Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Interesting syllogism.
Most climatologists, geologists, etc. agree with the general concept
of manmade global warming, though disagree on details, and this model
and its implications are an issue to leftists (among others).;
Leftists demonstrate against corporations.
Therefore, climatologists, geologists, etc. who find results that
support manmade global warming are politically motivated.

 

UnGodly one, knowest thou not thy Scripture?

In the heavens hath the Lord set a tabernacle for the sun, which is
like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, rejoicing as a giant in
running his course. His going forth is from the high heaven, and his
circuit unto the ends of it.
Psalms 19:4

The world also is established that it cannot be moved.
Psalms 93:7

The sun rises and sets and returns to his own place.
Ecclesiastes 1:5

And the sun stood still and the moon stayed, until the nation took
vengeance on their enemies.
Joshua 10:12

 

Perhaps you should enlighten the folks at the GAO regarding your
little fairy tale.
'Since its inception in 1977, the New Source Review (NSR) Program—one
of the Clean Air Act's (CAA) key mechanisms for maintaining air
quality to protect public health—has prevented the emission of
millions of tons of harmful pollutants. It has done so by requiring
newly built industrial facilities, and existing industrial facilities
undergoing major modifications to equipment or operating procedures,
to install modern air pollution controls.1The Congress allowed
existing facilities to defer installation of such controls until a
major modification was made with the expectation that, over time, all
facilities would install such equipment, and this would lead to lower
overall emissions.'

 

Sigh. See, the problem is that the industry, and now with Bush
backing, want your scenarios 1 2 and 3 to all put out the same crap as
scenario 1. Which is not hardly 'better for the environment'.
see, if the owners modernizing the plants actually made them 'better
for the environment', they wouldn't be trying to evade having to meet
tests that would prove whether they are better for the environment,
would they?

 

No, that is not what I said. The College of Physicians and Surgeons
gets together with the Ministry of Health and decides what are "Covered
Services". This would be anything that is deemed medically necessary
and effective. So if you had cancer and needed treatment, and studies
proper studies had been performed which proved therapy X worked, it
would be covered. If you decided that you needed magic mushrooms from
Mexico, it would not be covered, even if you cousin's girlfriend's aunt
said it cured her. It includes regular physicals, not more than
annually, if you have no outstanding conditions, it does not include
dental work, except in an emergency, or eyeglass prescriptions. Most of
us also have to pay for our own pharmaceuticals, unless you are on
welfare or over 65.

Once a service is listed as a "covered service", you cannot charge for
that service. "Beauty Enhancement" surgery is not covered, accident
reconstruction is covered. There is a whole list.

In most provinces (it is a federal mandate, administered by the
provinces, and funded by both federal and provincial governments), there
is no "outside system", some pay-per-service clinics are being set up in
some provinces, but being challenged in the courts.
I think that sports franchises "donate" certain equipment to local
hospitals so that their players can be diagnosed immediately. The local
population benefits because the equipment is available for general use
most of the time. Franchises also have their own doctors on salary, so
there is no issue about them going to the "front of the line" in the
public system.

If you have a "bum knee" that you got playing football in university and
decide it is time to have it looked at, you will get a replacement when
it is your turn. If you are injured today and cannot walk for your
work, but need to, you will get put further up the line, because you are
more "needy" of the service. You might still have to wait, but not
nearly as long as the recreational replacement!

Dan

 

If environmentalists were about protecting the environment they wouldn't
oppose every new cleaner source of energy that comes along.

That aside, companies wouldn't modernize a plant unless there was
a return on investment. That return is more electicity at the same or
lower cost.

How does the company reduce costs? Well I know they don't do it with
burning more fuel than they have to.

 

Roughly 12/8/03 11:51, Brent P's monkeys randomly typed:

 

Because currently the US is not only the world's worst offendor in
terms of global warming emissions, but also the one with the most
resources to do something about it.
And because this picture of CO2 emission regulation being the deciding
factor in the movement of jobs overseas is just silly, given that the
process is proceeding as fast as possible anyway.

 

Roughly 12/2/03 10:23, John S's monkeys randomly typed:

 

Roughly 12/8/03 11:51, Brent P's monkeys randomly typed:

 

Roughly 12/8/03 12:07, z's monkeys randomly typed:

....doubtful.

 

Roughly 12/1/03 10:56, David J. Allen's monkeys randomly typed:

...very likely not.

 

Trimming is nice, but to what are you replying?

Dan

 

Roughly 12/8/03 15:12, Bill Putney's monkeys randomly typed:

No.

 

Hmmm - do you think it might have something to do with resource
depletion due to having to treat *ILLEGAL* *ALIENS*!?

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

You're painting with a pretty broad brush, and the example you gave is
pretty extreme and atypical - so atypical, that one has to wonder why
you bring it up. I think the pendulum has swung plenty far in the other
extreme in the recent past - to the point where *THAT* has gotten pretty
disgusting. There is a reasonable balance.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Roughly 12/8/03 15:20, Bill Putney's monkeys randomly typed:

Probably not.

 

Pretty laughable. So if you yourself ever refer to the sun as setting
or rising, then by your own example, that means that you believe that
the the earth is stationary relative to the universe?

Ever hear of "relative postion" and "relative velocity" (which are the
terms that human beings commonly refer to their own position or velocity
without even realizing it)? I bet you even talk about driving your car
at, say "55 mph", when in reality, that's only one component in the
combination of linear and angular velocities that you are doing relative
to the earth *PLUS* the earth's velocity relative to the universe. So,
again, by giving speed and position references relative to the earth,
you must be implying that the earth is staionary in the universe and
that the sun moves around the earth. I bet you even refer to people as
"standing still".

I won't even get into figurative and prophetic language.

Say what you will to elevate man's "wisdom" above God's, the Word of God
will be standing when your human logic is long gone.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Roughly 12/8/03 15:54, Bill Putney posted to the thread nobody
gives a sh*t about:

Heh heh, guffaw, snort, snicker.

 

Roughly 12/8/03 15:54, Bill Putney continued posting on the thread from
hell:

And may I say, that is charitable of you.