Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4781
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On 22 Nov 2003 08:57:41 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
>it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
>billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
>conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
>fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
>dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
>cities as the ocean rises.
The former is done by somebody who is trying not to do something, and
the latter is somebody's imagination. Niether is particularly
inspiring.
>I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
>it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
>billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
>conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
>fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
>dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
>cities as the ocean rises.
The former is done by somebody who is trying not to do something, and
the latter is somebody's imagination. Niether is particularly
inspiring.
#4782
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On 22 Nov 2003 08:57:41 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
>it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
>billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
>conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
>fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
>dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
>cities as the ocean rises.
The former is done by somebody who is trying not to do something, and
the latter is somebody's imagination. Niether is particularly
inspiring.
>I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
>it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
>billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
>conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
>fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
>dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
>cities as the ocean rises.
The former is done by somebody who is trying not to do something, and
the latter is somebody's imagination. Niether is particularly
inspiring.
#4783
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On 22 Nov 2003 08:57:41 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
>it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
>billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
>conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
>fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
>dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
>cities as the ocean rises.
The former is done by somebody who is trying not to do something, and
the latter is somebody's imagination. Niether is particularly
inspiring.
>I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
>it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
>billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
>conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
>fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
>dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
>cities as the ocean rises.
The former is done by somebody who is trying not to do something, and
the latter is somebody's imagination. Niether is particularly
inspiring.
#4784
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google.c om...
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
> > >
> > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
> >
> > No we don't!
> >
> > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
concentration
> > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief does
not prove
> > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
anything. The
> > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs. Looking
at one
> > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS. As a
> > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate research
don't even
> > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last few
years.
> > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or trying to
infere
> > it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature. The
errors
> > associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes they
are
> > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and then
groomed the
> > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is
treated as a
> > loon.
>
> The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
> one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
> the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they "decided
> on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there some
> kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw the
> economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
> have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
> operation?
> And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the establishment
> who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
I believe they are wrong. They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
far more likely cause. WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating (think
seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force behind
global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
#4785
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google.c om...
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
> > >
> > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
> >
> > No we don't!
> >
> > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
concentration
> > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief does
not prove
> > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
anything. The
> > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs. Looking
at one
> > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS. As a
> > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate research
don't even
> > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last few
years.
> > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or trying to
infere
> > it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature. The
errors
> > associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes they
are
> > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and then
groomed the
> > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is
treated as a
> > loon.
>
> The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
> one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
> the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they "decided
> on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there some
> kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw the
> economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
> have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
> operation?
> And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the establishment
> who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
I believe they are wrong. They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
far more likely cause. WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating (think
seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force behind
global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
#4786
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google.c om...
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
> > >
> > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
> >
> > No we don't!
> >
> > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
concentration
> > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief does
not prove
> > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
anything. The
> > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs. Looking
at one
> > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS. As a
> > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate research
don't even
> > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last few
years.
> > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or trying to
infere
> > it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature. The
errors
> > associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes they
are
> > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and then
groomed the
> > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is
treated as a
> > loon.
>
> The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
> one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
> the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they "decided
> on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there some
> kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw the
> economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
> have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
> operation?
> And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the establishment
> who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
I believe they are wrong. They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
far more likely cause. WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating (think
seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force behind
global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
#4787
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <ikdtrvc5ok1mm328rlka4qaomcl3rrltvi@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Nov 03 11:24:00 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>And there are hundreds of scientific articles saying just the opposite.
>>Further, this article has been substiantially refuted in Nature recently.
>
>Is Nature a peer-reviewed scientific journal?
Err, actually, it is. Very well-known. It has a Position on the
matter, though.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Nov 03 11:24:00 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>And there are hundreds of scientific articles saying just the opposite.
>>Further, this article has been substiantially refuted in Nature recently.
>
>Is Nature a peer-reviewed scientific journal?
Err, actually, it is. Very well-known. It has a Position on the
matter, though.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#4788
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <ikdtrvc5ok1mm328rlka4qaomcl3rrltvi@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Nov 03 11:24:00 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>And there are hundreds of scientific articles saying just the opposite.
>>Further, this article has been substiantially refuted in Nature recently.
>
>Is Nature a peer-reviewed scientific journal?
Err, actually, it is. Very well-known. It has a Position on the
matter, though.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Nov 03 11:24:00 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>And there are hundreds of scientific articles saying just the opposite.
>>Further, this article has been substiantially refuted in Nature recently.
>
>Is Nature a peer-reviewed scientific journal?
Err, actually, it is. Very well-known. It has a Position on the
matter, though.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#4789
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <ikdtrvc5ok1mm328rlka4qaomcl3rrltvi@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Nov 03 11:24:00 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>And there are hundreds of scientific articles saying just the opposite.
>>Further, this article has been substiantially refuted in Nature recently.
>
>Is Nature a peer-reviewed scientific journal?
Err, actually, it is. Very well-known. It has a Position on the
matter, though.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Nov 03 11:24:00 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>And there are hundreds of scientific articles saying just the opposite.
>>Further, this article has been substiantially refuted in Nature recently.
>
>Is Nature a peer-reviewed scientific journal?
Err, actually, it is. Very well-known. It has a Position on the
matter, though.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#4790
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Matt Osborn wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:34:55 GMT, "Benjamin Lee"
> <benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using the
> >first nuclear bomb.
>
> Not really. More lives were lost in the Battle of Okinowa than in
> Hiroshima and Nagaski combined.
For that matter the fire raids in Tokyo destroyed more property and
killed more people than the nuclear attacks.
However, I think the use of the atom bomb was probably an unfortunate
mistake. I doubut the poeple who made the decision understood the
magnitude of what they did.
Ed