Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Not really. What it means to me is that some rights are more
important than others and some are necessary to have a truly free
society. It doesn't mean that they are granted by some outside source
any more than the foundation of your house was built by a different
group of people than built the rest of your house.

In a society any right is like that. You don't have it unless you (or
someone else) has actively sought it.

I understand that.

No, I respect the Constitution and think it's a great piece of work.
In it they appeal to a higher authority than the government to explain
why the government can't take those rights away. Essentially all it
is though is a contract limiting the abilities of the government.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

Some ceremonies don't have "'til death do us part" any more.
Acknowledgement of reality if nothing else.

 

Roughly 12/15/03 07:33, Matthew Russotto's monkeys randomly typed:

"'til death do us part"

... hey, if that's what it takes to get you ratchet jawed
mouth breathers to knock off the off-topic crossposting...

 

Roughly 12/14/03 20:02, Bill Putney's monkeys randomly typed:

Ratchet jawed off topic crossposting is never purely a
personal problem.

 

Roughly 12/15/03 06:42, Brandon Sommerville's jaws flapped uselessly:

really.

 

Yeah, you're really motivating me to stop. Dale Carnegie you ain't.
As for death -- when that vein in your forehead goes, it's going to be
messy.

 

Hey guys, I think we're missing the overal point, if we're talking Global
Warming. As far as environmental controls go, you guys are correct in that
we can't implement world environmental policy when the bigger developing
countries like China refuse to play. Continuing to work with these guys to
resolve this policy is a good thing.... but:

The focus is all hosed. Just like I learned in college physics.... you can
"prove" anything you want with statistics, if you massage the data
appropriately. If you blindly look ONLY at the meteorological data over the
last 30 years, we seem to have a global warming problem, and the liberal
wackos in the media are really playing that up. HOWEVER, if you look back
further.... say back to the beginning .... when we first started really
collecting met data.... you'll find that, even over the short period of 100
years, we've seen a period of global COOLING.... and now we're in the upside
of the cycle. Climate changes are cyclic, and I've never seen the scare
tactics in the history books about the cooling side of the cycle....
hmmmm... guess there was no political advantage to it! Furthermore, climate
changes take HUNDREDS of years, not 10 or 20 or 30.... The scare about
global warming is simply unfounded...

Remember the panic about the "growing" hole in the ozone layer? It's like
somebody in the media realized there was a hole, and then created a panic,
because they arbitrarily decided it was growing when, in fact, it was
SHRINKING.... and it's HAS been shrinking since the 50's.... Hmmm....
haven't heard about that one lately have we?

I'm a snow skier.... and I don't quite understand why, if the climate is
warming at such an alarming rate, why Mount Baker got their all-time record
of 1100 inches of snow in '98, well into the "warming period" and why we've
seen so many epic snow years in the Rockies AND out east.... Targhee in
Wyoming has received over 200 inches so far this year.... shouldn't these
things happen during global "cooling" and not global "warming"? For some
reason, I don't see any reason to worry about Northern Alabama becoming the
next Mojave Desert soon....

But really don't have a strong opinion on this....



Steve

2000 Cherokee Classic

 

Roughly 1/3/04 09:01, Stroyer's monkeys randomly typed:

Yeah, mainly that this off-topic post is crossposted all over
the darn internet, and every now and then yet another
microcephaloid big mouth insists on adding yet more BS.

 

Roughly 1/3/04 09:01, Stroyer's mouth uttered more BS:
[snip]

 

You mean Developed countries like America? They decided to ratiy the treaty
then Bush said no...
So much dfor democracy, thats a dictatorship.

Extra heat means more evaporation leading to more water in the air than upon
hitting cold areas precipate out as heavier than normal rain or snow.

For some

Rhys.

1988 Isuzu Bighorn, (Trooper in the states)

 

So why didn't the US approve the kyoto treaty durring 8 years of the
rule of Bill Clinton? The answer is easy, the kyoto treaty does nothing
to reduce CO2 emissions. It only relocates them to other parts of the
world. This alone exposes it for what it is, a political and social
agenda, not for protecting the environment. If it were about protecting
the environment various manufacturing processes would have a set maximium
level of CO2 released regardless of where in the world the manufacturing
plant was located. Also, by encouraging yet more manufacturing to go to
nations with little in the way of environmental protections the treaty
would only bring about more environmental damage, not less. See the
rest of this thread as it has all be covered already.

That's the beauty of the global warming theory, no matter what happens
it proves global warming theory. Colder, wetter, hotter, drier, doesn't
matter it's all covered.

 

Roughly 1/3/04 12:47, rnf2's monkeys randomly typed:

....nothing of interest.

 

Roughly 1/3/04 13:11, Brent P's demonstrated his coprolallia:

<snip>

 

Demonstrating coprolallia at 1/3/04 12:47, rnf2's randomly typed:

[nothing of interest]

 

Roughly 1/3/04 13:11, Brent P's monkeys randomly typed:

[snip.

 

Well, exactly. The fundamental part of the global warming theory is that
global warming is causing weather change. Thus, the weather change would
logically be either or any of colder, wetter, hotter, drier, etc.

However, weather change in and of itself, does not prove that global warming
is happening and is causing weather change. While the general public - like
you
- seems to have made this cyclical connection the scientists prove that the
globe is warming by the act of actually measuring it's temperature change
with
a thermometor over time. They also prove (or attempt to prove) that weather
change is happening by actually measuring that over time too.

Ted

 

Roughly 1/4/04 04:28, Ted Mittelstaedt's monkeys randomly typed:

[groups that really really don't give a flying flip trimmed off]

 

And thusly for politics it works wonderfully. Scare the people into
adopting a political agenda they otherwise wouldn't stand for by blaming
every big snow storm or other big weather event on it.

Don't put words into my mouth, I gave no indication of anything of the
sort. Global warming, true or not, is part of the new religion that
stifles real science as much as the catholic church did centuries ago.
Instead of torture and imprisonment the means are ridicule and wrecked
careers, but the point is the same. Don't question the belief system.

Weather by definition changes. By itself it is not an indicator of
anything as the global warming true believers are so apt to point
out every time there is a spell of brutal winter cold. (of course that is
forgoten with every summer heat wave when anyone who suffers is
delcared a victim of global warming and the evil corporations)

Global warming has become a nebulus thing that cannot be shown faulty
because it morphs over time to fit what is happening like the "Centuries"
as written by Nostradomus. (wrong when read before the event, correct when
read after the event) The whole earth could become frozen over and the
posts in sci.environment would be saying it was the result of CO2
emissions.

 

Roughly 1/4/04 13:08, Brent P's monkeys randomly typed:

[totally freakin disinterested groups removed...]

 

Roughly 1/4/04 13:08, Brent P's monkeys randomly typed:

[totally freaking uninterested groups removed...]