Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4091
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Erik Aronesty wrote:
>
> ...I would contend that offending Al Sharpton and raising a brouhaha in
> the media is NOT a bad thing for Dean. I would contend that this is
> precisely the sort of incident that will make him more popular with
> people like you and I. Although less popular wih a minority of angry
> idiots that won't matter in the long run.
The likelihood of my voting for Dean or any of the other existing
Democratic contenders (including Hillary if she decides to be the hero
to save the party from it's current demise) with or without this latest
debacle is less than 0.1%.
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! =-----
#4092
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Erik Aronesty wrote:
>
> ...I would contend that offending Al Sharpton and raising a brouhaha in
> the media is NOT a bad thing for Dean. I would contend that this is
> precisely the sort of incident that will make him more popular with
> people like you and I. Although less popular wih a minority of angry
> idiots that won't matter in the long run.
The likelihood of my voting for Dean or any of the other existing
Democratic contenders (including Hillary if she decides to be the hero
to save the party from it's current demise) with or without this latest
debacle is less than 0.1%.
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! =-----
#4093
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Erik Aronesty wrote:
>
> ...I would contend that offending Al Sharpton and raising a brouhaha in
> the media is NOT a bad thing for Dean. I would contend that this is
> precisely the sort of incident that will make him more popular with
> people like you and I. Although less popular wih a minority of angry
> idiots that won't matter in the long run.
The likelihood of my voting for Dean or any of the other existing
Democratic contenders (including Hillary if she decides to be the hero
to save the party from it's current demise) with or without this latest
debacle is less than 0.1%.
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! =-----
#4094
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <DWhrb.109394$9E1.542147@attbi_s52>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>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?
>
Because the US emits 2 times as much CO2 as the next nation (Russia) and over
4 times as much on a per capita basis as any other nation.
>>> 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.
No, that's the first step.
>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.
If you've got a head wound and a scratch on your arm, which do you treat
first? The head wound gushing blood or the scratch?
>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.
>
>
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>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?
>
Because the US emits 2 times as much CO2 as the next nation (Russia) and over
4 times as much on a per capita basis as any other nation.
>>> 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.
No, that's the first step.
>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.
If you've got a head wound and a scratch on your arm, which do you treat
first? The head wound gushing blood or the scratch?
>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.
>
>
#4095
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <DWhrb.109394$9E1.542147@attbi_s52>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>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?
>
Because the US emits 2 times as much CO2 as the next nation (Russia) and over
4 times as much on a per capita basis as any other nation.
>>> 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.
No, that's the first step.
>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.
If you've got a head wound and a scratch on your arm, which do you treat
first? The head wound gushing blood or the scratch?
>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.
>
>
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>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?
>
Because the US emits 2 times as much CO2 as the next nation (Russia) and over
4 times as much on a per capita basis as any other nation.
>>> 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.
No, that's the first step.
>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.
If you've got a head wound and a scratch on your arm, which do you treat
first? The head wound gushing blood or the scratch?
>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.
>
>
#4096
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <DWhrb.109394$9E1.542147@attbi_s52>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>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?
>
Because the US emits 2 times as much CO2 as the next nation (Russia) and over
4 times as much on a per capita basis as any other nation.
>>> 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.
No, that's the first step.
>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.
If you've got a head wound and a scratch on your arm, which do you treat
first? The head wound gushing blood or the scratch?
>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.
>
>
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>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?
>
Because the US emits 2 times as much CO2 as the next nation (Russia) and over
4 times as much on a per capita basis as any other nation.
>>> 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.
No, that's the first step.
>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.
If you've got a head wound and a scratch on your arm, which do you treat
first? The head wound gushing blood or the scratch?
>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.
>
>
#4097
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <vKtrb.16403$8x2.7213984@newssrv26.news.prodigy.co m>,
"Peachyracer" <pstolz@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>When you go to these scientists "who spend their lives investigating the
>environment," please remember where the money comes from that allows them to
>investigate the environment. Do not overlook the fact that these scientists
>also receive their paychecks and funding for their research based on the
>results of that research. It's a huge confict of interest. If they find
>there is no problem with the environment, then they are basically saying
>there's no more need for them to have a job.
Ludicrous. There are plenty of environmental problems; scientists hardly have
to make one up.
> If, on the other hand, they
>say there's a huge problem with the environment, they can then say that they
>need more money to investigate this problem and therefore keep themselves
>"useful" until that money runs out. They just have to make sure the new
>research points to further problems.
>IMHO
Which is as valid when it comes to science as it would be, about, say, cardiac
surgery or warp drive.
>
>"Me" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:srhi-9C750E.09391409112003@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
>> In article <3FAAAB43.B4072C31@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is
>worse
>> > than the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the
>> > case is being dramatically overstated.
>>
>> If I want my car's carb fixed, I will go to the best mechanic I can find
>> to do the job.
>>
>> If I want my heart fixed, I will go to the best cardiologist I can find
>> to do the job.
>>
>> If I want information about a problem with the environment that has the
>> potential to wipe out life on this planet, I will go to scientists who
>> spend their lives investigating the environment. I will certainly not go
>> to rec.driving.autos for such information.
>
>
"Peachyracer" <pstolz@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>When you go to these scientists "who spend their lives investigating the
>environment," please remember where the money comes from that allows them to
>investigate the environment. Do not overlook the fact that these scientists
>also receive their paychecks and funding for their research based on the
>results of that research. It's a huge confict of interest. If they find
>there is no problem with the environment, then they are basically saying
>there's no more need for them to have a job.
Ludicrous. There are plenty of environmental problems; scientists hardly have
to make one up.
> If, on the other hand, they
>say there's a huge problem with the environment, they can then say that they
>need more money to investigate this problem and therefore keep themselves
>"useful" until that money runs out. They just have to make sure the new
>research points to further problems.
>IMHO
Which is as valid when it comes to science as it would be, about, say, cardiac
surgery or warp drive.
>
>"Me" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:srhi-9C750E.09391409112003@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
>> In article <3FAAAB43.B4072C31@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is
>worse
>> > than the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the
>> > case is being dramatically overstated.
>>
>> If I want my car's carb fixed, I will go to the best mechanic I can find
>> to do the job.
>>
>> If I want my heart fixed, I will go to the best cardiologist I can find
>> to do the job.
>>
>> If I want information about a problem with the environment that has the
>> potential to wipe out life on this planet, I will go to scientists who
>> spend their lives investigating the environment. I will certainly not go
>> to rec.driving.autos for such information.
>
>
#4098
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <vKtrb.16403$8x2.7213984@newssrv26.news.prodigy.co m>,
"Peachyracer" <pstolz@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>When you go to these scientists "who spend their lives investigating the
>environment," please remember where the money comes from that allows them to
>investigate the environment. Do not overlook the fact that these scientists
>also receive their paychecks and funding for their research based on the
>results of that research. It's a huge confict of interest. If they find
>there is no problem with the environment, then they are basically saying
>there's no more need for them to have a job.
Ludicrous. There are plenty of environmental problems; scientists hardly have
to make one up.
> If, on the other hand, they
>say there's a huge problem with the environment, they can then say that they
>need more money to investigate this problem and therefore keep themselves
>"useful" until that money runs out. They just have to make sure the new
>research points to further problems.
>IMHO
Which is as valid when it comes to science as it would be, about, say, cardiac
surgery or warp drive.
>
>"Me" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:srhi-9C750E.09391409112003@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
>> In article <3FAAAB43.B4072C31@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is
>worse
>> > than the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the
>> > case is being dramatically overstated.
>>
>> If I want my car's carb fixed, I will go to the best mechanic I can find
>> to do the job.
>>
>> If I want my heart fixed, I will go to the best cardiologist I can find
>> to do the job.
>>
>> If I want information about a problem with the environment that has the
>> potential to wipe out life on this planet, I will go to scientists who
>> spend their lives investigating the environment. I will certainly not go
>> to rec.driving.autos for such information.
>
>
"Peachyracer" <pstolz@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>When you go to these scientists "who spend their lives investigating the
>environment," please remember where the money comes from that allows them to
>investigate the environment. Do not overlook the fact that these scientists
>also receive their paychecks and funding for their research based on the
>results of that research. It's a huge confict of interest. If they find
>there is no problem with the environment, then they are basically saying
>there's no more need for them to have a job.
Ludicrous. There are plenty of environmental problems; scientists hardly have
to make one up.
> If, on the other hand, they
>say there's a huge problem with the environment, they can then say that they
>need more money to investigate this problem and therefore keep themselves
>"useful" until that money runs out. They just have to make sure the new
>research points to further problems.
>IMHO
Which is as valid when it comes to science as it would be, about, say, cardiac
surgery or warp drive.
>
>"Me" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:srhi-9C750E.09391409112003@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
>> In article <3FAAAB43.B4072C31@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is
>worse
>> > than the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the
>> > case is being dramatically overstated.
>>
>> If I want my car's carb fixed, I will go to the best mechanic I can find
>> to do the job.
>>
>> If I want my heart fixed, I will go to the best cardiologist I can find
>> to do the job.
>>
>> If I want information about a problem with the environment that has the
>> potential to wipe out life on this planet, I will go to scientists who
>> spend their lives investigating the environment. I will certainly not go
>> to rec.driving.autos for such information.
>
>
#4099
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <vKtrb.16403$8x2.7213984@newssrv26.news.prodigy.co m>,
"Peachyracer" <pstolz@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>When you go to these scientists "who spend their lives investigating the
>environment," please remember where the money comes from that allows them to
>investigate the environment. Do not overlook the fact that these scientists
>also receive their paychecks and funding for their research based on the
>results of that research. It's a huge confict of interest. If they find
>there is no problem with the environment, then they are basically saying
>there's no more need for them to have a job.
Ludicrous. There are plenty of environmental problems; scientists hardly have
to make one up.
> If, on the other hand, they
>say there's a huge problem with the environment, they can then say that they
>need more money to investigate this problem and therefore keep themselves
>"useful" until that money runs out. They just have to make sure the new
>research points to further problems.
>IMHO
Which is as valid when it comes to science as it would be, about, say, cardiac
surgery or warp drive.
>
>"Me" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:srhi-9C750E.09391409112003@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
>> In article <3FAAAB43.B4072C31@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is
>worse
>> > than the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the
>> > case is being dramatically overstated.
>>
>> If I want my car's carb fixed, I will go to the best mechanic I can find
>> to do the job.
>>
>> If I want my heart fixed, I will go to the best cardiologist I can find
>> to do the job.
>>
>> If I want information about a problem with the environment that has the
>> potential to wipe out life on this planet, I will go to scientists who
>> spend their lives investigating the environment. I will certainly not go
>> to rec.driving.autos for such information.
>
>
"Peachyracer" <pstolz@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>When you go to these scientists "who spend their lives investigating the
>environment," please remember where the money comes from that allows them to
>investigate the environment. Do not overlook the fact that these scientists
>also receive their paychecks and funding for their research based on the
>results of that research. It's a huge confict of interest. If they find
>there is no problem with the environment, then they are basically saying
>there's no more need for them to have a job.
Ludicrous. There are plenty of environmental problems; scientists hardly have
to make one up.
> If, on the other hand, they
>say there's a huge problem with the environment, they can then say that they
>need more money to investigate this problem and therefore keep themselves
>"useful" until that money runs out. They just have to make sure the new
>research points to further problems.
>IMHO
Which is as valid when it comes to science as it would be, about, say, cardiac
surgery or warp drive.
>
>"Me" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:srhi-9C750E.09391409112003@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
>> In article <3FAAAB43.B4072C31@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is
>worse
>> > than the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the
>> > case is being dramatically overstated.
>>
>> If I want my car's carb fixed, I will go to the best mechanic I can find
>> to do the job.
>>
>> If I want my heart fixed, I will go to the best cardiologist I can find
>> to do the job.
>>
>> If I want information about a problem with the environment that has the
>> potential to wipe out life on this planet, I will go to scientists who
>> spend their lives investigating the environment. I will certainly not go
>> to rec.driving.autos for such information.
>
>
#4100
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <u5rsqvgvpfh6h5fv8aksfil5v2lb7getms@4ax.com>,
Matt Mead <mdmead@DELETETHIScharter.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 09:39:14 -0500, Me <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>If I want information about a problem with the environment that has the
>>potential to wipe out life on this planet, I will go to scientists who
>>spend their lives investigating the environment. I will certainly not go
>>to rec.driving.autos for such information.
>
>
>Another liberal missing the point?
>
>Nobody is expecting you to think these newsgroups are doing the
>research. What some are telling you though is that what you do
>believe isn't coming from an unbiased source and you should seek out
>the unbiased research.
That's why I've directed people to groups like NASA, EPA, IPCC, NOAA, American
Geophysical Union, National Academy of Sciences, etc. But noooooooooo, there
right-wing idealogues just keep spouting propaganda from right-wing web sites.
> It is out there and it isn't what you hear
>about in the mainstream media.
>
>Matt
>99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4
Matt Mead <mdmead@DELETETHIScharter.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 09:39:14 -0500, Me <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>If I want information about a problem with the environment that has the
>>potential to wipe out life on this planet, I will go to scientists who
>>spend their lives investigating the environment. I will certainly not go
>>to rec.driving.autos for such information.
>
>
>Another liberal missing the point?
>
>Nobody is expecting you to think these newsgroups are doing the
>research. What some are telling you though is that what you do
>believe isn't coming from an unbiased source and you should seek out
>the unbiased research.
That's why I've directed people to groups like NASA, EPA, IPCC, NOAA, American
Geophysical Union, National Academy of Sciences, etc. But noooooooooo, there
right-wing idealogues just keep spouting propaganda from right-wing web sites.
> It is out there and it isn't what you hear
>about in the mainstream media.
>
>Matt
>99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4