Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5071
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:bq8e5t$rm0$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> We're very wasteful in this country
just look at how much oxygen is wasted on you. die pig.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
news:bq8e5t$rm0$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> We're very wasteful in this country
just look at how much oxygen is wasted on you. die pig.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
#5072
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 13:43:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <km3fsvk65g5s686gcd84idhe89dqfo1ag1@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>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.
>>
>No, I used an analogy, and as usual, the Taliban here didn't understand it.
The analogy is total --------.
You're actually trying to say that reloacation of C02 production will
mean less C02 production, just because it's in China?
Get real.
Actually, this would mean MORE C02 production because the goods would
need to be shipped further to the markets.
Don't you ever *THINK* about what you write? Or are you just copying
this stuff out of your "Liberal Playbook"?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <km3fsvk65g5s686gcd84idhe89dqfo1ag1@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>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.
>>
>No, I used an analogy, and as usual, the Taliban here didn't understand it.
The analogy is total --------.
You're actually trying to say that reloacation of C02 production will
mean less C02 production, just because it's in China?
Get real.
Actually, this would mean MORE C02 production because the goods would
need to be shipped further to the markets.
Don't you ever *THINK* about what you write? Or are you just copying
this stuff out of your "Liberal Playbook"?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5073
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 13:43:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <km3fsvk65g5s686gcd84idhe89dqfo1ag1@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>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.
>>
>No, I used an analogy, and as usual, the Taliban here didn't understand it.
The analogy is total --------.
You're actually trying to say that reloacation of C02 production will
mean less C02 production, just because it's in China?
Get real.
Actually, this would mean MORE C02 production because the goods would
need to be shipped further to the markets.
Don't you ever *THINK* about what you write? Or are you just copying
this stuff out of your "Liberal Playbook"?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <km3fsvk65g5s686gcd84idhe89dqfo1ag1@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>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.
>>
>No, I used an analogy, and as usual, the Taliban here didn't understand it.
The analogy is total --------.
You're actually trying to say that reloacation of C02 production will
mean less C02 production, just because it's in China?
Get real.
Actually, this would mean MORE C02 production because the goods would
need to be shipped further to the markets.
Don't you ever *THINK* about what you write? Or are you just copying
this stuff out of your "Liberal Playbook"?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5074
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 13:43:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <km3fsvk65g5s686gcd84idhe89dqfo1ag1@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>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.
>>
>No, I used an analogy, and as usual, the Taliban here didn't understand it.
The analogy is total --------.
You're actually trying to say that reloacation of C02 production will
mean less C02 production, just because it's in China?
Get real.
Actually, this would mean MORE C02 production because the goods would
need to be shipped further to the markets.
Don't you ever *THINK* about what you write? Or are you just copying
this stuff out of your "Liberal Playbook"?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <km3fsvk65g5s686gcd84idhe89dqfo1ag1@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>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.
>>
>No, I used an analogy, and as usual, the Taliban here didn't understand it.
The analogy is total --------.
You're actually trying to say that reloacation of C02 production will
mean less C02 production, just because it's in China?
Get real.
Actually, this would mean MORE C02 production because the goods would
need to be shipped further to the markets.
Don't you ever *THINK* about what you write? Or are you just copying
this stuff out of your "Liberal Playbook"?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5075
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 16:18:47 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <236890bd57fbaf274625ffe0a1aaa4a1@news.teranews.co m>,
> Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>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 about x tons to drive a 6000-lb SUV? Or to produce electricity for things
>like game playing and automatic can openers? Just look at the energy we
>waste, and since most of it comes from fossil fuels, there goes more CO2.
See? Still trying to change the subject.
That's because you know your ramblings make no sense.
>
>
>>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?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <236890bd57fbaf274625ffe0a1aaa4a1@news.teranews.co m>,
> Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>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 about x tons to drive a 6000-lb SUV? Or to produce electricity for things
>like game playing and automatic can openers? Just look at the energy we
>waste, and since most of it comes from fossil fuels, there goes more CO2.
See? Still trying to change the subject.
That's because you know your ramblings make no sense.
>
>
>>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?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5076
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 16:18:47 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <236890bd57fbaf274625ffe0a1aaa4a1@news.teranews.co m>,
> Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>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 about x tons to drive a 6000-lb SUV? Or to produce electricity for things
>like game playing and automatic can openers? Just look at the energy we
>waste, and since most of it comes from fossil fuels, there goes more CO2.
See? Still trying to change the subject.
That's because you know your ramblings make no sense.
>
>
>>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?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <236890bd57fbaf274625ffe0a1aaa4a1@news.teranews.co m>,
> Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>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 about x tons to drive a 6000-lb SUV? Or to produce electricity for things
>like game playing and automatic can openers? Just look at the energy we
>waste, and since most of it comes from fossil fuels, there goes more CO2.
See? Still trying to change the subject.
That's because you know your ramblings make no sense.
>
>
>>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?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5077
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 16:18:47 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <236890bd57fbaf274625ffe0a1aaa4a1@news.teranews.co m>,
> Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>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 about x tons to drive a 6000-lb SUV? Or to produce electricity for things
>like game playing and automatic can openers? Just look at the energy we
>waste, and since most of it comes from fossil fuels, there goes more CO2.
See? Still trying to change the subject.
That's because you know your ramblings make no sense.
>
>
>>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?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <236890bd57fbaf274625ffe0a1aaa4a1@news.teranews.co m>,
> Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>On Fri, 28 Nov 03 12:44:19 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>,
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>
>>>China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>>
>>In this case, per capita is irrelevant. If the problem is that we're
>>putting out X tons of CO2 annually to produce a widget,
>
>How about x tons to drive a 6000-lb SUV? Or to produce electricity for things
>like game playing and automatic can openers? Just look at the energy we
>waste, and since most of it comes from fossil fuels, there goes more CO2.
See? Still trying to change the subject.
That's because you know your ramblings make no sense.
>
>
>>how is it
>>improving anything on a global scale if we move production to China,
>>where looser pollution controls mean that creating a widget now puts
>>out anywhere from 1.5X to 2X tons of CO2 yet a greater population base
>>means that the per capita numbers are lower?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5078
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 28 Nov 03 16:20:57 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>> Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed
>in
>>> China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>>
>>See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
>>When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
>>good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
>>a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
>>going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
>>where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.
>>
>>Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
>>of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
>>of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
>>solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
>>squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
>>that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
>>effect.
>>
>>
>OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
>energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
>comparison with any other country.
Change the subject again.
Why not just admit that you're wrong and be done with it?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>> Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed
>in
>>> China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>>
>>See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
>>When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
>>good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
>>a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
>>going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
>>where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.
>>
>>Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
>>of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
>>of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
>>solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
>>squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
>>that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
>>effect.
>>
>>
>OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
>energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
>comparison with any other country.
Change the subject again.
Why not just admit that you're wrong and be done with it?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5079
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 28 Nov 03 16:20:57 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>> Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed
>in
>>> China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>>
>>See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
>>When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
>>good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
>>a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
>>going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
>>where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.
>>
>>Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
>>of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
>>of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
>>solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
>>squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
>>that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
>>effect.
>>
>>
>OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
>energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
>comparison with any other country.
Change the subject again.
Why not just admit that you're wrong and be done with it?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>> Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed
>in
>>> China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>>
>>See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
>>When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
>>good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
>>a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
>>going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
>>where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.
>>
>>Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
>>of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
>>of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
>>solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
>>squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
>>that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
>>effect.
>>
>>
>OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
>energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
>comparison with any other country.
Change the subject again.
Why not just admit that you're wrong and be done with it?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5080
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 28 Nov 03 16:20:57 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>> Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed
>in
>>> China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>>
>>See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
>>When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
>>good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
>>a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
>>going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
>>where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.
>>
>>Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
>>of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
>>of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
>>solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
>>squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
>>that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
>>effect.
>>
>>
>OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
>energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
>comparison with any other country.
Change the subject again.
Why not just admit that you're wrong and be done with it?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <lnOxb.142358$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.
Change the subject again.
Why not just admit that you're wrong and be done with it?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"