Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3971
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
You list precisely the limited government I support, which must establish a
secure and stable environment for free people to flourish. Roads, security,
safety, rule of law, etc.
If this is what government limited its self to, our taxes would be 10%
across the board.
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FABE038.F9718C82@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Bill Funk wrote:
>
> > If those jobs are in the government, they are non-productive.
> > They don't produce anything that can be sold, serviced, bought and
> > used.
>
> Workers bulding and maintaining roads are non-productive? Soldiers,
sailors and
> airmen defending our country are not providing a service? Agriculture
inspectors
> checking beef are not providing a service. Policeman fighting crime aren't
> providing a service? The National Weather Service is non-productive?
>
> Ed
>
secure and stable environment for free people to flourish. Roads, security,
safety, rule of law, etc.
If this is what government limited its self to, our taxes would be 10%
across the board.
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FABE038.F9718C82@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Bill Funk wrote:
>
> > If those jobs are in the government, they are non-productive.
> > They don't produce anything that can be sold, serviced, bought and
> > used.
>
> Workers bulding and maintaining roads are non-productive? Soldiers,
sailors and
> airmen defending our country are not providing a service? Agriculture
inspectors
> checking beef are not providing a service. Policeman fighting crime aren't
> providing a service? The National Weather Service is non-productive?
>
> Ed
>
#3972
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
You list precisely the limited government I support, which must establish a
secure and stable environment for free people to flourish. Roads, security,
safety, rule of law, etc.
If this is what government limited its self to, our taxes would be 10%
across the board.
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FABE038.F9718C82@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Bill Funk wrote:
>
> > If those jobs are in the government, they are non-productive.
> > They don't produce anything that can be sold, serviced, bought and
> > used.
>
> Workers bulding and maintaining roads are non-productive? Soldiers,
sailors and
> airmen defending our country are not providing a service? Agriculture
inspectors
> checking beef are not providing a service. Policeman fighting crime aren't
> providing a service? The National Weather Service is non-productive?
>
> Ed
>
secure and stable environment for free people to flourish. Roads, security,
safety, rule of law, etc.
If this is what government limited its self to, our taxes would be 10%
across the board.
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FABE038.F9718C82@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Bill Funk wrote:
>
> > If those jobs are in the government, they are non-productive.
> > They don't produce anything that can be sold, serviced, bought and
> > used.
>
> Workers bulding and maintaining roads are non-productive? Soldiers,
sailors and
> airmen defending our country are not providing a service? Agriculture
inspectors
> checking beef are not providing a service. Policeman fighting crime aren't
> providing a service? The National Weather Service is non-productive?
>
> Ed
>
#3973
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
You list precisely the limited government I support, which must establish a
secure and stable environment for free people to flourish. Roads, security,
safety, rule of law, etc.
If this is what government limited its self to, our taxes would be 10%
across the board.
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FABE038.F9718C82@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Bill Funk wrote:
>
> > If those jobs are in the government, they are non-productive.
> > They don't produce anything that can be sold, serviced, bought and
> > used.
>
> Workers bulding and maintaining roads are non-productive? Soldiers,
sailors and
> airmen defending our country are not providing a service? Agriculture
inspectors
> checking beef are not providing a service. Policeman fighting crime aren't
> providing a service? The National Weather Service is non-productive?
>
> Ed
>
secure and stable environment for free people to flourish. Roads, security,
safety, rule of law, etc.
If this is what government limited its self to, our taxes would be 10%
across the board.
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FABE038.F9718C82@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Bill Funk wrote:
>
> > If those jobs are in the government, they are non-productive.
> > They don't produce anything that can be sold, serviced, bought and
> > used.
>
> Workers bulding and maintaining roads are non-productive? Soldiers,
sailors and
> airmen defending our country are not providing a service? Agriculture
inspectors
> checking beef are not providing a service. Policeman fighting crime aren't
> providing a service? The National Weather Service is non-productive?
>
> Ed
>
#3974
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 21:36:39 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
<gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> First, maybe he can tell me who took the measurements.
>
>Let's see, we will measure current levels with ultra sensitive instruments,
>and we will simply make up data for before we had any instruments... <
>
>You're being VERY politically incorrect by trying to use common sense and
>logic rather than just going along with this scam like a good little green
>lemming.....
Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals
stand for.
<gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> First, maybe he can tell me who took the measurements.
>
>Let's see, we will measure current levels with ultra sensitive instruments,
>and we will simply make up data for before we had any instruments... <
>
>You're being VERY politically incorrect by trying to use common sense and
>logic rather than just going along with this scam like a good little green
>lemming.....
Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals
stand for.
#3975
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 21:36:39 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
<gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> First, maybe he can tell me who took the measurements.
>
>Let's see, we will measure current levels with ultra sensitive instruments,
>and we will simply make up data for before we had any instruments... <
>
>You're being VERY politically incorrect by trying to use common sense and
>logic rather than just going along with this scam like a good little green
>lemming.....
Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals
stand for.
<gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> First, maybe he can tell me who took the measurements.
>
>Let's see, we will measure current levels with ultra sensitive instruments,
>and we will simply make up data for before we had any instruments... <
>
>You're being VERY politically incorrect by trying to use common sense and
>logic rather than just going along with this scam like a good little green
>lemming.....
Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals
stand for.
#3976
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 21:36:39 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
<gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> First, maybe he can tell me who took the measurements.
>
>Let's see, we will measure current levels with ultra sensitive instruments,
>and we will simply make up data for before we had any instruments... <
>
>You're being VERY politically incorrect by trying to use common sense and
>logic rather than just going along with this scam like a good little green
>lemming.....
Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals
stand for.
<gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> First, maybe he can tell me who took the measurements.
>
>Let's see, we will measure current levels with ultra sensitive instruments,
>and we will simply make up data for before we had any instruments... <
>
>You're being VERY politically incorrect by trying to use common sense and
>logic rather than just going along with this scam like a good little green
>lemming.....
Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals
stand for.
#3977
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 03:26:34 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
>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.
Hey, what is your problem? You know for a fact that computers predict
the weather with 100% accuracy every single day in every single point
on the globe. How dare you doubt that computers can predict something
with a million more variables over a period of time far larger!
What kind of brain using person are you?
Oh wait, you are right.
wrote:
>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.
Hey, what is your problem? You know for a fact that computers predict
the weather with 100% accuracy every single day in every single point
on the globe. How dare you doubt that computers can predict something
with a million more variables over a period of time far larger!
What kind of brain using person are you?
Oh wait, you are right.
#3978
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 03:26:34 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
>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.
Hey, what is your problem? You know for a fact that computers predict
the weather with 100% accuracy every single day in every single point
on the globe. How dare you doubt that computers can predict something
with a million more variables over a period of time far larger!
What kind of brain using person are you?
Oh wait, you are right.
wrote:
>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.
Hey, what is your problem? You know for a fact that computers predict
the weather with 100% accuracy every single day in every single point
on the globe. How dare you doubt that computers can predict something
with a million more variables over a period of time far larger!
What kind of brain using person are you?
Oh wait, you are right.
#3979
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 03:26:34 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
>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.
Hey, what is your problem? You know for a fact that computers predict
the weather with 100% accuracy every single day in every single point
on the globe. How dare you doubt that computers can predict something
with a million more variables over a period of time far larger!
What kind of brain using person are you?
Oh wait, you are right.
wrote:
>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.
Hey, what is your problem? You know for a fact that computers predict
the weather with 100% accuracy every single day in every single point
on the globe. How dare you doubt that computers can predict something
with a million more variables over a period of time far larger!
What kind of brain using person are you?
Oh wait, you are right.
#3980
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"DTJ" <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:n1dqqvg433vfgut94gh18f64f87m8tus62@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 21:36:39 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
> <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>
> >> First, maybe he can tell me who took the measurements.
> >
> >Let's see, we will measure current levels with ultra sensitive
instruments,
> >and we will simply make up data for before we had any instruments... <
> >
> >You're being VERY politically incorrect by trying to use common sense and
> >logic rather than just going along with this scam like a good little
green
> >lemming.....
>
> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals
> stand for.
You guys need to learn some "science".
Oh wait, thats Lloyds line.
Sorry.;-)