"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bpfqs5$hll$9@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vrkjjeptaknp95@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bpdgp4$l1i$43@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <Wcrub.236439$Tr4.695855@attbi_s03>,
> >>
> >> I accepted none of your lies.
> >>
> >
> >In other words, you've lost yet another argument Lloyd.
>
> Another fool with 3rd grade reading skills, I see.
>

Still can't think of an intelligent response can you Lloyd.

>
> >You would save
> >yourself a world of embarassment if you just stopped replying on subjects
> >you know nothing about, your old "he's lying" routine fools no one but
you.
> >
> >

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bpfqs5$hll$9@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vrkjjeptaknp95@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bpdgp4$l1i$43@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <Wcrub.236439$Tr4.695855@attbi_s03>,
> >>
> >> I accepted none of your lies.
> >>
> >
> >In other words, you've lost yet another argument Lloyd.
>
> Another fool with 3rd grade reading skills, I see.
>

Still can't think of an intelligent response can you Lloyd.

>
> >You would save
> >yourself a world of embarassment if you just stopped replying on subjects
> >you know nothing about, your old "he's lying" routine fools no one but
you.
> >
> >

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bpfqs5$hll$9@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vrkjjeptaknp95@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bpdgp4$l1i$43@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <Wcrub.236439$Tr4.695855@attbi_s03>,
> >>
> >> I accepted none of your lies.
> >>
> >
> >In other words, you've lost yet another argument Lloyd.
>
> Another fool with 3rd grade reading skills, I see.
>

Still can't think of an intelligent response can you Lloyd.

>
> >You would save
> >yourself a world of embarassment if you just stopped replying on subjects
> >you know nothing about, your old "he's lying" routine fools no one but
you.
> >
> >

 

"Benjamin Lee" <benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:jaEub.83298$Ec1.4180446@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> >
> > <snip> The Soviets
> > showed very little restraint in pushing for revolution in third world
> > countries worldwide.
> >
>
> While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using
the
> first nuclear bomb. We too were agressive in third world countries,
Vietnam,
> Korea, Afgan. Is not necessary wrong what we did, but just to point out
that
> both sides were aggressive. It is war after all.
>

The point isn't being "aggressive". Aggression is not good or bad by
itself. The Soviet policy was Socialist revolution in the third world.
Their policy was subversion in western Europe. They fomented revolution in
Korea and Vietnam where the Communists in the north attacked the south, not
the other way around. It was the Soviets who tried to impose Communism in
Afghanistan. Their policy was aggresive expansionism. The bad part of that
sentence is expansionism. The aggressive nature of it made it very scary.


> > People mock the US for believing in the domino theory. But, the Soviets
> > themselves gave everyone every reason to believe in it. So to dismiss
US
> > policy as centered on a "phobia" of Communism is trite and shows a
complete
> > lack of understanding of the times.
> >
>
> The real phobia is world wide totalitarianism. That is a valid fear, and
it
> is to be avoided at all cost. The US did the right thing in preventing the
> world from going into a totalitarian society. The US policy is good. Is
the
> propaganda that is troubling.
> There is a difference between communism and the police state. The phobia
of
> communism is the result of propaganda. As in all wars, there are
propaganda
> to rally the people. The communism concept should be looked at in light of
> its own merit. Just to say there is no merit is to ignorance.
>

Communism had it's chance in the first half of the 20th century. It was
very popular and trendy among the idealists in the west. But Communism
fails on multiple levels and makes it necessary for the government to impose
it. That's why you never see a "free" Communist country. They have to
build walls and fences to keep people in. They must kill those connected to
the bourgoisie past.

>
> > > Communism is a economic system. It should have nothing to do with how
a
> > > nation is governed.
> > >
> > Wrong. The means of production is owned by the government. The economy
and
> > the government are one. Property is owned by the government. Wages are
> > paid by the government. People who seek to enrich themselves above
others
> > are punished by the government.
> >
>
> You have just given a text book definition of communism. Your last line
> about punishment does not necessary follow prior statments.

Yes it does!! Not only are the means of production owned by the government,
but the product itself is owned by the government to distribute equally to
all. Anyone who keeps product for himself is "stealing" from others.
That's why there's no personal liberty in Communist states.

That's why it's hard or impossible to leave a Communist state. They trained
you, so *you* are regarded as a capital asset of the state. They own you.
Leaving is like stealing to enrich yourself. Just think of the Berlin wall,
machine guns, Chinese "boat people", Cubans floating rafts 90 miles to the
Florida Keys, etc.; the list is long.

> Yes, factors of
> production are owned by the government in a communistic society. The
> government would pay the people wage. Does that equate to a police state.
> NO, no and no.

Yes, yes and yes. If there were free will, people would be free to enrich
themselves. And they would try... or leave. When you can't work in your
own self interest, nothing you do affects your well being. That's why
productivity in Communist countries is rock bottom; that's why store shelves
are bare; that's why there's rampant alcoholism; rampant black markets.

> Consider these statements:
> The government owns the military which has more than enough power to
squash
> the people like an ant. The president is head of the military. The
> government owns the police which has surveilance capability to listen in
on
> any conversation. The government owns all the record which keeps track of
> where each person lives, how much they make, and what they talked about in
> newsgroups.
> THEREFORE, this country must be a totalitarian state. Wrong.
> You must agree government ownership of military is more powerful than
> factories. Military can easily bomb the factories. So why is it not
> totalitarianism. It is because of checks and balance, and most
importantly,
> the power of the people to vote. Checks and balance and power to vote are
> not exclusive to a capitalistic society. A country with communistic
economy
> can have the same thing. A major country like that does not currently
> exist. But, it does not mean it cannot exist. I am sure there are minor
> countries that are communistic with voting power. Propaganda would have
you
> believe that it cannot exist, so you never even consider the possibility.
I
> dare you to think outside of the box.
>

You're all wrong here. Personal liberty cannot exist in Communism. A
police state must exist in Communist societies because they must enforce the
interest of the state against the interests of individuals.

In capitalism, the presumption is personal liberty and free enterprise. No
police state necessary. People are free to work in their self interest all
they want.


> >
> > > If everyone made about the same wage, we would all be
> > > pretty comfortable
> >
> > Who do you think would be paying this equal wage?
> >
>
> To be sure, there would have to be some reward structure to motivate
people.
> Money is a good motivator, but not necessary the best. Some people will
have
> to make more than other up to a certain point. I would say 16 to 1 highest
> to lowest paid worker wealth ratio like Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream
> Corporation. Problem with unlimited wealth is people do everything to make
> more money even at the cost of the environment and the wellfare of the
> nation as a whole. Look at Enron. After a certain level, just because a
> person makes more money does not mean society as a whole benifit. Look at
> Bill Gates and the Microsoft monopoly. We are still using computers that
> crash, and are vulnerable to attacks.
>

The problem with what you say is that a society with personal liberty and
free enterprise can't impose upon individuals that they can't make more than
some arbitrary amount or more than someone else. The existense of vast
wealth, vis a vis, Bill Gates is not bad!!!! These people CREATE wealth.
They don't confiscate it from others!!

Monopolistic wealth is a problem. Government does serve the public interest
in regulating free enterpise when it does harm. However, it should do so
carefully and somewhat reluctantly. The best "check and balance" system is
cometition and education.


> > > With such a large underclass in America, the gradual
> > > trend towards socialism may be inevitable. All it takes is for them to
> > > realize they have voting power too, or somebody to motivate them.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Where've you been? Under a rock? The so called underclass isn't so
large
> > as you think it is. It's the middle class who's votes carry the most
> > weight.
> >
> >
>
> No, I have not been under a rock. You must have been living under a rock
if
> you must use personal attacks. It does not take a genius to see that there
> are more underclass people than the wealthy. Just go to the local DMV. How
> many poor people do you see there. For everyone that works in an air
> conditioned office, how many are there that works at low paying jobs. Look
> at the statistic. The bottom 40% of the US population owns only .2% of the
> total wealth. The bottom 60% owns 5% of the wealth. Now you tell me where
is
> the middle class? Go read my post again. Yes, middle class do carry the
most
> vote currently because the poor do not vote. I said WHEN the underclass
> learns to vote, there will be no contest.
>

No personal attack intended. If by "underclass" you mean the poor living in
poverty, you're dead wrong. If you mean people who make less than the likes
of Bill Gates, then there's nothing bad about that. If people weren't free
to create wealth, wealth wouldn't be created.


> This is too far from the 4x4 topic.
> To bring it back somewhat, I will say driving a bigger than necessary
truck
> harms the society as a whole. It is a show of wealth. If people are going
to
> show their wealth, please, just buy some expensive wine or go to an
> expensive resturant or something rather than using up natural resource.
>

 

"Benjamin Lee" <benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:jaEub.83298$Ec1.4180446@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> >
> > <snip> The Soviets
> > showed very little restraint in pushing for revolution in third world
> > countries worldwide.
> >
>
> While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using
the
> first nuclear bomb. We too were agressive in third world countries,
Vietnam,
> Korea, Afgan. Is not necessary wrong what we did, but just to point out
that
> both sides were aggressive. It is war after all.
>

The point isn't being "aggressive". Aggression is not good or bad by
itself. The Soviet policy was Socialist revolution in the third world.
Their policy was subversion in western Europe. They fomented revolution in
Korea and Vietnam where the Communists in the north attacked the south, not
the other way around. It was the Soviets who tried to impose Communism in
Afghanistan. Their policy was aggresive expansionism. The bad part of that
sentence is expansionism. The aggressive nature of it made it very scary.


> > People mock the US for believing in the domino theory. But, the Soviets
> > themselves gave everyone every reason to believe in it. So to dismiss
US
> > policy as centered on a "phobia" of Communism is trite and shows a
complete
> > lack of understanding of the times.
> >
>
> The real phobia is world wide totalitarianism. That is a valid fear, and
it
> is to be avoided at all cost. The US did the right thing in preventing the
> world from going into a totalitarian society. The US policy is good. Is
the
> propaganda that is troubling.
> There is a difference between communism and the police state. The phobia
of
> communism is the result of propaganda. As in all wars, there are
propaganda
> to rally the people. The communism concept should be looked at in light of
> its own merit. Just to say there is no merit is to ignorance.
>

Communism had it's chance in the first half of the 20th century. It was
very popular and trendy among the idealists in the west. But Communism
fails on multiple levels and makes it necessary for the government to impose
it. That's why you never see a "free" Communist country. They have to
build walls and fences to keep people in. They must kill those connected to
the bourgoisie past.

>
> > > Communism is a economic system. It should have nothing to do with how
a
> > > nation is governed.
> > >
> > Wrong. The means of production is owned by the government. The economy
and
> > the government are one. Property is owned by the government. Wages are
> > paid by the government. People who seek to enrich themselves above
others
> > are punished by the government.
> >
>
> You have just given a text book definition of communism. Your last line
> about punishment does not necessary follow prior statments.

Yes it does!! Not only are the means of production owned by the government,
but the product itself is owned by the government to distribute equally to
all. Anyone who keeps product for himself is "stealing" from others.
That's why there's no personal liberty in Communist states.

That's why it's hard or impossible to leave a Communist state. They trained
you, so *you* are regarded as a capital asset of the state. They own you.
Leaving is like stealing to enrich yourself. Just think of the Berlin wall,
machine guns, Chinese "boat people", Cubans floating rafts 90 miles to the
Florida Keys, etc.; the list is long.

> Yes, factors of
> production are owned by the government in a communistic society. The
> government would pay the people wage. Does that equate to a police state.
> NO, no and no.

Yes, yes and yes. If there were free will, people would be free to enrich
themselves. And they would try... or leave. When you can't work in your
own self interest, nothing you do affects your well being. That's why
productivity in Communist countries is rock bottom; that's why store shelves
are bare; that's why there's rampant alcoholism; rampant black markets.

> Consider these statements:
> The government owns the military which has more than enough power to
squash
> the people like an ant. The president is head of the military. The
> government owns the police which has surveilance capability to listen in
on
> any conversation. The government owns all the record which keeps track of
> where each person lives, how much they make, and what they talked about in
> newsgroups.
> THEREFORE, this country must be a totalitarian state. Wrong.
> You must agree government ownership of military is more powerful than
> factories. Military can easily bomb the factories. So why is it not
> totalitarianism. It is because of checks and balance, and most
importantly,
> the power of the people to vote. Checks and balance and power to vote are
> not exclusive to a capitalistic society. A country with communistic
economy
> can have the same thing. A major country like that does not currently
> exist. But, it does not mean it cannot exist. I am sure there are minor
> countries that are communistic with voting power. Propaganda would have
you
> believe that it cannot exist, so you never even consider the possibility.
I
> dare you to think outside of the box.
>

You're all wrong here. Personal liberty cannot exist in Communism. A
police state must exist in Communist societies because they must enforce the
interest of the state against the interests of individuals.

In capitalism, the presumption is personal liberty and free enterprise. No
police state necessary. People are free to work in their self interest all
they want.


> >
> > > If everyone made about the same wage, we would all be
> > > pretty comfortable
> >
> > Who do you think would be paying this equal wage?
> >
>
> To be sure, there would have to be some reward structure to motivate
people.
> Money is a good motivator, but not necessary the best. Some people will
have
> to make more than other up to a certain point. I would say 16 to 1 highest
> to lowest paid worker wealth ratio like Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream
> Corporation. Problem with unlimited wealth is people do everything to make
> more money even at the cost of the environment and the wellfare of the
> nation as a whole. Look at Enron. After a certain level, just because a
> person makes more money does not mean society as a whole benifit. Look at
> Bill Gates and the Microsoft monopoly. We are still using computers that
> crash, and are vulnerable to attacks.
>

The problem with what you say is that a society with personal liberty and
free enterprise can't impose upon individuals that they can't make more than
some arbitrary amount or more than someone else. The existense of vast
wealth, vis a vis, Bill Gates is not bad!!!! These people CREATE wealth.
They don't confiscate it from others!!

Monopolistic wealth is a problem. Government does serve the public interest
in regulating free enterpise when it does harm. However, it should do so
carefully and somewhat reluctantly. The best "check and balance" system is
cometition and education.


> > > With such a large underclass in America, the gradual
> > > trend towards socialism may be inevitable. All it takes is for them to
> > > realize they have voting power too, or somebody to motivate them.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Where've you been? Under a rock? The so called underclass isn't so
large
> > as you think it is. It's the middle class who's votes carry the most
> > weight.
> >
> >
>
> No, I have not been under a rock. You must have been living under a rock
if
> you must use personal attacks. It does not take a genius to see that there
> are more underclass people than the wealthy. Just go to the local DMV. How
> many poor people do you see there. For everyone that works in an air
> conditioned office, how many are there that works at low paying jobs. Look
> at the statistic. The bottom 40% of the US population owns only .2% of the
> total wealth. The bottom 60% owns 5% of the wealth. Now you tell me where
is
> the middle class? Go read my post again. Yes, middle class do carry the
most
> vote currently because the poor do not vote. I said WHEN the underclass
> learns to vote, there will be no contest.
>

No personal attack intended. If by "underclass" you mean the poor living in
poverty, you're dead wrong. If you mean people who make less than the likes
of Bill Gates, then there's nothing bad about that. If people weren't free
to create wealth, wealth wouldn't be created.


> This is too far from the 4x4 topic.
> To bring it back somewhat, I will say driving a bigger than necessary
truck
> harms the society as a whole. It is a show of wealth. If people are going
to
> show their wealth, please, just buy some expensive wine or go to an
> expensive resturant or something rather than using up natural resource.
>

 

"Benjamin Lee" <benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:jaEub.83298$Ec1.4180446@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> >
> > <snip> The Soviets
> > showed very little restraint in pushing for revolution in third world
> > countries worldwide.
> >
>
> While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using
the
> first nuclear bomb. We too were agressive in third world countries,
Vietnam,
> Korea, Afgan. Is not necessary wrong what we did, but just to point out
that
> both sides were aggressive. It is war after all.
>

The point isn't being "aggressive". Aggression is not good or bad by
itself. The Soviet policy was Socialist revolution in the third world.
Their policy was subversion in western Europe. They fomented revolution in
Korea and Vietnam where the Communists in the north attacked the south, not
the other way around. It was the Soviets who tried to impose Communism in
Afghanistan. Their policy was aggresive expansionism. The bad part of that
sentence is expansionism. The aggressive nature of it made it very scary.


> > People mock the US for believing in the domino theory. But, the Soviets
> > themselves gave everyone every reason to believe in it. So to dismiss
US
> > policy as centered on a "phobia" of Communism is trite and shows a
complete
> > lack of understanding of the times.
> >
>
> The real phobia is world wide totalitarianism. That is a valid fear, and
it
> is to be avoided at all cost. The US did the right thing in preventing the
> world from going into a totalitarian society. The US policy is good. Is
the
> propaganda that is troubling.
> There is a difference between communism and the police state. The phobia
of
> communism is the result of propaganda. As in all wars, there are
propaganda
> to rally the people. The communism concept should be looked at in light of
> its own merit. Just to say there is no merit is to ignorance.
>

Communism had it's chance in the first half of the 20th century. It was
very popular and trendy among the idealists in the west. But Communism
fails on multiple levels and makes it necessary for the government to impose
it. That's why you never see a "free" Communist country. They have to
build walls and fences to keep people in. They must kill those connected to
the bourgoisie past.

>
> > > Communism is a economic system. It should have nothing to do with how
a
> > > nation is governed.
> > >
> > Wrong. The means of production is owned by the government. The economy
and
> > the government are one. Property is owned by the government. Wages are
> > paid by the government. People who seek to enrich themselves above
others
> > are punished by the government.
> >
>
> You have just given a text book definition of communism. Your last line
> about punishment does not necessary follow prior statments.

Yes it does!! Not only are the means of production owned by the government,
but the product itself is owned by the government to distribute equally to
all. Anyone who keeps product for himself is "stealing" from others.
That's why there's no personal liberty in Communist states.

That's why it's hard or impossible to leave a Communist state. They trained
you, so *you* are regarded as a capital asset of the state. They own you.
Leaving is like stealing to enrich yourself. Just think of the Berlin wall,
machine guns, Chinese "boat people", Cubans floating rafts 90 miles to the
Florida Keys, etc.; the list is long.

> Yes, factors of
> production are owned by the government in a communistic society. The
> government would pay the people wage. Does that equate to a police state.
> NO, no and no.

Yes, yes and yes. If there were free will, people would be free to enrich
themselves. And they would try... or leave. When you can't work in your
own self interest, nothing you do affects your well being. That's why
productivity in Communist countries is rock bottom; that's why store shelves
are bare; that's why there's rampant alcoholism; rampant black markets.

> Consider these statements:
> The government owns the military which has more than enough power to
squash
> the people like an ant. The president is head of the military. The
> government owns the police which has surveilance capability to listen in
on
> any conversation. The government owns all the record which keeps track of
> where each person lives, how much they make, and what they talked about in
> newsgroups.
> THEREFORE, this country must be a totalitarian state. Wrong.
> You must agree government ownership of military is more powerful than
> factories. Military can easily bomb the factories. So why is it not
> totalitarianism. It is because of checks and balance, and most
importantly,
> the power of the people to vote. Checks and balance and power to vote are
> not exclusive to a capitalistic society. A country with communistic
economy
> can have the same thing. A major country like that does not currently
> exist. But, it does not mean it cannot exist. I am sure there are minor
> countries that are communistic with voting power. Propaganda would have
you
> believe that it cannot exist, so you never even consider the possibility.
I
> dare you to think outside of the box.
>

You're all wrong here. Personal liberty cannot exist in Communism. A
police state must exist in Communist societies because they must enforce the
interest of the state against the interests of individuals.

In capitalism, the presumption is personal liberty and free enterprise. No
police state necessary. People are free to work in their self interest all
they want.


> >
> > > If everyone made about the same wage, we would all be
> > > pretty comfortable
> >
> > Who do you think would be paying this equal wage?
> >
>
> To be sure, there would have to be some reward structure to motivate
people.
> Money is a good motivator, but not necessary the best. Some people will
have
> to make more than other up to a certain point. I would say 16 to 1 highest
> to lowest paid worker wealth ratio like Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream
> Corporation. Problem with unlimited wealth is people do everything to make
> more money even at the cost of the environment and the wellfare of the
> nation as a whole. Look at Enron. After a certain level, just because a
> person makes more money does not mean society as a whole benifit. Look at
> Bill Gates and the Microsoft monopoly. We are still using computers that
> crash, and are vulnerable to attacks.
>

The problem with what you say is that a society with personal liberty and
free enterprise can't impose upon individuals that they can't make more than
some arbitrary amount or more than someone else. The existense of vast
wealth, vis a vis, Bill Gates is not bad!!!! These people CREATE wealth.
They don't confiscate it from others!!

Monopolistic wealth is a problem. Government does serve the public interest
in regulating free enterpise when it does harm. However, it should do so
carefully and somewhat reluctantly. The best "check and balance" system is
cometition and education.


> > > With such a large underclass in America, the gradual
> > > trend towards socialism may be inevitable. All it takes is for them to
> > > realize they have voting power too, or somebody to motivate them.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Where've you been? Under a rock? The so called underclass isn't so
large
> > as you think it is. It's the middle class who's votes carry the most
> > weight.
> >
> >
>
> No, I have not been under a rock. You must have been living under a rock
if
> you must use personal attacks. It does not take a genius to see that there
> are more underclass people than the wealthy. Just go to the local DMV. How
> many poor people do you see there. For everyone that works in an air
> conditioned office, how many are there that works at low paying jobs. Look
> at the statistic. The bottom 40% of the US population owns only .2% of the
> total wealth. The bottom 60% owns 5% of the wealth. Now you tell me where
is
> the middle class? Go read my post again. Yes, middle class do carry the
most
> vote currently because the poor do not vote. I said WHEN the underclass
> learns to vote, there will be no contest.
>

No personal attack intended. If by "underclass" you mean the poor living in
poverty, you're dead wrong. If you mean people who make less than the likes
of Bill Gates, then there's nothing bad about that. If people weren't free
to create wealth, wealth wouldn't be created.


> This is too far from the 4x4 topic.
> To bring it back somewhat, I will say driving a bigger than necessary
truck
> harms the society as a whole. It is a show of wealth. If people are going
to
> show their wealth, please, just buy some expensive wine or go to an
> expensive resturant or something rather than using up natural resource.
>

 

Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<4gdlqvgd2sp10por0pn9u03v90rtnsa4d3@4ax.com>. ..
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "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.
> >
> >Ed
>
> I don't think there's any question that global warming is happening.
> But there are a lot of questions about that:
>
> *Why* is it happening? Truth is, we don't know. We can *model*
> scenarios that say we are at fault, but those models don't admit that
> it's happened in the past, without the possibility of us interfering
> at all.

Are you saying that the existing models don't fit the past climate
spikes? At what point do they miss? Or are you saying that because
there was warming in the past without human interaction, the fit of
the model explaining current warming as tied to current human CO2
release can't be correct? Similar to the argument that, since forest
fires have been going on since the dawn of forests, current forest
fires can't possibly be ignited by human actions?

> *How long* will it last? Again, we don't know.
> Will reducing the CO2 output from our manufacturing/transportation
> slow/reverse the warming? Again, we don't know. And, we have
> absolutely no idea of what would happen if we were to reverse it.
> Would we enter another ice age? We simply don't know.

Well, we do know that we are entering a new ice age; these cycles are
pretty much worked out, and in 4-5 thousand years we are going to be
pretty damn chilly. But most people are more interested in where we
will be for the next few decades. And right now it looks like
continuing to perpetually increase the amount of solar energy trapped
by the atmosphere is probably a worse idea than not doing so.

>
> Models can be made to say anything the people making the models want
> to hear. That's reality.

Not hardly. Show me a model showing that global warming is related to
astrology, then you can say this. In any event, science consists of
'dueling models'; you narrow it down to a few that explain the current
data better than the rest, then narrow it down further by seeing which
ones predict new data better.

> It's stupid to say that CO2 that we are putting out is the cause of
> global; warming, then push something like Kyoto, which merely shifts
> the location of the CO2 production. Yet, that's what the tree-huggers
> want.

Similarly, it's stupid to take a little step away from the bed in the
morning, when what I really need to do is get to my job 20 miles away.
Yet, it works out somehow, and I doubt that it would do so were I not
to take that first step. What's the alternative plan? Tell the third
world that they need to keep their living standard the way it is
unless they can figure out how to improve it without CO2 emissions, so
that we can maintain our standard of living with our vast CO2
emissions? And when they decline to take that advice, just shrug our
shoulders and say, 'Well hell, we tried, but they won't cooperate'?

>
> Maybe if we had more facts about what the problem is, we could come up
> with some workable answers.

Facts? Like what, two tablets coming down from heaven with a
mathematical model of climate inscribed on them, and God's handwritten
guarantee? Fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Fact: we are producing CO2
at an unprecedented rate. Fact: the climate is heating up at a
similarly unprecedented rate. Fact: the best fitting and best
supported models show the major agent of the rising temperature to be
the CO2 release. Fact: there isn't enough wiggle room in the models to
eliminate the actions of human CO2 release as a prime cause, without
postulating some big unknown never-before-identified factor. Fact: as
more and more research has piled up over the years, the anthrogenic
CO2 global warming model has not been overthrown, contrary to the
predictions of the opponents over the years; in fact, areas of
uncertainty have become clearer and clearer and estimates of model
parameters have become more precise.

 

Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<4gdlqvgd2sp10por0pn9u03v90rtnsa4d3@4ax.com>. ..
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "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.
> >
> >Ed
>
> I don't think there's any question that global warming is happening.
> But there are a lot of questions about that:
>
> *Why* is it happening? Truth is, we don't know. We can *model*
> scenarios that say we are at fault, but those models don't admit that
> it's happened in the past, without the possibility of us interfering
> at all.

Are you saying that the existing models don't fit the past climate
spikes? At what point do they miss? Or are you saying that because
there was warming in the past without human interaction, the fit of
the model explaining current warming as tied to current human CO2
release can't be correct? Similar to the argument that, since forest
fires have been going on since the dawn of forests, current forest
fires can't possibly be ignited by human actions?

> *How long* will it last? Again, we don't know.
> Will reducing the CO2 output from our manufacturing/transportation
> slow/reverse the warming? Again, we don't know. And, we have
> absolutely no idea of what would happen if we were to reverse it.
> Would we enter another ice age? We simply don't know.

Well, we do know that we are entering a new ice age; these cycles are
pretty much worked out, and in 4-5 thousand years we are going to be
pretty damn chilly. But most people are more interested in where we
will be for the next few decades. And right now it looks like
continuing to perpetually increase the amount of solar energy trapped
by the atmosphere is probably a worse idea than not doing so.

>
> Models can be made to say anything the people making the models want
> to hear. That's reality.

Not hardly. Show me a model showing that global warming is related to
astrology, then you can say this. In any event, science consists of
'dueling models'; you narrow it down to a few that explain the current
data better than the rest, then narrow it down further by seeing which
ones predict new data better.

> It's stupid to say that CO2 that we are putting out is the cause of
> global; warming, then push something like Kyoto, which merely shifts
> the location of the CO2 production. Yet, that's what the tree-huggers
> want.

Similarly, it's stupid to take a little step away from the bed in the
morning, when what I really need to do is get to my job 20 miles away.
Yet, it works out somehow, and I doubt that it would do so were I not
to take that first step. What's the alternative plan? Tell the third
world that they need to keep their living standard the way it is
unless they can figure out how to improve it without CO2 emissions, so
that we can maintain our standard of living with our vast CO2
emissions? And when they decline to take that advice, just shrug our
shoulders and say, 'Well hell, we tried, but they won't cooperate'?

>
> Maybe if we had more facts about what the problem is, we could come up
> with some workable answers.

Facts? Like what, two tablets coming down from heaven with a
mathematical model of climate inscribed on them, and God's handwritten
guarantee? Fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Fact: we are producing CO2
at an unprecedented rate. Fact: the climate is heating up at a
similarly unprecedented rate. Fact: the best fitting and best
supported models show the major agent of the rising temperature to be
the CO2 release. Fact: there isn't enough wiggle room in the models to
eliminate the actions of human CO2 release as a prime cause, without
postulating some big unknown never-before-identified factor. Fact: as
more and more research has piled up over the years, the anthrogenic
CO2 global warming model has not been overthrown, contrary to the
predictions of the opponents over the years; in fact, areas of
uncertainty have become clearer and clearer and estimates of model
parameters have become more precise.

 

Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<4gdlqvgd2sp10por0pn9u03v90rtnsa4d3@4ax.com>. ..
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "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.
> >
> >Ed
>
> I don't think there's any question that global warming is happening.
> But there are a lot of questions about that:
>
> *Why* is it happening? Truth is, we don't know. We can *model*
> scenarios that say we are at fault, but those models don't admit that
> it's happened in the past, without the possibility of us interfering
> at all.

Are you saying that the existing models don't fit the past climate
spikes? At what point do they miss? Or are you saying that because
there was warming in the past without human interaction, the fit of
the model explaining current warming as tied to current human CO2
release can't be correct? Similar to the argument that, since forest
fires have been going on since the dawn of forests, current forest
fires can't possibly be ignited by human actions?

> *How long* will it last? Again, we don't know.
> Will reducing the CO2 output from our manufacturing/transportation
> slow/reverse the warming? Again, we don't know. And, we have
> absolutely no idea of what would happen if we were to reverse it.
> Would we enter another ice age? We simply don't know.

Well, we do know that we are entering a new ice age; these cycles are
pretty much worked out, and in 4-5 thousand years we are going to be
pretty damn chilly. But most people are more interested in where we
will be for the next few decades. And right now it looks like
continuing to perpetually increase the amount of solar energy trapped
by the atmosphere is probably a worse idea than not doing so.

>
> Models can be made to say anything the people making the models want
> to hear. That's reality.

Not hardly. Show me a model showing that global warming is related to
astrology, then you can say this. In any event, science consists of
'dueling models'; you narrow it down to a few that explain the current
data better than the rest, then narrow it down further by seeing which
ones predict new data better.

> It's stupid to say that CO2 that we are putting out is the cause of
> global; warming, then push something like Kyoto, which merely shifts
> the location of the CO2 production. Yet, that's what the tree-huggers
> want.

Similarly, it's stupid to take a little step away from the bed in the
morning, when what I really need to do is get to my job 20 miles away.
Yet, it works out somehow, and I doubt that it would do so were I not
to take that first step. What's the alternative plan? Tell the third
world that they need to keep their living standard the way it is
unless they can figure out how to improve it without CO2 emissions, so
that we can maintain our standard of living with our vast CO2
emissions? And when they decline to take that advice, just shrug our
shoulders and say, 'Well hell, we tried, but they won't cooperate'?

>
> Maybe if we had more facts about what the problem is, we could come up
> with some workable answers.

Facts? Like what, two tablets coming down from heaven with a
mathematical model of climate inscribed on them, and God's handwritten
guarantee? Fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Fact: we are producing CO2
at an unprecedented rate. Fact: the climate is heating up at a
similarly unprecedented rate. Fact: the best fitting and best
supported models show the major agent of the rising temperature to be
the CO2 release. Fact: there isn't enough wiggle room in the models to
eliminate the actions of human CO2 release as a prime cause, without
postulating some big unknown never-before-identified factor. Fact: as
more and more research has piled up over the years, the anthrogenic
CO2 global warming model has not been overthrown, contrary to the
predictions of the opponents over the years; in fact, areas of
uncertainty have become clearer and clearer and estimates of model
parameters have become more precise.

 

"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:03n1pv820jn8mdogn9m9avba4c3k1s3b1a@4ax.com...
> "Robert A. Matern" <MaternRA@SENDME.npt.nuwc.navy.NOSPAM.mil> wrote:
>
> >This is just ridiculous... comparing apples & oranges isn't helpful.
> >
> >The advantage in a large vehicle is in vehicle to vehicle collisions;
there
> >is no advantage in single-vehicle accidents (i.e., rollovers).
>
> In one-vehicle crashes, trucks generally do much worse than similarly
> weighted cars. I've read multiple places that the best correlation to
> safety is not even weight, but cost. That is a small car that is
expensive
> is safer (according to real world crash data that they evaluated) than a
> larger, but cheaper vehicle.

Isn't that what I just said? Extra weight gives no advantage when it's a
single-vehicle accident.

The fact that ultra-expensive cars have better safety engineering doesn't
help those of us who cannot afford a $40K vehicle.

> >The large
> >vehicle ALWAYS enjoys the advantage in any collision with a smaller
vehicle.
>
> That is simply false. A Ford pickup, for example, is crap. Watch the
> crash tests of it. The driver's seat is pushed into the dash by the bed
> and the driver is crushed. This can happen even if they are hitting a
> Civic. The Civic is worse off than if they hit another Civic, and the
> F-150 is better off than if they hit another F-150, but the driver in the
> Civic is still better off than the driver in the F-150.

No, it is TRUE. The crash-test results are SINGLE-VEHICLE vs FIXED BARRIER.
They tell you ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the results of a TWO-VEHICLE
COLLISION!

Using the crash test results to speculate on two-vehicle accidents is worse
than wrong; it's misuse of the data. A fixed barrier returns ALL of the
force applied to it (Newton's Laws) - the collision with a Civic won't
return anywhere near that much! The Civic, being the lighter car,
experiences far higher accelerational force than the truck. It's not a
50-50 proposition; the ratio of force is equal to the ratio of WEIGHT
(MASS). If the truck weighs twice what the Civic does, the Civic will
experience twice the accelerational force after the collision. Simple
Physics. Don't you remember the experiment in High School colliding spheres
of various size and weight?

Note that this principle also applies to any collision with large trucks or
buses. It's why you should always be very careful and courteous to big
rigs: you can get killed very easily in a collision with one, even in the
largest and heaviest car, truck, or SUV. Not even a Hummer will keep you
safe tangling with a 50 ton tandem rig.


> So go make up some more of your false statements on large vehicles and
> ------ them where people don't know that you don't know what you are
> talking about. Better yet, stop ------ing any such crap unless you know
> what you are talking about.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"