Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Doing the wrong thing is scarcely ever a better move than doing nothing.

DS

 

And the NOAA proved at least one of your statements wrong.

 

We all know who they are.... labor unions, wacko-environmentalist groups,
"victim" groups.....>

....Trial lawyers.

 

With the exception of abortion, the Democrats are the anti-choice party.
At least that is what they've become as they steer farther and farther to
the left to please and patronize their supporting interest groups. <

It should not be a surprise that the party who caters most to Socialist
special interests and wants to confiscate income & property, also wants to
take away the right to bear arms.

 

Let's say the kyoto treaty is accepted. The US limits CO2 output.
Production of the crap americans buy is relocated to china and india
and the products are shipped to the USA for sale. There is a net increase
in the amount of CO2 and pollutants released. The US's per capita CO2
emissions go way down, China's and India's go up a blip (huge
populations). There has been a net increase in the CO2 released into
the atmosphere. Why does this make you happy? Why is this a goal you
strive for?

If CO2 emissions are a real problem, this solution called the kyoto
treaty doesn't address it at all, it simply shifts where on the globe
they come from. This does not matter if we are to believe that CO2
emissions cause global warming. So, the goal must be something else.
What is that something else that makes you want this to occur?

secondly, Dr. Parker, if you believe CO2 emissions to be a problem
why are you driving a mercedes benz? Why are you not driving a geo
metro or an insight or some other micro car or hybred?

Relocating factories and the means of production to the developing
nations and increasing net global CO2 output is the first step. What's
the second step? Setting all the world's oil fields on fire for the good
of the environment?

I'll tell you want I don't do, and that's stab a knife into my neck so
the blood leaks out there instead of out of my head. And that's what
the kyoto treaty does as solution to the idea that there is too much
in the way of CO2 emissions. It just moves where the CO2 goes into the
atmosphere.

So you and the rest of pro-kyoto-treaty bunch are left with the following
question that you've never been able to answer: Why is it better to
make a widget in china with no environmental controls for sale in the
USA than say in georgia with environmental protections for sale in
the USA? Is the CO2 somehow less harmful if it comes from communists?
Please explain, using scientific journal references.

 

Cite?

 

<snip flaming liberal bullshit>

when i hadnt heard from you all weekend i had hoped that youd choked to
death while slamming some form of processed fat. then i remembered that you
only post while youre at work on company time using company resources. i
have to wonder if anyone from emory would be interested in the 60,000 easily
verifiable messages youve posted all using emory resources.

 

What research grants have you gotten Dr. Parker? Where were the resulting
papers published? Just want to see the basis for which you claiming that
you know how science works.

 

But you don't go around setting your other neighbors' property on
fire to protect your life. And that's what the kyoto treaty 'solution'
does. It moves the CO2 output from the US to other nations. This does
nothing to prevent or lessen a problem that may be caused by CO2 ouput.

 

There are a lot of problems with this claim. By biggest concern is the source of
the data. A lot of the old data is being inferred from unreliable sources. The
newer data is better, but it is not always corrected for changes in the micro
environment around the reporting station.

Even if the measurements are correct, the current global average temperature is
not particularly high by historic standards. For instance, the current global
average temperature is lower than during the period around 1200 AD.

The problem I see with your constantly making this argument is that "peer reviewed
journals" select the articles they publish. If they don't agree with the author's
idea, they don't publish the article, and the author can't claim the article was
published in a peer reviewed journal. Since the people who control these journals
are usually part of the liberal establishment, they are not predisposed to
publishing articles that don't fall in line with their current biases. I suspect
that if you were on the board picking articles to be published, you would
immediately dismiss any article that challenged the global warming theory. In the
end the articles published are chosen through a political process. Not everything
can be published, so articles that don't agree with the biases of the people doing
the choosing are left out. This is a viscous circle, dissenters from the popular
liberal view are shut out, so the peer reviewed "evidence" piles up in favor of
the "commonly accepted view" and this is used as a reason for continuing to shut
out he articles that don't agree with the "commonly accepted view." In Galileo's
time the Catholic church controlled defined the "commonly accepted view", today it
is liberals and the liberal media. In neither case does this guarantee that the
"commonly accepted view" is correct.

Ed

 

It isn't, of course. Quite the opposite, in fact, as even the slowest
third-grader would readily be able to tell if asked. Kyoto won't reduce
global CO2 emissions any more than little Timmy hiding his brussels
sprouts under a mountain of mashed potatos makes the sprouts no longer
exist.

If absolute reductions in CO2 emissions are desireable, then reasonable
and proper standards must be applied to processes, not locations. Spacely
Sprockets' sprocket saponification process must emit no more than "n"
amount of CO2 per saponified sprocket, whether they're saponifying
sprockets in Shangai or Sarnia or St. Louis. And Ming Tsian Xiao's
thiotimolene resublimation process must emit no more than Amalgamated
Bizcorp Companyco's thiotimolene resublimation process, and both
companies' processes must be below "x" amount of CO2 per cubic metre of
resublimated thiotimolene if they are to be permitted to manufacture *or*
sell it in any country that is a party to the agreement.

This argument gets rejected by Kyoto proponents, however, on the grounds
that it would be unfair or impossible for "developing" countries to live
up to the same emission standards as developed countries. There are all
kinds of ways of dealing with this -- all it takes is a little creativity
and realism. (One particular form of realism that's badly needed is
independent verification of self-reporting of emissions by countries known
for lying their way out of pesky regulations. Witness UL's special
requirements for UL safety approval labels on products from China, enacted
because of pervasive counterfeiting...)

Suppose the rest of the world refuses to play along, saying "It's Kyoto as
written, no ifs ands or buts". Some might say that would tie the US' hands
and force the country to do nothing. Not so - it would serve nicely as a
defensible basis for Local Content laws of the type with which Australia
had excellent success starting in the 1960s. There would be differences,
of course; the primary goal of the Australian regulations was to protect
Australian industry, while the protection of American industry would be a
mere byproduct of regulations preventing sidestepping of US antipollution
laws in the production of goods for the US market. As under Kyoto,
consumers would very likely wind up paying more for their goods. But
with Local Content laws instead of Kyoto, they wouldn't be paying to
eliminate American jobs -- they'd be paying to create them.

Ironically, first-world environmentalists rail against what they see as a
tendency for Americans in particular to think the waste products of human
activity -- garbage, exhaust, industrial waste, sewage and so forth -- go
to a magical place called "away" when we're done with them, never to
bother anyone again. Of course this isn't so, but it is exactly the sort
of head-in-the-sand behaviour Kyoto seeks to codify. Cut down on CO2
emissions in Georgia, and we'll just pretend the reduction isn't reversed
by the resultant increase in Guangdong. That they claim this is the
enlightened position only redoubles their arrogance and lack of
perspective.

We may not like brussels sprouts, but if the rule is we have to eat 'em or
no dessert, then no fair running to China instead of eating 'em.

DS

 

Persoanlly I am all for a hefty tax on imported oil ramped up over a period of ten
years.

Ed

 

Maybe if you live in a state with no income or sales tax. The average
Marylander, for instance, is paying 8% in income and 5% in sales in
state taxes alone.

 

I believe the EPA was established under a Republican administration. I believe the
first National Parks were established under a Republican administration.

Have you ever been to an oil drilling site? I have. Publishing the picture of the
40 acres that are actually affected by drilling for an oil well out of a 1000 acre
(or larger) tract is about as fair as nitpicking one misspelled word in a
paragraph.

The national forests belong to all of us. "All of us includes" loggers, ranchers,
and environmentalist. I have no problem with some of the National Forest being set
aside as untouched, but I also think it is reasonable for much of the acreage to
be run for the public benefit. The public benefit includes allowing it to be
logged and grazed and even mined. What was missing in the past was proper
management of the public lands. Unfortunately politicians continually interfere
with the implementation of proper management practices.

Ed

 

Thank goodness, the 1600's were COLD.

Ed

 

Haven't you noticed? Lloyd posts from his university account, when he
should be in the classroom filling minds with drivel.

Floyd

 

The likelihood of my voting for Dean went up after this one. I guess
it's a sort of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" line of thinking.

If the wealthy special interests on *both* sides of the aisle really
jab at him, then I get more and more certain that he's the man for me.

- Erik

 

After someone altered me to a recent paper via a USA today article I
hunted it down and posted the URL. It was published in the journal
energy and environment. the authors fixed a number of errors in the
original analysis that's the basis for many of the claims lloyd has
made. Some of those claims then fall apart.

 

Exactly. I was trying to find the words to express that well earlier
but couldn't. The above describes it perfectly.

Exactly what I was trying to express earlier by saying that
environmentalists should be striving to keep the developing countries
from making the same mistakes as those that developed in the last
two centuries.

China also has these local content laws.

I am sure the whine would change then.

I think they pretend it isn't reversed because their goal has nothing
to do with the environment. The environment is the tool. But I suppose
it could just be stupidity.