Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Shhh....!!!!! Don't say anything about this in California or they'll put a
"fart tax" on garlic, salsa & refried beans!

 

Thanks for posting the link & text, Doug. Indeed, back in the mid-70's
theses same looney greens took all the "global cooling" crap just as
seriously as they do all the hand wringing carbon dioxide theories now.

 

Right now you guys get the only real American cars still made. Even if they are
made in Australia.

--Aardwolf.

 

Other than mustang, vette, and viper.

 

I'll ignore the rest of your opinions on the subject. But explain to me
how not clear cutting forest will help with global warming - assuming
the clear cut land is returned to use as a new forest. It is my opinion
that young trees that replace old stand trees when a forest is clear cut
actually tie up more CO2 per year than slower growing old trees. In fact
I am sure that this is true. There may be other unrelated reasons for
preserving old growth forest, but reducing CO2 concentrations is not one
of them. In fact I think if you are only concerned about tying up more
CO2 you should advocate clear cutting all old growth forest and replace
them with faster growing trees that will tie up CO2 at a faster rate.

Personally I think global warming has been latched onto my modern
Ludites as a justification for their desire to smash everything and
return to the non-existent pristine past.

Ed

 

Explain to me the methods being used to measure the average global
temperature that are both precise enough and consistent enough to
separate a 0.4 degree C temperature rise out of the normal background
variation over the past 1000 years. Explain to me any computer model
that can predict 1 degree C average global temperature rises with any
certainty when they can't even predict tomorrow's temperatures with 3
degrees on a consistent basis.

I assume you don't know any scientist who adjust their data to fit their
preconceived notions.

Weren't those cold fusion guys "scientist"? Heck I think they were even
honest scientist.

Do you honestly think the Earth's environment has ever been static and
unchanging? Can you say with any certainty that global warming is worse
than the environmental changes that would occur in its absence?

Literally billions of tons of carbon have been effectively removed from
the atmosphere over the last few billion years. At some point, might me
have too little CO2?

History is full of widely accepted theories that turned out to be wrong.
Why are you so sure that Global Warming isn't one of these?

I assume you believe that all scientist and government agency are
completely honest and that they would never jump on a popular bandwagon
as means of securing funding to support their careers/agencies? It has
been my experience that people who say things are OK tend not to secure
funding and soon need to find something else to do.

Even if you are 100% right about global warming, might not the fixes be
worse than doing nothing?

Ed

None of us is as dumb as all of us

 

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:16:28 -0500, "The Ancient One"

Not as dumb as you, who can't remember back as far as 8 months ago.

 

They can't AUCL(?) would scream about discrimination against hispanics or
lovers of mexican foods. and Taco Bell would lobby congress...

rhys

 

Yep, little while back though.

 

Either that or they'll perfrom exhaust emission tests and make sure
everything's CARB certified ;-)

 

The Monaro and HSV's outdo the 'Stang by a fair margin, and the 'Vette and
Viper are actually American competitors/derivations to/of the European
Supercar and High Performance Sports cars.

rhys

 

Thats been sunk with all hands, too much noise from the farmers pointing out
they're already paying industry good levies for exactly that sort of
research.

rhys <- NZer

 

Not if it was a mobile trailer house, WMD's are generally pretty mobile.

In any case who is "we". The CIA certainly wasn't claiming that Saddam had
WMD's
and why did the Bush administraton blow a deep-CIA agent's cover in revenge?
And
why haven't they come up with the name of the person in the Bush
administration who
released the name?

Your wasting your time attempting to use WMD's as a justification for going
to war
in Iraq. Nukes might have been there 10 years ago, or partial nukes, but
it's preposterous
to suggest they were there before the war. The case is a bit stronger for
bio agents,
but still inconclusive. It is clearly obvious to anyone with any education
that basing the
Iraq invasion on WMD was a lie.

However what is not clear to most people, even now it seems, is that WMD's
are not
the only justification for a unilateral invasion of another country. Lloyd
may be able to
make a coherent argument that Bush was lying when Bush used WMD's as pretext
for
going to war in Iraq. But there is absolutely no logical, reasonable, or
moral argument
Lloyd can make for allowing a dictator to remain in power who for fun would
cut the eyes
and tongues of people out of their heads, who killed his own brother in
broad daylight
and who committed numerous other atrocities. It was a terrible terrible
thing for the
nations of the world to stand idly by and allow this to continue year after
year, and they
damn well know it, they know it even now because they all want to pretend
that Iraq
doesen't exist right now. The invasion of Iraq was justified on moral and
human rights
grounds, and does not need further justification. Iraqi's today, despite
the mess in the
country, are better off now than they were under Saddam.

It is a shame that the President has not made this clear. But I can tell
you why he has not,
because if he did, then he would have to hold his own administration up to
the same moral
standards. This is why people in the Bush administration have no problem
with basically
committing treason by revealing the name of one of our better CIA agents,
thank God she
was in the country when they did it. In short, the Bush administration is
totally morally
bankrupt. They do not believe that the invasion of Iraq was justified on
moral grounds
simply because they themselves give absolutely no credit to morality. All
they care about
is personal power and greed.

Ted

 

It is true that this is what the politicians do, but keep in mind politics
is
an inexact science, and quite frequently to get to There from Here, you
have to go sideways.

Look at it this way. We all probably can agree that polluting the air is
bad,
although I'll allow that there's no doubt disagreement on the levels of what
constitutes pollution. We all can probably agree that acid rain today is
doing millions of dollars of damage to buildings and plantlife every year,
and is being caused by air pollution.

The problem is that in order to force the polluters to clean up their air
pollution to the extent that acid rain disappears, we have to bring pressure
to bear on them. If just the existence of acid rain itself was enough to
get the public riled up enough to bring sufficient pressure, then there
would
be no problem. Unfortunately the public is unable to grasp complex ideas
(well the majority of people are it seems) so loses interest in this whole
acid
rain thing rather quickly.

So, the politicians picked global warming, which is ill defined but a
simplistic
concept, and serves the purpose of grabbing the public attention, getting
them
to apply pressure to their elected officials, who apply pressure to the
polluters,
who eventually when this goes on long enough, finally buckle and pay the
money
to install the scrubbers needed to clean the smokestack emissions so that
the
acid rain problem finally gets fixed. In the last analysis, neither side
really gives
a danm about global warming, the argument is really over acid rain. Only
the
general public is being manipulated by the image of global warming.

The politicians used this quite effectively to shut down the logging of old
growth
in the Pacific NW with the Northern Spotted Owl. People's eyes would glaze
over when you started talking about biodiversity, wildlife corridors, the
fact that
just about all the old growth was gone and none of the sawmills here had
retooled
for smaller logs and once the old growth was gone their lumber companies
were
just going to ashcan the mills anyhow. But, an owl is a simple thing to
understand
and as well you get the icon of "wise owl" and so forth. They certainly
didn't pick
the Northern spotted rat to fight over.

That is how politics works. It's ugly, but nobody has thought up anything
better.

Ted

 

If you don't clearcut old growth, you aren't able to manufacture anymore
these
nice, long, smooth-grained beautiful pieces of wood. Thus, the yuppies with
the SUV's see a bunch of icky knotty pine in the bins at Home Depot, and
lose
interest in their remodeling plans, thus are not driving the SUV back and
forth
from Home Depot all the time.

;-)

Ted

 

Bzzzt. Again, someone does not know what "theory" means in science. We have
something called "atomic theory." Does that mean atoms are not factual?

It is a fact. It is as factual as atoms. It is as much a cornerstone of
biology as atoms are of chemistry.

 

Bravo!

 

as a justification for their desire to smash everything and return to the
non-existent pristine past.
Precisely, the entire theory, and it's purported solutions, concur with the
anti-society philosophies of these green gadflies. Some of the scientific
community falls into line just to be on the wine & cheese party guest lists.

 

The concept of acid rain is relatively simple compared to the computer
climate models and everything else being used to try and 'prove' global
warming theories. If anything just put acid rain into a computer model
and the same folks should be made to follow along.

Global warming theory is being used for a political agenda because it
allows for _control_ of the population, control of economies, central
control by self appointed elites. It allows them to micro manage
everyone's life for the good of the planet. Meanwhile they get to
continue living the way they want. Note how dr. parker screams about
putting too much CO2 into the air yet drives a mercedes benz. This
is rather typical. There'd be alot more credibility if drove an insight
or a metro.

Then there are all the environmental policies designed to constrain
developed western nations while allowing 'developing' nations to
make all the same mistakes that were made in the west. We know better
now. If it were about the environment the policies would not be
structured this way. Needless harm to the environment simply would
not be allowed.

 

And in your pointing that out, you implied that trying was pointless, as
you ridiculed someone that said you should.

I did read it. I read it again. Apparently, those that read it didn't
take it the way you intended, but the intent was clear. You insulted
someone that said you should predict the actions of others.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"