Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4051
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Erik Aronesty wrote:
>
> > > Were you offended? I wasn't. Speak for youself, lest you become a
> > > "Sharpton" of your own.
> >
> > No - I'm part of the other 5%. I can do that since I take nothing he
> > says seriously. Sharpton of my own? What the heck does that mean?
>
> So you weren't offended by what he said, yet you feel free to point
> out that "some people" were offended on the basis of Al Sharpton's
> assertions.
Let's just say that my comments were tongue-in-cheek, as in: I believe
everything liberals tell me, so I must believe Al Sharpton when he
indicates that we should be offended, and the subsequent theater of
Sharpton publicly stating that he isn't sure that he accepts Dean's
apology to him on behalf of all black people. It just points out the
absurdity of the liberal mind being demonstrated by the so-called
Democratic contenders' debates.
I particulary liked the question (and the "candidates" answers) about
whether the candidates preferred Macs or pc's. It showed how serious
they all aren't.
Apparently Dean felt that people should have been offended by his own
remarks since he personally felt compelled to apologize to Reverend Al
for having made them. Again, since I believe whatever liberals say, I
must agree with Dean that his remarks were offensive to people. (note:
more tongue-in-cheek sarcasm that doesn't warrant followup by serious
questions)
> Are you a follower of Al Sharpton?
Heh! You have to ask?
> Do you seriously think that Al Sharpton was offended by Dean?
Who knows (and does it really matter)? He publicly refused to accept
Dean's apology. So who am I to believe? Reverend Al is obviously
either truly offended or playing a part in a pathetic bit of theater. I
think that the character that Sharpton plays demands that he pretend to
be offended. Maybe that's what you think he's doing? Or do you think
he's genuinely offended? (I think I've got you wrapped around the axle
no matter how you answer. If there's a third alternative to how I
interpreted the "event" that would put either Dean or Reverend Al or
both in a good light, then throw it on the table.)
Howard Dean could tell me personally to my face that I am an idiot and I
would not be offended since I would consider the source.
The point in my original post was that Dean (and all the other
"candidates") is deparately trying to convince people to vote for him,
and that the south (and all of its constituency) is critical to whoever
gets elected. All the candidates know this, but he basically stepped on
his dork trying to appease certain "favored" groups and in that attempt
offended practically everyone who would otherwise potentially take his
remarks seriously (that would not include me). Hence my reference to
his spastic tap dancing. Is it really that hard to comprehend? You're
reading way too much into this (or at least pretending to, but I think
your charade is backfiring on you).
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#4052
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:26:51 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
<gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> 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...
50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!
<gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> 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...
50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!
#4053
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:26:51 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
<gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> 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...
50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!
<gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> 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...
50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!
#4054
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:26:51 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
<gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> 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...
50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!
<gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> 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...
50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!
#4055
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On 8 Nov 2003 18:11:28 -0800, sgam@hotmail.com (st3ph3nm) wrote:
>> I don't doubt that an increase in the concentration of CO2 might cause a change
>> in the climate.
>
>Yes, most researchers seem to agree that it will.
>
>> However, climate change will occur whether there is or is not a
>> change in the CO2 concentration.
>
>Of course it will. The question isn't whether or not, it's how much.
>The problem with our greenhouse gas emissions is that it is very
>likely to increase the *rate* of change to our climate quite
>dramatically.
Bzzzt. Wrong answer. Thanks for playing.
The fact is that while greenhouse gas emissions may affect the rate of
change, one does not know if it will increase or decrease that rate,
as one does not know what nature will actually be doing from one year
to the next.
>A change in global temperatures over the next 100 years that would
>normally be seen over 10,000 years is not going to be insignificant.
>Nor a "good thing".
More pseudo science. Fact is the planet just exited an ice age a
short time ago, and so if the planet continues as would be expected,
we have another 40,000 years of warm up. Of course, the last decade
has actually shown a cooling trend, so nobody knows.
>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.
Note: studies you choose to read are not all inclusive. Even once
respected magazines such as Scientific American are now refusing to
even publish the work that proves global warming is a farce. So how
you expect pseudo science magazines like discover to educate you, we
will never understand.
>> I think the science supporting global warming is not
>> subject to the sort of scrutiny that it should be because it is a "popular
>> theory" with liberals.
>
>I don't believe that you're right at all about this. I believe that
>global warning has been subject to a great deal of scrutiny.
>Industries that stand to lose money short term will argue against it,
>both ways: Fossil fuel companies argue it's insignificant, insurance
>companies argue that it's quite significant.
Yes it has been subject to scrutiny, but the liberal media refuse to
publish all the evidence that shows it is a liberal fallacy.
>> I don't doubt that an increase in the concentration of CO2 might cause a change
>> in the climate.
>
>Yes, most researchers seem to agree that it will.
>
>> However, climate change will occur whether there is or is not a
>> change in the CO2 concentration.
>
>Of course it will. The question isn't whether or not, it's how much.
>The problem with our greenhouse gas emissions is that it is very
>likely to increase the *rate* of change to our climate quite
>dramatically.
Bzzzt. Wrong answer. Thanks for playing.
The fact is that while greenhouse gas emissions may affect the rate of
change, one does not know if it will increase or decrease that rate,
as one does not know what nature will actually be doing from one year
to the next.
>A change in global temperatures over the next 100 years that would
>normally be seen over 10,000 years is not going to be insignificant.
>Nor a "good thing".
More pseudo science. Fact is the planet just exited an ice age a
short time ago, and so if the planet continues as would be expected,
we have another 40,000 years of warm up. Of course, the last decade
has actually shown a cooling trend, so nobody knows.
>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.
Note: studies you choose to read are not all inclusive. Even once
respected magazines such as Scientific American are now refusing to
even publish the work that proves global warming is a farce. So how
you expect pseudo science magazines like discover to educate you, we
will never understand.
>> I think the science supporting global warming is not
>> subject to the sort of scrutiny that it should be because it is a "popular
>> theory" with liberals.
>
>I don't believe that you're right at all about this. I believe that
>global warning has been subject to a great deal of scrutiny.
>Industries that stand to lose money short term will argue against it,
>both ways: Fossil fuel companies argue it's insignificant, insurance
>companies argue that it's quite significant.
Yes it has been subject to scrutiny, but the liberal media refuse to
publish all the evidence that shows it is a liberal fallacy.
#4056
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On 8 Nov 2003 18:11:28 -0800, sgam@hotmail.com (st3ph3nm) wrote:
>> I don't doubt that an increase in the concentration of CO2 might cause a change
>> in the climate.
>
>Yes, most researchers seem to agree that it will.
>
>> However, climate change will occur whether there is or is not a
>> change in the CO2 concentration.
>
>Of course it will. The question isn't whether or not, it's how much.
>The problem with our greenhouse gas emissions is that it is very
>likely to increase the *rate* of change to our climate quite
>dramatically.
Bzzzt. Wrong answer. Thanks for playing.
The fact is that while greenhouse gas emissions may affect the rate of
change, one does not know if it will increase or decrease that rate,
as one does not know what nature will actually be doing from one year
to the next.
>A change in global temperatures over the next 100 years that would
>normally be seen over 10,000 years is not going to be insignificant.
>Nor a "good thing".
More pseudo science. Fact is the planet just exited an ice age a
short time ago, and so if the planet continues as would be expected,
we have another 40,000 years of warm up. Of course, the last decade
has actually shown a cooling trend, so nobody knows.
>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.
Note: studies you choose to read are not all inclusive. Even once
respected magazines such as Scientific American are now refusing to
even publish the work that proves global warming is a farce. So how
you expect pseudo science magazines like discover to educate you, we
will never understand.
>> I think the science supporting global warming is not
>> subject to the sort of scrutiny that it should be because it is a "popular
>> theory" with liberals.
>
>I don't believe that you're right at all about this. I believe that
>global warning has been subject to a great deal of scrutiny.
>Industries that stand to lose money short term will argue against it,
>both ways: Fossil fuel companies argue it's insignificant, insurance
>companies argue that it's quite significant.
Yes it has been subject to scrutiny, but the liberal media refuse to
publish all the evidence that shows it is a liberal fallacy.
>> I don't doubt that an increase in the concentration of CO2 might cause a change
>> in the climate.
>
>Yes, most researchers seem to agree that it will.
>
>> However, climate change will occur whether there is or is not a
>> change in the CO2 concentration.
>
>Of course it will. The question isn't whether or not, it's how much.
>The problem with our greenhouse gas emissions is that it is very
>likely to increase the *rate* of change to our climate quite
>dramatically.
Bzzzt. Wrong answer. Thanks for playing.
The fact is that while greenhouse gas emissions may affect the rate of
change, one does not know if it will increase or decrease that rate,
as one does not know what nature will actually be doing from one year
to the next.
>A change in global temperatures over the next 100 years that would
>normally be seen over 10,000 years is not going to be insignificant.
>Nor a "good thing".
More pseudo science. Fact is the planet just exited an ice age a
short time ago, and so if the planet continues as would be expected,
we have another 40,000 years of warm up. Of course, the last decade
has actually shown a cooling trend, so nobody knows.
>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.
Note: studies you choose to read are not all inclusive. Even once
respected magazines such as Scientific American are now refusing to
even publish the work that proves global warming is a farce. So how
you expect pseudo science magazines like discover to educate you, we
will never understand.
>> I think the science supporting global warming is not
>> subject to the sort of scrutiny that it should be because it is a "popular
>> theory" with liberals.
>
>I don't believe that you're right at all about this. I believe that
>global warning has been subject to a great deal of scrutiny.
>Industries that stand to lose money short term will argue against it,
>both ways: Fossil fuel companies argue it's insignificant, insurance
>companies argue that it's quite significant.
Yes it has been subject to scrutiny, but the liberal media refuse to
publish all the evidence that shows it is a liberal fallacy.
#4057
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On 8 Nov 2003 18:11:28 -0800, sgam@hotmail.com (st3ph3nm) wrote:
>> I don't doubt that an increase in the concentration of CO2 might cause a change
>> in the climate.
>
>Yes, most researchers seem to agree that it will.
>
>> However, climate change will occur whether there is or is not a
>> change in the CO2 concentration.
>
>Of course it will. The question isn't whether or not, it's how much.
>The problem with our greenhouse gas emissions is that it is very
>likely to increase the *rate* of change to our climate quite
>dramatically.
Bzzzt. Wrong answer. Thanks for playing.
The fact is that while greenhouse gas emissions may affect the rate of
change, one does not know if it will increase or decrease that rate,
as one does not know what nature will actually be doing from one year
to the next.
>A change in global temperatures over the next 100 years that would
>normally be seen over 10,000 years is not going to be insignificant.
>Nor a "good thing".
More pseudo science. Fact is the planet just exited an ice age a
short time ago, and so if the planet continues as would be expected,
we have another 40,000 years of warm up. Of course, the last decade
has actually shown a cooling trend, so nobody knows.
>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.
Note: studies you choose to read are not all inclusive. Even once
respected magazines such as Scientific American are now refusing to
even publish the work that proves global warming is a farce. So how
you expect pseudo science magazines like discover to educate you, we
will never understand.
>> I think the science supporting global warming is not
>> subject to the sort of scrutiny that it should be because it is a "popular
>> theory" with liberals.
>
>I don't believe that you're right at all about this. I believe that
>global warning has been subject to a great deal of scrutiny.
>Industries that stand to lose money short term will argue against it,
>both ways: Fossil fuel companies argue it's insignificant, insurance
>companies argue that it's quite significant.
Yes it has been subject to scrutiny, but the liberal media refuse to
publish all the evidence that shows it is a liberal fallacy.
>> I don't doubt that an increase in the concentration of CO2 might cause a change
>> in the climate.
>
>Yes, most researchers seem to agree that it will.
>
>> However, climate change will occur whether there is or is not a
>> change in the CO2 concentration.
>
>Of course it will. The question isn't whether or not, it's how much.
>The problem with our greenhouse gas emissions is that it is very
>likely to increase the *rate* of change to our climate quite
>dramatically.
Bzzzt. Wrong answer. Thanks for playing.
The fact is that while greenhouse gas emissions may affect the rate of
change, one does not know if it will increase or decrease that rate,
as one does not know what nature will actually be doing from one year
to the next.
>A change in global temperatures over the next 100 years that would
>normally be seen over 10,000 years is not going to be insignificant.
>Nor a "good thing".
More pseudo science. Fact is the planet just exited an ice age a
short time ago, and so if the planet continues as would be expected,
we have another 40,000 years of warm up. Of course, the last decade
has actually shown a cooling trend, so nobody knows.
>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.
Note: studies you choose to read are not all inclusive. Even once
respected magazines such as Scientific American are now refusing to
even publish the work that proves global warming is a farce. So how
you expect pseudo science magazines like discover to educate you, we
will never understand.
>> I think the science supporting global warming is not
>> subject to the sort of scrutiny that it should be because it is a "popular
>> theory" with liberals.
>
>I don't believe that you're right at all about this. I believe that
>global warning has been subject to a great deal of scrutiny.
>Industries that stand to lose money short term will argue against it,
>both ways: Fossil fuel companies argue it's insignificant, insurance
>companies argue that it's quite significant.
Yes it has been subject to scrutiny, but the liberal media refuse to
publish all the evidence that shows it is a liberal fallacy.
#4058
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
>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.
You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
wrote:
>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.
You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
#4059
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
>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.
You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
wrote:
>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.
You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
#4060
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
>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.
You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
wrote:
>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.
You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.