Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4901
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:17:25 GMT, Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>> They need to be hit pretty hard.
>> Like at a closing speed of more that 40 mph, IIRC.
>>
>Nothing a fire bottle system cant cure.
For a bottle system to work, the fire needs to be very localized.
Gas tends to ------ quickly; I've not seen a bottle system in use that
actually does more than offer a sense of "at least there's a system on
board", as opposed to actually controlling a gas fire after a wreck.
>> They need to be hit pretty hard.
>> Like at a closing speed of more that 40 mph, IIRC.
>>
>Nothing a fire bottle system cant cure.
For a bottle system to work, the fire needs to be very localized.
Gas tends to ------ quickly; I've not seen a bottle system in use that
actually does more than offer a sense of "at least there's a system on
board", as opposed to actually controlling a gas fire after a wreck.
#4902
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:17:25 GMT, Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>> They need to be hit pretty hard.
>> Like at a closing speed of more that 40 mph, IIRC.
>>
>Nothing a fire bottle system cant cure.
For a bottle system to work, the fire needs to be very localized.
Gas tends to ------ quickly; I've not seen a bottle system in use that
actually does more than offer a sense of "at least there's a system on
board", as opposed to actually controlling a gas fire after a wreck.
>> They need to be hit pretty hard.
>> Like at a closing speed of more that 40 mph, IIRC.
>>
>Nothing a fire bottle system cant cure.
For a bottle system to work, the fire needs to be very localized.
Gas tends to ------ quickly; I've not seen a bottle system in use that
actually does more than offer a sense of "at least there's a system on
board", as opposed to actually controlling a gas fire after a wreck.
#4903
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:17:25 GMT, Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>> They need to be hit pretty hard.
>> Like at a closing speed of more that 40 mph, IIRC.
>>
>Nothing a fire bottle system cant cure.
For a bottle system to work, the fire needs to be very localized.
Gas tends to ------ quickly; I've not seen a bottle system in use that
actually does more than offer a sense of "at least there's a system on
board", as opposed to actually controlling a gas fire after a wreck.
>> They need to be hit pretty hard.
>> Like at a closing speed of more that 40 mph, IIRC.
>>
>Nothing a fire bottle system cant cure.
For a bottle system to work, the fire needs to be very localized.
Gas tends to ------ quickly; I've not seen a bottle system in use that
actually does more than offer a sense of "at least there's a system on
board", as opposed to actually controlling a gas fire after a wreck.
#4904
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <b5b4685f.0311220857.5c6200cf@posting.google.com >,
gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:<olesrvsl6emilb2rgfbes8n605i91jdluj@4ax.com>. ..
>> >>>> >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.
>
>I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
>it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
>billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
>conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
>fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
>dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
>cities as the ocean rises.
>
Interestingly, 2 of the companies that are the biggest producers of fossil
fuels -- BP and Shell -- agree global warming is occurring and that action
needs to be taken on it now, not later.
gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:<olesrvsl6emilb2rgfbes8n605i91jdluj@4ax.com>. ..
>> >>>> >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.
>
>I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
>it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
>billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
>conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
>fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
>dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
>cities as the ocean rises.
>
Interestingly, 2 of the companies that are the biggest producers of fossil
fuels -- BP and Shell -- agree global warming is occurring and that action
needs to be taken on it now, not later.
#4905
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <b5b4685f.0311220857.5c6200cf@posting.google.com >,
gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:<olesrvsl6emilb2rgfbes8n605i91jdluj@4ax.com>. ..
>> >>>> >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.
>
>I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
>it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
>billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
>conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
>fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
>dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
>cities as the ocean rises.
>
Interestingly, 2 of the companies that are the biggest producers of fossil
fuels -- BP and Shell -- agree global warming is occurring and that action
needs to be taken on it now, not later.
gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:<olesrvsl6emilb2rgfbes8n605i91jdluj@4ax.com>. ..
>> >>>> >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.
>
>I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
>it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
>billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
>conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
>fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
>dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
>cities as the ocean rises.
>
Interestingly, 2 of the companies that are the biggest producers of fossil
fuels -- BP and Shell -- agree global warming is occurring and that action
needs to be taken on it now, not later.
#4906
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <b5b4685f.0311220857.5c6200cf@posting.google.com >,
gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:<olesrvsl6emilb2rgfbes8n605i91jdluj@4ax.com>. ..
>> >>>> >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.
>
>I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
>it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
>billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
>conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
>fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
>dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
>cities as the ocean rises.
>
Interestingly, 2 of the companies that are the biggest producers of fossil
fuels -- BP and Shell -- agree global warming is occurring and that action
needs to be taken on it now, not later.
gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:<olesrvsl6emilb2rgfbes8n605i91jdluj@4ax.com>. ..
>> >>>> >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.
>
>I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
>it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
>billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
>conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
>fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
>dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
>cities as the ocean rises.
>
Interestingly, 2 of the companies that are the biggest producers of fossil
fuels -- BP and Shell -- agree global warming is occurring and that action
needs to be taken on it now, not later.
#4907
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google. com...
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
>> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
>> > >
>> > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
>> >
>> > No we don't!
>> >
>> > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
>concentration
>> > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief does
>not prove
>> > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
>anything. The
>> > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs. Looking
>at one
>> > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS. As a
>> > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate research
>don't even
>> > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last few
>years.
>> > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or trying to
>infere
>> > it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature. The
>errors
>> > associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes they
>are
>> > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and then
>groomed the
>> > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is
>treated as a
>> > loon.
>>
>> The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
>> one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
>> inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
>> the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
>> confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
>> reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
>> declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they "decided
>> on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there some
>> kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
>> climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw the
>> economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
>> warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
>> have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
>> operation?
>> And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the establishment
>> who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
>
>I believe they are wrong.
And your data is where?
>They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
>far more likely cause.
No, they've studied it and found it cannot explain all the current warming.
> WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
>temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating (think
>seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force behind
>global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
>
>
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google. com...
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
>> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
>> > >
>> > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
>> >
>> > No we don't!
>> >
>> > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
>concentration
>> > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief does
>not prove
>> > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
>anything. The
>> > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs. Looking
>at one
>> > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS. As a
>> > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate research
>don't even
>> > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last few
>years.
>> > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or trying to
>infere
>> > it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature. The
>errors
>> > associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes they
>are
>> > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and then
>groomed the
>> > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is
>treated as a
>> > loon.
>>
>> The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
>> one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
>> inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
>> the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
>> confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
>> reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
>> declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they "decided
>> on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there some
>> kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
>> climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw the
>> economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
>> warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
>> have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
>> operation?
>> And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the establishment
>> who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
>
>I believe they are wrong.
And your data is where?
>They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
>far more likely cause.
No, they've studied it and found it cannot explain all the current warming.
> WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
>temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating (think
>seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force behind
>global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
>
>
#4908
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google. com...
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
>> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
>> > >
>> > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
>> >
>> > No we don't!
>> >
>> > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
>concentration
>> > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief does
>not prove
>> > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
>anything. The
>> > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs. Looking
>at one
>> > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS. As a
>> > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate research
>don't even
>> > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last few
>years.
>> > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or trying to
>infere
>> > it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature. The
>errors
>> > associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes they
>are
>> > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and then
>groomed the
>> > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is
>treated as a
>> > loon.
>>
>> The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
>> one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
>> inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
>> the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
>> confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
>> reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
>> declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they "decided
>> on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there some
>> kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
>> climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw the
>> economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
>> warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
>> have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
>> operation?
>> And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the establishment
>> who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
>
>I believe they are wrong.
And your data is where?
>They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
>far more likely cause.
No, they've studied it and found it cannot explain all the current warming.
> WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
>temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating (think
>seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force behind
>global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
>
>
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google. com...
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
>> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
>> > >
>> > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
>> >
>> > No we don't!
>> >
>> > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
>concentration
>> > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief does
>not prove
>> > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
>anything. The
>> > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs. Looking
>at one
>> > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS. As a
>> > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate research
>don't even
>> > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last few
>years.
>> > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or trying to
>infere
>> > it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature. The
>errors
>> > associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes they
>are
>> > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and then
>groomed the
>> > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is
>treated as a
>> > loon.
>>
>> The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
>> one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
>> inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
>> the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
>> confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
>> reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
>> declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they "decided
>> on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there some
>> kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
>> climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw the
>> economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
>> warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
>> have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
>> operation?
>> And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the establishment
>> who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
>
>I believe they are wrong.
And your data is where?
>They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
>far more likely cause.
No, they've studied it and found it cannot explain all the current warming.
> WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
>temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating (think
>seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force behind
>global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
>
>
#4909
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google. com...
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
>> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
>> > >
>> > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
>> >
>> > No we don't!
>> >
>> > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
>concentration
>> > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief does
>not prove
>> > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
>anything. The
>> > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs. Looking
>at one
>> > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS. As a
>> > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate research
>don't even
>> > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last few
>years.
>> > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or trying to
>infere
>> > it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature. The
>errors
>> > associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes they
>are
>> > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and then
>groomed the
>> > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is
>treated as a
>> > loon.
>>
>> The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
>> one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
>> inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
>> the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
>> confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
>> reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
>> declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they "decided
>> on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there some
>> kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
>> climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw the
>> economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
>> warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
>> have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
>> operation?
>> And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the establishment
>> who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
>
>I believe they are wrong.
And your data is where?
>They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
>far more likely cause.
No, they've studied it and found it cannot explain all the current warming.
> WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
>temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating (think
>seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force behind
>global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
>
>
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google. com...
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
>> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
>> > >
>> > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
>> >
>> > No we don't!
>> >
>> > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
>concentration
>> > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief does
>not prove
>> > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
>anything. The
>> > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs. Looking
>at one
>> > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS. As a
>> > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate research
>don't even
>> > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last few
>years.
>> > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or trying to
>infere
>> > it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature. The
>errors
>> > associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes they
>are
>> > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and then
>groomed the
>> > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is
>treated as a
>> > loon.
>>
>> The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
>> one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
>> inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
>> the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
>> confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
>> reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
>> declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they "decided
>> on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there some
>> kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
>> climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw the
>> economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
>> warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
>> have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
>> operation?
>> And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the establishment
>> who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
>
>I believe they are wrong.
And your data is where?
>They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
>far more likely cause.
No, they've studied it and found it cannot explain all the current warming.
> WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
>temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating (think
>seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force behind
>global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
>
>
#4910
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3F70ADE8.6EF6454F@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
>> who screw up, not the technology).
>> Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
>
>
>It is hard to figure out what the wackos want. The only thing I am sure
>that will work is population control and a reduction in the total number
>of humans on the planet.
>
>I have no respect for most of the high profile environmentalist. They
>preach conservation while flying around in private jets and riding to
>events in limos. It often seems that they feel everyone else needs to
>conserve. I'd love to match up the Sierra Club membership list with the
>vehicle registration lists to see how many Sierra Club members are
>driving SUVs.
>
>Ed
That would be interesting. Like how many Republicans have family members
who've had abortions, or are gay.
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
>> who screw up, not the technology).
>> Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
>
>
>It is hard to figure out what the wackos want. The only thing I am sure
>that will work is population control and a reduction in the total number
>of humans on the planet.
>
>I have no respect for most of the high profile environmentalist. They
>preach conservation while flying around in private jets and riding to
>events in limos. It often seems that they feel everyone else needs to
>conserve. I'd love to match up the Sierra Club membership list with the
>vehicle registration lists to see how many Sierra Club members are
>driving SUVs.
>
>Ed
That would be interesting. Like how many Republicans have family members
who've had abortions, or are gay.