Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Evolution is a theory, change in living things is a fact.

 

Very well stated BrentP, bravo!

These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll use
any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
gain political control.

The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2 emissions
are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse for
wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
"communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to think
I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)

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.

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. <

 

Plonk

 

Got it ;-)

 

I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
seems to be a favoring of China IMO.

There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.

CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
environment second. It's the only explaination.

Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
made.

On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?

To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
combustion.

 

And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm

They still can't shake the ingrained notion that man has caused this,
but they'll come around eventually and likely add new "causes" as well.
Trouble is, it is very hard to separate causes from correlation,
especially in areas like this where it is pretty hard to run controlled
experiments. Simple observation of data can easily lead to such
confusion. I suspect many other things can be found to correlate with
global climate changes, but I'll also bet that few of them are causes.


Matt

 

I am waiting for the journal article. Until then all that will happen
is an attack on the drugereport as a 'right-wing-corporate-whore'
source and it will get dismissed. (as if drudge can't just jot down
the facts as good as someone on the new york times) I'll look
around the net for it in dec/jan if I remember about it.

 

Lloyd, what's your opinion on the sunspot theory ? This has been a long and
boring thread, but if you can give us an intelligent critique on it, I for
one would be genuinely interested.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

: And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
:
: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm

 

A very lucid post, Brent.

To me the whole Kyoto con job was simply an attempt by the UN and it's
minions to hobble the wealthier nations and impose an "un-level" commercial
playing field under the guise of "carbon credits", etc. In reality it gave
China, India and other so-called "underdeveloped" nations a pass. Much
ranting comes from the green community that the USA represents 6 percent of
the global population but consumes 30 percent of the resources. Hmmm....and
what percent of the worlds goods & services does the USA produce? Oh, right,
about 30 - 40 percent! Seems a logical and fair trade-off, unless you're
trying to legally gain an unfair advantage via "Kyoto Fiat" as your ticket
to imposition of Socialism.

As for your "what about the water" issue, I've also floated this argument to
green zealots and get no answer, same as I get no response regarding the
creation of the Sahara 7-10,000 years ago.

Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key research
green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming theory.
In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the second
half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.

The entire greenhouse gas THEORY will remain "bunkum" in my book until some
conclusive piece of research can withstand all challenges. Melting glaciers?
Happened before, unprecedented heatwaves? Nope, it's happened before, on &
on, & on. Just pray these people never gain real political power!

 

Moving them does not change ownership, nor does it make them cease to exist.

In the case of Saddam his chemical and biological weapons are and have
always been called WMD's, and yes the CIA knew he had them, he has used them
at least 12 times.

You just claimed Bush was responsible, now you admit the identity is
unknown. I leave speculation to others, the truth will be known eventually.

No one, including Bush, has ever claimed Sadam has or ever had Nukes. The
claim was that Saddam was trying to aquire them.

The case is a bit stronger for

How so, when he has used them several times already?
What further proof could you possibly require that Saddam has them than the
fact he has used them repeatedly, both against his own people and Iran?

It is clearly obvious to anyone with any education

Your opinion.

I know of no one who thought it was. WMD were only one of the reasons.

Lloyd

Lloyd is incapable of coherant thought, much less arqument.

But there is absolutely no logical, reasonable, or

I fully agree with you here.

Your opinion. But if Bush is as bad as you think, how much worse was
Clinton? In my opinion Clinton was by far the worse President this country
has ever had, bar none. That is my opinion.
My opinion of Lloyd is simple, he is a lying hypocrit.
Why do I say this? If Al Gore had won the election, and had then proceded to
deal with Iraq exactly the way Bush has done, Lloyd would be singing his
praises. To Lloyd, as a Liberal he must publicly support any decision made
by a Liberal, and he must oppose any decision made by a Conservative. Bush
is wrong simply because he is a Repulican instead of a Democrat. I would
support the President in Iraq regardless, not because I wanted this war, I
didn't, but because I do feel it had to be done, and better now than latter.
You are an intelligent person Ted, I respect your opinion on this, even the
parts I disagree with you on.
Lloyd believes himself superior to anyone who isn't a Liberal or a
scientist, so I can't help but take him down a few pegs. Beyond that I
really have no interest in discussing Iraq or politics in general, and I
vote for as many Democrats come election time as I do Republicans, depends
on who I think is better qualified.

 

Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
made such a claim.
This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even National Academy of
Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From Lloyd about it. He must
really hate being proven wrong on every statement he makes. ;-)

 

Tell that to the Apollo 13 astronauts.
What biology course did YOU take? I got two A's in biology.
I saw NOWHERE that humans breathe CO2.
Get a clue: even chemical engineering and chemistry departments
teach us that ANY chemical is toxic enough in high enough doses:
even O2 for humans and CO2 for deciduous trees.

<more me-me-me anti-environmental lunacy from a pro-capitalist extremist
caring only about their freedom to consume and pollute the world
leaving nothing else for everybody else
snipped>

How about the freedom to live in a world with a few trees left,
some clean air and water, some privacy free of overpopulation,
and where the quality of life is better than death?

 

I remember "global cooling" too. Got that in early grade school in the
late 1970s. Much like they teach kids "global warming" today. But cites
on the net were always few and far between due it being well prior to
1995.

 

CO2 is essential for plant life, so it is a life sustaining gas. Plant life
is essential to sustain animal life, so CO2 indirectly sustains human life.
You did not deserve your A's if you cannot see what he meant by his
statement.

CO2 is nowhere near that level, nor will it ever be.

So anyone you disagree with is an extremist? No one here has suggested nor
do they want to do as you suggest. What is desired is sensible, sane
management based on facts, not emotion or political bias.

We have that now, at least I do. The world is looking much better now than
it did even a few years ago. Pollution levels are dropping, streams and
lakes are cleaner, more people every year are working to make Earth a little
nicer. Change takes time, extreme measures traditionally bring less than
desirable results. Loosen up a little, you'll live longer and enjoy it more,
plus you'll accomplish far more good than your present ranting will ever
achieve.

 

Yep, they cried doom until it started warming up, then switched to global
warming and started crying doom again. I remember winters here as a kid,
temperatures normally 0 or below, snow on the ground for 60 days or more
without melting, just piling up deeper and deeper, always a fight to keep
the road here open to get to town.
We don't have weather like that now, but it will return soon, I'll bet on
that. Just a question of when. I like it better now, temperature around 30
and snowfall melts off in a few days to a week.

 

Someone is playing usenet games. Nobody is talking about "high enough
doses" in a closed box. In the global environnment he is correct so
long as one considers that plants are alive. CO2 is needed for life
on this planet, it is not poisonous in the levels being discussed (in
the atmosphere). If you think it's poisonous you shouldn't be in the
same room with yourself. Because you spew it every momement of every
day.

Then why do developing nations get a pass? Why is the environmental movement
not *DEMANDING* that the developing world use known methods of
protecting the environment? Why is the environmental movement supporting
policies that will relocate factories from the USA and western europe
where the environment is protected to nations where it is not protected?

I want a clean world where the environment is protected and not destroyed.
This is why I try to buy products made in nations with at least a decent
level of regulation to achieve that goal. However the environmental
movement doesn't stand for that. They stand for some political and social
agenda where the USA is considered evil and the standard of living must
be knocked down several pegs. The environment is being used for an
excuse and it sickens me.

And then guess what happens when someone decides to build a wind farm
near the homes of some rich liberals? They throw a hissy fit.

 

When will you people quit promoting the false idea that Pinto's were
particualrly prone to fires. They weren't. Ford made the mistake of
proving this in court and having a jury ignore this and then award a
huge amount of money to the parents of a teenager that was doing
something stupid. Ford presented evidence in court that the fuel tanks
in Pinto were no more likely to rupture ina crash than other
contemporary cars. The toatl number of people killed in Pinto fires is
lcomparable to the total number of people killed in Chevette fires,
although many more Pintos were sold. The only reason people think Pintos
were unique is becasue Ford made the mistake of taking on scum sucking
trial lawyers instead of just forking over the cash like GM routinely
does. I guess Ford learned their lesson and now they do the same thing
in most cases. Until juries are required to have a minimal level of
intelligence, this will continue. And guess who utimately pays? It is
not Ford - it is us, the suckers who let trial lawyer harvest victums to
feed their greed.

Regards,

Ed White

 

The big problem for ford with the pinto was a known failure mode (the
long seatbelt hold down bolt) that they didn't correct, but instead
did a cost calculation on. But true, pintos were no more prone to
fire than other cars of that size class and era.

 

I think I've found the paper mentioned in the article:
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf

 

They could be unrelated events, or maybe, global warming causes an
increase in CO2.

I just formulated a brilliant new theory as to the cause of global
warming. It is the Chicago Cubs. When they win the world series, global
cooling will start or maybe global cooling will start and the Cubs will
win the world series. Hard to decide on cause and effect. However, I am
certain that global warming is responsible for the increase in major
league baseball home runs. I mean after all, we all know that warmer air
is thinner and offers less resistance so the baseballs can fly further.
Or maybe all those baseballs flying further are heating the air and
causing global warming. Damn, I need a good scientist to study this for
me. I bet with a computer model I can predict the home run totals for
the next 50 years based on the increase in CO2 concentration or maybe I
can predict the rise in global temperatures based on the number of home
runs. Any volunteers? I bet there is a grant in this somewhere. Bush is
a baseball fan, maybe he'll set up a special commission to study the
effects of global warming on baseball. I smell lots of pork just waiting
to be picked up by a clever scientist and/or politician. Heck, the
envirowackos can even use this as another reason for outlawing SUVs. The
case is clear, SUVs are destroying baseball! (and maybe golf too, the
superheated air is letting those golf balls fly too d&*n far).

Ed