Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

More BS from Brent P.

{snip}

 

More braindead than usual, Bobby Koch staggered to the keyboard:

 

Royally confused by the concept of followups, Bobby Koch babbled:

 

Demonstrating submicrobial intelligence, Bobby Koch excreted:

 

x-no-archive: yes

Incorrect.

 

x-no-archive: yes

What level of intelligence do you describe yourself, Lon?

 

x-no-archive: yes

Nope, just from Lon.

 

x-no-archive: yes

Clearly you care the most.

 

x-no-archive: yes

You're doing a better job of keeping it going than anybody, Lon. It's
the very least I could possibly do to help you out since you try so very
hard. .

I'll bet.

Thank you for your example.

 

x-no-archive: yes

Fixed for Lon.

 

x-no-archive: yes

You're responding to post by the braindead, Lon?

 

x-no-archive: yes

Can't be too braindead, since you enjoy writing back so much, Lon!

 

Oh, he's just having a little adolescent fun. He's probably not even
reading any of this. It's probably an auto-reply set up to harass this
thread. Just add (yet another incarnation of) his name to your kill file or
filter.

If it isn't an auto-reply and he's .... well... actually waiting around to
sarcastically respond to *every* post, then he's meting out his own
punishment!

 

Aarggg! You just don't get it, but I'll try again.

"Global Warming" like your referring to it here - ie: popular masses
definition -
is both an observation that the temperature of the Earth is increasing,
a conclusion that the reason is entirely man-made, a further conclusion
that the Earth isn't self-correcting, thus it's up to Man to solve the
problem
since it's his fault to begin with, and a final conclusion that the only way
we can do this is to immediately stop driving our cars and ride around in
electric busses.

"Global Warming" like any real scientist refers to it is simply the
observation
that the temperature of the Earth is increasing, with a conclusion that this
is
altering weather patterns (duh) and another conclusion that if this
keeps up it will do severe damage to the planet, but there is NO further
conclusion as to what is causing it, and no further conclusion as to whether
the Earth will self-correct at some point, and certainly no scientist of any
reputation is guarenteeing that the temp increase will reverse if we all
stop
producing greenhouse gasses.

You are using the popular definition of the concept to trash all the
scientists
and to try to prove that the temperature of the Earth isn't increasing,
which is
rediculous.

This is a particularly rediculous statement because as anyone who has done
the least bit of study of the issue is aware, the CO2 levels are
self-correcting.

Elevated CO2 levels are recognized to be created by burning of fossil fuels
which releases the stored carbon in the fuel.

However, all fossil fuel supplies are infinite, and many people are now
predicting that fossil fuel extraction globally is past it's peak, and that
within the next 50 years, it will become economically impossible to use
it for fuel. (in short, the cost of extracting a barrel of oil from oil
shale,
or whatever will take the same energy as produced by a barrel of oil,
thus relegating oil production for nothing more than a feedstock for
lubricants or plastic manufacture) In other words, while we still will have
plenty of oil, none of what's left will produce an energy benefit when
it's extracted.

Once fossil fuels stop being burned, the extra CO2 input into the Earth's
system will cease, and plantlife on the Earth's surface will quickly return
the CO2 levels back to what they were before large scale fossil fuel
burning commenced in the 20th century.

The more reasonable speculation on the mankind-tie-into-global-warming
is that pollution is reducing the reflective ability of the snow on the
polar
icecaps, thus increasing the heat energy in sunlight being absorbed.

I don't see sci.environment in the header list, nor am I posting from there.

6 lines earlier you admit to playing word games with your political
definition statement, now you claim your not doing it? Amazing!

religions are not scientific.

Hmm - when did I say this? Straw man, straw man. We aren't in
Debating 101, you need to be a bit more educated in your response.

I was not aware that everyone arguing with you was a woman, or was
a transvestite male wearing panties.

Note the use of ridicule based on an assumption of the underclothes wearing
habits of your audience. Again, a typical sci.environment response.

Because all the planet raping conservative corporate whores I've run into
think a lot more logically than you seem to be displaying here.

Assuming that the world's reputable scientists eventually determine
that the global warming that is caused by whatever it's caused cannot
be self-corrected by the Earth, and thus mankind must do something
about the problem, the only solution we are going to have available is
weather control of the Earth's weather.

Naturally the greenies will continue to claim that reducing fossil fuel
use is the only way to fix global warming, but anyone of intelligence
knows this is rediculous daydreaming. The only thing that will reduce
fossil fuel use is when we run out of it.

So, as you can see, weather control DOES have GREAT relevance
to the debate. I understand that it's a solution that's at right angles
to the greenies and anti-greenies such as yourself who want to
keep the global warming debate centered on a debate as to whether
or not it's appropriate to continue to use fossil fuels. So I can
excuse you for not having the quickness of mind to grasp that
there's more than one solution to the problem of global warming
than the one the greenies want to see implemented.

What is wrong with that? My responses DO happen to be based in faith!
I have faith that once the world's scientists all agree that we have to do
something to lower the temperature of the globe, because the globe's
systems to do this aren't working anymore, that the world's scientists
will find a way to do it.

I feel sorry for people like you. Obviously you are very threatened by the
idea of global warming, probably because your afraid that if it's proven to
be happening, that humanity is too slow, stupid, and frail to do anything
about
correcting it. So if you can make yourself believe that the temperature of
the globe isn't increasing - then the entire problem goes away. As I said
before, have a little more faith in the ingenuity of Man, man!

Ted

 

I get what you are trying to do. The problem is that is not the
working definition and you know it.

Not what I stated. Temeperature does not have to be observed to increase
for the political agenda.

Could you please get your line lengths fixed, reformating your text
is becoming annoying.

And if that *IS* the definition scientists use, how come the lack
of attack on Dr. Parker (self proclaimed scientist) by any of the
sci.environment regulars like yourself? Why don't you put Dr. Parker
in his place as he goes off spouting it's the result of man creating
too much CO2 (while he's driving a MB)? Instead you waste your time
trying to discredit me, someone who merely questions. It's very telling
indeed what the real working definition of global warming is.

I haven't done anything of the kind. That's in your imagination. I am
saying that if a scientist does not believe that man's activities are
causing global warming, if his data and research doesn't show a warming,
he will suffer career wise. It's the new religion. Just like galieo
suffered from the religious leaders of the day, a scientist who has
done research that shows no significant warming or that any warming
is caused by nature will likely suffer. It's seen in sci.environment
consistantly. That's what I am talking about.

The fact that you keep interpeting this as an attempt to disprove
global warming proves my point. It's a religion and my statements
are then viewed as an attack on that religion. You and others continue
in your arguement assignments, ridicule, and personal attack any time
someone questions the faith.

Read what I wrote again. It's an OBSERVATION of sci.environment regulars.
You might as well have written a response about greys cutting cattle in
Nebraska because it makes as much sense as what you wrote as a response
to my observation of sci.environment regulars.

That's nice but has nothing to do with the point I've made.

It was before the thread was revived or maybe it was one of the other
offshoots or global warming threads. Same difference though.

WTF? Support your claim.

You don't understand then what happens in science to those that
don't follow the popular path. No funding, wrecked careers, etc.

This coming from someone who has been making up arguements for me and
then shooting those arguements down? Laughable. The quoted material
above is the response to where you were once again claiming that I
was attacking global warming. What typically follows that is a personal
attack like I described. I question, but in questioning people like
you begin to use terms like "other side". That any questioning
automatically puts a person on that "other side" of planet raping
conservative corporate whores who fund bogus research to keep their
profit machines going.

I note how you play dumb and side track into a saying rather than make
any attempt to address the facts of what happens when someone questions
the global warming. Here's a hint, replace 'gets their panties in a bunch'
with 'makes them angry and/or defensive'. Happy?

And here we go again, anyone who questions the faith is stupid, illogical,
mentally unbalanced, etc.

Next you'll start talking about chem-trails.

They claim that people in the *western* nations reducing fossil fuel
use is the only way to fix global warming. People in developing countries
are free to make up the difference and add more on top of that.

Here we go with the labels again. Like I said before, irl I am probably
more 'green' than the greenies like Dr. Parker.

Oh I know there is more to it, but you are using this built up personal
attack of yours to divert from my point. Global warming is now part
of a greater religion like structure where anyone who questions it
is an enemy of the faith. You prove this simply with the what you've
done to attempt to discredit me and divert the discussion away from
my point.

You unquestionally follow a belief system that is endorsed by scientists.
I question it. And when I question it, I get responses like yours that
try to discredit me, attack me personally, etc. And that's the response
I get for asking questions. Not only that, I have to show research and
make cites just to show I have a reason for questioning! That's not
science, least not the way it's supposed to be. That's religion.

Instead of getting good, solid, scientific responses and cites, I get
attack like below:

Enjoy your faith in the new religion.

 

And, I know what your trying to do too. The problem is that your
redefinition is
not the working definition - and you know it also.

I don't give a crap about your or "their" political agenda.

I am _not_ a sci.environment regular, I do not follow or post in that
group. And I do not understand what your fixation is with sci.environment
when you are continually posting in the automotive newsgroups.

By any chance is this Dr. Parker the same one with the fixation on
Comsumer Reports who is constantly trying to convince all the
regulars in the rec.autos.chrysler newsgroups that import cars
are better made and sell better? I suspect he is, if so, you should
rest assured that he has already been whupped good here for the
same kind of bullshit, and slunk away over a month ago.

You are not questioning, that last sentence of yours was not any kind
of question.

You are doing the same thing that many newspaper reporters do who
are prohibited from expressing personal opinion in their stories, you are
simply phrasing your so-called "questions" to express your personal views
that the idea that the temperature of the globe is increasing is a lot of
bunk.

Sort of like the "have you stopped beating your wife" kind of question.

You see, there you go again, mixing the conclusion with the observation.

"if a scientist does not believe that man's activities are
causing global warming,"

that's a conclusion

"if his data and research doesn't show a warming,"

That's an observation.

There are many scientists out there who show observations that there's a
warming
trend right now who DON'T believe man's activities have anything to do with
it.

Then please take this _back_ to the sci.environment newsgroup and stop
troubling the automotive newsgroups with it.

Why are you posting bitches about sci.environment in the automotive
newsgroups? Many regulars in the automotive newsgroups are keenly
interested in the global warming debate, extremely few to none are
interested in the opinions of the sci.environment newsgroup.

No, the point it proves is that you have communicated that you do not
believe that the temperature of the globe has been increasing. If this
is a misunderstanding, then you can easily set it right by saying that I
have misunderstood your intentions and that you do indeed believe that
the temperature of the globe is increasing.

The fact that you have not, even given plenty of opportunity to do so,
pretty much proves that you do not believe that the globe's temperature
is increasing. So I do not understand why you are so defensive about
it.

No, we redicule someone who implies that they don't believe in something
then when pressed, claims that they do believe in it, then flops back the
next post claiming they don't believe in it.

Everybody starts out with an opinion on something. The open minded people
are willing to change their mind in the face of evidence to the contrary of
what they believe. The closed minded people are not. Your free to chose
which group you want to be in.

Why then are you posting this observation of sci.environment in the auto
newsgroups?

No it is NOT the "same difference" This thread is in the auto groups, not
the sci.environment newsgroups. Discussion about what sci.environment is
saying about something is inappropriate here.

"global warming" has much relevance to automotive technology for many
obvious reasons. If the reasons for global warming are eventually believed
to be pollution from automotive tailpipes, there will be of course a great
work by many governments to make automotive ownership extremely
uncomfortable. If however the reasons for global warming are eventually
believed to be pollution from, say, developing countries burning up their
forests in open fires and stoves without any pollution control, then auto
ownership will likely be unaffected.

Rubbish. Science is a risk game like any other field of human endeavor.

Scientists that do not wish to take risks may be free to toe the party
line. They will never be critized and have to worry about perhaps losing
their jobs - but their careers will spent doing grunt work or fill-in work
for already established theories.

By contrast scientists who don't follow the popular path will of course
take a very big chance of losing their cushy jobs, etc. If they are right
and time bears this out, then they eventually become regarded as pioneers
and the expert of the experts in their fields, and can charge enormous
sums of money for their opinions, work, etc. However, it wouldn't be
a risk if the majority of people taking it succeeded. Thus, this is why you
read about no funding/wrecked careers/etc. because the majority of
scientists that take big risks, are in fact, wrong.

It is no different in any other field.

Take my own career. Over the last decade I have worked for 6 different
software startup firms. All 6 started out with bright promise, then went
bankrupt. If any one of those had been successful, I would be retired
at age 35. But do you see me whining about "broken career, blah blah blah?"
No. I took my huge risks, and the luck of the dice wasn't in my favor. Too
bad. The majority of people in my position failed also. But if it wasn't
for
the majority of us failing, the reward for success wouldn't be as high as
it is.

The threat of losing 10 years of my life where I could have been working
steadily to build up a nest egg was not any deterrent to me to getting
involved
with software startups. If it had been I would have washed my hands of
software startups after the first couple of failures. I don't believe that
the
threat of "no funding, wrecked careers" is much of a deterrence to
risk-taking
scientists, either.

I use terms like Other Side because you are putting yourself on a side.
Your claim that your merely questioning is laughable.

What IS your point?

And are you questioning it? It sure seems like it to me.

paranoia will destroya

Because you are not simply asking questions, you are making statements
that are phrased in the form of questions. You probably have caught
several youngsters with this trick who haven't been around the debate
game for a while, but your not in the kid's playroom anymore. We aren't
dumb enough to fall for that sort of stunt here.

In short, you ask a question like "is the globe warming" then are told "yes"
But you don't want to believe this, so like a little kid you just keep
asking
"but is it _really_ warming" over and over again. You won't be happy until
someone tells you "no it's not" then you will accept what that person says
without question.

If your all so fired up wanting to question things, then why aren't you
_equally_ questioning the global warming disbelievers? You seem to
be fixated on questioning the global warming believers, but very
uninterested in questioning the global warming disbelievers.

No Brent, it's obvious to everyone that you are just one more
anti-temperature-change bigot out there who simply doesen't
believe that the temperature of the globe is increasing. You should
not be in the least suprised that you get raked over the coals by
the global warming believers, they can sense a hostile question
even if they may not be able to elucidate what your doing.

Correct, because your not really questioning.

Brent, it is not my responsibility to give you a bunch of cites
proving global warming. I have read enough to be satisfied
that the temperature of the globe is increasing, slowly. The
material that I have read has also convinced me that nobody
has any proof of what is causing it, and furthermore that this
is not the kind of problem that your ever going to have any
real proof of what the cause is.

Either you believe that it's warming or you don't. If you don't
then you obviously have issues to deal with, with all of the
people that have published their observations claiming that the
globe's temperature is increasing. Please take it up with them,
any Internet search engine will give you plenty of people to
bitch at.

What is applicable in these newsgroups is the RESULTS of
any global warming debate resolution. In short, nobody here
really cares if the globe is warming or not, because that is
imaterial. We don't really give a crap about all the people that
believe the globe is warming who believe that it's not anything
that man is doing. Nor do we give a crap about the people
that believe in global warming and believe that it's industrial
processes or wood-burning or whatever that is causing it.

No, Brent, what we all care about is the large number of
people who believe that global warming is being caused by
automotive emissions, and are therefore trying to ban them
or curtail their use. That is what we in the automotive newsgroups
care about. I'm sorry that you cannot get anyone here to join
with you in your crusade against sci.environment, but it's
obvious that your pretty young and don't know much yet about
how the world works, and how people view life, risk, and
a great many things.

Ted

 

I am not trying to do anything, but point out how the environment
is being used as an excuse to further a political agenda. How the
processes of funding and career advancement stifle research that
does not go along with politics. It seems that this bothers you
and it's just easy for you, like many others to accuse me of being
in some group of global warming denialists.

It's happened many times. I question something as is valid in science
and I get a self proclaimed scientist like Dr. Parker calling me a
right-winger. I get people like you accusing me of trying to discredit
global warming.

Then why the **** are you replying? Because my entire set of points in
this thread have been about how the environment is being used as an
excuse to further a political agenda. And how those politics then
guide the science. How it's become more of a religon, where questioning
is not welcome.

There have been several cross posts, and your posting on this topic
comes across exactly the same as theirs.

Yes. He's just the one you'd know best.

Go back to oh about 1996 and read my posts.

I have never stated it was bunk. Never implied it was bunk. Only that it
is not rock solid, undebatable fact that the world is warming due to
human activity.

And greys are sitting on my couch right now.

You are really stretching things to try to fit me as a square peg into
the round hole you have.

Exactly. That's why the whole thing is debatable. But bring up those
studies in a group of true believers and watch what happens. Just watch.
They'll try to discredit those scientists personally as shills of the
carbon industry. I've been called a right-winger just for mentioning
such studies.

I didn't revive the the thread, you could stop posting too.

My deepest apoligies, I don't keep track of which global warming thread
branches are crossposted there and which aren't.

I've stated no such thing. Not at all. That's you, trying to fit me
into your pretermined box.

I must repent, and declare that I believe the reglion. Did you ever think
that I might be *GASP* UNDECIDED? That I haven't seen anything that has
made me set roots on either side of the issue? Nahh. That doesn't fit
how you see the world.

I haven't seen anything that says you believe fords are the best cars made,
therefore you must hate fords. That's your logic applied to car brands.

Why do I have to believe either way? Because it suits your us-vs-them
idea of the topic?

I've never said I believe or disbelieve.

No. Maybe you do. You are projecting your behavior on me.

Cute. I'm tired of trying to discuss this with you, it appears your
mind is of the closed variety that has to stuff other people in nice
little slots.

Yet you feel free to use insult and ridicule on me because I believe
the environment is being used as an excuse for a political and social
agenda that in part is to severely limit private automobile use likely
to only the privledged elites. After all, developing countries will
still get to spew as much CO2 as they like forcing a relocation of
manufacturing and in turn the wealth that comes from making things.

It's not comparable to what science is supposed to be vs. what it is.
In business, that is exactly what it is supposed to be. Science is
supposed to be about asking questions, finding answers. But some questions
are not allowed to be asked. Even when there is good solid evidence to
ask those questions, if it doesn't follow the established line forget
about ever getting the *CHANCE* to persue it in most cases. In business
just show evidence that it can make money and sell it that way and you
have a chance. In science, work that challenges established belief, no
matter how good the foundation, is very difficult to get off the ground,
many times with virtually no chance. Evidence that doesn't fit convention
is even known to disappear or be destroyed.

No, you've put be on the other side because I question your belief and
you can only think in us-vs-them terms.

See above.

Before you said I wasn't.

Ahh yes, more personal attack.

*laugh*. Ok smarty pants, tell me why CO2 from china is less harmful
to the globe than CO2 from the USA? Why is it better for the environment
to have widgets made in china instead of new jersey for a buyer in Texas?
Answer that one. Because the so called attempt to limit global warming,
the kyoto treaty, and others like carbon credits and the like give nations
like China a pass but not ones like the USA. Net result will be more reason
to relocate manufacturing to china. And if manufacturing is relocated from
countries with environmental protections to those without, how has this
helped the environment?

Have done *NOTHING* of the kind. I demand you prove your charge with
links to revelant posts in a usenet archive.

I have on occasion. Thing is I don't have to. Others do, I can sit
on the sidelines and watch.

How does, I don't like their political agenda become that I don't believe
the globe is warming? I don't know if the globe is warming or not. What
I dislike, what I am "hostile" about is the methods being used to
protect the environment that won't. Methods that will actually *HARM*
the environment. So yes, I question policies I see as harmful to the
environment. I demand answers, and get personal attack in return.

If CO2 and global warming is a problem why are china and others exempt?
Why do they get a free ride to destroy the environment and not learn
from past experiences elsewhere? Why is it that because I ask these
questions does it make me an "anti-temperature-change bigot"?

Let me put this way, why would someone who believed humans are
wasting resources and destroying the planet not question things
like the kyoto treaty that only displace the destruction from point
A to point B? Solutions that do more harm than good because point
A has systems in place to protect the environment but point B doesnt?

Why, as someone who can be best described as one who wants to conserve
resources, which is what I believe in, should not question the motives
of the people pushing an environmental policy using global warming as
it's reason that does *NOT* conserve resources nor protect the
environment for a large portion of the planet? (let alone do anything
to slow *GLOBAL* CO2 output)

Didn't ask you to.

Yet you get all upset when I question environmental policy based
on the assumption that CO2 from 'west' especially the USA, and not
china or other 'developing' (why a nation that has had nuclear weapons
for decades and space program is called 'developing' seems kinda
of silly to me anyway) nations.

A person is insane, off balance if they don't believe or haven't
been convinced.

Then you shouldn't have any problem with my questions regarding
the 'solutions' or mitagtions of global warming. Shouldn't bother
you in the least. Yet it does. So much so, you've taken considerable
time to discredit me. I guess you won't care when the chinese get to
drive and you don't? When their lack of a CO2 cap lets them drive,
but you just cannot afford the carbon tax.

If they care about that, if you care about that, then my questions
shouldn't bother you. You shouldn't have to recast them as something
different, you shouldn't have to attack me personally. Yet you do.
My view that global warming is being used as an excuse to further
a political and social agenda, one that doesn't favor the personal
automobile should not bother you. But you attack me instead.

Crusade? no, but if you want to take up that role, as you have, expect
the shoe to be fitted. Maybe you should read the cross posted threads
some time. The true believers really do think you shouldn't have
a car.

Nothing like personal attack, it's all you got. You make up
arguements for me, attack my character, my maturity, my sanity,
but the one thing you didn't do, was answer my question(s). Instead
you have decided to change my questions to different ones. It's
really sad.

So when you can tell me why CO2 from china is ok, and it's not
ok from the USA, let me know.

 

Gee... I included a NOAA report in my list... ?

 

We've seen more than enough of this thread in rec.autos.makers.
jeep+willys. Please remove that group from your replies.

--

 

You are a brain dead ass to start this massive cross post back up.

Please trim your headers so you only abuse the group you normally post
to rather than half the automotive world.

Mike