Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"David J. Allen" wrote:
>
> "Benjamin Lee" <benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:fzZtb.273640$0v4.17680062@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > ...So you are saying we should only teach that America is the perfect
> Country.
> > Everyone else are evil of course what were you thinking. Sounds like
> Soviet
> > Union, Chinese and the North Korea education. There is a difference
> between
> > teaching to hate America and teaching to understand the issues
>
> Oh good heavens no. Education should be dispassionate and fair as much as
> possible. It should not be afraid of making judgements, but to me, the US
> is special in history and has been such a force for good in the world that
> it stuns me that people can want to transform education of the US into a
> long list of evil deeds.
>
> The mistakes the US has made should be taught in context of the truth.
> There is evil in the world. Tyranny and despotism is worth fighting and a
> fight is never clean.
>
> > Politics are
> > influenced by many factors. There are people's prejudice, greed, large
> > corporations involvement as well as people's ego. These influence affect
> the
> > decisions, and there are consequence. Terrorism is in part one of the
> > consequence of our actions. The most important thing in education is to
> show
> > both sides of the issue. The good as well as the bad. The students today
> are
> > going to be voters tomorrow. They need to know what errors to avoid.
> > Look at something easier to understand. Why do blacks in inner city
> America
> > hate the whites so much. They don't wake up one day and decide to hate
> > someone. So much injustice have been done to them in the past that anger
> > builds up.
>
> It works both ways. Why was there such a hatred and distrust of blacks?
> Does anyone ever talk about that? It almost always starts with white racism
> as a given.
>
> > The same thing with the Arabs. If there were no oil in Middle East. I can
> > guarantee you that there would be no terrorism. Go figure. We here quickly
> > forget policies made in the past because it had no consequence us other
> than
> > that it kept our economy going and the oil flowing. Those in countries
> that
> > were affected by our policy can't forget as easily. It is dangerous to
> > ignore the cause of terrorism. Those people who thinks the --------- are
> > just a bunch of lunatics with no cause are just adding fuel to the fire.
> > Just remember, we have until the --------- gets their hands on a nuclear
> > weapon to solve this Middle East issue.
> >
>
> You might be suprised to know that people like me believe that it was a
> mistake for the Europeans to go into the world (colonialism) to exploit the
> natural resources of Asia, Africa and America only looking after only
> profits and power instead of the welfare of local populations.
>
> But again, one HAS to remember the context of the time. Almost every place
> the Europeans went, the local populations were barely, if at all, out of the
> stone age. That mattered. There was also the political realities inside
> Europe with wars and threats of war occuring. That mattered.
>
> You can't just start with "whites are racist, therefore...", or "the
> Europeans selfishly exploited their colonial subjects, therefore...".
> Wrong? Mistakes? Sure, but people move on. The bad things we try to fix,
> the good things we try to keep.
>
> The middle east problem would be different or less without oil to be sure.
> But the politics of the middle east are "as much" about the failure of
> middle east countries in to develop their own selves. One reason Israel
> came to be is that there was no prosperous Palestinian nation or culture.
> The whole place was sleepy and backwards. Jews came for years and began to
> use the land prosperously. The nomadic Arabs had no use for oil... at least
> at the time. The power shifted to outsiders. Terrorism is about
> re-acquiring power. They aren't lunatics, but they turn otherwise normal
> people into suicide bombing lunatics. Islam and xenophobia is the hold on
> the people, but if they were solely interested in Islam, in religion, there
> wouldn't be this terrorism.
>
> > Ben
> >
> >
> >
Bravo to you once again, David!
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! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"David J. Allen" wrote:
>
> "Benjamin Lee" <benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:fzZtb.273640$0v4.17680062@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > ...So you are saying we should only teach that America is the perfect
> Country.
> > Everyone else are evil of course what were you thinking. Sounds like
> Soviet
> > Union, Chinese and the North Korea education. There is a difference
> between
> > teaching to hate America and teaching to understand the issues
>
> Oh good heavens no. Education should be dispassionate and fair as much as
> possible. It should not be afraid of making judgements, but to me, the US
> is special in history and has been such a force for good in the world that
> it stuns me that people can want to transform education of the US into a
> long list of evil deeds.
>
> The mistakes the US has made should be taught in context of the truth.
> There is evil in the world. Tyranny and despotism is worth fighting and a
> fight is never clean.
>
> > Politics are
> > influenced by many factors. There are people's prejudice, greed, large
> > corporations involvement as well as people's ego. These influence affect
> the
> > decisions, and there are consequence. Terrorism is in part one of the
> > consequence of our actions. The most important thing in education is to
> show
> > both sides of the issue. The good as well as the bad. The students today
> are
> > going to be voters tomorrow. They need to know what errors to avoid.
> > Look at something easier to understand. Why do blacks in inner city
> America
> > hate the whites so much. They don't wake up one day and decide to hate
> > someone. So much injustice have been done to them in the past that anger
> > builds up.
>
> It works both ways. Why was there such a hatred and distrust of blacks?
> Does anyone ever talk about that? It almost always starts with white racism
> as a given.
>
> > The same thing with the Arabs. If there were no oil in Middle East. I can
> > guarantee you that there would be no terrorism. Go figure. We here quickly
> > forget policies made in the past because it had no consequence us other
> than
> > that it kept our economy going and the oil flowing. Those in countries
> that
> > were affected by our policy can't forget as easily. It is dangerous to
> > ignore the cause of terrorism. Those people who thinks the --------- are
> > just a bunch of lunatics with no cause are just adding fuel to the fire.
> > Just remember, we have until the --------- gets their hands on a nuclear
> > weapon to solve this Middle East issue.
> >
>
> You might be suprised to know that people like me believe that it was a
> mistake for the Europeans to go into the world (colonialism) to exploit the
> natural resources of Asia, Africa and America only looking after only
> profits and power instead of the welfare of local populations.
>
> But again, one HAS to remember the context of the time. Almost every place
> the Europeans went, the local populations were barely, if at all, out of the
> stone age. That mattered. There was also the political realities inside
> Europe with wars and threats of war occuring. That mattered.
>
> You can't just start with "whites are racist, therefore...", or "the
> Europeans selfishly exploited their colonial subjects, therefore...".
> Wrong? Mistakes? Sure, but people move on. The bad things we try to fix,
> the good things we try to keep.
>
> The middle east problem would be different or less without oil to be sure.
> But the politics of the middle east are "as much" about the failure of
> middle east countries in to develop their own selves. One reason Israel
> came to be is that there was no prosperous Palestinian nation or culture.
> The whole place was sleepy and backwards. Jews came for years and began to
> use the land prosperously. The nomadic Arabs had no use for oil... at least
> at the time. The power shifted to outsiders. Terrorism is about
> re-acquiring power. They aren't lunatics, but they turn otherwise normal
> people into suicide bombing lunatics. Islam and xenophobia is the hold on
> the people, but if they were solely interested in Islam, in religion, there
> wouldn't be this terrorism.
>
> > Ben
> >
> >
> >
Bravo to you once again, David!
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! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<L9Pqb.98132$mZ5.637079@attbi_s54>...
> In article <bog9bo$44t$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > For half a million years, CO2 was around 280 ppm, without much variation. In
> > the last 120 years, it's increased to 350 ppm.
>
> Wrong.
> http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...onnin2001.html
> Levels have been varied considerably between 9,000 and 22,000 years
> ago alone.
Sorry, but the very people who bring you that sort of information are
concerned about manmade CO2 additions, so they must have a perspective
that armchair critics are quick to dismiss.
Ironically, speeding contributes to CO2 buildup by lowering gas
mileage, even in the most efficient cars. Anyone who drives 90 MPH
regularly (in any vehicle) is wasting fuel and pumping out more CO2
than they ought to. With so many drivers speeding, slowing down alone
could cause a notable drop in CO2 output.
If you are inclined to tell me that speeding doesn't reduce
efficiency, read this first:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm
C.T.
> In article <bog9bo$44t$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > For half a million years, CO2 was around 280 ppm, without much variation. In
> > the last 120 years, it's increased to 350 ppm.
>
> Wrong.
> http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...onnin2001.html
> Levels have been varied considerably between 9,000 and 22,000 years
> ago alone.
Sorry, but the very people who bring you that sort of information are
concerned about manmade CO2 additions, so they must have a perspective
that armchair critics are quick to dismiss.
Ironically, speeding contributes to CO2 buildup by lowering gas
mileage, even in the most efficient cars. Anyone who drives 90 MPH
regularly (in any vehicle) is wasting fuel and pumping out more CO2
than they ought to. With so many drivers speeding, slowing down alone
could cause a notable drop in CO2 output.
If you are inclined to tell me that speeding doesn't reduce
efficiency, read this first:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm
C.T.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<L9Pqb.98132$mZ5.637079@attbi_s54>...
> In article <bog9bo$44t$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > For half a million years, CO2 was around 280 ppm, without much variation. In
> > the last 120 years, it's increased to 350 ppm.
>
> Wrong.
> http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...onnin2001.html
> Levels have been varied considerably between 9,000 and 22,000 years
> ago alone.
Sorry, but the very people who bring you that sort of information are
concerned about manmade CO2 additions, so they must have a perspective
that armchair critics are quick to dismiss.
Ironically, speeding contributes to CO2 buildup by lowering gas
mileage, even in the most efficient cars. Anyone who drives 90 MPH
regularly (in any vehicle) is wasting fuel and pumping out more CO2
than they ought to. With so many drivers speeding, slowing down alone
could cause a notable drop in CO2 output.
If you are inclined to tell me that speeding doesn't reduce
efficiency, read this first:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm
C.T.
> In article <bog9bo$44t$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > For half a million years, CO2 was around 280 ppm, without much variation. In
> > the last 120 years, it's increased to 350 ppm.
>
> Wrong.
> http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...onnin2001.html
> Levels have been varied considerably between 9,000 and 22,000 years
> ago alone.
Sorry, but the very people who bring you that sort of information are
concerned about manmade CO2 additions, so they must have a perspective
that armchair critics are quick to dismiss.
Ironically, speeding contributes to CO2 buildup by lowering gas
mileage, even in the most efficient cars. Anyone who drives 90 MPH
regularly (in any vehicle) is wasting fuel and pumping out more CO2
than they ought to. With so many drivers speeding, slowing down alone
could cause a notable drop in CO2 output.
If you are inclined to tell me that speeding doesn't reduce
efficiency, read this first:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm
C.T.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<L9Pqb.98132$mZ5.637079@attbi_s54>...
> In article <bog9bo$44t$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > For half a million years, CO2 was around 280 ppm, without much variation. In
> > the last 120 years, it's increased to 350 ppm.
>
> Wrong.
> http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...onnin2001.html
> Levels have been varied considerably between 9,000 and 22,000 years
> ago alone.
Sorry, but the very people who bring you that sort of information are
concerned about manmade CO2 additions, so they must have a perspective
that armchair critics are quick to dismiss.
Ironically, speeding contributes to CO2 buildup by lowering gas
mileage, even in the most efficient cars. Anyone who drives 90 MPH
regularly (in any vehicle) is wasting fuel and pumping out more CO2
than they ought to. With so many drivers speeding, slowing down alone
could cause a notable drop in CO2 output.
If you are inclined to tell me that speeding doesn't reduce
efficiency, read this first:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm
C.T.
> In article <bog9bo$44t$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > For half a million years, CO2 was around 280 ppm, without much variation. In
> > the last 120 years, it's increased to 350 ppm.
>
> Wrong.
> http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...onnin2001.html
> Levels have been varied considerably between 9,000 and 22,000 years
> ago alone.
Sorry, but the very people who bring you that sort of information are
concerned about manmade CO2 additions, so they must have a perspective
that armchair critics are quick to dismiss.
Ironically, speeding contributes to CO2 buildup by lowering gas
mileage, even in the most efficient cars. Anyone who drives 90 MPH
regularly (in any vehicle) is wasting fuel and pumping out more CO2
than they ought to. With so many drivers speeding, slowing down alone
could cause a notable drop in CO2 output.
If you are inclined to tell me that speeding doesn't reduce
efficiency, read this first:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm
C.T.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Ironically, speeding contributes to CO2 buildup by lowering gas
mileage, even in the most efficient cars. Anyone who drives 90 MPH regularly
(in any vehicle) is wasting fuel and pumping out more CO2 than they ought
to. With so many drivers speeding, slowing down alone could cause a notable
drop in CO2 output.<
By reducing sexual acivity, indeed, by embracing celibacy, humans will
exhale less C02, thereby saving the ice caps. All radical green zealots are
therefore to completely refrain from any form of --- in the interests of
saving the planet.
mileage, even in the most efficient cars. Anyone who drives 90 MPH regularly
(in any vehicle) is wasting fuel and pumping out more CO2 than they ought
to. With so many drivers speeding, slowing down alone could cause a notable
drop in CO2 output.<
By reducing sexual acivity, indeed, by embracing celibacy, humans will
exhale less C02, thereby saving the ice caps. All radical green zealots are
therefore to completely refrain from any form of --- in the interests of
saving the planet.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Ironically, speeding contributes to CO2 buildup by lowering gas
mileage, even in the most efficient cars. Anyone who drives 90 MPH regularly
(in any vehicle) is wasting fuel and pumping out more CO2 than they ought
to. With so many drivers speeding, slowing down alone could cause a notable
drop in CO2 output.<
By reducing sexual acivity, indeed, by embracing celibacy, humans will
exhale less C02, thereby saving the ice caps. All radical green zealots are
therefore to completely refrain from any form of --- in the interests of
saving the planet.
mileage, even in the most efficient cars. Anyone who drives 90 MPH regularly
(in any vehicle) is wasting fuel and pumping out more CO2 than they ought
to. With so many drivers speeding, slowing down alone could cause a notable
drop in CO2 output.<
By reducing sexual acivity, indeed, by embracing celibacy, humans will
exhale less C02, thereby saving the ice caps. All radical green zealots are
therefore to completely refrain from any form of --- in the interests of
saving the planet.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Ironically, speeding contributes to CO2 buildup by lowering gas
mileage, even in the most efficient cars. Anyone who drives 90 MPH regularly
(in any vehicle) is wasting fuel and pumping out more CO2 than they ought
to. With so many drivers speeding, slowing down alone could cause a notable
drop in CO2 output.<
By reducing sexual acivity, indeed, by embracing celibacy, humans will
exhale less C02, thereby saving the ice caps. All radical green zealots are
therefore to completely refrain from any form of --- in the interests of
saving the planet.
mileage, even in the most efficient cars. Anyone who drives 90 MPH regularly
(in any vehicle) is wasting fuel and pumping out more CO2 than they ought
to. With so many drivers speeding, slowing down alone could cause a notable
drop in CO2 output.<
By reducing sexual acivity, indeed, by embracing celibacy, humans will
exhale less C02, thereby saving the ice caps. All radical green zealots are
therefore to completely refrain from any form of --- in the interests of
saving the planet.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <ede96581.0311181938.564142b3@posting.google.com >, Carl Taylor wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<L9Pqb.98132$mZ5.637079@attbi_s54>...
>
>> In article <bog9bo$44t$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> > For half a million years, CO2 was around 280 ppm, without much variation. In
>> > the last 120 years, it's increased to 350 ppm.
>>
>> Wrong.
>> http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...onnin2001.html
>> Levels have been varied considerably between 9,000 and 22,000 years
>> ago alone.
> Sorry, but the very people who bring you that sort of information are
> concerned about manmade CO2 additions, so they must have a perspective
> that armchair critics are quick to dismiss.
Parker demands info from the NOAA be used. I proved him wrong with
NOAA data. If you have better data, then present it.
> Ironically, speeding contributes to CO2 buildup by lowering gas
> mileage, even in the most efficient cars. Anyone who drives 90 MPH
> regularly (in any vehicle) is wasting fuel and pumping out more CO2
> than they ought to. With so many drivers speeding, slowing down alone
> could cause a notable drop in CO2 output.
Everything you do is about your idiotic drive slower than carl crusade.
Well Carl, I'll consider your fuel economy arguement to drive slower on the
interstate when you start driving 55mph to save fuel and lead by example.
> If you are inclined to tell me that speeding doesn't reduce
> efficiency, read this first:
> http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm
Nice rule-of-thumb page. That neglects a whole host of factors.
Why don't you pick up a real automotive text sometime and gain
a real understanding. Better yet, why do *YOU* drive at least 10mph
faster than the 40-60mph recommended by your cite?
And if it wasn't for LLB's like you blocking the passing lane forcing
other drivers to brake and accelerate fuel consumption would go
down as well.
So carl, when you stop blocking other people, get in the right most
lane and drive 55mph, I'll consider your arguements as worthy when
you follow them yourself. Until then, it's just your selfish notion
that you own the roads and nobody should go faster than you and nothing
else.
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<L9Pqb.98132$mZ5.637079@attbi_s54>...
>
>> In article <bog9bo$44t$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> > For half a million years, CO2 was around 280 ppm, without much variation. In
>> > the last 120 years, it's increased to 350 ppm.
>>
>> Wrong.
>> http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...onnin2001.html
>> Levels have been varied considerably between 9,000 and 22,000 years
>> ago alone.
> Sorry, but the very people who bring you that sort of information are
> concerned about manmade CO2 additions, so they must have a perspective
> that armchair critics are quick to dismiss.
Parker demands info from the NOAA be used. I proved him wrong with
NOAA data. If you have better data, then present it.
> Ironically, speeding contributes to CO2 buildup by lowering gas
> mileage, even in the most efficient cars. Anyone who drives 90 MPH
> regularly (in any vehicle) is wasting fuel and pumping out more CO2
> than they ought to. With so many drivers speeding, slowing down alone
> could cause a notable drop in CO2 output.
Everything you do is about your idiotic drive slower than carl crusade.
Well Carl, I'll consider your fuel economy arguement to drive slower on the
interstate when you start driving 55mph to save fuel and lead by example.
> If you are inclined to tell me that speeding doesn't reduce
> efficiency, read this first:
> http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm
Nice rule-of-thumb page. That neglects a whole host of factors.
Why don't you pick up a real automotive text sometime and gain
a real understanding. Better yet, why do *YOU* drive at least 10mph
faster than the 40-60mph recommended by your cite?
And if it wasn't for LLB's like you blocking the passing lane forcing
other drivers to brake and accelerate fuel consumption would go
down as well.
So carl, when you stop blocking other people, get in the right most
lane and drive 55mph, I'll consider your arguements as worthy when
you follow them yourself. Until then, it's just your selfish notion
that you own the roads and nobody should go faster than you and nothing
else.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <ede96581.0311181938.564142b3@posting.google.com >, Carl Taylor wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<L9Pqb.98132$mZ5.637079@attbi_s54>...
>
>> In article <bog9bo$44t$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> > For half a million years, CO2 was around 280 ppm, without much variation. In
>> > the last 120 years, it's increased to 350 ppm.
>>
>> Wrong.
>> http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...onnin2001.html
>> Levels have been varied considerably between 9,000 and 22,000 years
>> ago alone.
> Sorry, but the very people who bring you that sort of information are
> concerned about manmade CO2 additions, so they must have a perspective
> that armchair critics are quick to dismiss.
Parker demands info from the NOAA be used. I proved him wrong with
NOAA data. If you have better data, then present it.
> Ironically, speeding contributes to CO2 buildup by lowering gas
> mileage, even in the most efficient cars. Anyone who drives 90 MPH
> regularly (in any vehicle) is wasting fuel and pumping out more CO2
> than they ought to. With so many drivers speeding, slowing down alone
> could cause a notable drop in CO2 output.
Everything you do is about your idiotic drive slower than carl crusade.
Well Carl, I'll consider your fuel economy arguement to drive slower on the
interstate when you start driving 55mph to save fuel and lead by example.
> If you are inclined to tell me that speeding doesn't reduce
> efficiency, read this first:
> http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm
Nice rule-of-thumb page. That neglects a whole host of factors.
Why don't you pick up a real automotive text sometime and gain
a real understanding. Better yet, why do *YOU* drive at least 10mph
faster than the 40-60mph recommended by your cite?
And if it wasn't for LLB's like you blocking the passing lane forcing
other drivers to brake and accelerate fuel consumption would go
down as well.
So carl, when you stop blocking other people, get in the right most
lane and drive 55mph, I'll consider your arguements as worthy when
you follow them yourself. Until then, it's just your selfish notion
that you own the roads and nobody should go faster than you and nothing
else.
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<L9Pqb.98132$mZ5.637079@attbi_s54>...
>
>> In article <bog9bo$44t$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> > For half a million years, CO2 was around 280 ppm, without much variation. In
>> > the last 120 years, it's increased to 350 ppm.
>>
>> Wrong.
>> http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...onnin2001.html
>> Levels have been varied considerably between 9,000 and 22,000 years
>> ago alone.
> Sorry, but the very people who bring you that sort of information are
> concerned about manmade CO2 additions, so they must have a perspective
> that armchair critics are quick to dismiss.
Parker demands info from the NOAA be used. I proved him wrong with
NOAA data. If you have better data, then present it.
> Ironically, speeding contributes to CO2 buildup by lowering gas
> mileage, even in the most efficient cars. Anyone who drives 90 MPH
> regularly (in any vehicle) is wasting fuel and pumping out more CO2
> than they ought to. With so many drivers speeding, slowing down alone
> could cause a notable drop in CO2 output.
Everything you do is about your idiotic drive slower than carl crusade.
Well Carl, I'll consider your fuel economy arguement to drive slower on the
interstate when you start driving 55mph to save fuel and lead by example.
> If you are inclined to tell me that speeding doesn't reduce
> efficiency, read this first:
> http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm
Nice rule-of-thumb page. That neglects a whole host of factors.
Why don't you pick up a real automotive text sometime and gain
a real understanding. Better yet, why do *YOU* drive at least 10mph
faster than the 40-60mph recommended by your cite?
And if it wasn't for LLB's like you blocking the passing lane forcing
other drivers to brake and accelerate fuel consumption would go
down as well.
So carl, when you stop blocking other people, get in the right most
lane and drive 55mph, I'll consider your arguements as worthy when
you follow them yourself. Until then, it's just your selfish notion
that you own the roads and nobody should go faster than you and nothing
else.
