was places like some Scandinavian countries
and Germany that have led the way in cleaning up industry emissions.
California probably leads the way in cleaning up auto emissions, I'd
guess.
> The tax the US places on it's own economy in
> striving for clean air and clean water is enormous.
If you want to maintain your strong economy, it makes sense, too.
There is a strong correlation between fresh water supplies and
strength of the economy, worldwide.
> Finding newer
> technologies to reduce or illiminate pollution is great, but there's
> currently nothing that can replace oil as a source of energy without killing
> the world economy.
Well, totally replace? Yeah, you're right. We can, however, use the
oil we have more efficiently, and use alternative sources where
possible.
>
> And like it or not, it's the power of the US economy that has protected the
> world from despotism... from the ***** and from the Communists. And now
> from Islamic extremists. They are more dangerous than ***** or Communists
> because they understand that destroying the US economy is what will give
> them the ability to push back and defeat the "infidel" west and impose an
> Islamic empire. If you're looking for greed, look there.
Yeah, yeah, yeah...
At the risk of going off on a BIG tangent, keep in mind it was a US
foreign policy (concentrated on stamping out Communism) that lost
sight of the long term picture, putting Islamic extremists into the
positions of power that they now have. If you're looking for
solutions to the Islamic extremist problem, look to the sources of the
troubles first. Still, this is getting so far OT, that I probably
won't respond further to that particular issue here. Feel free to
email me if you want a little donnybrook over that one! :)
Cheers,
Steve
#4272
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message news:<kmPrb.10444$pE3.2189@twister.socal.rr.com>.. .
> > >>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
> > >>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
> > >
> >
>
> I've always thought this accusation against the US, that it, being a
> minority of the worlds population but uses a majority of the resources and
> produces a majority of the waste, was meant to pander to envy of and anger
> against the US.
No, it's just pointing out that developed countries make more of a
mess than undeveloped countries. And that we have a responsibility as
global citizens to look at the mess we're making, and do our best to
reduce it. That's all.
>
>
> Ironically, it's the US that has led the way in cleaning up industry
> emissions and auto emissions.
I would have thought it was places like some Scandinavian countries
and Germany that have led the way in cleaning up industry emissions.
California probably leads the way in cleaning up auto emissions, I'd
guess.
> The tax the US places on it's own economy in
> striving for clean air and clean water is enormous.
If you want to maintain your strong economy, it makes sense, too.
There is a strong correlation between fresh water supplies and
strength of the economy, worldwide.
> Finding newer
> technologies to reduce or illiminate pollution is great, but there's
> currently nothing that can replace oil as a source of energy without killing
> the world economy.
Well, totally replace? Yeah, you're right. We can, however, use the
oil we have more efficiently, and use alternative sources where
possible.
>
> And like it or not, it's the power of the US economy that has protected the
> world from despotism... from the ***** and from the Communists. And now
> from Islamic extremists. They are more dangerous than ***** or Communists
> because they understand that destroying the US economy is what will give
> them the ability to push back and defeat the "infidel" west and impose an
> Islamic empire. If you're looking for greed, look there.
Yeah, yeah, yeah...
At the risk of going off on a BIG tangent, keep in mind it was a US
foreign policy (concentrated on stamping out Communism) that lost
sight of the long term picture, putting Islamic extremists into the
positions of power that they now have. If you're looking for
solutions to the Islamic extremist problem, look to the sources of the
troubles first. Still, this is getting so far OT, that I probably
won't respond further to that particular issue here. Feel free to
email me if you want a little donnybrook over that one! :)
Cheers,
Steve
> > >>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
> > >>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
> > >
> >
>
> I've always thought this accusation against the US, that it, being a
> minority of the worlds population but uses a majority of the resources and
> produces a majority of the waste, was meant to pander to envy of and anger
> against the US.
No, it's just pointing out that developed countries make more of a
mess than undeveloped countries. And that we have a responsibility as
global citizens to look at the mess we're making, and do our best to
reduce it. That's all.
>
>
> Ironically, it's the US that has led the way in cleaning up industry
> emissions and auto emissions.
I would have thought it was places like some Scandinavian countries
and Germany that have led the way in cleaning up industry emissions.
California probably leads the way in cleaning up auto emissions, I'd
guess.
> The tax the US places on it's own economy in
> striving for clean air and clean water is enormous.
If you want to maintain your strong economy, it makes sense, too.
There is a strong correlation between fresh water supplies and
strength of the economy, worldwide.
> Finding newer
> technologies to reduce or illiminate pollution is great, but there's
> currently nothing that can replace oil as a source of energy without killing
> the world economy.
Well, totally replace? Yeah, you're right. We can, however, use the
oil we have more efficiently, and use alternative sources where
possible.
>
> And like it or not, it's the power of the US economy that has protected the
> world from despotism... from the ***** and from the Communists. And now
> from Islamic extremists. They are more dangerous than ***** or Communists
> because they understand that destroying the US economy is what will give
> them the ability to push back and defeat the "infidel" west and impose an
> Islamic empire. If you're looking for greed, look there.
Yeah, yeah, yeah...
At the risk of going off on a BIG tangent, keep in mind it was a US
foreign policy (concentrated on stamping out Communism) that lost
sight of the long term picture, putting Islamic extremists into the
positions of power that they now have. If you're looking for
solutions to the Islamic extremist problem, look to the sources of the
troubles first. Still, this is getting so far OT, that I probably
won't respond further to that particular issue here. Feel free to
email me if you want a little donnybrook over that one! :)
Cheers,
Steve
#4273
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message news:<kmPrb.10444$pE3.2189@twister.socal.rr.com>.. .
> > >>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
> > >>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
> > >
> >
>
> I've always thought this accusation against the US, that it, being a
> minority of the worlds population but uses a majority of the resources and
> produces a majority of the waste, was meant to pander to envy of and anger
> against the US.
No, it's just pointing out that developed countries make more of a
mess than undeveloped countries. And that we have a responsibility as
global citizens to look at the mess we're making, and do our best to
reduce it. That's all.
>
>
> Ironically, it's the US that has led the way in cleaning up industry
> emissions and auto emissions.
I would have thought it was places like some Scandinavian countries
and Germany that have led the way in cleaning up industry emissions.
California probably leads the way in cleaning up auto emissions, I'd
guess.
> The tax the US places on it's own economy in
> striving for clean air and clean water is enormous.
If you want to maintain your strong economy, it makes sense, too.
There is a strong correlation between fresh water supplies and
strength of the economy, worldwide.
> Finding newer
> technologies to reduce or illiminate pollution is great, but there's
> currently nothing that can replace oil as a source of energy without killing
> the world economy.
Well, totally replace? Yeah, you're right. We can, however, use the
oil we have more efficiently, and use alternative sources where
possible.
>
> And like it or not, it's the power of the US economy that has protected the
> world from despotism... from the ***** and from the Communists. And now
> from Islamic extremists. They are more dangerous than ***** or Communists
> because they understand that destroying the US economy is what will give
> them the ability to push back and defeat the "infidel" west and impose an
> Islamic empire. If you're looking for greed, look there.
Yeah, yeah, yeah...
At the risk of going off on a BIG tangent, keep in mind it was a US
foreign policy (concentrated on stamping out Communism) that lost
sight of the long term picture, putting Islamic extremists into the
positions of power that they now have. If you're looking for
solutions to the Islamic extremist problem, look to the sources of the
troubles first. Still, this is getting so far OT, that I probably
won't respond further to that particular issue here. Feel free to
email me if you want a little donnybrook over that one! :)
Cheers,
Steve
> > >>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
> > >>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
> > >
> >
>
> I've always thought this accusation against the US, that it, being a
> minority of the worlds population but uses a majority of the resources and
> produces a majority of the waste, was meant to pander to envy of and anger
> against the US.
No, it's just pointing out that developed countries make more of a
mess than undeveloped countries. And that we have a responsibility as
global citizens to look at the mess we're making, and do our best to
reduce it. That's all.
>
>
> Ironically, it's the US that has led the way in cleaning up industry
> emissions and auto emissions.
I would have thought it was places like some Scandinavian countries
and Germany that have led the way in cleaning up industry emissions.
California probably leads the way in cleaning up auto emissions, I'd
guess.
> The tax the US places on it's own economy in
> striving for clean air and clean water is enormous.
If you want to maintain your strong economy, it makes sense, too.
There is a strong correlation between fresh water supplies and
strength of the economy, worldwide.
> Finding newer
> technologies to reduce or illiminate pollution is great, but there's
> currently nothing that can replace oil as a source of energy without killing
> the world economy.
Well, totally replace? Yeah, you're right. We can, however, use the
oil we have more efficiently, and use alternative sources where
possible.
>
> And like it or not, it's the power of the US economy that has protected the
> world from despotism... from the ***** and from the Communists. And now
> from Islamic extremists. They are more dangerous than ***** or Communists
> because they understand that destroying the US economy is what will give
> them the ability to push back and defeat the "infidel" west and impose an
> Islamic empire. If you're looking for greed, look there.
Yeah, yeah, yeah...
At the risk of going off on a BIG tangent, keep in mind it was a US
foreign policy (concentrated on stamping out Communism) that lost
sight of the long term picture, putting Islamic extremists into the
positions of power that they now have. If you're looking for
solutions to the Islamic extremist problem, look to the sources of the
troubles first. Still, this is getting so far OT, that I probably
won't respond further to that particular issue here. Feel free to
email me if you want a little donnybrook over that one! :)
Cheers,
Steve
#4274
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Danish solar scientists Friz-Christensen & Lassen developed a perfect
correlation between solar activity and earth temps going back hundreds of
years. Their conclusion? Solar factors are by far the greatest factor in
earth temps, and the warming trend noted since the early 80's perfectly
parallels an increase in solar activity. Conversely, the cooling period that
preceded it paralleled a similar low point in solar activity.
Unfortunately the Socialist green elitists have tried to quash publication
of these and other similar findings because it debunks their social
revisionist agenda. The Discovery Science channel did an entire program on
this subject, fascinating.
"Vic Klein" <vhklein@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:3FB01A1D.CA2DC612@ptd.net...
> I tried to not to answer these grossly off-topic discussions, but I
> couldn't resist <sigh> making just one point. What with the hoopla about
> global warming several years back when the Kyoto accords were being
> pushed (by nations that hadn't signed them, oddly), I wanted to see just
> how bad things were. We have a US weather station in Williamsport that
> has continuously recorded data for over 100 years, so I thought I'd
> download that for study. Of course, there's a lot of fluctuation, but if
> you plot a linear trend line to the data for the last 103 years you find
> the average annual temperature here has dropped by about 0.5F, not
> increased. Hmmm...where is the warming data? Is that only being
> collected in large, growing cities and not rural areas? Secondly, I
> plotted a 5 year moving average just to see what might show up and there
> is a remarkable cycle that appears, lasting about 11 years or so. Just
> the same as the solar cyles for sunspots. Curious. Maybe we're just
> different from the rest of the world out here in the country, but
> hmmm....
>
> =Vic=
> Bear Gap, PA
>
> Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> >
> > st3ph3nm wrote:
> > > DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<gu5tqvcuqj5rf4n4bie9qjjfd90nd2t66c@4ax.com>. ..
> > >
> > >>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> > >>wrote:
> > >>
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > >>>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
> > >>>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
> > >>>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA
and
> > >>>are using this topic as their tool to do so.
> > >>
> > >>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
> > >>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
> > >
> > >
> > > I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
> > > extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
> > > here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
> > > guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
> > > not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
> > > that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
> > > emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
> > > Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
> > > it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts? And
> > > there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
> > > cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
> > > thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
> > > Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
> > > sell them on to the developing markets. I wish Australia hadn't
> > > followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.
> >
> > Only if the theory of global warming is correct. I don't believe it is
> > and none of us will likely live long enough to ever find out. The earth
> > has been undergoing massive changes in climate for some time, and I
> > don't expect that to stop simply because we started recording it better.
> >
> > Matt
correlation between solar activity and earth temps going back hundreds of
years. Their conclusion? Solar factors are by far the greatest factor in
earth temps, and the warming trend noted since the early 80's perfectly
parallels an increase in solar activity. Conversely, the cooling period that
preceded it paralleled a similar low point in solar activity.
Unfortunately the Socialist green elitists have tried to quash publication
of these and other similar findings because it debunks their social
revisionist agenda. The Discovery Science channel did an entire program on
this subject, fascinating.
"Vic Klein" <vhklein@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:3FB01A1D.CA2DC612@ptd.net...
> I tried to not to answer these grossly off-topic discussions, but I
> couldn't resist <sigh> making just one point. What with the hoopla about
> global warming several years back when the Kyoto accords were being
> pushed (by nations that hadn't signed them, oddly), I wanted to see just
> how bad things were. We have a US weather station in Williamsport that
> has continuously recorded data for over 100 years, so I thought I'd
> download that for study. Of course, there's a lot of fluctuation, but if
> you plot a linear trend line to the data for the last 103 years you find
> the average annual temperature here has dropped by about 0.5F, not
> increased. Hmmm...where is the warming data? Is that only being
> collected in large, growing cities and not rural areas? Secondly, I
> plotted a 5 year moving average just to see what might show up and there
> is a remarkable cycle that appears, lasting about 11 years or so. Just
> the same as the solar cyles for sunspots. Curious. Maybe we're just
> different from the rest of the world out here in the country, but
> hmmm....
>
> =Vic=
> Bear Gap, PA
>
> Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> >
> > st3ph3nm wrote:
> > > DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<gu5tqvcuqj5rf4n4bie9qjjfd90nd2t66c@4ax.com>. ..
> > >
> > >>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> > >>wrote:
> > >>
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > >>>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
> > >>>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
> > >>>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA
and
> > >>>are using this topic as their tool to do so.
> > >>
> > >>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
> > >>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
> > >
> > >
> > > I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
> > > extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
> > > here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
> > > guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
> > > not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
> > > that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
> > > emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
> > > Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
> > > it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts? And
> > > there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
> > > cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
> > > thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
> > > Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
> > > sell them on to the developing markets. I wish Australia hadn't
> > > followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.
> >
> > Only if the theory of global warming is correct. I don't believe it is
> > and none of us will likely live long enough to ever find out. The earth
> > has been undergoing massive changes in climate for some time, and I
> > don't expect that to stop simply because we started recording it better.
> >
> > Matt
#4275
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Danish solar scientists Friz-Christensen & Lassen developed a perfect
correlation between solar activity and earth temps going back hundreds of
years. Their conclusion? Solar factors are by far the greatest factor in
earth temps, and the warming trend noted since the early 80's perfectly
parallels an increase in solar activity. Conversely, the cooling period that
preceded it paralleled a similar low point in solar activity.
Unfortunately the Socialist green elitists have tried to quash publication
of these and other similar findings because it debunks their social
revisionist agenda. The Discovery Science channel did an entire program on
this subject, fascinating.
"Vic Klein" <vhklein@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:3FB01A1D.CA2DC612@ptd.net...
> I tried to not to answer these grossly off-topic discussions, but I
> couldn't resist <sigh> making just one point. What with the hoopla about
> global warming several years back when the Kyoto accords were being
> pushed (by nations that hadn't signed them, oddly), I wanted to see just
> how bad things were. We have a US weather station in Williamsport that
> has continuously recorded data for over 100 years, so I thought I'd
> download that for study. Of course, there's a lot of fluctuation, but if
> you plot a linear trend line to the data for the last 103 years you find
> the average annual temperature here has dropped by about 0.5F, not
> increased. Hmmm...where is the warming data? Is that only being
> collected in large, growing cities and not rural areas? Secondly, I
> plotted a 5 year moving average just to see what might show up and there
> is a remarkable cycle that appears, lasting about 11 years or so. Just
> the same as the solar cyles for sunspots. Curious. Maybe we're just
> different from the rest of the world out here in the country, but
> hmmm....
>
> =Vic=
> Bear Gap, PA
>
> Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> >
> > st3ph3nm wrote:
> > > DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<gu5tqvcuqj5rf4n4bie9qjjfd90nd2t66c@4ax.com>. ..
> > >
> > >>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> > >>wrote:
> > >>
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > >>>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
> > >>>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
> > >>>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA
and
> > >>>are using this topic as their tool to do so.
> > >>
> > >>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
> > >>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
> > >
> > >
> > > I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
> > > extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
> > > here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
> > > guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
> > > not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
> > > that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
> > > emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
> > > Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
> > > it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts? And
> > > there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
> > > cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
> > > thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
> > > Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
> > > sell them on to the developing markets. I wish Australia hadn't
> > > followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.
> >
> > Only if the theory of global warming is correct. I don't believe it is
> > and none of us will likely live long enough to ever find out. The earth
> > has been undergoing massive changes in climate for some time, and I
> > don't expect that to stop simply because we started recording it better.
> >
> > Matt
correlation between solar activity and earth temps going back hundreds of
years. Their conclusion? Solar factors are by far the greatest factor in
earth temps, and the warming trend noted since the early 80's perfectly
parallels an increase in solar activity. Conversely, the cooling period that
preceded it paralleled a similar low point in solar activity.
Unfortunately the Socialist green elitists have tried to quash publication
of these and other similar findings because it debunks their social
revisionist agenda. The Discovery Science channel did an entire program on
this subject, fascinating.
"Vic Klein" <vhklein@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:3FB01A1D.CA2DC612@ptd.net...
> I tried to not to answer these grossly off-topic discussions, but I
> couldn't resist <sigh> making just one point. What with the hoopla about
> global warming several years back when the Kyoto accords were being
> pushed (by nations that hadn't signed them, oddly), I wanted to see just
> how bad things were. We have a US weather station in Williamsport that
> has continuously recorded data for over 100 years, so I thought I'd
> download that for study. Of course, there's a lot of fluctuation, but if
> you plot a linear trend line to the data for the last 103 years you find
> the average annual temperature here has dropped by about 0.5F, not
> increased. Hmmm...where is the warming data? Is that only being
> collected in large, growing cities and not rural areas? Secondly, I
> plotted a 5 year moving average just to see what might show up and there
> is a remarkable cycle that appears, lasting about 11 years or so. Just
> the same as the solar cyles for sunspots. Curious. Maybe we're just
> different from the rest of the world out here in the country, but
> hmmm....
>
> =Vic=
> Bear Gap, PA
>
> Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> >
> > st3ph3nm wrote:
> > > DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<gu5tqvcuqj5rf4n4bie9qjjfd90nd2t66c@4ax.com>. ..
> > >
> > >>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> > >>wrote:
> > >>
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > >>>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
> > >>>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
> > >>>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA
and
> > >>>are using this topic as their tool to do so.
> > >>
> > >>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
> > >>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
> > >
> > >
> > > I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
> > > extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
> > > here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
> > > guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
> > > not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
> > > that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
> > > emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
> > > Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
> > > it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts? And
> > > there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
> > > cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
> > > thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
> > > Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
> > > sell them on to the developing markets. I wish Australia hadn't
> > > followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.
> >
> > Only if the theory of global warming is correct. I don't believe it is
> > and none of us will likely live long enough to ever find out. The earth
> > has been undergoing massive changes in climate for some time, and I
> > don't expect that to stop simply because we started recording it better.
> >
> > Matt
#4276
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Danish solar scientists Friz-Christensen & Lassen developed a perfect
correlation between solar activity and earth temps going back hundreds of
years. Their conclusion? Solar factors are by far the greatest factor in
earth temps, and the warming trend noted since the early 80's perfectly
parallels an increase in solar activity. Conversely, the cooling period that
preceded it paralleled a similar low point in solar activity.
Unfortunately the Socialist green elitists have tried to quash publication
of these and other similar findings because it debunks their social
revisionist agenda. The Discovery Science channel did an entire program on
this subject, fascinating.
"Vic Klein" <vhklein@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:3FB01A1D.CA2DC612@ptd.net...
> I tried to not to answer these grossly off-topic discussions, but I
> couldn't resist <sigh> making just one point. What with the hoopla about
> global warming several years back when the Kyoto accords were being
> pushed (by nations that hadn't signed them, oddly), I wanted to see just
> how bad things were. We have a US weather station in Williamsport that
> has continuously recorded data for over 100 years, so I thought I'd
> download that for study. Of course, there's a lot of fluctuation, but if
> you plot a linear trend line to the data for the last 103 years you find
> the average annual temperature here has dropped by about 0.5F, not
> increased. Hmmm...where is the warming data? Is that only being
> collected in large, growing cities and not rural areas? Secondly, I
> plotted a 5 year moving average just to see what might show up and there
> is a remarkable cycle that appears, lasting about 11 years or so. Just
> the same as the solar cyles for sunspots. Curious. Maybe we're just
> different from the rest of the world out here in the country, but
> hmmm....
>
> =Vic=
> Bear Gap, PA
>
> Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> >
> > st3ph3nm wrote:
> > > DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<gu5tqvcuqj5rf4n4bie9qjjfd90nd2t66c@4ax.com>. ..
> > >
> > >>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> > >>wrote:
> > >>
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > >>>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
> > >>>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
> > >>>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA
and
> > >>>are using this topic as their tool to do so.
> > >>
> > >>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
> > >>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
> > >
> > >
> > > I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
> > > extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
> > > here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
> > > guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
> > > not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
> > > that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
> > > emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
> > > Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
> > > it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts? And
> > > there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
> > > cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
> > > thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
> > > Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
> > > sell them on to the developing markets. I wish Australia hadn't
> > > followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.
> >
> > Only if the theory of global warming is correct. I don't believe it is
> > and none of us will likely live long enough to ever find out. The earth
> > has been undergoing massive changes in climate for some time, and I
> > don't expect that to stop simply because we started recording it better.
> >
> > Matt
correlation between solar activity and earth temps going back hundreds of
years. Their conclusion? Solar factors are by far the greatest factor in
earth temps, and the warming trend noted since the early 80's perfectly
parallels an increase in solar activity. Conversely, the cooling period that
preceded it paralleled a similar low point in solar activity.
Unfortunately the Socialist green elitists have tried to quash publication
of these and other similar findings because it debunks their social
revisionist agenda. The Discovery Science channel did an entire program on
this subject, fascinating.
"Vic Klein" <vhklein@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:3FB01A1D.CA2DC612@ptd.net...
> I tried to not to answer these grossly off-topic discussions, but I
> couldn't resist <sigh> making just one point. What with the hoopla about
> global warming several years back when the Kyoto accords were being
> pushed (by nations that hadn't signed them, oddly), I wanted to see just
> how bad things were. We have a US weather station in Williamsport that
> has continuously recorded data for over 100 years, so I thought I'd
> download that for study. Of course, there's a lot of fluctuation, but if
> you plot a linear trend line to the data for the last 103 years you find
> the average annual temperature here has dropped by about 0.5F, not
> increased. Hmmm...where is the warming data? Is that only being
> collected in large, growing cities and not rural areas? Secondly, I
> plotted a 5 year moving average just to see what might show up and there
> is a remarkable cycle that appears, lasting about 11 years or so. Just
> the same as the solar cyles for sunspots. Curious. Maybe we're just
> different from the rest of the world out here in the country, but
> hmmm....
>
> =Vic=
> Bear Gap, PA
>
> Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> >
> > st3ph3nm wrote:
> > > DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<gu5tqvcuqj5rf4n4bie9qjjfd90nd2t66c@4ax.com>. ..
> > >
> > >>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> > >>wrote:
> > >>
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > >>>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
> > >>>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
> > >>>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA
and
> > >>>are using this topic as their tool to do so.
> > >>
> > >>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
> > >>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
> > >
> > >
> > > I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
> > > extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
> > > here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
> > > guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
> > > not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
> > > that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
> > > emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
> > > Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
> > > it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts? And
> > > there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
> > > cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
> > > thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
> > > Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
> > > sell them on to the developing markets. I wish Australia hadn't
> > > followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.
> >
> > Only if the theory of global warming is correct. I don't believe it is
> > and none of us will likely live long enough to ever find out. The earth
> > has been undergoing massive changes in climate for some time, and I
> > don't expect that to stop simply because we started recording it better.
> >
> > Matt
#4277
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. <
That's the biggest load of crap I've ever read! The middle income tax rate
on federal alone is nearly 25%, to which you can add 3% social security,
12.8% FICA, whatever the state charges, which can be as high as 9%, and 3-8%
municipal tax for those in major metro areas.
This is PRECISELY the kind of lies, outright lies, told by Democrats and
their Socialist fellow travellers to mask income confiscation from the
middle class.
including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and
property. <
That's the biggest load of crap I've ever read! The middle income tax rate
on federal alone is nearly 25%, to which you can add 3% social security,
12.8% FICA, whatever the state charges, which can be as high as 9%, and 3-8%
municipal tax for those in major metro areas.
This is PRECISELY the kind of lies, outright lies, told by Democrats and
their Socialist fellow travellers to mask income confiscation from the
middle class.
#4278
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. <
That's the biggest load of crap I've ever read! The middle income tax rate
on federal alone is nearly 25%, to which you can add 3% social security,
12.8% FICA, whatever the state charges, which can be as high as 9%, and 3-8%
municipal tax for those in major metro areas.
This is PRECISELY the kind of lies, outright lies, told by Democrats and
their Socialist fellow travellers to mask income confiscation from the
middle class.
including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and
property. <
That's the biggest load of crap I've ever read! The middle income tax rate
on federal alone is nearly 25%, to which you can add 3% social security,
12.8% FICA, whatever the state charges, which can be as high as 9%, and 3-8%
municipal tax for those in major metro areas.
This is PRECISELY the kind of lies, outright lies, told by Democrats and
their Socialist fellow travellers to mask income confiscation from the
middle class.
#4279
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. <
That's the biggest load of crap I've ever read! The middle income tax rate
on federal alone is nearly 25%, to which you can add 3% social security,
12.8% FICA, whatever the state charges, which can be as high as 9%, and 3-8%
municipal tax for those in major metro areas.
This is PRECISELY the kind of lies, outright lies, told by Democrats and
their Socialist fellow travellers to mask income confiscation from the
middle class.
including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and
property. <
That's the biggest load of crap I've ever read! The middle income tax rate
on federal alone is nearly 25%, to which you can add 3% social security,
12.8% FICA, whatever the state charges, which can be as high as 9%, and 3-8%
municipal tax for those in major metro areas.
This is PRECISELY the kind of lies, outright lies, told by Democrats and
their Socialist fellow travellers to mask income confiscation from the
middle class.
#4280
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:43:53 -0900, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>
>>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:56:41 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>>In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>>>>>
>>>>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
>>>
>>>It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
>>>Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
>>
>>You are basing your conclusion on an unproven premise. It was "fairly
>>obvious" that the earth was flat as well. That didn't make it true...
>>
>>Marc
>>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
>However, the flat earth theory was based on a false premise, without
>observation.
What do you call using your eyes to see? I call it observation. I'd
suspect that the people that thought the world was flat based it on
observation.
>That tax increases hurt economies is an observed fact.
Then why is it so hotly debated?
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:43:53 -0900, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>
>>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:56:41 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>>In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>>>>>
>>>>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
>>>
>>>It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
>>>Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
>>
>>You are basing your conclusion on an unproven premise. It was "fairly
>>obvious" that the earth was flat as well. That didn't make it true...
>>
>>Marc
>>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
>However, the flat earth theory was based on a false premise, without
>observation.
What do you call using your eyes to see? I call it observation. I'd
suspect that the people that thought the world was flat based it on
observation.
>That tax increases hurt economies is an observed fact.
Then why is it so hotly debated?
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"