Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3991
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
In article <221fa157.0311081811.4c9bf6e4@posting.google.com >, st3ph3nm wrote:
>> hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it as an
>> excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals.
> What goals could they be?
Social and political ones. (see earlier posts)
> The only studies I've read that don't support the findings of the UN
> research into climate change have been published by people funded by
> vested interests.
I've several that aren't. I've mentioned a couple recent ones in this
thread or the one it spawned from. (see earlier posts)
>> I think the new medias trumpets global warming because it
>> generates a lot interest.
> As it should.
But it doesn't spend much time at all how the "solutions" aren't going
to a damn bit of good. Only how nasty republicans and right wingers
stand in the way.
>> I think a lot of scientist promote global warming
>> because they can get money to study it.
> As opposed to funding on drug research? As opposed to ozone research?
> Please.
I've learned a bit about how funding happens, he's correct. There's
money in researching global warming as being caused by human activities.
>> If I am wrong and the worst case scenario happens, the sea level will rise 10
>> feet and millions of people will have to move. Fortunately, it won't rise over
>> night, so they can move. If you believe in global warming, I suggest you buy land
>> in Kansas now.
> This is fine for people in the US. If you had been born and raised on
> the Solomons, though, you might be annoyed to find that the world
> doesn't care if your entire homeland is inundated. This is a very
> simplistic argument - I'll address it more further down.
Then why does the proposed solution, the kyoto treaty, do nothing but
encourage the relocation of CO2 output to China, India, and other such
nations?
>> If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
>> happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
>> rearranged for no reason.
> If they're right, we'll be moving almost 50% of the world's population
> inland.
And if they are right, then their proposed solution won't stop it.
It's so obvious that their solution won't stop CO2 based global warming
that it makes me think that they either *want* it to happen, or know
it *isn't* going to happen.
>> We will just continue to move most of our CO2
>> generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will still be
>> underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.
> What on earth brings you to this conclusion?
The proposed solution to stop global warming by CO2 emissions is to put
tight controls on developed nations and none on developing nations. All
this will do is further fuel a relocation of factories to the developing
nations where they won't have to buy carbon credits. In turn all the
products will have to be shipped longer distances resulting in *MORE*
CO2 output per product.
Or do you think that companies will just stop making stuff and go out
of business? No, they will relocate or be replaced by businesses that
are in a more favorable environment. So, more CO2 is released into the
atmosphere. Some solution.
> You talk about the effects on Americans to change the way they live.
And here we hit the nail on the head, it's about telling americans
how to live. As much as I dislike the wasteful stereotypical american,
I can't get behind a flawed policy that only has a chance of making
things worse if the theory is correct.
> I suggest you think more globally, and think about the possibility
> that no major change needs to occur to any individual for there to be
> major drops in greenhouse gas emissions. Is anyone put out by
> clicking on a lower wattage light globe? Is anyone harmed by living
> in a house that requires dramatically less cooling or heating, due to
> good design? Does anyone really care what kind of engine gets them to
> work in the morning? Is anyone hurt by the job opportunities that are
> created by getting cleaner, more efficient technology up and running a
> little bit quicker. After all, you have acknowledged the move from
> fossil fuels is a matter of "when", not "if", so why not now? Even
> the big oil companies won't lose out: One of the biggest suppliers in
> Australia of photo-electric cells is BP Solar. Efficiency isn't a bad
> thing, you know. Nor is change.
I have no problems with conservation, but that's not what the left
is about in this regard. If they were about conservation they would
be for limiting *GLOBAL* CO2 output, not that of only selected nations.
They would be *for* making sure that the developing countries develop
clean instead of making the same mistakes the 'west' made over again.
We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
are using this topic as their tool to do so.
>> hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it as an
>> excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals.
> What goals could they be?
Social and political ones. (see earlier posts)
> The only studies I've read that don't support the findings of the UN
> research into climate change have been published by people funded by
> vested interests.
I've several that aren't. I've mentioned a couple recent ones in this
thread or the one it spawned from. (see earlier posts)
>> I think the new medias trumpets global warming because it
>> generates a lot interest.
> As it should.
But it doesn't spend much time at all how the "solutions" aren't going
to a damn bit of good. Only how nasty republicans and right wingers
stand in the way.
>> I think a lot of scientist promote global warming
>> because they can get money to study it.
> As opposed to funding on drug research? As opposed to ozone research?
> Please.
I've learned a bit about how funding happens, he's correct. There's
money in researching global warming as being caused by human activities.
>> If I am wrong and the worst case scenario happens, the sea level will rise 10
>> feet and millions of people will have to move. Fortunately, it won't rise over
>> night, so they can move. If you believe in global warming, I suggest you buy land
>> in Kansas now.
> This is fine for people in the US. If you had been born and raised on
> the Solomons, though, you might be annoyed to find that the world
> doesn't care if your entire homeland is inundated. This is a very
> simplistic argument - I'll address it more further down.
Then why does the proposed solution, the kyoto treaty, do nothing but
encourage the relocation of CO2 output to China, India, and other such
nations?
>> If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
>> happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
>> rearranged for no reason.
> If they're right, we'll be moving almost 50% of the world's population
> inland.
And if they are right, then their proposed solution won't stop it.
It's so obvious that their solution won't stop CO2 based global warming
that it makes me think that they either *want* it to happen, or know
it *isn't* going to happen.
>> We will just continue to move most of our CO2
>> generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will still be
>> underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.
> What on earth brings you to this conclusion?
The proposed solution to stop global warming by CO2 emissions is to put
tight controls on developed nations and none on developing nations. All
this will do is further fuel a relocation of factories to the developing
nations where they won't have to buy carbon credits. In turn all the
products will have to be shipped longer distances resulting in *MORE*
CO2 output per product.
Or do you think that companies will just stop making stuff and go out
of business? No, they will relocate or be replaced by businesses that
are in a more favorable environment. So, more CO2 is released into the
atmosphere. Some solution.
> You talk about the effects on Americans to change the way they live.
And here we hit the nail on the head, it's about telling americans
how to live. As much as I dislike the wasteful stereotypical american,
I can't get behind a flawed policy that only has a chance of making
things worse if the theory is correct.
> I suggest you think more globally, and think about the possibility
> that no major change needs to occur to any individual for there to be
> major drops in greenhouse gas emissions. Is anyone put out by
> clicking on a lower wattage light globe? Is anyone harmed by living
> in a house that requires dramatically less cooling or heating, due to
> good design? Does anyone really care what kind of engine gets them to
> work in the morning? Is anyone hurt by the job opportunities that are
> created by getting cleaner, more efficient technology up and running a
> little bit quicker. After all, you have acknowledged the move from
> fossil fuels is a matter of "when", not "if", so why not now? Even
> the big oil companies won't lose out: One of the biggest suppliers in
> Australia of photo-electric cells is BP Solar. Efficiency isn't a bad
> thing, you know. Nor is change.
I have no problems with conservation, but that's not what the left
is about in this regard. If they were about conservation they would
be for limiting *GLOBAL* CO2 output, not that of only selected nations.
They would be *for* making sure that the developing countries develop
clean instead of making the same mistakes the 'west' made over again.
We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
are using this topic as their tool to do so.
#3992
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals stand
for.<
That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the decisions for
you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut up! They
know far better than you how it should be spent...
for.<
That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the decisions for
you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut up! They
know far better than you how it should be spent...
#3993
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals stand
for.<
That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the decisions for
you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut up! They
know far better than you how it should be spent...
for.<
That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the decisions for
you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut up! They
know far better than you how it should be spent...
#3994
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals stand
for.<
That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the decisions for
you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut up! They
know far better than you how it should be spent...
for.<
That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the decisions for
you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut up! They
know far better than you how it should be spent...
#3995
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
> You guys need to learn some "science". Oh wait, thats Lloyds line.
Sorry.;-) <
As they say in New Jersey "Hey, I got ya science, right heah!".
>
>
Sorry.;-) <
As they say in New Jersey "Hey, I got ya science, right heah!".
>
>
#3996
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
> You guys need to learn some "science". Oh wait, thats Lloyds line.
Sorry.;-) <
As they say in New Jersey "Hey, I got ya science, right heah!".
>
>
Sorry.;-) <
As they say in New Jersey "Hey, I got ya science, right heah!".
>
>
#3997
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
> You guys need to learn some "science". Oh wait, thats Lloyds line.
Sorry.;-) <
As they say in New Jersey "Hey, I got ya science, right heah!".
>
>
Sorry.;-) <
As they say in New Jersey "Hey, I got ya science, right heah!".
>
>
#3998
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
> When weighted for shares owned, what is the average income of
shareholders? That is, rather than asking every person in the US whether
they own and stock and averaging their income if they do, look at every
share of stock held and average the incomes of its owner. I suspect the
number would be significantly higher than 40k. I suspect that most shares
in the US are held by people making more than $1,000,000 per year (or by
companies run by people that make more than $1,000,000 per year. <
What is this, more Florida recount logic from the Left???!!!
Fact is, the majority of American workers hold shares in 401ks, IRAs, and in
savings. I KNOW it's TERRIBLE for you Socialists to think that people making
moderate incomes would actually SAVE and INVEST....what is this Country
coming to, I ask you? Obviously this money they save would be far better
left to liberal politicians to spend on bigger government. Time to raise
taxes on all those rich people making 40k a year!
shareholders? That is, rather than asking every person in the US whether
they own and stock and averaging their income if they do, look at every
share of stock held and average the incomes of its owner. I suspect the
number would be significantly higher than 40k. I suspect that most shares
in the US are held by people making more than $1,000,000 per year (or by
companies run by people that make more than $1,000,000 per year. <
What is this, more Florida recount logic from the Left???!!!
Fact is, the majority of American workers hold shares in 401ks, IRAs, and in
savings. I KNOW it's TERRIBLE for you Socialists to think that people making
moderate incomes would actually SAVE and INVEST....what is this Country
coming to, I ask you? Obviously this money they save would be far better
left to liberal politicians to spend on bigger government. Time to raise
taxes on all those rich people making 40k a year!
#3999
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
> When weighted for shares owned, what is the average income of
shareholders? That is, rather than asking every person in the US whether
they own and stock and averaging their income if they do, look at every
share of stock held and average the incomes of its owner. I suspect the
number would be significantly higher than 40k. I suspect that most shares
in the US are held by people making more than $1,000,000 per year (or by
companies run by people that make more than $1,000,000 per year. <
What is this, more Florida recount logic from the Left???!!!
Fact is, the majority of American workers hold shares in 401ks, IRAs, and in
savings. I KNOW it's TERRIBLE for you Socialists to think that people making
moderate incomes would actually SAVE and INVEST....what is this Country
coming to, I ask you? Obviously this money they save would be far better
left to liberal politicians to spend on bigger government. Time to raise
taxes on all those rich people making 40k a year!
shareholders? That is, rather than asking every person in the US whether
they own and stock and averaging their income if they do, look at every
share of stock held and average the incomes of its owner. I suspect the
number would be significantly higher than 40k. I suspect that most shares
in the US are held by people making more than $1,000,000 per year (or by
companies run by people that make more than $1,000,000 per year. <
What is this, more Florida recount logic from the Left???!!!
Fact is, the majority of American workers hold shares in 401ks, IRAs, and in
savings. I KNOW it's TERRIBLE for you Socialists to think that people making
moderate incomes would actually SAVE and INVEST....what is this Country
coming to, I ask you? Obviously this money they save would be far better
left to liberal politicians to spend on bigger government. Time to raise
taxes on all those rich people making 40k a year!
#4000
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
> When weighted for shares owned, what is the average income of
shareholders? That is, rather than asking every person in the US whether
they own and stock and averaging their income if they do, look at every
share of stock held and average the incomes of its owner. I suspect the
number would be significantly higher than 40k. I suspect that most shares
in the US are held by people making more than $1,000,000 per year (or by
companies run by people that make more than $1,000,000 per year. <
What is this, more Florida recount logic from the Left???!!!
Fact is, the majority of American workers hold shares in 401ks, IRAs, and in
savings. I KNOW it's TERRIBLE for you Socialists to think that people making
moderate incomes would actually SAVE and INVEST....what is this Country
coming to, I ask you? Obviously this money they save would be far better
left to liberal politicians to spend on bigger government. Time to raise
taxes on all those rich people making 40k a year!
shareholders? That is, rather than asking every person in the US whether
they own and stock and averaging their income if they do, look at every
share of stock held and average the incomes of its owner. I suspect the
number would be significantly higher than 40k. I suspect that most shares
in the US are held by people making more than $1,000,000 per year (or by
companies run by people that make more than $1,000,000 per year. <
What is this, more Florida recount logic from the Left???!!!
Fact is, the majority of American workers hold shares in 401ks, IRAs, and in
savings. I KNOW it's TERRIBLE for you Socialists to think that people making
moderate incomes would actually SAVE and INVEST....what is this Country
coming to, I ask you? Obviously this money they save would be far better
left to liberal politicians to spend on bigger government. Time to raise
taxes on all those rich people making 40k a year!