Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

I would have thought that any "balance" would have been established
before we came along. Note your next comment. "Balance", I agree, is
not a term that should be used in this discussion.

That's not a helpful observation. On a geologic time scale, human
existance is a just a blip. I don't think the next 4 or 5 generations
will think it so small a deal, however.

Yes, most researchers seem to agree that it will.

Of course it will. The question isn't whether or not, it's how much.
The problem with our greenhouse gas emissions is that it is very
likely to increase the *rate* of change to our climate quite
dramatically.

A change in global temperatures over the next 100 years that would
normally be seen over 10,000 years is not going to be insignificant.
Nor a "good thing".

What goals could they be?

The only studies I've read that don't support the findings of the UN
research into climate change have been published by people funded by
vested interests.

I don't believe that you're right at all about this. I believe that
global warning has been subject to a great deal of scrutiny.
Industries that stand to lose money short term will argue against it,
both ways: Fossil fuel companies argue it's insignificant, insurance
companies argue that it's quite significant.

As it should.

As opposed to funding on drug research? As opposed to ozone research?
Please.

This is fine for people in the US. If you had been born and raised on
the Solomons, though, you might be annoyed to find that the world
doesn't care if your entire homeland is inundated. This is a very
simplistic argument - I'll address it more further down.

If they're right, we'll be moving almost 50% of the world's population
inland.
And it seems they are right: In the 130 years that temperatures have
been recorded, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1987, 1988, 1990, were six of the
seven warmest years recorded. The trend was interrupted by the
eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 which cooled temperatures around
the world for several years due to the amount of dust emitted into the
atmosphere. In l995 the warming trend was reestablished, with 1995
being the warmest year yet, coming in at 59.7F.

You'll probably right that off as a "blip", too.

I don't understand what you mean by "rearranging" the lives of
millions of Americans? Surely encouraging efficiency can only be a
good thing?

What on earth brings you to this conclusion?

And I think you have dramatically understated the possible problems.
The costs of climate change are already being seen, I believe, and
will continue to grow. You talk about a couple of million people
relocating like it's a small thing. How much to relocate NYC, I
wonder? Relocation is going to be a long way away, though, as you've
said. Besides, some places could be protected by sea walls etc.
However, rising sea levels are only one effect of faster climate
change. A more dramatic change is the increasing number of natural
disasters: Storms, fires, droughts, etc. Here in Australia, we've
been suffering the longest doughts on record - in some areas, over 6
years long.
So you may move everyone to Kansas, but what are they going to eat?
According to the Reinsurance Association of America, nearly 50% of the
insured losses from natural catastrophes during the past forty years
have been incurred since 1990.

Other issues include: Increased rates of insect born diseases, faster
rates of species extinction, increased warfare over dwindling food and
water supplies in some regions, etc. etc.

You talk about the effects on Americans to change the way they live.
I suggest you think more globally, and think about the possibility
that no major change needs to occur to any individual for there to be
major drops in greenhouse gas emissions. Is anyone put out by
clicking on a lower wattage light globe? Is anyone harmed by living
in a house that requires dramatically less cooling or heating, due to
good design? Does anyone really care what kind of engine gets them to
work in the morning? Is anyone hurt by the job opportunities that are
created by getting cleaner, more efficient technology up and running a
little bit quicker. After all, you have acknowledged the move from
fossil fuels is a matter of "when", not "if", so why not now? Even
the big oil companies won't lose out: One of the biggest suppliers in
Australia of photo-electric cells is BP Solar. Efficiency isn't a bad
thing, you know. Nor is change.

Cheers,
Steve

 

Social and political ones. (see earlier posts)

I've several that aren't. I've mentioned a couple recent ones in this
thread or the one it spawned from. (see earlier posts)

But it doesn't spend much time at all how the "solutions" aren't going
to a damn bit of good. Only how nasty republicans and right wingers
stand in the way.

I've learned a bit about how funding happens, he's correct. There's
money in researching global warming as being caused by human activities.

Then why does the proposed solution, the kyoto treaty, do nothing but
encourage the relocation of CO2 output to China, India, and other such
nations?

And if they are right, then their proposed solution won't stop it.
It's so obvious that their solution won't stop CO2 based global warming
that it makes me think that they either *want* it to happen, or know
it *isn't* going to happen.

The proposed solution to stop global warming by CO2 emissions is to put
tight controls on developed nations and none on developing nations. All
this will do is further fuel a relocation of factories to the developing
nations where they won't have to buy carbon credits. In turn all the
products will have to be shipped longer distances resulting in *MORE*
CO2 output per product.

Or do you think that companies will just stop making stuff and go out
of business? No, they will relocate or be replaced by businesses that
are in a more favorable environment. So, more CO2 is released into the
atmosphere. Some solution.

And here we hit the nail on the head, it's about telling americans
how to live. As much as I dislike the wasteful stereotypical american,
I can't get behind a flawed policy that only has a chance of making
things worse if the theory is correct.

I have no problems with conservation, but that's not what the left
is about in this regard. If they were about conservation they would
be for limiting *GLOBAL* CO2 output, not that of only selected nations.
They would be *for* making sure that the developing countries develop
clean instead of making the same mistakes the 'west' made over again.
We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
are using this topic as their tool to do so.

 

Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals stand
for.<

That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the decisions for
you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut up! They
know far better than you how it should be spent...

 

You guys need to learn some "science". Oh wait, thats Lloyds line.
Sorry.;-) <

As they say in New Jersey "Hey, I got ya science, right heah!".

 

When weighted for shares owned, what is the average income of
shareholders? That is, rather than asking every person in the US whether
they own and stock and averaging their income if they do, look at every
share of stock held and average the incomes of its owner. I suspect the
number would be significantly higher than 40k. I suspect that most shares
in the US are held by people making more than $1,000,000 per year (or by
companies run by people that make more than $1,000,000 per year. <

What is this, more Florida recount logic from the Left???!!!

Fact is, the majority of American workers hold shares in 401ks, IRAs, and in
savings. I KNOW it's TERRIBLE for you Socialists to think that people making
moderate incomes would actually SAVE and INVEST....what is this Country
coming to, I ask you? Obviously this money they save would be far better
left to liberal politicians to spend on bigger government. Time to raise
taxes on all those rich people making 40k a year!

 

No - I'm part of the other 5%. I can do that since I take nothing he
says seriously. Sharpton of my own? What the heck does that mean?

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

 

I thought about that before I posted. (BTW, you left out [the] Sun,
[the] Moon.)

The fact is, normal people (in the U.S. anyway), while they refer to the
other planets as [name of planet] *without* the "the" refer to the earth
as "the Earth". You want to argue with that, go right ahead. I'm not
saying it's logical that we use "the" when referring to the Earth but
not with the other planets - but it happens to be a fact of common
usage.

Ask a normal kid or adult who knows the answer to the question "How far
are we away from the sun?" and he/she will answer "The Earth is 93
million miles from the sun". It would sound weird and affectatious for
them to say "Earth is 93 million miles from the sun".

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

 

Oops - hit send too soon.

With very few exceptions (such as the common expression "What on earth
are you doing"), the only time you see or hear "earth" without the "the"
is in national media. You almost never hear it in local media (unless
someone is clearly aligning themselves with liberal politics and are
attempting to separate themselves out from the local unwashed masses),
maybe 1/2 the time in national media (probably due to the other half not
having been "properly" trained yet, or feeling it too awkward to pull
off using it and making it sound natural - because it never does for an
"American English" speaking person), except on NPR, where it's used
without the "the" probably about 95% of the time undoubtedly due to
special training or self-re-training to fit in with the "correct"
politics of NPR (and maybe partly due to a seemingly abnormally high
proportion of regular personalities with "non-American" accents, meaning
British, Australian, or whatever, in which it is normal to say "earth"
without the "the". Like I said earlier about it sounding weird and
affected when a native American (generically speaking) says someone is
"in hospital" rather than the nautural (for the U.S.) "in the hospital".

Ask any person on the street, ask your relatives (when they are in
casual conversation) a question in which they have to use the word
"Earth", and I bet you 99 times out of a hundred, they'll say "the
earth", not "earth" sans "the".

BTW - I liked your "Uranus" joke - one of my favorites too, and it
naturally fit right in with the discussion (which all jokes should to be
the funniest). My kids hate it when I use it - which makes it even more
fun. 8^)

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

 

If I want my car's carb fixed, I will go to the best mechanic I can find
to do the job.

If I want my heart fixed, I will go to the best cardiologist I can find
to do the job.

If I want information about a problem with the environment that has the
potential to wipe out life on this planet, I will go to scientists who
spend their lives investigating the environment. I will certainly not go
to rec.driving.autos for such information.

 

Naw, I didn't. Those aren't planets.

You must not get out much. Lots and lots of normal people in the US refer
to Earth as Earth. Without any "the".

DS

 

When you go to these scientists "who spend their lives investigating the
environment," please remember where the money comes from that allows them to
investigate the environment. Do not overlook the fact that these scientists
also receive their paychecks and funding for their research based on the
results of that research. It's a huge confict of interest. If they find
there is no problem with the environment, then they are basically saying
there's no more need for them to have a job. If, on the other hand, they
say there's a huge problem with the environment, they can then say that they
need more money to investigate this problem and therefore keep themselves
"useful" until that money runs out. They just have to make sure the new
research points to further problems.
IMHO

 

Were you actually offended by what Howard Dean said?

 

Were you offended? I wasn't. Speak for youself, lest you become a

So you weren't offended by what he said, yet you feel free to point
out that "some people" were offended on the basis of Al Sharpton's
assertions.

Are you a follower of Al Sharpton?

Do you seriously think that Al Sharpton was offended by Dean?

 

Another liberal missing the point?

Nobody is expecting you to think these newsgroups are doing the
research. What some are telling you though is that what you do
believe isn't coming from an unbiased source and you should seek out
the unbiased research. It is out there and it isn't what you hear
about in the mainstream media.

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

 

Well...no. There is no "unbiased research" sitting on a dark shelf
somewhere waiting to be sought out. It's up to the reader to look at a
broad enough range of research to get an idea of the variety of hypotheses
and experimental results and do the homework of finding out who paid for
each study, then make up his own mind.


DS

 

Do you seriously think that Al Sharpton was offended by Dean? <

Of course not, it was a typical Sharpton canard. No one should have been
offended by Dean's candid remark, and it had nothing to do with the South.
He was just expressing the reality of the Democrat's predicament. They have
allowed themselves to become a party that only represents urban, minority &
radical green special interests. Unless they can return to the center they
can not win over the majority, regardless of geography. The more people like
Sharpton keep referring to the South has the home of racists & rednecks, the
longer it will take for Democrats to return to relevance. As it is,
Lieberman is the only one of the bunch with even a slight chance of winning
in '04.

 

If I want information about a problem with the environment that has the
potential to wipe out life on this planet, I will go to scientists who spend
their lives investigating the environment. I will certainly not go to
rec.driving.autos for such information. <

See ya!

 

When you go to these scientists "who spend their lives investigating the
environment," please remember where the money comes from that allows them to
investigate the environment. Do not overlook the fact that these scientists
also receive their paychecks and funding for their research based on the
results of that research. It's a huge confict of interest. If they find
there is no problem with the environment, then they are basically saying
there's no more need for them to have a job. If, on the other hand, they
say there's a huge problem with the environment, they can then say that they
need more money to investigate this problem and therefore keep themselves
"useful" until that money runs out. They just have to make sure the new
research points to further problems. <

Now there someone goes again, drawing logical, insightful conclusions out of
this issue. We Green Socialists have to do something about these common
people being able to read and think if we're ever going to get this Earth
cleaned up.

 

Well...no. There is no "unbiased research" sitting on a dark shelf
somewhere waiting to be sought out. It's up to the reader to look at a broad
enough range of research to get an idea of the variety of hypotheses and
experimental results and do the homework of finding out who paid for each
study, then make up his own mind.>

It's a lot easier just believeing everything spouted by a Leftist green gas
(bag) theorist on CNN, like all the rest of your friends....

 

So are these "rules" written down somewhere, or is it by common useage?

We disagree. I probably get out as much as you do. My observations are
different, or perhaps you hang out with pretentious people. 8^) I
don't know anyone that leaves the "the" out (except in the movies, on
TV, etc.).

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