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
In article <oonoqv0fai5j5m1f2eh1jsmlc0ccdb0jkk@4ax.com>, Matt Osborn wrote:
> What all the computer models in the world miss is the effects of cloud
> cover. It isn't certain if the heat retained because of clouds
> offsets the heat reflected because of clouds.
Computer models have been misused in this topic. The basic problem
with them is that they are pre-programed with the assumption that
the corrolation seen in some data is causation. Right then and there
what ever the computer model spits out is but a *PREDICTION*.
There are two ways to test these predictions. One, see if they
can predict the future. Run them, then wait and see if the future
matches. Two, run them given the data to some past date. See if they
predict what occured after that date.
To the best of my knowledge, the computer climate models continue
to fail these real world tests. Therefore, they are not something
to base policy on.
Trouble is, too many people think that just because it came out of a
computer that makes it accurate and correct.
> What all the computer models in the world miss is the effects of cloud
> cover. It isn't certain if the heat retained because of clouds
> offsets the heat reflected because of clouds.
Computer models have been misused in this topic. The basic problem
with them is that they are pre-programed with the assumption that
the corrolation seen in some data is causation. Right then and there
what ever the computer model spits out is but a *PREDICTION*.
There are two ways to test these predictions. One, see if they
can predict the future. Run them, then wait and see if the future
matches. Two, run them given the data to some past date. See if they
predict what occured after that date.
To the best of my knowledge, the computer climate models continue
to fail these real world tests. Therefore, they are not something
to base policy on.
Trouble is, too many people think that just because it came out of a
computer that makes it accurate and correct.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <oonoqv0fai5j5m1f2eh1jsmlc0ccdb0jkk@4ax.com>, Matt Osborn wrote:
> What all the computer models in the world miss is the effects of cloud
> cover. It isn't certain if the heat retained because of clouds
> offsets the heat reflected because of clouds.
Computer models have been misused in this topic. The basic problem
with them is that they are pre-programed with the assumption that
the corrolation seen in some data is causation. Right then and there
what ever the computer model spits out is but a *PREDICTION*.
There are two ways to test these predictions. One, see if they
can predict the future. Run them, then wait and see if the future
matches. Two, run them given the data to some past date. See if they
predict what occured after that date.
To the best of my knowledge, the computer climate models continue
to fail these real world tests. Therefore, they are not something
to base policy on.
Trouble is, too many people think that just because it came out of a
computer that makes it accurate and correct.
> What all the computer models in the world miss is the effects of cloud
> cover. It isn't certain if the heat retained because of clouds
> offsets the heat reflected because of clouds.
Computer models have been misused in this topic. The basic problem
with them is that they are pre-programed with the assumption that
the corrolation seen in some data is causation. Right then and there
what ever the computer model spits out is but a *PREDICTION*.
There are two ways to test these predictions. One, see if they
can predict the future. Run them, then wait and see if the future
matches. Two, run them given the data to some past date. See if they
predict what occured after that date.
To the best of my knowledge, the computer climate models continue
to fail these real world tests. Therefore, they are not something
to base policy on.
Trouble is, too many people think that just because it came out of a
computer that makes it accurate and correct.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Care to compare Clinton's economy to either of the Bushs'?"
Yup, Clinton started the "Clinton Recession" W pulled us out of it AFTER
9/11...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bogb7d$44t$26@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <boepg222fum@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
> >
> >> > Llotd: Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy. >
> >
> >> First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. Second, money taken out
of
> >the private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of
> >where the money comes from (rich or poor). The "drag" the Clinton tax
> >increase put on the economy wasn't enought to stop the dot com
speculation,
> >which was
> >wild beyond caring about the diffence between 33% and 39%. <
> >
> >Good for you! Clinton lucked out, the internet boom and tech speculation
of
> >the mid-90's fueled the entire "Clinton recovery" and simply brushed
aside
> >the Democrats' egregious middle class tax increases. Then the inevetable
> >happened, the bubble burst and the weight of the tax increases weight
> >collapsed the economy in on itself.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> Care to compare Clinton's economy to either of the Bushs'?
Yup, Clinton started the "Clinton Recession" W pulled us out of it AFTER
9/11...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bogb7d$44t$26@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <boepg222fum@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
> >
> >> > Llotd: Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy. >
> >
> >> First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. Second, money taken out
of
> >the private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of
> >where the money comes from (rich or poor). The "drag" the Clinton tax
> >increase put on the economy wasn't enought to stop the dot com
speculation,
> >which was
> >wild beyond caring about the diffence between 33% and 39%. <
> >
> >Good for you! Clinton lucked out, the internet boom and tech speculation
of
> >the mid-90's fueled the entire "Clinton recovery" and simply brushed
aside
> >the Democrats' egregious middle class tax increases. Then the inevetable
> >happened, the bubble burst and the weight of the tax increases weight
> >collapsed the economy in on itself.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> Care to compare Clinton's economy to either of the Bushs'?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Care to compare Clinton's economy to either of the Bushs'?"
Yup, Clinton started the "Clinton Recession" W pulled us out of it AFTER
9/11...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bogb7d$44t$26@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <boepg222fum@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
> >
> >> > Llotd: Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy. >
> >
> >> First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. Second, money taken out
of
> >the private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of
> >where the money comes from (rich or poor). The "drag" the Clinton tax
> >increase put on the economy wasn't enought to stop the dot com
speculation,
> >which was
> >wild beyond caring about the diffence between 33% and 39%. <
> >
> >Good for you! Clinton lucked out, the internet boom and tech speculation
of
> >the mid-90's fueled the entire "Clinton recovery" and simply brushed
aside
> >the Democrats' egregious middle class tax increases. Then the inevetable
> >happened, the bubble burst and the weight of the tax increases weight
> >collapsed the economy in on itself.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> Care to compare Clinton's economy to either of the Bushs'?
Yup, Clinton started the "Clinton Recession" W pulled us out of it AFTER
9/11...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bogb7d$44t$26@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <boepg222fum@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
> >
> >> > Llotd: Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy. >
> >
> >> First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. Second, money taken out
of
> >the private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of
> >where the money comes from (rich or poor). The "drag" the Clinton tax
> >increase put on the economy wasn't enought to stop the dot com
speculation,
> >which was
> >wild beyond caring about the diffence between 33% and 39%. <
> >
> >Good for you! Clinton lucked out, the internet boom and tech speculation
of
> >the mid-90's fueled the entire "Clinton recovery" and simply brushed
aside
> >the Democrats' egregious middle class tax increases. Then the inevetable
> >happened, the bubble burst and the weight of the tax increases weight
> >collapsed the economy in on itself.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> Care to compare Clinton's economy to either of the Bushs'?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Care to compare Clinton's economy to either of the Bushs'?"
Yup, Clinton started the "Clinton Recession" W pulled us out of it AFTER
9/11...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bogb7d$44t$26@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <boepg222fum@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
> >
> >> > Llotd: Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy. >
> >
> >> First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. Second, money taken out
of
> >the private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of
> >where the money comes from (rich or poor). The "drag" the Clinton tax
> >increase put on the economy wasn't enought to stop the dot com
speculation,
> >which was
> >wild beyond caring about the diffence between 33% and 39%. <
> >
> >Good for you! Clinton lucked out, the internet boom and tech speculation
of
> >the mid-90's fueled the entire "Clinton recovery" and simply brushed
aside
> >the Democrats' egregious middle class tax increases. Then the inevetable
> >happened, the bubble burst and the weight of the tax increases weight
> >collapsed the economy in on itself.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> Care to compare Clinton's economy to either of the Bushs'?
Yup, Clinton started the "Clinton Recession" W pulled us out of it AFTER
9/11...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bogb7d$44t$26@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <boepg222fum@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
> >
> >> > Llotd: Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy. >
> >
> >> First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. Second, money taken out
of
> >the private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of
> >where the money comes from (rich or poor). The "drag" the Clinton tax
> >increase put on the economy wasn't enought to stop the dot com
speculation,
> >which was
> >wild beyond caring about the diffence between 33% and 39%. <
> >
> >Good for you! Clinton lucked out, the internet boom and tech speculation
of
> >the mid-90's fueled the entire "Clinton recovery" and simply brushed
aside
> >the Democrats' egregious middle class tax increases. Then the inevetable
> >happened, the bubble burst and the weight of the tax increases weight
> >collapsed the economy in on itself.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> Care to compare Clinton's economy to either of the Bushs'?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
The "public sector" jobs generate some taxes that go to the feds. The taxes
from the jobs in the "private sector" is money that comes from the feds
right back to the feds.
"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:guinqv0md1knhpd2775dg4obke0pccplqh@4ax.com...
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. Second, money taken out of
the
> >private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of
where
> >the money comes from (rich or poor).
>
> If you take $1,000,000,000 out of the private sector and move it to the
> public sector and create exactly the same number of jobs at exactly the
> same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that affect the economy?
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
from the jobs in the "private sector" is money that comes from the feds
right back to the feds.
"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:guinqv0md1knhpd2775dg4obke0pccplqh@4ax.com...
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. Second, money taken out of
the
> >private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of
where
> >the money comes from (rich or poor).
>
> If you take $1,000,000,000 out of the private sector and move it to the
> public sector and create exactly the same number of jobs at exactly the
> same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that affect the economy?
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
The "public sector" jobs generate some taxes that go to the feds. The taxes
from the jobs in the "private sector" is money that comes from the feds
right back to the feds.
"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:guinqv0md1knhpd2775dg4obke0pccplqh@4ax.com...
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. Second, money taken out of
the
> >private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of
where
> >the money comes from (rich or poor).
>
> If you take $1,000,000,000 out of the private sector and move it to the
> public sector and create exactly the same number of jobs at exactly the
> same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that affect the economy?
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
from the jobs in the "private sector" is money that comes from the feds
right back to the feds.
"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:guinqv0md1knhpd2775dg4obke0pccplqh@4ax.com...
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. Second, money taken out of
the
> >private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of
where
> >the money comes from (rich or poor).
>
> If you take $1,000,000,000 out of the private sector and move it to the
> public sector and create exactly the same number of jobs at exactly the
> same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that affect the economy?
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
The "public sector" jobs generate some taxes that go to the feds. The taxes
from the jobs in the "private sector" is money that comes from the feds
right back to the feds.
"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:guinqv0md1knhpd2775dg4obke0pccplqh@4ax.com...
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. Second, money taken out of
the
> >private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of
where
> >the money comes from (rich or poor).
>
> If you take $1,000,000,000 out of the private sector and move it to the
> public sector and create exactly the same number of jobs at exactly the
> same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that affect the economy?
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
from the jobs in the "private sector" is money that comes from the feds
right back to the feds.
"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:guinqv0md1knhpd2775dg4obke0pccplqh@4ax.com...
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. Second, money taken out of
the
> >private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of
where
> >the money comes from (rich or poor).
>
> If you take $1,000,000,000 out of the private sector and move it to the
> public sector and create exactly the same number of jobs at exactly the
> same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that affect the economy?
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - A Liberal Scam? (was: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:49:05 -0500, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.
>
>This is simply not true. In fact it is wrong my many orders of magnitude.
>According to a report from the Congressional Research Service, natural emission
>are at least 700 billion tons. Emissions related to human activity are only about
>24 billion tons.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed White
You should know better than to respond to lloyd the moron.
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.
>
>This is simply not true. In fact it is wrong my many orders of magnitude.
>According to a report from the Congressional Research Service, natural emission
>are at least 700 billion tons. Emissions related to human activity are only about
>24 billion tons.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed White
You should know better than to respond to lloyd the moron.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - A Liberal Scam? (was: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:49:05 -0500, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.
>
>This is simply not true. In fact it is wrong my many orders of magnitude.
>According to a report from the Congressional Research Service, natural emission
>are at least 700 billion tons. Emissions related to human activity are only about
>24 billion tons.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed White
You should know better than to respond to lloyd the moron.
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.
>
>This is simply not true. In fact it is wrong my many orders of magnitude.
>According to a report from the Congressional Research Service, natural emission
>are at least 700 billion tons. Emissions related to human activity are only about
>24 billion tons.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed White
You should know better than to respond to lloyd the moron.