Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5541
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
A technical paper that appeared in July, 2003 in GSA Today, a journal of the
Geological Society of America, gave evidence that the periodic cooling and
warming of the planet over the past millions of years is cyclical and is
caused by a complex interplay between solar activity and cosmic rays. It
concluded that carbon dioxide emissions are not the main "driver" of climate
change.
Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist from the Racah Institute of Physics of the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Prof. Jan Veiser a geochemist at the
University of Ottawa in Canada, say that temperature variations are due more
to cosmic forces than to the actions of man.
In the article, Shaviv and Veiser tell of their studies illustrating a
correlation between past cosmic ray flux - the high-energy particles
reaching us from stellar explosions - and long-term climate variability, as
recorded by oxygen isotopes trapped in rocks formed by ancient marine
fossils. The level of cosmic ray activity reaching the earth and its
atmosphere was reconstructed using another isotopic record in meteorites.
The study showed that peak periods of cosmic rays reaching the earth over
the past 550 million years coincided with lower global temperatures,
apparently due to the way that the cosmic rays promote low-level cloud
formation, hence blocking out the sun. No correlation was obtained,
however, with the changing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The conclusion of the two scientists is that celestial processes seem to be
the dominant influence on climate change, and that increased carbon dioxide
release, while certainly not beneficial, is only secondary to those forces
which are beyond our control.
For me I think I'll do what I see Frank say all of the time...
yeah see if you can find out some thing about the trails
Frank. Sling some mud for me!!!!!!!
Braille trail 4 wheelers
we wheel by feel
79 chev 3/4 bb
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312020814.750e4869@posting.google.c om...
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google.c om...
> > > "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. They discount solar influence when IMHO it is
a
> > far more likely cause. 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.
>
> Well, here are the estimated magnitudes of the components in the IPCC
> model, with confidence limits <pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/warming.jpg>.
> Compare the magnitude of the solar component, though large, with the
> magnitude of the CO2 component, even with the max end of the solar
> confidence limit and the min end of the CO2 confidence limit. The
> thing being, that the reasons for the IPCC adopting these estimates
> are given in the report along with references to the published
> studies, etc. A far cry from just saying they 'discount' solar
> warming. So do you have any such evidence for your more solar
> position? (This wan't meant to be as hostile a challenge as it sounds
> on reading it, just a conversational inquiry tone).
Geological Society of America, gave evidence that the periodic cooling and
warming of the planet over the past millions of years is cyclical and is
caused by a complex interplay between solar activity and cosmic rays. It
concluded that carbon dioxide emissions are not the main "driver" of climate
change.
Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist from the Racah Institute of Physics of the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Prof. Jan Veiser a geochemist at the
University of Ottawa in Canada, say that temperature variations are due more
to cosmic forces than to the actions of man.
In the article, Shaviv and Veiser tell of their studies illustrating a
correlation between past cosmic ray flux - the high-energy particles
reaching us from stellar explosions - and long-term climate variability, as
recorded by oxygen isotopes trapped in rocks formed by ancient marine
fossils. The level of cosmic ray activity reaching the earth and its
atmosphere was reconstructed using another isotopic record in meteorites.
The study showed that peak periods of cosmic rays reaching the earth over
the past 550 million years coincided with lower global temperatures,
apparently due to the way that the cosmic rays promote low-level cloud
formation, hence blocking out the sun. No correlation was obtained,
however, with the changing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The conclusion of the two scientists is that celestial processes seem to be
the dominant influence on climate change, and that increased carbon dioxide
release, while certainly not beneficial, is only secondary to those forces
which are beyond our control.
For me I think I'll do what I see Frank say all of the time...
yeah see if you can find out some thing about the trails
Frank. Sling some mud for me!!!!!!!
Braille trail 4 wheelers
we wheel by feel
79 chev 3/4 bb
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312020814.750e4869@posting.google.c om...
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google.c om...
> > > "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. They discount solar influence when IMHO it is
a
> > far more likely cause. 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.
>
> Well, here are the estimated magnitudes of the components in the IPCC
> model, with confidence limits <pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/warming.jpg>.
> Compare the magnitude of the solar component, though large, with the
> magnitude of the CO2 component, even with the max end of the solar
> confidence limit and the min end of the CO2 confidence limit. The
> thing being, that the reasons for the IPCC adopting these estimates
> are given in the report along with references to the published
> studies, etc. A far cry from just saying they 'discount' solar
> warming. So do you have any such evidence for your more solar
> position? (This wan't meant to be as hostile a challenge as it sounds
> on reading it, just a conversational inquiry tone).
#5542
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
A technical paper that appeared in July, 2003 in GSA Today, a journal of the
Geological Society of America, gave evidence that the periodic cooling and
warming of the planet over the past millions of years is cyclical and is
caused by a complex interplay between solar activity and cosmic rays. It
concluded that carbon dioxide emissions are not the main "driver" of climate
change.
Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist from the Racah Institute of Physics of the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Prof. Jan Veiser a geochemist at the
University of Ottawa in Canada, say that temperature variations are due more
to cosmic forces than to the actions of man.
In the article, Shaviv and Veiser tell of their studies illustrating a
correlation between past cosmic ray flux - the high-energy particles
reaching us from stellar explosions - and long-term climate variability, as
recorded by oxygen isotopes trapped in rocks formed by ancient marine
fossils. The level of cosmic ray activity reaching the earth and its
atmosphere was reconstructed using another isotopic record in meteorites.
The study showed that peak periods of cosmic rays reaching the earth over
the past 550 million years coincided with lower global temperatures,
apparently due to the way that the cosmic rays promote low-level cloud
formation, hence blocking out the sun. No correlation was obtained,
however, with the changing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The conclusion of the two scientists is that celestial processes seem to be
the dominant influence on climate change, and that increased carbon dioxide
release, while certainly not beneficial, is only secondary to those forces
which are beyond our control.
For me I think I'll do what I see Frank say all of the time...
yeah see if you can find out some thing about the trails
Frank. Sling some mud for me!!!!!!!
Braille trail 4 wheelers
we wheel by feel
79 chev 3/4 bb
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312020814.750e4869@posting.google.c om...
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google.c om...
> > > "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. They discount solar influence when IMHO it is
a
> > far more likely cause. 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.
>
> Well, here are the estimated magnitudes of the components in the IPCC
> model, with confidence limits <pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/warming.jpg>.
> Compare the magnitude of the solar component, though large, with the
> magnitude of the CO2 component, even with the max end of the solar
> confidence limit and the min end of the CO2 confidence limit. The
> thing being, that the reasons for the IPCC adopting these estimates
> are given in the report along with references to the published
> studies, etc. A far cry from just saying they 'discount' solar
> warming. So do you have any such evidence for your more solar
> position? (This wan't meant to be as hostile a challenge as it sounds
> on reading it, just a conversational inquiry tone).
Geological Society of America, gave evidence that the periodic cooling and
warming of the planet over the past millions of years is cyclical and is
caused by a complex interplay between solar activity and cosmic rays. It
concluded that carbon dioxide emissions are not the main "driver" of climate
change.
Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist from the Racah Institute of Physics of the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Prof. Jan Veiser a geochemist at the
University of Ottawa in Canada, say that temperature variations are due more
to cosmic forces than to the actions of man.
In the article, Shaviv and Veiser tell of their studies illustrating a
correlation between past cosmic ray flux - the high-energy particles
reaching us from stellar explosions - and long-term climate variability, as
recorded by oxygen isotopes trapped in rocks formed by ancient marine
fossils. The level of cosmic ray activity reaching the earth and its
atmosphere was reconstructed using another isotopic record in meteorites.
The study showed that peak periods of cosmic rays reaching the earth over
the past 550 million years coincided with lower global temperatures,
apparently due to the way that the cosmic rays promote low-level cloud
formation, hence blocking out the sun. No correlation was obtained,
however, with the changing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The conclusion of the two scientists is that celestial processes seem to be
the dominant influence on climate change, and that increased carbon dioxide
release, while certainly not beneficial, is only secondary to those forces
which are beyond our control.
For me I think I'll do what I see Frank say all of the time...
yeah see if you can find out some thing about the trails
Frank. Sling some mud for me!!!!!!!
Braille trail 4 wheelers
we wheel by feel
79 chev 3/4 bb
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312020814.750e4869@posting.google.c om...
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google.c om...
> > > "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. They discount solar influence when IMHO it is
a
> > far more likely cause. 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.
>
> Well, here are the estimated magnitudes of the components in the IPCC
> model, with confidence limits <pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/warming.jpg>.
> Compare the magnitude of the solar component, though large, with the
> magnitude of the CO2 component, even with the max end of the solar
> confidence limit and the min end of the CO2 confidence limit. The
> thing being, that the reasons for the IPCC adopting these estimates
> are given in the report along with references to the published
> studies, etc. A far cry from just saying they 'discount' solar
> warming. So do you have any such evidence for your more solar
> position? (This wan't meant to be as hostile a challenge as it sounds
> on reading it, just a conversational inquiry tone).
#5543
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <uXnzb.211214$Dw6.768125@attbi_s02>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bql0h3$c29$4@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
health
>>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
insurance
>>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>
>>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>
>>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
Japan,
>>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
everybody?
>
>>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
>>>system cost less than the current private one?
>
>> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
>> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead
of
>> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
>
>So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of care.
>I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
>have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
>in the USA.
>
>
Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and western
Europe are healthier and live longer.
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bql0h3$c29$4@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
health
>>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
insurance
>>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>
>>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>
>>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
Japan,
>>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
everybody?
>
>>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
>>>system cost less than the current private one?
>
>> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
>> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead
of
>> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
>
>So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of care.
>I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
>have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
>in the USA.
>
>
Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and western
Europe are healthier and live longer.
#5544
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <uXnzb.211214$Dw6.768125@attbi_s02>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bql0h3$c29$4@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
health
>>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
insurance
>>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>
>>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>
>>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
Japan,
>>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
everybody?
>
>>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
>>>system cost less than the current private one?
>
>> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
>> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead
of
>> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
>
>So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of care.
>I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
>have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
>in the USA.
>
>
Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and western
Europe are healthier and live longer.
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bql0h3$c29$4@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
health
>>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
insurance
>>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>
>>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>
>>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
Japan,
>>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
everybody?
>
>>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
>>>system cost less than the current private one?
>
>> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
>> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead
of
>> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
>
>So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of care.
>I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
>have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
>in the USA.
>
>
Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and western
Europe are healthier and live longer.
#5545
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <uXnzb.211214$Dw6.768125@attbi_s02>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bql0h3$c29$4@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
health
>>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
insurance
>>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>
>>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>
>>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
Japan,
>>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
everybody?
>
>>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
>>>system cost less than the current private one?
>
>> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
>> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead
of
>> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
>
>So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of care.
>I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
>have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
>in the USA.
>
>
Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and western
Europe are healthier and live longer.
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bql0h3$c29$4@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
health
>>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
insurance
>>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>
>>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>
>>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
Japan,
>>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
everybody?
>
>>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
>>>system cost less than the current private one?
>
>> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
>> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead
of
>> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
>
>So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of care.
>I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
>have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
>in the USA.
>
>
Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and western
Europe are healthier and live longer.
#5546
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <_6ydncNzQME2kVOiRTvUqQ@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>Jerry McG wrote:
>
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com...
>>
>>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
>>
>> genders
>>
>>>>can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>>>
>>>It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
>>>Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
>>>of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
>>>--- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
>>>that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
>>>commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
>>>trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
>>>and serves no useful purpose.
>>>
>>>Ed
>>
>>
>> Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
>> and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
>
>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>
>
>
>
>
Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>Jerry McG wrote:
>
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com...
>>
>>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
>>
>> genders
>>
>>>>can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>>>
>>>It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
>>>Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
>>>of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
>>>--- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
>>>that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
>>>commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
>>>trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
>>>and serves no useful purpose.
>>>
>>>Ed
>>
>>
>> Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
>> and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
>
>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>
>
>
>
>
Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
#5547
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <_6ydncNzQME2kVOiRTvUqQ@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>Jerry McG wrote:
>
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com...
>>
>>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
>>
>> genders
>>
>>>>can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>>>
>>>It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
>>>Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
>>>of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
>>>--- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
>>>that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
>>>commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
>>>trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
>>>and serves no useful purpose.
>>>
>>>Ed
>>
>>
>> Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
>> and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
>
>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>
>
>
>
>
Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>Jerry McG wrote:
>
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com...
>>
>>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
>>
>> genders
>>
>>>>can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>>>
>>>It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
>>>Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
>>>of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
>>>--- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
>>>that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
>>>commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
>>>trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
>>>and serves no useful purpose.
>>>
>>>Ed
>>
>>
>> Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
>> and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
>
>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>
>
>
>
>
Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
#5548
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <_6ydncNzQME2kVOiRTvUqQ@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>Jerry McG wrote:
>
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com...
>>
>>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
>>
>> genders
>>
>>>>can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>>>
>>>It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
>>>Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
>>>of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
>>>--- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
>>>that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
>>>commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
>>>trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
>>>and serves no useful purpose.
>>>
>>>Ed
>>
>>
>> Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
>> and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
>
>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>
>
>
>
>
Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>Jerry McG wrote:
>
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com...
>>
>>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
>>
>> genders
>>
>>>>can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>>>
>>>It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
>>>Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
>>>of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
>>>--- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
>>>that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
>>>commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
>>>trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
>>>and serves no useful purpose.
>>>
>>>Ed
>>
>>
>> Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
>> and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
>
>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>
>
>
>
>
Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
#5549
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCE0F53.10617B9D@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> >Since when to conservatives as an aggregate tell people what kind of ---
to
>> >have??? You're posting from an alternate reality again.
>> >
>> Sodomy laws?
>
>Have any new ones been enacted recently? I thought almost all such laws were
>enacted many years ago and were definitely middle of the road sort of laws at
the
>time.
>
>Ed
>
Which states kept them until just recently, and fought for them in the
courts? Texas, Georgia, conservative states. Which USSC justices wanted to
uphold them? Thomas, Scalia, the conservative justices.
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> >Since when to conservatives as an aggregate tell people what kind of ---
to
>> >have??? You're posting from an alternate reality again.
>> >
>> Sodomy laws?
>
>Have any new ones been enacted recently? I thought almost all such laws were
>enacted many years ago and were definitely middle of the road sort of laws at
the
>time.
>
>Ed
>
Which states kept them until just recently, and fought for them in the
courts? Texas, Georgia, conservative states. Which USSC justices wanted to
uphold them? Thomas, Scalia, the conservative justices.
#5550
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCE0F53.10617B9D@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> >Since when to conservatives as an aggregate tell people what kind of ---
to
>> >have??? You're posting from an alternate reality again.
>> >
>> Sodomy laws?
>
>Have any new ones been enacted recently? I thought almost all such laws were
>enacted many years ago and were definitely middle of the road sort of laws at
the
>time.
>
>Ed
>
Which states kept them until just recently, and fought for them in the
courts? Texas, Georgia, conservative states. Which USSC justices wanted to
uphold them? Thomas, Scalia, the conservative justices.
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> >Since when to conservatives as an aggregate tell people what kind of ---
to
>> >have??? You're posting from an alternate reality again.
>> >
>> Sodomy laws?
>
>Have any new ones been enacted recently? I thought almost all such laws were
>enacted many years ago and were definitely middle of the road sort of laws at
the
>time.
>
>Ed
>
Which states kept them until just recently, and fought for them in the
courts? Texas, Georgia, conservative states. Which USSC justices wanted to
uphold them? Thomas, Scalia, the conservative justices.