Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
ALL vehicles are unsafe if driven past the limits of the vehicle and the
drivers abilities.. young drivers (males especially) seem to consider
themselves invincible whether they drive an SUV (lifted and 31" BFG's) or a
Civic (lowered and oversize rims and thin rubber).. moms and dads drive
minivans.. they have become aware of their own fragility.. they carry kids
to hockey etc.. they have nothing to prove.. the distance between A and B is
down to whether they will have to backtrack to pick up stuff that the kids
have forgotten, and not how fast they can cover the distance.. quit blaming
the vehicles.. it is the people who sit behind the wheel that make the
statistics what they are..
--
History is only the past if we choose to do nothing about it..
<jduchock@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ac8nb.76697$5n.33957@bignews5.bellsouth.net.. .
> AWESOME, then my Duece and a half 6x6 should be darn safe. I just might
> make it my daily driver instead of one of my Jeeps.
>
> chris
> g1
>
>
> "Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
> news:5ac380ce.0310170752.726bdf86@posting.google.c om...
> > Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
> > Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
> > weight. See:
> >
> > http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
> >
> > As expected, the NHTSA study did find that heavier vehicles are safer
> > for their occupants when they crash with a lighter vehicle. This is
> > well known, and many people buy SUVs thinking that their weight gives
> > them a safety advantage. Some publications stress this fact (for
> > example one by USA Today is titled "Lighter cars mean more deaths" so
> > many people who drive SUVs may feel reassured).
> >
> > In fact, as far as SUVs go, the NHTSA study could not have been more
> > unfavorable. Using real world statistics about tens of millions of
> > vehicles over several years they prove that the overall safety of SUVs
> > is worse than of lighter passenger cars. One of the reasons is that
> > SUVs have a much higher tendency to roll over. This means that many
> > people spend more to buy a SUV, spend more on gas, and also endanger
> > others, without much any advantage for themselves. The relevant
> > numbers are:
> >
> > Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities
> > (pounds) per billion miles
> >
> > Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26
> > Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30
> > Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68
> > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73
> > Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79
> >
> > So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size
> > SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are
> > safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe
> > than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier!
> >
> > These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into
> > account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected,
> > even worse.
> >
> > The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small
> > cars, which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much
> > heavier vehicles around. Very few people who end up buying a SUV were
> > thinking of maybe buying a small or very small car, so this advantage
> > is irrelevant. Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their
> > passengers.
> >
> > Even when comparing SUVs only, more weight is not always better.
> > Significantly, small SUVs are safer for their drivers than mid-size
> > SUVs, even though the latter weight 900 pounds more. I suppose small
> > SUVs are more car-like and therefore avoid some of the safety
> > disadvantages of the SUV design.
> >
> > If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> > strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> > car.
> >
> > Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
> > limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer,
> > spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
> > the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
> > countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
> > win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy
> > (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their
> > top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger
> > other vehicles on the asphalt.
>
>
drivers abilities.. young drivers (males especially) seem to consider
themselves invincible whether they drive an SUV (lifted and 31" BFG's) or a
Civic (lowered and oversize rims and thin rubber).. moms and dads drive
minivans.. they have become aware of their own fragility.. they carry kids
to hockey etc.. they have nothing to prove.. the distance between A and B is
down to whether they will have to backtrack to pick up stuff that the kids
have forgotten, and not how fast they can cover the distance.. quit blaming
the vehicles.. it is the people who sit behind the wheel that make the
statistics what they are..
--
History is only the past if we choose to do nothing about it..
<jduchock@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ac8nb.76697$5n.33957@bignews5.bellsouth.net.. .
> AWESOME, then my Duece and a half 6x6 should be darn safe. I just might
> make it my daily driver instead of one of my Jeeps.
>
> chris
> g1
>
>
> "Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
> news:5ac380ce.0310170752.726bdf86@posting.google.c om...
> > Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
> > Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
> > weight. See:
> >
> > http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
> >
> > As expected, the NHTSA study did find that heavier vehicles are safer
> > for their occupants when they crash with a lighter vehicle. This is
> > well known, and many people buy SUVs thinking that their weight gives
> > them a safety advantage. Some publications stress this fact (for
> > example one by USA Today is titled "Lighter cars mean more deaths" so
> > many people who drive SUVs may feel reassured).
> >
> > In fact, as far as SUVs go, the NHTSA study could not have been more
> > unfavorable. Using real world statistics about tens of millions of
> > vehicles over several years they prove that the overall safety of SUVs
> > is worse than of lighter passenger cars. One of the reasons is that
> > SUVs have a much higher tendency to roll over. This means that many
> > people spend more to buy a SUV, spend more on gas, and also endanger
> > others, without much any advantage for themselves. The relevant
> > numbers are:
> >
> > Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities
> > (pounds) per billion miles
> >
> > Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26
> > Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30
> > Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68
> > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73
> > Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79
> >
> > So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size
> > SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are
> > safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe
> > than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier!
> >
> > These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into
> > account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected,
> > even worse.
> >
> > The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small
> > cars, which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much
> > heavier vehicles around. Very few people who end up buying a SUV were
> > thinking of maybe buying a small or very small car, so this advantage
> > is irrelevant. Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their
> > passengers.
> >
> > Even when comparing SUVs only, more weight is not always better.
> > Significantly, small SUVs are safer for their drivers than mid-size
> > SUVs, even though the latter weight 900 pounds more. I suppose small
> > SUVs are more car-like and therefore avoid some of the safety
> > disadvantages of the SUV design.
> >
> > If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> > strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> > car.
> >
> > Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
> > limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer,
> > spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
> > the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
> > countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
> > win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy
> > (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their
> > top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger
> > other vehicles on the asphalt.
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
ALL vehicles are unsafe if driven past the limits of the vehicle and the
drivers abilities.. young drivers (males especially) seem to consider
themselves invincible whether they drive an SUV (lifted and 31" BFG's) or a
Civic (lowered and oversize rims and thin rubber).. moms and dads drive
minivans.. they have become aware of their own fragility.. they carry kids
to hockey etc.. they have nothing to prove.. the distance between A and B is
down to whether they will have to backtrack to pick up stuff that the kids
have forgotten, and not how fast they can cover the distance.. quit blaming
the vehicles.. it is the people who sit behind the wheel that make the
statistics what they are..
--
History is only the past if we choose to do nothing about it..
<jduchock@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ac8nb.76697$5n.33957@bignews5.bellsouth.net.. .
> AWESOME, then my Duece and a half 6x6 should be darn safe. I just might
> make it my daily driver instead of one of my Jeeps.
>
> chris
> g1
>
>
> "Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
> news:5ac380ce.0310170752.726bdf86@posting.google.c om...
> > Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
> > Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
> > weight. See:
> >
> > http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
> >
> > As expected, the NHTSA study did find that heavier vehicles are safer
> > for their occupants when they crash with a lighter vehicle. This is
> > well known, and many people buy SUVs thinking that their weight gives
> > them a safety advantage. Some publications stress this fact (for
> > example one by USA Today is titled "Lighter cars mean more deaths" so
> > many people who drive SUVs may feel reassured).
> >
> > In fact, as far as SUVs go, the NHTSA study could not have been more
> > unfavorable. Using real world statistics about tens of millions of
> > vehicles over several years they prove that the overall safety of SUVs
> > is worse than of lighter passenger cars. One of the reasons is that
> > SUVs have a much higher tendency to roll over. This means that many
> > people spend more to buy a SUV, spend more on gas, and also endanger
> > others, without much any advantage for themselves. The relevant
> > numbers are:
> >
> > Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities
> > (pounds) per billion miles
> >
> > Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26
> > Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30
> > Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68
> > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73
> > Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79
> >
> > So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size
> > SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are
> > safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe
> > than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier!
> >
> > These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into
> > account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected,
> > even worse.
> >
> > The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small
> > cars, which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much
> > heavier vehicles around. Very few people who end up buying a SUV were
> > thinking of maybe buying a small or very small car, so this advantage
> > is irrelevant. Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their
> > passengers.
> >
> > Even when comparing SUVs only, more weight is not always better.
> > Significantly, small SUVs are safer for their drivers than mid-size
> > SUVs, even though the latter weight 900 pounds more. I suppose small
> > SUVs are more car-like and therefore avoid some of the safety
> > disadvantages of the SUV design.
> >
> > If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> > strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> > car.
> >
> > Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
> > limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer,
> > spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
> > the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
> > countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
> > win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy
> > (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their
> > top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger
> > other vehicles on the asphalt.
>
>
drivers abilities.. young drivers (males especially) seem to consider
themselves invincible whether they drive an SUV (lifted and 31" BFG's) or a
Civic (lowered and oversize rims and thin rubber).. moms and dads drive
minivans.. they have become aware of their own fragility.. they carry kids
to hockey etc.. they have nothing to prove.. the distance between A and B is
down to whether they will have to backtrack to pick up stuff that the kids
have forgotten, and not how fast they can cover the distance.. quit blaming
the vehicles.. it is the people who sit behind the wheel that make the
statistics what they are..
--
History is only the past if we choose to do nothing about it..
<jduchock@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ac8nb.76697$5n.33957@bignews5.bellsouth.net.. .
> AWESOME, then my Duece and a half 6x6 should be darn safe. I just might
> make it my daily driver instead of one of my Jeeps.
>
> chris
> g1
>
>
> "Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
> news:5ac380ce.0310170752.726bdf86@posting.google.c om...
> > Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
> > Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
> > weight. See:
> >
> > http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
> >
> > As expected, the NHTSA study did find that heavier vehicles are safer
> > for their occupants when they crash with a lighter vehicle. This is
> > well known, and many people buy SUVs thinking that their weight gives
> > them a safety advantage. Some publications stress this fact (for
> > example one by USA Today is titled "Lighter cars mean more deaths" so
> > many people who drive SUVs may feel reassured).
> >
> > In fact, as far as SUVs go, the NHTSA study could not have been more
> > unfavorable. Using real world statistics about tens of millions of
> > vehicles over several years they prove that the overall safety of SUVs
> > is worse than of lighter passenger cars. One of the reasons is that
> > SUVs have a much higher tendency to roll over. This means that many
> > people spend more to buy a SUV, spend more on gas, and also endanger
> > others, without much any advantage for themselves. The relevant
> > numbers are:
> >
> > Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities
> > (pounds) per billion miles
> >
> > Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26
> > Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30
> > Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68
> > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73
> > Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79
> >
> > So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size
> > SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are
> > safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe
> > than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier!
> >
> > These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into
> > account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected,
> > even worse.
> >
> > The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small
> > cars, which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much
> > heavier vehicles around. Very few people who end up buying a SUV were
> > thinking of maybe buying a small or very small car, so this advantage
> > is irrelevant. Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their
> > passengers.
> >
> > Even when comparing SUVs only, more weight is not always better.
> > Significantly, small SUVs are safer for their drivers than mid-size
> > SUVs, even though the latter weight 900 pounds more. I suppose small
> > SUVs are more car-like and therefore avoid some of the safety
> > disadvantages of the SUV design.
> >
> > If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> > strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> > car.
> >
> > Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
> > limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer,
> > spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
> > the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
> > countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
> > win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy
> > (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their
> > top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger
> > other vehicles on the asphalt.
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dave C. wrote:
>> Your kind of people, or your view of comfort must be different from
>> our family who managed to be comfortable in an Impreza hatchback.
>>
>> --
>> Rickety
>
> You a family of midgets? -Dave
Have we met? :)
--
Rickety
>> Your kind of people, or your view of comfort must be different from
>> our family who managed to be comfortable in an Impreza hatchback.
>>
>> --
>> Rickety
>
> You a family of midgets? -Dave
Have we met? :)
--
Rickety
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dave C. wrote:
>> Your kind of people, or your view of comfort must be different from
>> our family who managed to be comfortable in an Impreza hatchback.
>>
>> --
>> Rickety
>
> You a family of midgets? -Dave
Have we met? :)
--
Rickety
>> Your kind of people, or your view of comfort must be different from
>> our family who managed to be comfortable in an Impreza hatchback.
>>
>> --
>> Rickety
>
> You a family of midgets? -Dave
Have we met? :)
--
Rickety
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dave C. wrote:
>> Your kind of people, or your view of comfort must be different from
>> our family who managed to be comfortable in an Impreza hatchback.
>>
>> --
>> Rickety
>
> You a family of midgets? -Dave
Have we met? :)
--
Rickety
>> Your kind of people, or your view of comfort must be different from
>> our family who managed to be comfortable in an Impreza hatchback.
>>
>> --
>> Rickety
>
> You a family of midgets? -Dave
Have we met? :)
--
Rickety
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Brent P wrote:
> In article <bngqba$8h4$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>> Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>>> Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>>
>> No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
>
> It also started at the same time man started flying with heavier than
> air machines. A real scienist knows better than to make statements
> like the one above as "proof" as I demonstrate with another thing
> that started at the same time and has increased since.
It can be traced back to the origins of bow and arrow.
--
Rickety
> In article <bngqba$8h4$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>> Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>>> Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>>
>> No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
>
> It also started at the same time man started flying with heavier than
> air machines. A real scienist knows better than to make statements
> like the one above as "proof" as I demonstrate with another thing
> that started at the same time and has increased since.
It can be traced back to the origins of bow and arrow.
--
Rickety
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Brent P wrote:
> In article <bngqba$8h4$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>> Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>>> Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>>
>> No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
>
> It also started at the same time man started flying with heavier than
> air machines. A real scienist knows better than to make statements
> like the one above as "proof" as I demonstrate with another thing
> that started at the same time and has increased since.
It can be traced back to the origins of bow and arrow.
--
Rickety
> In article <bngqba$8h4$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>> Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>>> Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>>
>> No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
>
> It also started at the same time man started flying with heavier than
> air machines. A real scienist knows better than to make statements
> like the one above as "proof" as I demonstrate with another thing
> that started at the same time and has increased since.
It can be traced back to the origins of bow and arrow.
--
Rickety
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Brent P wrote:
> In article <bngqba$8h4$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>> Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>>> Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>>
>> No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
>
> It also started at the same time man started flying with heavier than
> air machines. A real scienist knows better than to make statements
> like the one above as "proof" as I demonstrate with another thing
> that started at the same time and has increased since.
It can be traced back to the origins of bow and arrow.
--
Rickety
> In article <bngqba$8h4$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>> Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>>> Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>>
>> No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
>
> It also started at the same time man started flying with heavier than
> air machines. A real scienist knows better than to make statements
> like the one above as "proof" as I demonstrate with another thing
> that started at the same time and has increased since.
It can be traced back to the origins of bow and arrow.
--
Rickety
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
I'm still waiting for these CO2 zealots to 1) prove their theories, 2)
assuming they are correct, propose a single workable solution besides
getting mom to sell her SUV. The entire theory is a full of holes as their
proponents heads.
Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming has a perfect
correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity. Two Danish
scientists (Friz-Christiansen & Lassen) have proven a direct cause & effect
between periods of high solar activity and earth temps, going back hundreds
of years. How arrogant (but typical) of anti-society, socialist green
zealots to assume the puny effect of man vs. the absolute effect of the sun
on global climatic norms.
So, tell me oh green ones, 10,000 years ago, how many primitives driving
gas-guzzling SUVs did it take to turn the Sahara from a lush oasis into a
desert? (Oh, I see, you're hoping no one knows about that event, aren't
you?)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnjdq7$a0c$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <b71opv8v0in3q2ra8l4u8fd4t6qa8p9vhb@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:48:15 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
> >>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
> >>
> >>No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
> >
> >Then where did all the ice go?
> >It seems that you are denying the presence of pasdt ice ages (and the
> >following global warmings).
>
> There have been warm times and cold times in the past, with different
causes.
> Do you think just because, say, exercise raised your body temperature last
> week, a virus could not be doing it today?
assuming they are correct, propose a single workable solution besides
getting mom to sell her SUV. The entire theory is a full of holes as their
proponents heads.
Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming has a perfect
correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity. Two Danish
scientists (Friz-Christiansen & Lassen) have proven a direct cause & effect
between periods of high solar activity and earth temps, going back hundreds
of years. How arrogant (but typical) of anti-society, socialist green
zealots to assume the puny effect of man vs. the absolute effect of the sun
on global climatic norms.
So, tell me oh green ones, 10,000 years ago, how many primitives driving
gas-guzzling SUVs did it take to turn the Sahara from a lush oasis into a
desert? (Oh, I see, you're hoping no one knows about that event, aren't
you?)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnjdq7$a0c$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <b71opv8v0in3q2ra8l4u8fd4t6qa8p9vhb@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:48:15 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
> >>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
> >>
> >>No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
> >
> >Then where did all the ice go?
> >It seems that you are denying the presence of pasdt ice ages (and the
> >following global warmings).
>
> There have been warm times and cold times in the past, with different
causes.
> Do you think just because, say, exercise raised your body temperature last
> week, a virus could not be doing it today?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
I'm still waiting for these CO2 zealots to 1) prove their theories, 2)
assuming they are correct, propose a single workable solution besides
getting mom to sell her SUV. The entire theory is a full of holes as their
proponents heads.
Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming has a perfect
correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity. Two Danish
scientists (Friz-Christiansen & Lassen) have proven a direct cause & effect
between periods of high solar activity and earth temps, going back hundreds
of years. How arrogant (but typical) of anti-society, socialist green
zealots to assume the puny effect of man vs. the absolute effect of the sun
on global climatic norms.
So, tell me oh green ones, 10,000 years ago, how many primitives driving
gas-guzzling SUVs did it take to turn the Sahara from a lush oasis into a
desert? (Oh, I see, you're hoping no one knows about that event, aren't
you?)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnjdq7$a0c$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <b71opv8v0in3q2ra8l4u8fd4t6qa8p9vhb@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:48:15 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
> >>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
> >>
> >>No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
> >
> >Then where did all the ice go?
> >It seems that you are denying the presence of pasdt ice ages (and the
> >following global warmings).
>
> There have been warm times and cold times in the past, with different
causes.
> Do you think just because, say, exercise raised your body temperature last
> week, a virus could not be doing it today?
assuming they are correct, propose a single workable solution besides
getting mom to sell her SUV. The entire theory is a full of holes as their
proponents heads.
Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming has a perfect
correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity. Two Danish
scientists (Friz-Christiansen & Lassen) have proven a direct cause & effect
between periods of high solar activity and earth temps, going back hundreds
of years. How arrogant (but typical) of anti-society, socialist green
zealots to assume the puny effect of man vs. the absolute effect of the sun
on global climatic norms.
So, tell me oh green ones, 10,000 years ago, how many primitives driving
gas-guzzling SUVs did it take to turn the Sahara from a lush oasis into a
desert? (Oh, I see, you're hoping no one knows about that event, aren't
you?)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnjdq7$a0c$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <b71opv8v0in3q2ra8l4u8fd4t6qa8p9vhb@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:48:15 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
> >>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
> >>
> >>No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
> >
> >Then where did all the ice go?
> >It seems that you are denying the presence of pasdt ice ages (and the
> >following global warmings).
>
> There have been warm times and cold times in the past, with different
causes.
> Do you think just because, say, exercise raised your body temperature last
> week, a virus could not be doing it today?