Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5081
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 16:19:43 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <6d93cbd689da1a9b29073109fae98889@news.teranews.co m>,
> Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>On 28 Nov 2003 11:05:34 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>>
>>>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:
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>Not quite the same. If noise released is the problem, how is it
>>better to release the same noise in a different location?
>
>China releases less "noise", by far. Which is why most people are
>concentrating on the largest releasers of "noise" first.
You're entirely ignoring the point.
Normal for you.
The point is this: moving the manufacturing to China, where the
pollution requirements are laxer, will result in *MORE* C02
production, not less.
If, as you insist, the intended result is to *reduce* C02 production,
Kyoto is the wrong way to go about it, because one of its results will
be to *increase* C02 production, as shown.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <6d93cbd689da1a9b29073109fae98889@news.teranews.co m>,
> Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>On 28 Nov 2003 11:05:34 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>>
>>>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:
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>Not quite the same. If noise released is the problem, how is it
>>better to release the same noise in a different location?
>
>China releases less "noise", by far. Which is why most people are
>concentrating on the largest releasers of "noise" first.
You're entirely ignoring the point.
Normal for you.
The point is this: moving the manufacturing to China, where the
pollution requirements are laxer, will result in *MORE* C02
production, not less.
If, as you insist, the intended result is to *reduce* C02 production,
Kyoto is the wrong way to go about it, because one of its results will
be to *increase* C02 production, as shown.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5082
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 16:19:43 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <6d93cbd689da1a9b29073109fae98889@news.teranews.co m>,
> Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>On 28 Nov 2003 11:05:34 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>>
>>>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:
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>Not quite the same. If noise released is the problem, how is it
>>better to release the same noise in a different location?
>
>China releases less "noise", by far. Which is why most people are
>concentrating on the largest releasers of "noise" first.
You're entirely ignoring the point.
Normal for you.
The point is this: moving the manufacturing to China, where the
pollution requirements are laxer, will result in *MORE* C02
production, not less.
If, as you insist, the intended result is to *reduce* C02 production,
Kyoto is the wrong way to go about it, because one of its results will
be to *increase* C02 production, as shown.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <6d93cbd689da1a9b29073109fae98889@news.teranews.co m>,
> Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>On 28 Nov 2003 11:05:34 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>>
>>>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:
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>Not quite the same. If noise released is the problem, how is it
>>better to release the same noise in a different location?
>
>China releases less "noise", by far. Which is why most people are
>concentrating on the largest releasers of "noise" first.
You're entirely ignoring the point.
Normal for you.
The point is this: moving the manufacturing to China, where the
pollution requirements are laxer, will result in *MORE* C02
production, not less.
If, as you insist, the intended result is to *reduce* C02 production,
Kyoto is the wrong way to go about it, because one of its results will
be to *increase* C02 production, as shown.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5083
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 16:19:43 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <6d93cbd689da1a9b29073109fae98889@news.teranews.co m>,
> Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>On 28 Nov 2003 11:05:34 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>>
>>>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:
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>Not quite the same. If noise released is the problem, how is it
>>better to release the same noise in a different location?
>
>China releases less "noise", by far. Which is why most people are
>concentrating on the largest releasers of "noise" first.
You're entirely ignoring the point.
Normal for you.
The point is this: moving the manufacturing to China, where the
pollution requirements are laxer, will result in *MORE* C02
production, not less.
If, as you insist, the intended result is to *reduce* C02 production,
Kyoto is the wrong way to go about it, because one of its results will
be to *increase* C02 production, as shown.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <6d93cbd689da1a9b29073109fae98889@news.teranews.co m>,
> Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>On 28 Nov 2003 11:05:34 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>>
>>>tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
>news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
>>>> In article <b5b4685f.0311260646.46221fd1@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
>>
>>>> You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>> China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>>
>>>Cause there's less of it?
>>>It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
>>>complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
>>>doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
>>>noise.
>>
>>Not quite the same. If noise released is the problem, how is it
>>better to release the same noise in a different location?
>
>China releases less "noise", by far. Which is why most people are
>concentrating on the largest releasers of "noise" first.
You're entirely ignoring the point.
Normal for you.
The point is this: moving the manufacturing to China, where the
pollution requirements are laxer, will result in *MORE* C02
production, not less.
If, as you insist, the intended result is to *reduce* C02 production,
Kyoto is the wrong way to go about it, because one of its results will
be to *increase* C02 production, as shown.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5084
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <bq8e5t$rm0$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>> Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed
> in
>>> China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>>
>>See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
>>When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
>>good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
>>a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
>>going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
>>where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.
>>
>>Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
>>of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
>>of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
>>solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
>>squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
>>that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
>>effect.
> OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
> energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
> comparison with any other country.
We cannot forget manufacturing, because it is the key part. But if you
want to talk about wasteful individuals, why don't you reform your
own behavior Dr. Parker? You're driving a mercedes benz, and it's not
an A class either as I recall. Why not a little 4 cylinder car?
How about a bicycle? How about a smaller home?
> In article <lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>> Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed
> in
>>> China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>>
>>See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
>>When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
>>good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
>>a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
>>going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
>>where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.
>>
>>Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
>>of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
>>of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
>>solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
>>squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
>>that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
>>effect.
> OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
> energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
> comparison with any other country.
We cannot forget manufacturing, because it is the key part. But if you
want to talk about wasteful individuals, why don't you reform your
own behavior Dr. Parker? You're driving a mercedes benz, and it's not
an A class either as I recall. Why not a little 4 cylinder car?
How about a bicycle? How about a smaller home?
#5085
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <bq8e5t$rm0$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>> Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed
> in
>>> China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>>
>>See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
>>When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
>>good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
>>a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
>>going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
>>where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.
>>
>>Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
>>of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
>>of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
>>solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
>>squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
>>that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
>>effect.
> OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
> energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
> comparison with any other country.
We cannot forget manufacturing, because it is the key part. But if you
want to talk about wasteful individuals, why don't you reform your
own behavior Dr. Parker? You're driving a mercedes benz, and it's not
an A class either as I recall. Why not a little 4 cylinder car?
How about a bicycle? How about a smaller home?
> In article <lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>> Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed
> in
>>> China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>>
>>See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
>>When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
>>good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
>>a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
>>going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
>>where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.
>>
>>Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
>>of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
>>of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
>>solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
>>squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
>>that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
>>effect.
> OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
> energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
> comparison with any other country.
We cannot forget manufacturing, because it is the key part. But if you
want to talk about wasteful individuals, why don't you reform your
own behavior Dr. Parker? You're driving a mercedes benz, and it's not
an A class either as I recall. Why not a little 4 cylinder car?
How about a bicycle? How about a smaller home?
#5086
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <bq8e5t$rm0$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>> Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed
> in
>>> China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>>
>>See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
>>When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
>>good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
>>a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
>>going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
>>where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.
>>
>>Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
>>of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
>>of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
>>solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
>>squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
>>that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
>>effect.
> OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
> energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
> comparison with any other country.
We cannot forget manufacturing, because it is the key part. But if you
want to talk about wasteful individuals, why don't you reform your
own behavior Dr. Parker? You're driving a mercedes benz, and it's not
an A class either as I recall. Why not a little 4 cylinder car?
How about a bicycle? How about a smaller home?
> In article <lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>> Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed
> in
>>> China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>>
>>See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
>>When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
>>good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
>>a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
>>going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
>>where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.
>>
>>Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
>>of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
>>of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
>>solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
>>squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
>>that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
>>effect.
> OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
> energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
> comparison with any other country.
We cannot forget manufacturing, because it is the key part. But if you
want to talk about wasteful individuals, why don't you reform your
own behavior Dr. Parker? You're driving a mercedes benz, and it's not
an A class either as I recall. Why not a little 4 cylinder car?
How about a bicycle? How about a smaller home?
#5087
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <bq8e1s$rm0$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> How about x tons to drive a 6000-lb SUV?
Or a large mercedes benz sedan.
> Or to produce electricity for things
> like game playing and automatic can openers? Just look at the energy we
> waste, and since most of it comes from fossil fuels, there goes more CO2.
Heaven forbid people play games.... you sound like a puritianical right
winger lloyd. Cept you use the environment as your excuse to keep people
from doing things they enjoy.
> How about x tons to drive a 6000-lb SUV?
Or a large mercedes benz sedan.
> Or to produce electricity for things
> like game playing and automatic can openers? Just look at the energy we
> waste, and since most of it comes from fossil fuels, there goes more CO2.
Heaven forbid people play games.... you sound like a puritianical right
winger lloyd. Cept you use the environment as your excuse to keep people
from doing things they enjoy.
#5088
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <bq8e1s$rm0$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> How about x tons to drive a 6000-lb SUV?
Or a large mercedes benz sedan.
> Or to produce electricity for things
> like game playing and automatic can openers? Just look at the energy we
> waste, and since most of it comes from fossil fuels, there goes more CO2.
Heaven forbid people play games.... you sound like a puritianical right
winger lloyd. Cept you use the environment as your excuse to keep people
from doing things they enjoy.
> How about x tons to drive a 6000-lb SUV?
Or a large mercedes benz sedan.
> Or to produce electricity for things
> like game playing and automatic can openers? Just look at the energy we
> waste, and since most of it comes from fossil fuels, there goes more CO2.
Heaven forbid people play games.... you sound like a puritianical right
winger lloyd. Cept you use the environment as your excuse to keep people
from doing things they enjoy.
#5089
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <bq8e1s$rm0$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> How about x tons to drive a 6000-lb SUV?
Or a large mercedes benz sedan.
> 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.
Heaven forbid people play games.... you sound like a puritianical right
winger lloyd. Cept you use the environment as your excuse to keep people
from doing things they enjoy.
> How about x tons to drive a 6000-lb SUV?
Or a large mercedes benz sedan.
> 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.
Heaven forbid people play games.... you sound like a puritianical right
winger lloyd. Cept you use the environment as your excuse to keep people
from doing things they enjoy.
#5090
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
> >>>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.
>
How about answering the question! He's right on the money.
And talk about waste, do *you* ride a bike to work? Do you take a bus?
Drive a hybrid? Ride a horse? Do you have a garage door opener? An electric
can opener? A stereo system? An air conditioner? A television (a big
"SUV" style TV)? A large monitor on your computer? More than one computer?
Do you have solar panels? Toilet paper from recycled fibers? A chandelier?
A single low watt light bulb per room?
How far back should we go so you can say there's no waste? Should
government mandate consumption? Does everything I do in my life over riding
a horse for transportation or using anything electric affect the air you
breathe to the point that the government must protect you against the
polluction produced by my consumption? How much?
>
> >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?
Lloyd's answer: Blame SUV's.