Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Ok, but the argument still holds that "provide for the general welfare"
doesn't imply any right to welfare citizens can lay claim to from the
government.

 

Whoops, you forgot the proof Lloyd. It was a nice opinion piece though. Where is
the peer review? Where did the article support your contention that "Humans put
out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude." The article only said
"Humans are releasing more than 8 billion tons of CO2 into Earth's atmosphere
annually, Thompson said. By comparison, the natural contribution of CO2 from
volcanoes ranges from 300 million to 1.1 billion tons per year." This only
addresses the CO2 from volcanoes, not from all of "nature."

Regards,

Ed White

 

Wrong.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/monnin2001/monnin2001.html
Levels have been varied considerably between 9,000 and 22,000 years
ago alone.

Looks like you are using political scare tatics instead of science
from the NOAA et al. Why don't you follow your own 'advice' Parker?

They were going up until about 10,000 years ago bounced up and down
slightly and then fell slightly for a couple thousand years.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=129389 (figure 2)
and http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/monnin2001/monnin2001.html

Stop hiding behind a PhD to justify your politics parker and start
presenting science with real cites to back your claims.

I've cited at least 3 different scientific papers on the topic in this
thread alone just to show you to be wrong, you've cited none in return.

 

You mean the ever expanding recount? The "one" that could never find enough
extra Gore votes so they kept expanding to the point of wanting to recount
the entire state using a redefined counting starndard?

 

That's not a peer reviewed article in a scientific journal.
Try again.

 

Corrolation vs. Causation Parker.

You could equally say the human population has increased and humans
exhale CO2 in your corrolation.... Doesn't mean it's a cause.

 

lol......its nice to see youre still the same idiot loser twit youve always
been. the same ignorant ass that claimed rear wheel only engine braking was
just as effective as 4 wheel engine braking off road on steep slick declines
because of some "scientific" reasoning you read in a magazine. it doesnt
take any "scientific qualifications" to know youre a idiot lloyd. you speak
for yourself rather well.

and just incase you were wondering, i still hope you die a slow miserable
death as the cholesterol that wraps your obese heart chokes the life out of
you. i read the atlanta journal online daily hoping to find "obese
homosexual professor dies due to massive blood loss when the gerbil he
shoved up his ass worked the tape from his claws". only a matter of time,
feltcher.

 

what a putrid existance. please die soon.

 

hey lloyd, i killed a bunny rabbit and a sapling with my atv this weekend.
enjoyed it.

you mean any kid attempting to share a meal where you may be eating?

die pig.

 

dont you mean the 37th recount was halted?

die pig. choke on your gross consumption of anything that cant out run you.

 

Can you site a source that agrees with this. There is lot of conflicting
information available, but none of it shows the concentration as being stable. The
UN site is the closest, but it show fairly wide variation in concentrations on
cyclical basis (from a low of around 180 ppmv, to a high of over 300 ppmv - not
including the current period). See the following references (some of which may be
peer reviewed):

http://www.geocities.com/combusem/CO2HIST.GIF
http://www.urhome.umd.edu/newsdesk/culture/release.cfm?ArticleID=805
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm
http://carto.eu.org/article2481.html

Can you site some evidence? Just saying I an wrong does not make me wrong.

see http://www.geocities.com/combusem/CO2HIST.GIF.

Actaully I think my opinion on global warming is just as valid as yours. How many
peer reviewed papers have you written on the subject? How much research have you
done on the subject? What qualifies you as an expert on global warming? You may
have a PhD in chemistry, but other than knowing the chemical properties of CO2, I
don't see where this gives you any special insight into global warming. It seems
to me that you picked your side of the global warming debate based on politics,
not science. I picked mine becasue of self interest. I am not interested in having
my life rearranged becasue a group of liberal chicken littles are claiming the sky
is falling.

Regards,

Ed White

 

ha! you honestly believe a piece of paper can mask your level of ignorance
dont you? that is yet another example of your true stupidity. go slam
another pork chop porky, and try not to bite your hand off this time.

 

But the point is you don't. But either you know that and don't care
because it doesn't suit your agenda, or you just believe everything
you see in the mainstream press. (With an .edu e-mail, I'm guessing
it is the first.....) Personally, your opinion matters not to me.

Have a great day!

Matt
99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4

 

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/03/commentary/dobbs/dobbs/index.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/07/news/economy/jobs/index.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/06/news/economy/jobless/index.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/07/markets/bondcenter/bonds/index.htm
http://www.business2.com/articles/mag/0,,51816,00.html

 

It requires significant cuts in the US, but not in the third world which is where
a lot of the CO2 producing activities will shift. So while the few American that
can still afford them will be driving around in Chinese built hybrid vehicles, the
Chinese will ramp up their economy and dump more CO2 into the atmosphere. The net
effect will be a wrecked US economy and global warming.

Ed

 

And if we tear apart the country and never find them, even after
exhaustively searching all possible locations, it is still possible that he
had them. It is impossible to prove that he did not have them. All we
have to go on is the certainty of our guesses. The same people that
indicated they were there also indicated locations. There was no evidence
at those locations that there are WMDs, nor indication that there were some
within the previous year that were moved to another site. The intelligence
that indicated that there were WMDs was flat out wrong on every verifiable
fact pertaining to WMDs, so why would we assume that they got one of the
unverifiable facts right?

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

 

Who is "we"? The liberal establishment?

Has "science" ever been wrong before? I seem to recall from a history of science
course that there were respected scientist in the 19th century who were predicting
that the Earth would run out of oxygen within a 100 years. Malthus claimed we run
out of food over a 100 years ago. Respected scientist believed disease was caused
by bad air. Scientist have in the past believed that the universe was filled with
a ether which connected everything together. I am sure you know of many cases
where the collective wisdom of the scientist of the ay proved to be wrong.

Ed

 

If you take $1,000,000,000 out of the private sector and move it to the
public sector and create exactly the same number of jobs at exactly the
same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that affect the economy?

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

 

You obviously didn't read about the last few rebates. Some people actually
put them in the bank.

Assuming government spending is linked to government income, when you tax
people, you take the money out of their hands and into the hands of an
entity that does not save. The government expands to fill all possible
revenue. So, a tax cut will pull money out of the active economy, causing
a recession. Leaving taxes alone does nothing. Raising taxes will
decrease the money that someone can save, and passes it along to an entity
that will spend it. As the government continually tells us, spending is
good for the economy.

Any questions?

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