Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4101
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
#4102
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
#4103
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <8a5tqvsnv70r2vv63ljkja40g619efvpc2@4ax.com>,
DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>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!
What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.
DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>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!
What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.
#4104
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <8a5tqvsnv70r2vv63ljkja40g619efvpc2@4ax.com>,
DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>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!
What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.
DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>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!
What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.
#4105
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <8a5tqvsnv70r2vv63ljkja40g619efvpc2@4ax.com>,
DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>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!
What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.
DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>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!
What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.
#4106
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <gd5tqv43rb6l06pon3eh53ut69h034e59j@4ax.com>,
DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>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,
Yes one does. Just as adding acid to water will lower the pH, adding a gas
which traps heat will heat up the atmosphere.
>as one does not know what nature will actually be doing from one year
>to the next.
>
True, but we can know the effect of increasing that one factor.
>>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.
Wrong. The last 120 years have shown warming, and the hottest years on
record have all occurred in the last decade.
>
>>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.
Try reading peer-reviewed scientific journals then.
>
>>> 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.
You're an idiot; publish that.
If there is this evidence you claim, why isn't it being published where
science always publishes, in peer-reviewed scientific journals?
DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>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,
Yes one does. Just as adding acid to water will lower the pH, adding a gas
which traps heat will heat up the atmosphere.
>as one does not know what nature will actually be doing from one year
>to the next.
>
True, but we can know the effect of increasing that one factor.
>>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.
Wrong. The last 120 years have shown warming, and the hottest years on
record have all occurred in the last decade.
>
>>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.
Try reading peer-reviewed scientific journals then.
>
>>> 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.
You're an idiot; publish that.
If there is this evidence you claim, why isn't it being published where
science always publishes, in peer-reviewed scientific journals?
#4107
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <gd5tqv43rb6l06pon3eh53ut69h034e59j@4ax.com>,
DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>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,
Yes one does. Just as adding acid to water will lower the pH, adding a gas
which traps heat will heat up the atmosphere.
>as one does not know what nature will actually be doing from one year
>to the next.
>
True, but we can know the effect of increasing that one factor.
>>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.
Wrong. The last 120 years have shown warming, and the hottest years on
record have all occurred in the last decade.
>
>>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.
Try reading peer-reviewed scientific journals then.
>
>>> 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.
You're an idiot; publish that.
If there is this evidence you claim, why isn't it being published where
science always publishes, in peer-reviewed scientific journals?
DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>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,
Yes one does. Just as adding acid to water will lower the pH, adding a gas
which traps heat will heat up the atmosphere.
>as one does not know what nature will actually be doing from one year
>to the next.
>
True, but we can know the effect of increasing that one factor.
>>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.
Wrong. The last 120 years have shown warming, and the hottest years on
record have all occurred in the last decade.
>
>>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.
Try reading peer-reviewed scientific journals then.
>
>>> 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.
You're an idiot; publish that.
If there is this evidence you claim, why isn't it being published where
science always publishes, in peer-reviewed scientific journals?
#4108
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <gd5tqv43rb6l06pon3eh53ut69h034e59j@4ax.com>,
DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>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,
Yes one does. Just as adding acid to water will lower the pH, adding a gas
which traps heat will heat up the atmosphere.
>as one does not know what nature will actually be doing from one year
>to the next.
>
True, but we can know the effect of increasing that one factor.
>>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.
Wrong. The last 120 years have shown warming, and the hottest years on
record have all occurred in the last decade.
>
>>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.
Try reading peer-reviewed scientific journals then.
>
>>> 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.
You're an idiot; publish that.
If there is this evidence you claim, why isn't it being published where
science always publishes, in peer-reviewed scientific journals?
DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>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,
Yes one does. Just as adding acid to water will lower the pH, adding a gas
which traps heat will heat up the atmosphere.
>as one does not know what nature will actually be doing from one year
>to the next.
>
True, but we can know the effect of increasing that one factor.
>>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.
Wrong. The last 120 years have shown warming, and the hottest years on
record have all occurred in the last decade.
>
>>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.
Try reading peer-reviewed scientific journals then.
>
>>> 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.
You're an idiot; publish that.
If there is this evidence you claim, why isn't it being published where
science always publishes, in peer-reviewed scientific journals?
#4109
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <gu5tqvcuqj5rf4n4bie9qjjfd90nd2t66c@4ax.com>,
DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>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.
Another fool who seems a socialist (used to be commie) under every bed.
DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>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.
Another fool who seems a socialist (used to be commie) under every bed.
#4110
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <gu5tqvcuqj5rf4n4bie9qjjfd90nd2t66c@4ax.com>,
DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>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.
Another fool who seems a socialist (used to be commie) under every bed.
DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>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.
Another fool who seems a socialist (used to be commie) under every bed.