Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4811
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Thu, 23 Oct 03 09:52:47 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <igddpvo55irmoj85sgi1apnvcjjt3ve9q9@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 22 Oct 03 10:51:14 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>"global warming is as established fact"
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>>>
>>>No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>>>NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>>>
>>>As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>>
>>Yes, but the *why* is pure conjecture.
>
>No, the why is entirely settled.
See prior response.
>
>>
>>I suppose that you teach that when something happens, that has
>>happened before, the latest instance must be for a different reason?
>>Is that how you teach?
>>
>I teach facts and science, not right-wing political propaganda.
wrote:
>In article <igddpvo55irmoj85sgi1apnvcjjt3ve9q9@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 22 Oct 03 10:51:14 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>"global warming is as established fact"
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>>>
>>>No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>>>NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>>>
>>>As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>>
>>Yes, but the *why* is pure conjecture.
>
>No, the why is entirely settled.
See prior response.
>
>>
>>I suppose that you teach that when something happens, that has
>>happened before, the latest instance must be for a different reason?
>>Is that how you teach?
>>
>I teach facts and science, not right-wing political propaganda.
#4812
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Thu, 23 Oct 03 09:52:47 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <igddpvo55irmoj85sgi1apnvcjjt3ve9q9@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 22 Oct 03 10:51:14 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>"global warming is as established fact"
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>>>
>>>No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>>>NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>>>
>>>As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>>
>>Yes, but the *why* is pure conjecture.
>
>No, the why is entirely settled.
See prior response.
>
>>
>>I suppose that you teach that when something happens, that has
>>happened before, the latest instance must be for a different reason?
>>Is that how you teach?
>>
>I teach facts and science, not right-wing political propaganda.
wrote:
>In article <igddpvo55irmoj85sgi1apnvcjjt3ve9q9@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 22 Oct 03 10:51:14 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>"global warming is as established fact"
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>>>
>>>No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>>>NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>>>
>>>As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>>
>>Yes, but the *why* is pure conjecture.
>
>No, the why is entirely settled.
See prior response.
>
>>
>>I suppose that you teach that when something happens, that has
>>happened before, the latest instance must be for a different reason?
>>Is that how you teach?
>>
>I teach facts and science, not right-wing political propaganda.
#4813
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Thu, 23 Oct 03 09:52:47 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <igddpvo55irmoj85sgi1apnvcjjt3ve9q9@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 22 Oct 03 10:51:14 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>"global warming is as established fact"
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>>>
>>>No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>>>NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>>>
>>>As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>>
>>Yes, but the *why* is pure conjecture.
>
>No, the why is entirely settled.
See prior response.
>
>>
>>I suppose that you teach that when something happens, that has
>>happened before, the latest instance must be for a different reason?
>>Is that how you teach?
>>
>I teach facts and science, not right-wing political propaganda.
wrote:
>In article <igddpvo55irmoj85sgi1apnvcjjt3ve9q9@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 22 Oct 03 10:51:14 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>"global warming is as established fact"
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>>>
>>>No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>>>NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>>>
>>>As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>>
>>Yes, but the *why* is pure conjecture.
>
>No, the why is entirely settled.
See prior response.
>
>>
>>I suppose that you teach that when something happens, that has
>>happened before, the latest instance must be for a different reason?
>>Is that how you teach?
>>
>I teach facts and science, not right-wing political propaganda.
#4814
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Thu, 23 Oct 03 09:54:15 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>> The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
>>He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
>
>Then where are they?
Hypothetical question:
Let's say it's a given that you have illegal drugs in your house.
(Just like Saddam had WMDs)
Let's say that the local police told you, officially, by certified
letter (return receipt requested, you gotta sign for it, the whole
thing) telling you that htey were going to come search your house,
giving you the date of the search, even asking you to make sure you
were there to help.
Would you be so stupid to let them find the drugs?
That's a rhetorical question. You don't really have to answer.
wrote:
>> The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
>>He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
>
>Then where are they?
Hypothetical question:
Let's say it's a given that you have illegal drugs in your house.
(Just like Saddam had WMDs)
Let's say that the local police told you, officially, by certified
letter (return receipt requested, you gotta sign for it, the whole
thing) telling you that htey were going to come search your house,
giving you the date of the search, even asking you to make sure you
were there to help.
Would you be so stupid to let them find the drugs?
That's a rhetorical question. You don't really have to answer.
#4815
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Thu, 23 Oct 03 09:54:15 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>> The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
>>He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
>
>Then where are they?
Hypothetical question:
Let's say it's a given that you have illegal drugs in your house.
(Just like Saddam had WMDs)
Let's say that the local police told you, officially, by certified
letter (return receipt requested, you gotta sign for it, the whole
thing) telling you that htey were going to come search your house,
giving you the date of the search, even asking you to make sure you
were there to help.
Would you be so stupid to let them find the drugs?
That's a rhetorical question. You don't really have to answer.
wrote:
>> The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
>>He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
>
>Then where are they?
Hypothetical question:
Let's say it's a given that you have illegal drugs in your house.
(Just like Saddam had WMDs)
Let's say that the local police told you, officially, by certified
letter (return receipt requested, you gotta sign for it, the whole
thing) telling you that htey were going to come search your house,
giving you the date of the search, even asking you to make sure you
were there to help.
Would you be so stupid to let them find the drugs?
That's a rhetorical question. You don't really have to answer.
#4816
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Thu, 23 Oct 03 09:54:15 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>> The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
>>He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
>
>Then where are they?
Hypothetical question:
Let's say it's a given that you have illegal drugs in your house.
(Just like Saddam had WMDs)
Let's say that the local police told you, officially, by certified
letter (return receipt requested, you gotta sign for it, the whole
thing) telling you that htey were going to come search your house,
giving you the date of the search, even asking you to make sure you
were there to help.
Would you be so stupid to let them find the drugs?
That's a rhetorical question. You don't really have to answer.
wrote:
>> The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
>>He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
>
>Then where are they?
Hypothetical question:
Let's say it's a given that you have illegal drugs in your house.
(Just like Saddam had WMDs)
Let's say that the local police told you, officially, by certified
letter (return receipt requested, you gotta sign for it, the whole
thing) telling you that htey were going to come search your house,
giving you the date of the search, even asking you to make sure you
were there to help.
Would you be so stupid to let them find the drugs?
That's a rhetorical question. You don't really have to answer.
#4817
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Thu, 23 Oct 03 10:29:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>And ask the hundreds of police officers killed by their CVs exploding and
>burning them to death about the car keeping you alive. No, wait, you can't,
>they're DEAD!
"Hundreds"?
Try less than 20.
It's no wonder your claims are ridiculed: your research sucks.
wrote:
>And ask the hundreds of police officers killed by their CVs exploding and
>burning them to death about the car keeping you alive. No, wait, you can't,
>they're DEAD!
"Hundreds"?
Try less than 20.
It's no wonder your claims are ridiculed: your research sucks.
#4818
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Thu, 23 Oct 03 10:29:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>And ask the hundreds of police officers killed by their CVs exploding and
>burning them to death about the car keeping you alive. No, wait, you can't,
>they're DEAD!
"Hundreds"?
Try less than 20.
It's no wonder your claims are ridiculed: your research sucks.
wrote:
>And ask the hundreds of police officers killed by their CVs exploding and
>burning them to death about the car keeping you alive. No, wait, you can't,
>they're DEAD!
"Hundreds"?
Try less than 20.
It's no wonder your claims are ridiculed: your research sucks.
#4819
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Thu, 23 Oct 03 10:29:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>And ask the hundreds of police officers killed by their CVs exploding and
>burning them to death about the car keeping you alive. No, wait, you can't,
>they're DEAD!
"Hundreds"?
Try less than 20.
It's no wonder your claims are ridiculed: your research sucks.
wrote:
>And ask the hundreds of police officers killed by their CVs exploding and
>burning them to death about the car keeping you alive. No, wait, you can't,
>they're DEAD!
"Hundreds"?
Try less than 20.
It's no wonder your claims are ridiculed: your research sucks.
#4820
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
> It's not a case of developing new energy technologies. I really wish it
were that simple. The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being
used to develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away. What is
constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil fuels, with no
actual replacement technologies available. Obviously, this will cause a
major change in almost every aspect of our lifestyles.<
Given the current geo-political situation, particularly wrt the middle east,
if the so-called "replacement technologies" were in any way viable on a
large scale they'd be deployed on a fast track. Radical environmentalists
have made it virtually impossible to expand usage of current clean
technologies, such as hydroelectric and insist wind and solar are the
answer. Yet no one will accept massive deployment of wind turbines nor is
space available to deploy huge solar collectors.
Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient, and
replacement of the internal combustion engine with fuel cells is not even in
the Model-T stages of development. Therefore, unless humanity is willing to
accept a massive economic upheaval conversion a slow conversion using bridge
technologies such as hybrids is the only viable path to follow. Naturally
the fanciful enviros will whine....
were that simple. The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being
used to develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away. What is
constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil fuels, with no
actual replacement technologies available. Obviously, this will cause a
major change in almost every aspect of our lifestyles.<
Given the current geo-political situation, particularly wrt the middle east,
if the so-called "replacement technologies" were in any way viable on a
large scale they'd be deployed on a fast track. Radical environmentalists
have made it virtually impossible to expand usage of current clean
technologies, such as hydroelectric and insist wind and solar are the
answer. Yet no one will accept massive deployment of wind turbines nor is
space available to deploy huge solar collectors.
Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient, and
replacement of the internal combustion engine with fuel cells is not even in
the Model-T stages of development. Therefore, unless humanity is willing to
accept a massive economic upheaval conversion a slow conversion using bridge
technologies such as hybrids is the only viable path to follow. Naturally
the fanciful enviros will whine....