Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5021
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>
>> Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed
in
>> China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>
>See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
>When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
>good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
>a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
>going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
>where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.
>
>Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
>of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
>of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
>solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
>squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
>that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
>effect.
>
>
OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
comparison with any other country.
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>
>> Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed
in
>> China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>
>See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
>When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
>good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
>a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
>going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
>where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.
>
>Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
>of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
>of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
>solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
>squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
>that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
>effect.
>
>
OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
comparison with any other country.
#5022
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>
>> Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed
in
>> China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>
>See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
>When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
>good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
>a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
>going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
>where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.
>
>Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
>of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
>of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
>solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
>squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
>that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
>effect.
>
>
OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
comparison with any other country.
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>
>> Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed
in
>> China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>
>See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
>When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
>good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
>a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
>going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
>where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.
>
>Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
>of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
>of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
>solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
>squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
>that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
>effect.
>
>
OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
comparison with any other country.
#5023
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>
>> Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed
in
>> China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>
>See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
>When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
>good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
>a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
>going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
>where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.
>
>Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
>of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
>of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
>solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
>squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
>that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
>effect.
>
>
OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
comparison with any other country.
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>
>> Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed
in
>> China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>
>See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
>When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
>good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
>a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
>going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
>where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.
>
>Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
>of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
>of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
>solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
>squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
>that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
>effect.
>
>
OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
comparison with any other country.
#5024
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 28 Nov 03 12:44:19 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>>> No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
>>> circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
>>> infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
>>> machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
>>> all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
>>> unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
>>> estimates of most-likely scenarios.
>>
>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>
>Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
As usual, Lloyd, you changed the subject.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>>> No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
>>> circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
>>> infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
>>> machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
>>> all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
>>> unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
>>> estimates of most-likely scenarios.
>>
>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>
>Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
As usual, Lloyd, you changed the subject.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5025
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 28 Nov 03 12:44:19 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>>> No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
>>> circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
>>> infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
>>> machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
>>> all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
>>> unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
>>> estimates of most-likely scenarios.
>>
>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>
>Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
As usual, Lloyd, you changed the subject.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>>> No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
>>> circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
>>> infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
>>> machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
>>> all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
>>> unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
>>> estimates of most-likely scenarios.
>>
>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>
>Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
As usual, Lloyd, you changed the subject.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5026
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 28 Nov 03 12:44:19 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>>> No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
>>> circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
>>> infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
>>> machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
>>> all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
>>> unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
>>> estimates of most-likely scenarios.
>>
>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>
>Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
As usual, Lloyd, you changed the subject.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>>> No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
>>> circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
>>> infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
>>> machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
>>> all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
>>> unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
>>> estimates of most-likely scenarios.
>>
>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>
>Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
As usual, Lloyd, you changed the subject.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5027
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 28 Nov 03 12:44:19 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>
>Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
In this case, per capita is irrelevant. If the problem is that we're
putting out X tons of CO2 annually to produce a widget, how is it
improving anything on a global scale if we move production to China,
where looser pollution controls mean that creating a widget now puts
out anywhere from 1.5X to 2X tons of CO2 yet a greater population base
means that the per capita numbers are lower?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
wrote:
>In article <qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>
>Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
In this case, per capita is irrelevant. If the problem is that we're
putting out X tons of CO2 annually to produce a widget, how is it
improving anything on a global scale if we move production to China,
where looser pollution controls mean that creating a widget now puts
out anywhere from 1.5X to 2X tons of CO2 yet a greater population base
means that the per capita numbers are lower?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
#5028
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 28 Nov 03 12:44:19 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>
>Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
In this case, per capita is irrelevant. If the problem is that we're
putting out X tons of CO2 annually to produce a widget, how is it
improving anything on a global scale if we move production to China,
where looser pollution controls mean that creating a widget now puts
out anywhere from 1.5X to 2X tons of CO2 yet a greater population base
means that the per capita numbers are lower?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
wrote:
>In article <qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>
>Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
In this case, per capita is irrelevant. If the problem is that we're
putting out X tons of CO2 annually to produce a widget, how is it
improving anything on a global scale if we move production to China,
where looser pollution controls mean that creating a widget now puts
out anywhere from 1.5X to 2X tons of CO2 yet a greater population base
means that the per capita numbers are lower?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
#5029
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 28 Nov 03 12:44:19 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>
>Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
In this case, per capita is irrelevant. If the problem is that we're
putting out X tons of CO2 annually to produce a widget, how is it
improving anything on a global scale if we move production to China,
where looser pollution controls mean that creating a widget now puts
out anywhere from 1.5X to 2X tons of CO2 yet a greater population base
means that the per capita numbers are lower?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
wrote:
>In article <qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>
>Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
In this case, per capita is irrelevant. If the problem is that we're
putting out X tons of CO2 annually to produce a widget, how is it
improving anything on a global scale if we move production to China,
where looser pollution controls mean that creating a widget now puts
out anywhere from 1.5X to 2X tons of CO2 yet a greater population base
means that the per capita numbers are lower?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
#5030
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
> In article <b5b4685f.0311260646.46221fd1@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<PjQwb.107728$Dw6.513759@attbi_s02>...
> >> In article <b5b4685f.0311251346.2762bc95@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> >> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<2x8wb.285619$Tr4.884523@attbi_s03>...
> >> >> In article <3np1sv414jbra53mffq0f4m0r9pjho31g9@4ax.com>, 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.
> >> >>
> >> >> And that's what I find puzzling. If CO2 is such an important problem,
> >> >> the what-we-can-do-today answer is state of the art nuclear power. (not
> >> >> stone age state run without protection like the old soviet plants)
> >> >>
> >> >> We are told consistantly that CO2 is a problem, but somehow the
> >> >> solutions always boil down to telling people how they have to live,
> >> >> bring wealth to the 3rd world, and other political and social issues
> >> >> rather than *SOLVING* the stated problem of too much CO2 being released
> >> >> and meeting energy demands / increasing energy efficency.
>
> >> > Yes, having seen that allowing large corporations remarkably free rein
> >> > to seek, extract, and sell unreplenishable fossil fuel energy sources
> >> > through a centralized structure in order to maximize corporate
> >> > profitability, which also creates a monetary penalty for the
> >> > corporations to concentrate on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
> >> > safety; clearly the way to go is to transition to another
> >> > unreplenishable source to be sought, extracted, and sold through a
> >> > centralized structure run by large corporations with a monetary
> >> > penalty for concentration on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
> >> > safety.
> >>
> >> What's your point? That the concept of global warming via CO2 is
> >> nothing more than a method/excuse to punish corporations?
> >
> > No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
> > circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
> > infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
> > machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
> > all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
> > unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
> > estimates of most-likely scenarios.
>
> You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
> China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
Cause there's less of it?
It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
noise.
> In article <b5b4685f.0311260646.46221fd1@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<PjQwb.107728$Dw6.513759@attbi_s02>...
> >> In article <b5b4685f.0311251346.2762bc95@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> >> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<2x8wb.285619$Tr4.884523@attbi_s03>...
> >> >> In article <3np1sv414jbra53mffq0f4m0r9pjho31g9@4ax.com>, 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.
> >> >>
> >> >> And that's what I find puzzling. If CO2 is such an important problem,
> >> >> the what-we-can-do-today answer is state of the art nuclear power. (not
> >> >> stone age state run without protection like the old soviet plants)
> >> >>
> >> >> We are told consistantly that CO2 is a problem, but somehow the
> >> >> solutions always boil down to telling people how they have to live,
> >> >> bring wealth to the 3rd world, and other political and social issues
> >> >> rather than *SOLVING* the stated problem of too much CO2 being released
> >> >> and meeting energy demands / increasing energy efficency.
>
> >> > Yes, having seen that allowing large corporations remarkably free rein
> >> > to seek, extract, and sell unreplenishable fossil fuel energy sources
> >> > through a centralized structure in order to maximize corporate
> >> > profitability, which also creates a monetary penalty for the
> >> > corporations to concentrate on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
> >> > safety; clearly the way to go is to transition to another
> >> > unreplenishable source to be sought, extracted, and sold through a
> >> > centralized structure run by large corporations with a monetary
> >> > penalty for concentration on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
> >> > safety.
> >>
> >> What's your point? That the concept of global warming via CO2 is
> >> nothing more than a method/excuse to punish corporations?
> >
> > No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
> > circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
> > infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
> > machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
> > all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
> > unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
> > estimates of most-likely scenarios.
>
> You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
> China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
Cause there's less of it?
It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
noise.