Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4941
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bpt48s$h0v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> 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?
Hiya LP. Now you know it would be a waste of my time to tell you, because
you don't have the brains to understand it anyway, if you did you wouldn't
ask such a stupid question, you would have already read all the Data, not
just what your left wing wackos say.
>
>
> >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.
Who is this mysterious 'we" that pops up in every post you make. Don't
bother answering, it would just be another of your lies.
>
>
> > 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.
> >
> >
#4942
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bpt48s$h0v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> 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?
Hiya LP. Now you know it would be a waste of my time to tell you, because
you don't have the brains to understand it anyway, if you did you wouldn't
ask such a stupid question, you would have already read all the Data, not
just what your left wing wackos say.
>
>
> >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.
Who is this mysterious 'we" that pops up in every post you make. Don't
bother answering, it would just be another of your lies.
>
>
> > 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.
> >
> >
#4943
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
There's been a Ice Age soon theory for most of this century... not a
recent claim at all.
http://www.iceagenow.com
"Dori Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3fc23e5e$0$7012$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com. ..
> Unfortunately my memory is patchy about WHO (not the UN WHO...) made the
> claims, but I seem to remember scare stories in my student days (the
> seventies) about global cooling, some emanating from quite respectable
> sources.
>
> I just had a quick look at the Club of Rome website archive, but it
doesn't
> seem to have been them.
>
> DAS
> --
> ---
> NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
> ---
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:bpldff$njr$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> [..........]
> > Lie. No group said that.
>
>
recent claim at all.
http://www.iceagenow.com
"Dori Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3fc23e5e$0$7012$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com. ..
> Unfortunately my memory is patchy about WHO (not the UN WHO...) made the
> claims, but I seem to remember scare stories in my student days (the
> seventies) about global cooling, some emanating from quite respectable
> sources.
>
> I just had a quick look at the Club of Rome website archive, but it
doesn't
> seem to have been them.
>
> DAS
> --
> ---
> NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
> ---
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:bpldff$njr$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> [..........]
> > Lie. No group said that.
>
>
#4944
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
There's been a Ice Age soon theory for most of this century... not a
recent claim at all.
http://www.iceagenow.com
"Dori Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3fc23e5e$0$7012$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com. ..
> Unfortunately my memory is patchy about WHO (not the UN WHO...) made the
> claims, but I seem to remember scare stories in my student days (the
> seventies) about global cooling, some emanating from quite respectable
> sources.
>
> I just had a quick look at the Club of Rome website archive, but it
doesn't
> seem to have been them.
>
> DAS
> --
> ---
> NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
> ---
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:bpldff$njr$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> [..........]
> > Lie. No group said that.
>
>
recent claim at all.
http://www.iceagenow.com
"Dori Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3fc23e5e$0$7012$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com. ..
> Unfortunately my memory is patchy about WHO (not the UN WHO...) made the
> claims, but I seem to remember scare stories in my student days (the
> seventies) about global cooling, some emanating from quite respectable
> sources.
>
> I just had a quick look at the Club of Rome website archive, but it
doesn't
> seem to have been them.
>
> DAS
> --
> ---
> NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
> ---
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:bpldff$njr$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> [..........]
> > Lie. No group said that.
>
>
#4945
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
There's been a Ice Age soon theory for most of this century... not a
recent claim at all.
http://www.iceagenow.com
"Dori Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3fc23e5e$0$7012$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com. ..
> Unfortunately my memory is patchy about WHO (not the UN WHO...) made the
> claims, but I seem to remember scare stories in my student days (the
> seventies) about global cooling, some emanating from quite respectable
> sources.
>
> I just had a quick look at the Club of Rome website archive, but it
doesn't
> seem to have been them.
>
> DAS
> --
> ---
> NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
> ---
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:bpldff$njr$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> [..........]
> > Lie. No group said that.
>
>
recent claim at all.
http://www.iceagenow.com
"Dori Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3fc23e5e$0$7012$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com. ..
> Unfortunately my memory is patchy about WHO (not the UN WHO...) made the
> claims, but I seem to remember scare stories in my student days (the
> seventies) about global cooling, some emanating from quite respectable
> sources.
>
> I just had a quick look at the Club of Rome website archive, but it
doesn't
> seem to have been them.
>
> DAS
> --
> ---
> NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
> ---
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:bpldff$njr$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> [..........]
> > Lie. No group said that.
>
>
#4946
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >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.
While you are at it, figure out how many are hooked on prescription pain
relievers.
Ed
#4947
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >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.
While you are at it, figure out how many are hooked on prescription pain
relievers.
Ed
#4948
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >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.
While you are at it, figure out how many are hooked on prescription pain
relievers.
Ed
#4949
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:32:52 -0000, "Dori Schmetterling"
<ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>Nuclear power is not the answer, unfortunately. In Britain in the
>fifties/sixties it was promoted as the ultimate source of cheap power, but
>we have had nothing of the sort; it was just a chimera. The company that
>was left with the nuclear power stations after privatisation needs large
>state subsidies just to keep going. And we can't close it down because we
>don't what to do with the nuclear materials. All European countries (except
>maybe France) have put nuclear power on hold or have decided against it.
But not for technical reasons.
>
>Not only can accidents happen in the west (Three Mile Island, among others),
>there are huge issues of waste disposal. AFAIK, no waste from UK nuclear
>reactors has been permanently stored anywhere. And when does nuclear
>material with a half-life of centuries finally degrade into harmless
>components?
As I said, the problems were not with the technology, but with the
people.
Storage isn't the problem the ecos make it out to be. They simply
refuse to accept that it can be stored under *any* conditions.
It's really funny to hear them put forth a scenario where the
containment would fail, but the scenario would mean catastrophe so bad
that local release of radioactivity would be a minor concern.
>
>I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first opponents of
>wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame them?), but
>nuclear power is not, either.
But it *is* being used with very few problems.
And at a very competitive price.
With the ecos refusing to allow just about *any* major new generating
plants (especially on the west coast), we really need to find
something; nuclear fits the bill better than fossil-fuel generating
plants.
>
>DAS
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
<ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>Nuclear power is not the answer, unfortunately. In Britain in the
>fifties/sixties it was promoted as the ultimate source of cheap power, but
>we have had nothing of the sort; it was just a chimera. The company that
>was left with the nuclear power stations after privatisation needs large
>state subsidies just to keep going. And we can't close it down because we
>don't what to do with the nuclear materials. All European countries (except
>maybe France) have put nuclear power on hold or have decided against it.
But not for technical reasons.
>
>Not only can accidents happen in the west (Three Mile Island, among others),
>there are huge issues of waste disposal. AFAIK, no waste from UK nuclear
>reactors has been permanently stored anywhere. And when does nuclear
>material with a half-life of centuries finally degrade into harmless
>components?
As I said, the problems were not with the technology, but with the
people.
Storage isn't the problem the ecos make it out to be. They simply
refuse to accept that it can be stored under *any* conditions.
It's really funny to hear them put forth a scenario where the
containment would fail, but the scenario would mean catastrophe so bad
that local release of radioactivity would be a minor concern.
>
>I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first opponents of
>wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame them?), but
>nuclear power is not, either.
But it *is* being used with very few problems.
And at a very competitive price.
With the ecos refusing to allow just about *any* major new generating
plants (especially on the west coast), we really need to find
something; nuclear fits the bill better than fossil-fuel generating
plants.
>
>DAS
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#4950
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:32:52 -0000, "Dori Schmetterling"
<ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>Nuclear power is not the answer, unfortunately. In Britain in the
>fifties/sixties it was promoted as the ultimate source of cheap power, but
>we have had nothing of the sort; it was just a chimera. The company that
>was left with the nuclear power stations after privatisation needs large
>state subsidies just to keep going. And we can't close it down because we
>don't what to do with the nuclear materials. All European countries (except
>maybe France) have put nuclear power on hold or have decided against it.
But not for technical reasons.
>
>Not only can accidents happen in the west (Three Mile Island, among others),
>there are huge issues of waste disposal. AFAIK, no waste from UK nuclear
>reactors has been permanently stored anywhere. And when does nuclear
>material with a half-life of centuries finally degrade into harmless
>components?
As I said, the problems were not with the technology, but with the
people.
Storage isn't the problem the ecos make it out to be. They simply
refuse to accept that it can be stored under *any* conditions.
It's really funny to hear them put forth a scenario where the
containment would fail, but the scenario would mean catastrophe so bad
that local release of radioactivity would be a minor concern.
>
>I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first opponents of
>wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame them?), but
>nuclear power is not, either.
But it *is* being used with very few problems.
And at a very competitive price.
With the ecos refusing to allow just about *any* major new generating
plants (especially on the west coast), we really need to find
something; nuclear fits the bill better than fossil-fuel generating
plants.
>
>DAS
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
<ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>Nuclear power is not the answer, unfortunately. In Britain in the
>fifties/sixties it was promoted as the ultimate source of cheap power, but
>we have had nothing of the sort; it was just a chimera. The company that
>was left with the nuclear power stations after privatisation needs large
>state subsidies just to keep going. And we can't close it down because we
>don't what to do with the nuclear materials. All European countries (except
>maybe France) have put nuclear power on hold or have decided against it.
But not for technical reasons.
>
>Not only can accidents happen in the west (Three Mile Island, among others),
>there are huge issues of waste disposal. AFAIK, no waste from UK nuclear
>reactors has been permanently stored anywhere. And when does nuclear
>material with a half-life of centuries finally degrade into harmless
>components?
As I said, the problems were not with the technology, but with the
people.
Storage isn't the problem the ecos make it out to be. They simply
refuse to accept that it can be stored under *any* conditions.
It's really funny to hear them put forth a scenario where the
containment would fail, but the scenario would mean catastrophe so bad
that local release of radioactivity would be a minor concern.
>
>I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first opponents of
>wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame them?), but
>nuclear power is not, either.
But it *is* being used with very few problems.
And at a very competitive price.
With the ecos refusing to allow just about *any* major new generating
plants (especially on the west coast), we really need to find
something; nuclear fits the bill better than fossil-fuel generating
plants.
>
>DAS
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"