Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

A conservative is merely a liberal that has learned to read.

Welcome aboard.

 

Or, an idealist who gets his first pay check and realizes he's just spent
50% of his time working for the Government.

 

And we asserted that the only reason he wouldn't prove they didn't exist
was because he still had them. We were wrong.

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

 

Were we? Just because we have not yet found them does not mean he does not
have them.

 

Heh heh! I'll bet the Lloyd types are working hard to purge that page
from the internet so they don't have such an uphill battle when debates
on the subject crop up - you know - if you can't produce it, it never
happened - just like they seem to have purged everything of the videos
of Robert Kennedy sitting immediately behind McCarthy during his
hearings, videos that you used to see occasionally up until about 8 or 9
years ago. Must have cost the Kennedys a pretty penny to get rid of
those all over the place.

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

 

And they'll badmouth mean old big business for moving their operations
offshore to survive. Guess that's a flaw in their plan they didn't
anticipate - but I'm sure they're working on plugging that "loophole" as
we speak to make the knocking down of our standard of living that you
speak of more robust.

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

 

Lloyd was absent the day they taught the law of the conservation of
mass/matter.

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

 

Just having convictions isn't enough. Just because someone has
convictions doesn't mean I respect them. Hitler had convictions.

I'd say that it makes a heck of a lot of difference **WHAT** those
convictions are. Bin Laden? Bush? - yeah, I'll take Bush any day.

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

 

Unless the UN and their resolutions are meaningless. Oh wait -
apparently they are by their lack of followup!

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

 

Actually both sides are doing things that hurt the standard of
living for average citizens in the USA IMO. Each for different reasons.
The left wants control of the people (gun control, control of the
schools, control over thought and speech, control over how people
live, etc), the right wants cheap labor at home (cheap illegal immigrant
labor, direct job-to-job competition with china,india and others). But
that's just my opinon.

 

He preferred the color temperature of nuclear fusion, though.

 

Just like I said - when you have nothing to say, you right-wingers
resort to name-calling.

FYI, I vilify both ends of the political spectrum equally. And
hypocrites abound everywhere.

I don't believe it for a second.

B.S. Nader was well to the left of Gore, and you sound just like a
commercial for Rush or Hannity.

Uhh-huh. As if there was a chance you'd vote any other way...

 

Yet another right-wing lie.

No beginning worker spends even half that amount to The Government.

More bullshit propaganda from the right.

 

LOL. Perfect.

 

I'm not claiming it is. I am in fact claiming EXACTLY what you are
saying - having convictions isn't enough.

Indeed. As does bin Laden and the Ayatollah, etc, etc.

Yes, it's true. Respecting someone just because he follows up on his
convictions is stupid.

Not me. Moral relativism is repugnant.

I'll take *neither.*

Bush is no more worthy of respect for following up his convictions
than bin Laden or Hitler - if you have to lie or propagandize to get
others to do your bidding, then maybe your cause is not as just as you
imagine...

 

In defense of Gerald, it dpends on your loaction and the starting pay. I'd guess some engineers in high
tax staes could be approaching 50% when you include Social Security (both sides, not just "your half") and
state and city taxes. And if you include all the taxes you pay, both direct annd indirect, I'd guess a lot
of people pay more than 50% of their income to various governments.

Ed

 

Climatic change is a tremendously complicated matter, but the basic
tenets are given:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, i.e. it traps solar heat in the atmosphere.

The modern world is spewing huge amounts of CO2 in the air.

The atmospheric content of CO2 has risen some 30% in the last 50
years. This is a huge amount for such a short time.

Climate models predict a rise in average temperature if the
atmospheric content of CO2 is significantly raised. Also it predicts
that ice caps will start melting.

Average worldwide temperature has risen in the last 50 years. Also,
ice caps are thinning by 3% a decade since the 70s.

These are facts. They are not conclusive. Some scientists believe
that there may be other reasons for this temperature rise, or even
that we are only observing a natural temperature variation. They may
be right. Still, it is also a fact that the great majority of
scientists believe that there is already a clear increase in global
temperature and that human activity is responsible for it.

If worldwide temperature keeps rising the repercussions will be
catastrophic - a true catastrophe of biblical proportions, an
unmitigated disaster for the quality of living of all humanity. This
too is a fact.

People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
to protect it. Most industries have to prove the safety of their
product, so why should some industries be exempt?

Oil and automobile industries will not be able to prove the safety of
their product in the short term, which does not mean that we should
all go back to horse carriages. It means that while there is
reasonable suspicion that the emission of greenhouse gases can
destabilize the global climate, the prudent response of society would
be to limit such emissions until the repercussions are clearer.
Corrective actions will be expensive which only proves that we are now
not paying the full cost our life style - we are shifting this cost to
future generations and this is not right. There is a bill to be paid
and it is cheap to try to avoid paying it.

Visit the US government site about global warming (its message is loud
and clear): http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climate.html

For a short and serious exposition about CO2 emissions and their
effect also see http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/chem/carbon/dmreg.html

Here is a site with an opposing view (this site does not look very
serious but it includes many of the arguments given against global
warming): http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/

 

Climate models are based on temp rising with CO2 content. Just because
it comes out of a computer doesn't make it accurate or fact.

Well, here's today's
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994321

I am sure parker will just call it a 'right-wing' publication
or something to dismiss it all.

Have you, as a breathing human, puting CO2 into the atmosphere been
proven safe? CO2 is part of the carbon cycle on the planet, there's
nothing unsafe about it in and of itself. So the question becomes how much
CO2 being produced is too much if any? That's the question. With
regard to CO2 the products are safe, just as with regard to CO2
humans are safe. The question is do all these sources combined pose
a problem? Are the things that take CO2 from the air overwhelmed?
Will there be a balance point? etc etc etc. Do higher levels pose
a problem as well?

And that's the rub. that's where the *CONTROL* comes in. Where central
authority will control CO2 output and thusly practically everything.

Then we'd have to regulate the CO2 output of the horses. (Because we'd
want to make sure more CO2 was being taken from the air than put back
in)

What it really gets down to is too many people. Not having enough
resources to go around will IMO constrain human activity earlier than
anything else.

 

I wasn't aware that morons were confined to one particular political party.

DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---

[........]

[.......]

 

Well, heck, if you're going to throw in EVERYTHING, then that sort of
eliminates the "paycheck" portion of Gerald's lie.

The fact is that the consumer pays all the taxes of the companies from
which s/he buys, plus their own. If you add it all up, then yeah, you
can make the claim that we are taxed at some 50% (or whatever
arbitrary number can be picked from a hat.)

But nobody is actually taxed at that rate from The Government.
Especially just starting out - even an engineer.

It wasn't "governements" but "The Government."

And does anyone really think that taxes have been reduced by the
current administration? Maybe the very same folks who believe their
income is increased when they use a credit card...