Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

You asked "Were you offended?". I replied "No..." You kept your direct
question and my direct answer in your reply. Why do you ask the same
question again?

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

 

Let's just say that my comments were tongue-in-cheek, as in: I believe
everything liberals tell me, so I must believe Al Sharpton when he
indicates that we should be offended, and the subsequent theater of
Sharpton publicly stating that he isn't sure that he accepts Dean's
apology to him on behalf of all black people. It just points out the
absurdity of the liberal mind being demonstrated by the so-called
Democratic contenders' debates.

I particulary liked the question (and the "candidates" answers) about
whether the candidates preferred Macs or pc's. It showed how serious
they all aren't.

Apparently Dean felt that people should have been offended by his own
remarks since he personally felt compelled to apologize to Reverend Al
for having made them. Again, since I believe whatever liberals say, I
must agree with Dean that his remarks were offensive to people. (note:
more tongue-in-cheek sarcasm that doesn't warrant followup by serious
questions)

Heh! You have to ask?

Who knows (and does it really matter)? He publicly refused to accept
Dean's apology. So who am I to believe? Reverend Al is obviously
either truly offended or playing a part in a pathetic bit of theater. I
think that the character that Sharpton plays demands that he pretend to
be offended. Maybe that's what you think he's doing? Or do you think
he's genuinely offended? (I think I've got you wrapped around the axle
no matter how you answer. If there's a third alternative to how I
interpreted the "event" that would put either Dean or Reverend Al or
both in a good light, then throw it on the table.)

Howard Dean could tell me personally to my face that I am an idiot and I
would not be offended since I would consider the source.

The point in my original post was that Dean (and all the other
"candidates") is deparately trying to convince people to vote for him,
and that the south (and all of its constituency) is critical to whoever
gets elected. All the candidates know this, but he basically stepped on
his dork trying to appease certain "favored" groups and in that attempt
offended practically everyone who would otherwise potentially take his
remarks seriously (that would not include me). Hence my reference to
his spastic tap dancing. Is it really that hard to comprehend? You're
reading way too much into this (or at least pretending to, but I think
your charade is backfiring on you).

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

 

50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!

 

Bzzzt. Wrong answer. Thanks for playing.

The fact is that while greenhouse gas emissions may affect the rate of
change, one does not know if it will increase or decrease that rate,
as one does not know what nature will actually be doing from one year
to the next.

More pseudo science. Fact is the planet just exited an ice age a
short time ago, and so if the planet continues as would be expected,
we have another 40,000 years of warm up. Of course, the last decade
has actually shown a cooling trend, so nobody knows.

Note: studies you choose to read are not all inclusive. Even once
respected magazines such as Scientific American are now refusing to
even publish the work that proves global warming is a farce. So how
you expect pseudo science magazines like discover to educate you, we
will never understand.

Yes it has been subject to scrutiny, but the liberal media refuse to
publish all the evidence that shows it is a liberal fallacy.

 

You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.

 

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, (Brent P)

Oh, so it's not the economic destructiobn of the US?

You're assuming that a belief in global warming also means that you
think Kyoto was a good idea.

That's not the only option - in fact, it's one which the US should not
agree to.

You just want to bash an obviously flawed treaty which the US will never
enter into - got anything ideas on tackling the actual problem?

 

Apparently Dean felt that people should have been offended by his own

Actually, I read his apology. It was better than I thought. He
apologized for hurting Al's feelings. Not for making the statement.
There's a BIG difference.

I think he's playing. I agree with you here.

Yes. Of course, that is the nature of politics. The question, when
you vote, is not whther the candidate is trying to get your vote. The
question is how.

Dean is raising money in a grassroots camapaign, and he publishes all
his policies, in detail, on his website.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/ (Click on the issues)

You can't say that about any other of the top candidates.

I would contend that offending Al Sharpton and raising a brouhaha in
the media is NOT a bad thing for Dean. I would contend that this is
precisely the sort of incident that will make him more popular with
people like you and I. Although less popular wih a minority of angry
idiots that won't matter in the long run.

 

They also spend their lives trying to get the next research grant.
Sensational topics get more research money.


Matt

 

I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts? And
there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
sell them on to the developing markets. I wish Australia hadn't
followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.

Cheers,
Steve

 

Yep. Not really an issue. I can only see ways to develop alternative
technologies that have less impact on the environment as being an
opportunity, not a problem.

They've spent more time repudiating the findings of the UN
investigations, and less time offering alternative emissions reduction
programs. The attitude seems to be obstructive, not constructive.

Kyoto may be short-sighted, but at the moment, we've got the old 80/20
rule happening. IE, 80% of the problem being caused by 20% of the
people. (This isn't specific figures, more a figure of speech). If
developed nations can reduce their impact on the environment - it's
going to be a dramatic improvement. It would also make the
technologies to do this cheaper, and therefore promote the use in
developing countries of cleaner, more efficient setups. But you've
gotta start somewhere. At the end of the day, I can't, tell someone
else what to do. I just have to look at my own backyard, and keep it
clean. It'd be nice and neighbourly if other members of the community
did that too, of course. What I don't understand is reticence to do
so.

Then what is the alternative? Lead by example, I say. Make it easier
for developing countries to take advantage of our example at the same
time.

I understand what you're saying. I do believe that developing
countries need to have checks on their outputs as well. Having said
that, I still stand behind what I've said, above.

So what's an alternative policy? The Australian Government hasn't
been at all keen on Kyoto, either, but I haven't heard anyone propose
an alternative.

Bugger the left. What's better for everyone?

They're trying to deal with the biggest sources first. And the ones
that can most easily adapt. And the ones that are always trying to
lead the way. So far, not much of a lead.

Not guilt, not punishment. Just noting that the countries that make
the most impact can be making the biggest changes...

Cheers,
Steve

 

Again, no problem there. Nobody has a problem developing technology
that conserves resources, etc etc.

NO IT ISN'T. Because the means of production simply get RELOCATED.
Worse then that, they get relocated to places without the environmental
protections of developed nations.

Make all relocated factories be as clean as those in developed nations.
Make the carbon quotas based on the *ITEM* being made, not by where it's
being made. If this is a global problem the way the left says it is, it
needs to be addressed as such. It's being addressed as a 'the USA is
evil and must be punished' issue. And that will meet significant and
continued resistance.

You want the people in the USA to get behind it? Demand that factories
in china, india and elsewhere meet the same requirements as ones in the
USA, Germany, Japan, France, UK, etc. They are being built by or with
the money of the same corporations. The money being made comes from the
same markets, so there is no reason to allow them to be dirty. Do that
and sell it as leveling the playing field for the american manufacturing
worker and you might get some support. Until then, you are telling
americans that you want their jobs to go to china.

See above for an alternative. If this is a real, global, serious problem
then there is no reason to allow nations that are manufacturing on the
scale of china not be restricted.

So you now see why kyoto is hopelessly flawed, can only make matters
worse, yet support it because? It feels like something is being done?
It feels good? I want to see real solutions, not ones that feel good.

If CO2 is really a problem, then it should be considered on a per
product manufactured, per unit of fuel consumed, etc basis. Not a
which-country-emits-it basis.

Conservation. But the kyoto treaty doesn't encourage conservation, it
encourages relocating manufacturing.

Again, doing it that way is hopelessly flawed. The CO2 sources simply
get moved to where there are no restrictions. If this is a global problem
then what difference does it make if the widgets people in the USA
buy are made in China or Ohio? The Kyoto treaty concept tells is there
is some difference between the two, or the people who drafted it were
too stupid to figure out what it obviously encourages. In either case
it's worthless. It's a direct parallel to addressing fleet fuel
consumption with CAFE. All CAFE did was give us even lower fuel economy
then we would have had without it as people converted from large passenger
cars to passenger trucks.

There would be *NO* impact. The factories that make things would get
shutdown and new ones would be built in china, india, etc and the
products shiped back to the markets in the developed countries. So
instead of just the CO2 from the widgets, you get the CO2 from building
a new factory plus the CO2 transporting the widget to market.

So it's not a solution at all. It makes no impact other than maybe
put more CO2 into the air. Lovely. Typical feel-good policies that
are using the environment as an excuse for something else, nothing
more.

 

Why does it make you feel better that the CO2 released to make the
crap americans buy comes from factories and power generation facilities
with no required pollution controls in china instead of much cleaner
facilities in say Ohio?

Or is your proposal to stop americans from buying the crap?

Another illogical posistion straight out of the sci.environment crowd.
That the evil-corporations and government facilities that spew pollutants
unless forced not to in the 'west' will be clean all of their own accord
in china, india, etc. It's one or the other, either they are clean and
efficient of their own accord or they have to be forced.

From what I've seen on a couple issues Australia's elected officals seem to
know a hopelessly flawed policy when they see it. Maybe that's why they
didn't follow the US lead on CAFE.

 

What if we implemented the Kyoto treaty and many millions lost their
jobs and homes in the resulting recession/depression and then
discovered that the treaty did nothing to prevent the 'global
warming'?

 

Then I would be right and Lloyd would be wrong.

Ed

 

The likelihood of my voting for Dean or any of the other existing
Democratic contenders (including Hillary if she decides to be the hero
to save the party from it's current demise) with or without this latest
debacle is less than 0.1%.

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

 

Because the US emits 2 times as much CO2 as the next nation (Russia) and over
4 times as much on a per capita basis as any other nation.

No, that's the first step.

If you've got a head wound and a scratch on your arm, which do you treat
first? The head wound gushing blood or the scratch?

 

Ludicrous. There are plenty of environmental problems; scientists hardly have
to make one up.

Which is as valid when it comes to science as it would be, about, say, cardiac
surgery or warp drive.

 

That's why I've directed people to groups like NASA, EPA, IPCC, NOAA, American
Geophysical Union, National Academy of Sciences, etc. But noooooooooo, there
right-wing idealogues just keep spouting propaganda from right-wing web sites.

 

What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.