Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5161
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"MacIntosh" <chesshire_cat@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<3fc94817$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net>...
> fact: cow's "fermenting" their dinner, and burping is one of the major
> sources of CO2 emissions....
>
> gotta ban the bloody cows!
1) Cow or human, burps contain no CO2.
2) Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
therefore produces no CO2.
Got any more 'facts' you'd like to share?
>
>
>
>
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:vs514a9607ev84@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> > news:bpt48s$h0v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > > In article <vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google. com...
> > > >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
> > > >> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the
> past.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > No we don't!
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
> concentration
> > > >> > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief
> does
> not prove
> > > >> > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
> anything. The
> > > >> > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs.
> Looking
> at one
> > > >> > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS.
> As a
> > > >> > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate
> research
> don't even
> > > >> > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last
> few
> years.
> > > >> > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or
> trying
> to
> infere
> > > >> > it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature.
> The
> errors
> > > >> > associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes
> they
> are
> > > >> > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and
> then
> groomed the
> > > >> > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is
> treated as a
> > > >> > loon.
> > > >>
> > > >> The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
> > > >> one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> > > >> inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
> > > >> the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> > > >> confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> > > >> reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> > > >> declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they
> "decided
> > > >> on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there
> some
> > > >> kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> > > >> climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw
> the
> > > >> economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> > > >> warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
> > > >> have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
> > > >> operation?
> > > >> And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the
> establishment
> > > >> who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
> > > >
> > > >I believe they are wrong.
> > >
> > > And your data is where?
> >
> >
> > Hiya LP. Now you know it would be a waste of my time to tell you, because
> > you don't have the brains to understand it anyway, if you did you wouldn't
> > ask such a stupid question, you would have already read all the Data, not
> > just what your left wing wackos say.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
> > > >far more likely cause.
> > >
> > > No, they've studied it and found it cannot explain all the current
> > warming.
> >
> > Who is this mysterious 'we" that pops up in every post you make. Don't
> > bother answering, it would just be another of your lies.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
> > > >temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating
> (think
> > > >seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force
> behind
> > > >global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> fact: cow's "fermenting" their dinner, and burping is one of the major
> sources of CO2 emissions....
>
> gotta ban the bloody cows!
1) Cow or human, burps contain no CO2.
2) Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
therefore produces no CO2.
Got any more 'facts' you'd like to share?
>
>
>
>
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:vs514a9607ev84@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> > news:bpt48s$h0v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > > In article <vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google. com...
> > > >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
> > > >> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the
> past.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > No we don't!
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
> concentration
> > > >> > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief
> does
> not prove
> > > >> > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
> anything. The
> > > >> > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs.
> Looking
> at one
> > > >> > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS.
> As a
> > > >> > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate
> research
> don't even
> > > >> > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last
> few
> years.
> > > >> > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or
> trying
> to
> infere
> > > >> > it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature.
> The
> errors
> > > >> > associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes
> they
> are
> > > >> > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and
> then
> groomed the
> > > >> > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is
> treated as a
> > > >> > loon.
> > > >>
> > > >> The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
> > > >> one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> > > >> inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
> > > >> the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> > > >> confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> > > >> reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> > > >> declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they
> "decided
> > > >> on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there
> some
> > > >> kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> > > >> climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw
> the
> > > >> economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> > > >> warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
> > > >> have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
> > > >> operation?
> > > >> And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the
> establishment
> > > >> who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
> > > >
> > > >I believe they are wrong.
> > >
> > > And your data is where?
> >
> >
> > Hiya LP. Now you know it would be a waste of my time to tell you, because
> > you don't have the brains to understand it anyway, if you did you wouldn't
> > ask such a stupid question, you would have already read all the Data, not
> > just what your left wing wackos say.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
> > > >far more likely cause.
> > >
> > > No, they've studied it and found it cannot explain all the current
> > warming.
> >
> > Who is this mysterious 'we" that pops up in every post you make. Don't
> > bother answering, it would just be another of your lies.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
> > > >temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating
> (think
> > > >seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force
> behind
> > > >global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
#5162
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message news:<fed36858b0081e5586790938465c9d64@news.terane ws.com>...
> 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.
>
> How much they release in total is irrelevant. There is no global
> improvement if you move X tons from the US to China, or even worse, X
> from the US and 2X in China, but lower per capita.
So, how long do you think it will be before the average Chinese is
driving a Lincoln Navigator? How long before the US power companies
figure out how to move their power plants from the US to China to
avoid emissions limits on their furning of oil and coal, and export
the electricity to the US? I'd like to buy stock in the copper mining
and wire manufacturing industry before then.
>
> By per capita numbers, you wouldn't have a problem with leaded fuel
> vehicles being used in India or China, would you?
> 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.
>
> How much they release in total is irrelevant. There is no global
> improvement if you move X tons from the US to China, or even worse, X
> from the US and 2X in China, but lower per capita.
So, how long do you think it will be before the average Chinese is
driving a Lincoln Navigator? How long before the US power companies
figure out how to move their power plants from the US to China to
avoid emissions limits on their furning of oil and coal, and export
the electricity to the US? I'd like to buy stock in the copper mining
and wire manufacturing industry before then.
>
> By per capita numbers, you wouldn't have a problem with leaded fuel
> vehicles being used in India or China, would you?
#5163
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message news:<fed36858b0081e5586790938465c9d64@news.terane ws.com>...
> 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.
>
> How much they release in total is irrelevant. There is no global
> improvement if you move X tons from the US to China, or even worse, X
> from the US and 2X in China, but lower per capita.
So, how long do you think it will be before the average Chinese is
driving a Lincoln Navigator? How long before the US power companies
figure out how to move their power plants from the US to China to
avoid emissions limits on their furning of oil and coal, and export
the electricity to the US? I'd like to buy stock in the copper mining
and wire manufacturing industry before then.
>
> By per capita numbers, you wouldn't have a problem with leaded fuel
> vehicles being used in India or China, would you?
> 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.
>
> How much they release in total is irrelevant. There is no global
> improvement if you move X tons from the US to China, or even worse, X
> from the US and 2X in China, but lower per capita.
So, how long do you think it will be before the average Chinese is
driving a Lincoln Navigator? How long before the US power companies
figure out how to move their power plants from the US to China to
avoid emissions limits on their furning of oil and coal, and export
the electricity to the US? I'd like to buy stock in the copper mining
and wire manufacturing industry before then.
>
> By per capita numbers, you wouldn't have a problem with leaded fuel
> vehicles being used in India or China, would you?
#5164
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message news:<fed36858b0081e5586790938465c9d64@news.terane ws.com>...
> 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.
>
> How much they release in total is irrelevant. There is no global
> improvement if you move X tons from the US to China, or even worse, X
> from the US and 2X in China, but lower per capita.
So, how long do you think it will be before the average Chinese is
driving a Lincoln Navigator? How long before the US power companies
figure out how to move their power plants from the US to China to
avoid emissions limits on their furning of oil and coal, and export
the electricity to the US? I'd like to buy stock in the copper mining
and wire manufacturing industry before then.
>
> By per capita numbers, you wouldn't have a problem with leaded fuel
> vehicles being used in India or China, would you?
> 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.
>
> How much they release in total is irrelevant. There is no global
> improvement if you move X tons from the US to China, or even worse, X
> from the US and 2X in China, but lower per capita.
So, how long do you think it will be before the average Chinese is
driving a Lincoln Navigator? How long before the US power companies
figure out how to move their power plants from the US to China to
avoid emissions limits on their furning of oil and coal, and export
the electricity to the US? I'd like to buy stock in the copper mining
and wire manufacturing industry before then.
>
> By per capita numbers, you wouldn't have a problem with leaded fuel
> vehicles being used in India or China, would you?
#5165
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message news:<vsfam2sesmhl70@corp.supernews.com>...
> No, that would be like asking why is it better to burn that oil in China
> instead of the USA. As usual Lloyd you don't even know what the question
> was.
The question is, why the hell would they be burning oil in China to
power American air conditioners? Or do you think they will be
confiscating our air conditioners and moving them to China as well?
Because I will definitely state that I would be against such a move.
> No, that would be like asking why is it better to burn that oil in China
> instead of the USA. As usual Lloyd you don't even know what the question
> was.
The question is, why the hell would they be burning oil in China to
power American air conditioners? Or do you think they will be
confiscating our air conditioners and moving them to China as well?
Because I will definitely state that I would be against such a move.
#5166
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message news:<vsfam2sesmhl70@corp.supernews.com>...
> No, that would be like asking why is it better to burn that oil in China
> instead of the USA. As usual Lloyd you don't even know what the question
> was.
The question is, why the hell would they be burning oil in China to
power American air conditioners? Or do you think they will be
confiscating our air conditioners and moving them to China as well?
Because I will definitely state that I would be against such a move.
> No, that would be like asking why is it better to burn that oil in China
> instead of the USA. As usual Lloyd you don't even know what the question
> was.
The question is, why the hell would they be burning oil in China to
power American air conditioners? Or do you think they will be
confiscating our air conditioners and moving them to China as well?
Because I will definitely state that I would be against such a move.
#5167
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message news:<vsfam2sesmhl70@corp.supernews.com>...
> No, that would be like asking why is it better to burn that oil in China
> instead of the USA. As usual Lloyd you don't even know what the question
> was.
The question is, why the hell would they be burning oil in China to
power American air conditioners? Or do you think they will be
confiscating our air conditioners and moving them to China as well?
Because I will definitely state that I would be against such a move.
> No, that would be like asking why is it better to burn that oil in China
> instead of the USA. As usual Lloyd you don't even know what the question
> was.
The question is, why the hell would they be burning oil in China to
power American air conditioners? Or do you think they will be
confiscating our air conditioners and moving them to China as well?
Because I will definitely state that I would be against such a move.
#5168
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message news:<vsfatnq5409837@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > 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?
>
> No, there would be more of it do to less stringent controls, only the
> location would be different. Hardly rocket science here.
Well, if that's your worry, you can't rely on blocking Kyoto. Why
isn't there more of it now? There are currently less stringent
controls on emissions in the third world than the US. What's stopping
the average Chinese from consuming the same energy as the US? Why
don't they just drop over to the local Walmart and buy an air
conditioner on their Visa, and let it keep their big old house at 68
degrees all summer? Why aren't they driving big huge heavy truck-based
vehicles on their commutes to their jobs and to the supermarkets? Are
they just waiting for Kyoto, for some reason?
Why are manufacturers not waiting for Kyoto to move their production
to the third world? Is it because they aren't as concerned about the
costs of CO2 reduction as they are about every other cost that goes
into manufacture?
>
> > 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.
>
> Totally different analogy, you must be a student of Lloyds.
> > > 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?
>
> No, there would be more of it do to less stringent controls, only the
> location would be different. Hardly rocket science here.
Well, if that's your worry, you can't rely on blocking Kyoto. Why
isn't there more of it now? There are currently less stringent
controls on emissions in the third world than the US. What's stopping
the average Chinese from consuming the same energy as the US? Why
don't they just drop over to the local Walmart and buy an air
conditioner on their Visa, and let it keep their big old house at 68
degrees all summer? Why aren't they driving big huge heavy truck-based
vehicles on their commutes to their jobs and to the supermarkets? Are
they just waiting for Kyoto, for some reason?
Why are manufacturers not waiting for Kyoto to move their production
to the third world? Is it because they aren't as concerned about the
costs of CO2 reduction as they are about every other cost that goes
into manufacture?
>
> > 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.
>
> Totally different analogy, you must be a student of Lloyds.
#5169
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message news:<vsfatnq5409837@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > 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?
>
> No, there would be more of it do to less stringent controls, only the
> location would be different. Hardly rocket science here.
Well, if that's your worry, you can't rely on blocking Kyoto. Why
isn't there more of it now? There are currently less stringent
controls on emissions in the third world than the US. What's stopping
the average Chinese from consuming the same energy as the US? Why
don't they just drop over to the local Walmart and buy an air
conditioner on their Visa, and let it keep their big old house at 68
degrees all summer? Why aren't they driving big huge heavy truck-based
vehicles on their commutes to their jobs and to the supermarkets? Are
they just waiting for Kyoto, for some reason?
Why are manufacturers not waiting for Kyoto to move their production
to the third world? Is it because they aren't as concerned about the
costs of CO2 reduction as they are about every other cost that goes
into manufacture?
>
> > 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.
>
> Totally different analogy, you must be a student of Lloyds.
> > > 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?
>
> No, there would be more of it do to less stringent controls, only the
> location would be different. Hardly rocket science here.
Well, if that's your worry, you can't rely on blocking Kyoto. Why
isn't there more of it now? There are currently less stringent
controls on emissions in the third world than the US. What's stopping
the average Chinese from consuming the same energy as the US? Why
don't they just drop over to the local Walmart and buy an air
conditioner on their Visa, and let it keep their big old house at 68
degrees all summer? Why aren't they driving big huge heavy truck-based
vehicles on their commutes to their jobs and to the supermarkets? Are
they just waiting for Kyoto, for some reason?
Why are manufacturers not waiting for Kyoto to move their production
to the third world? Is it because they aren't as concerned about the
costs of CO2 reduction as they are about every other cost that goes
into manufacture?
>
> > 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.
>
> Totally different analogy, you must be a student of Lloyds.
#5170
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message news:<vsfatnq5409837@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > 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?
>
> No, there would be more of it do to less stringent controls, only the
> location would be different. Hardly rocket science here.
Well, if that's your worry, you can't rely on blocking Kyoto. Why
isn't there more of it now? There are currently less stringent
controls on emissions in the third world than the US. What's stopping
the average Chinese from consuming the same energy as the US? Why
don't they just drop over to the local Walmart and buy an air
conditioner on their Visa, and let it keep their big old house at 68
degrees all summer? Why aren't they driving big huge heavy truck-based
vehicles on their commutes to their jobs and to the supermarkets? Are
they just waiting for Kyoto, for some reason?
Why are manufacturers not waiting for Kyoto to move their production
to the third world? Is it because they aren't as concerned about the
costs of CO2 reduction as they are about every other cost that goes
into manufacture?
>
> > 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.
>
> Totally different analogy, you must be a student of Lloyds.
> > > 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?
>
> No, there would be more of it do to less stringent controls, only the
> location would be different. Hardly rocket science here.
Well, if that's your worry, you can't rely on blocking Kyoto. Why
isn't there more of it now? There are currently less stringent
controls on emissions in the third world than the US. What's stopping
the average Chinese from consuming the same energy as the US? Why
don't they just drop over to the local Walmart and buy an air
conditioner on their Visa, and let it keep their big old house at 68
degrees all summer? Why aren't they driving big huge heavy truck-based
vehicles on their commutes to their jobs and to the supermarkets? Are
they just waiting for Kyoto, for some reason?
Why are manufacturers not waiting for Kyoto to move their production
to the third world? Is it because they aren't as concerned about the
costs of CO2 reduction as they are about every other cost that goes
into manufacture?
>
> > 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.
>
> Totally different analogy, you must be a student of Lloyds.