Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5101
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:bq8e3k$rm0$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> 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.
>
Isn't your goal reducing *worldwide* emissions? How does shuffling it
around to 3rd world countries help?
#5102
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0311281108.4532612b@posting.google.c om...
> 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.
So China can have a boombox but the US can't. Still have noise.
#5103
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0311281108.4532612b@posting.google.c om...
> 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.
So China can have a boombox but the US can't. Still have noise.
#5104
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0311281108.4532612b@posting.google.c om...
> 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.
So China can have a boombox but the US can't. Still have noise.
#5105
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:
>OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
Translation - I am finally admitting all of you are right and loyd
lying parker is wrong, so I am going to try to twist it into something
else.
wrote:
>OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
Translation - I am finally admitting all of you are right and loyd
lying parker is wrong, so I am going to try to twist it into something
else.
#5106
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:
>OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
Translation - I am finally admitting all of you are right and loyd
lying parker is wrong, so I am going to try to twist it into something
else.
wrote:
>OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
Translation - I am finally admitting all of you are right and loyd
lying parker is wrong, so I am going to try to twist it into something
else.
#5107
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:
>OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
Translation - I am finally admitting all of you are right and loyd
lying parker is wrong, so I am going to try to twist it into something
else.
wrote:
>OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
Translation - I am finally admitting all of you are right and loyd
lying parker is wrong, so I am going to try to twist it into something
else.
#5108
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3MSxb.46777$Gj.16411@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> China releases less "noise", by far. Which is why most people are
>> concentrating on the largest releasers of "noise" first.
> The pollution in China is way worse than here. Smog is choking.
Once upon a time a co-worker of mine went to china to support the plant
there. He returned with pictures. I am looking at the photos and ask,
'what's the haze over the photos?', thinking it was a photographic
problem. The response, 'that's just the way it is there'.
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> China releases less "noise", by far. Which is why most people are
>> concentrating on the largest releasers of "noise" first.
> The pollution in China is way worse than here. Smog is choking.
Once upon a time a co-worker of mine went to china to support the plant
there. He returned with pictures. I am looking at the photos and ask,
'what's the haze over the photos?', thinking it was a photographic
problem. The response, 'that's just the way it is there'.
#5109
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3MSxb.46777$Gj.16411@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> China releases less "noise", by far. Which is why most people are
>> concentrating on the largest releasers of "noise" first.
> The pollution in China is way worse than here. Smog is choking.
Once upon a time a co-worker of mine went to china to support the plant
there. He returned with pictures. I am looking at the photos and ask,
'what's the haze over the photos?', thinking it was a photographic
problem. The response, 'that's just the way it is there'.
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> China releases less "noise", by far. Which is why most people are
>> concentrating on the largest releasers of "noise" first.
> The pollution in China is way worse than here. Smog is choking.
Once upon a time a co-worker of mine went to china to support the plant
there. He returned with pictures. I am looking at the photos and ask,
'what's the haze over the photos?', thinking it was a photographic
problem. The response, 'that's just the way it is there'.
#5110
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3MSxb.46777$Gj.16411@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> China releases less "noise", by far. Which is why most people are
>> concentrating on the largest releasers of "noise" first.
> The pollution in China is way worse than here. Smog is choking.
Once upon a time a co-worker of mine went to china to support the plant
there. He returned with pictures. I am looking at the photos and ask,
'what's the haze over the photos?', thinking it was a photographic
problem. The response, 'that's just the way it is there'.
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> China releases less "noise", by far. Which is why most people are
>> concentrating on the largest releasers of "noise" first.
> The pollution in China is way worse than here. Smog is choking.
Once upon a time a co-worker of mine went to china to support the plant
there. He returned with pictures. I am looking at the photos and ask,
'what's the haze over the photos?', thinking it was a photographic
problem. The response, 'that's just the way it is there'.