Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

The heart of revisionist history. I've studied the topic of the use of
the atomic bomb and to put a long story short, as horrible as it was it
actually saved lives. An invasion of Japan would have not only been
costly in the lives of US troops but would have killed far more japanese
people than the A-Bombs. Also, there were conventional bombing raids
using hundreds of B29s that were as or more deadly than the A-bomb.
The use of the A-bomb was effective in creating the perception that
hundreds of B29s would soon be droping them. (when in fact, 2 bombs were
all that existed)

In addition, the USA had intercepted a cargo of uranium oxide I think it
was... in any case radioactive materials sent from Germany headed to
Japan for military use. The US had no way of knowing that the this
was the only shipment or not. Japan also planed to use one of it's
sub carriers to launch a plane carrying a dirty bomb to be used on
san franisco. This was planned months in advance to be done in
august and may have occured if the war had continued. (This is
something I've only recently learned from a history channel program
on Japan's advanced weapons programs of WW2)

If the US had not used the A-bombs, the revisionists today would
have had gobs of material to blame the US for un-needed deaths
from an invasion and further conventional bombing raids and the
attacks on US cities japan may have been able do on one-way missions
with dirty bombs. Basically either decision, to use or not to use
would not have pleased critics.

But from everything I've read, pro or con, the A-bomb killed
less than allowing the war to continue.


<snip rest unread>

 

Let's see, change of 76 ppm in 6000 years (per that source). Now we've
seen an increase of the same magnitude in 120 years. Do you think there's
no difference? <

The difference is 1) there's no way you can detect the rate of change over
6000 yeasrs with any degree of certainty, and 2) the second number is pure
bullshit, as is this entire theory.

 

I wish you wouldn't get your "facts" from right-wing propaganda sources.>

As opposed to what, your lefty friends in academia, the socialist press,
looney-left websites, etc.?

 

Parker has no response. <

He can't respond when his pathetic little leftist playbook doesn't have a
pat answer.

 

Still can't think of an intelligent response can you Lloyd.

 

The point isn't being "aggressive". Aggression is not good or bad by
itself. The Soviet policy was Socialist revolution in the third world.
Their policy was subversion in western Europe. They fomented revolution in
Korea and Vietnam where the Communists in the north attacked the south, not
the other way around. It was the Soviets who tried to impose Communism in
Afghanistan. Their policy was aggresive expansionism. The bad part of that
sentence is expansionism. The aggressive nature of it made it very scary.

Communism had it's chance in the first half of the 20th century. It was
very popular and trendy among the idealists in the west. But Communism
fails on multiple levels and makes it necessary for the government to impose
it. That's why you never see a "free" Communist country. They have to
build walls and fences to keep people in. They must kill those connected to
the bourgoisie past.

Yes it does!! Not only are the means of production owned by the government,
but the product itself is owned by the government to distribute equally to
all. Anyone who keeps product for himself is "stealing" from others.
That's why there's no personal liberty in Communist states.

That's why it's hard or impossible to leave a Communist state. They trained
you, so *you* are regarded as a capital asset of the state. They own you.
Leaving is like stealing to enrich yourself. Just think of the Berlin wall,
machine guns, Chinese "boat people", Cubans floating rafts 90 miles to the
Florida Keys, etc.; the list is long.

Yes, yes and yes. If there were free will, people would be free to enrich
themselves. And they would try... or leave. When you can't work in your
own self interest, nothing you do affects your well being. That's why
productivity in Communist countries is rock bottom; that's why store shelves
are bare; that's why there's rampant alcoholism; rampant black markets.

You're all wrong here. Personal liberty cannot exist in Communism. A
police state must exist in Communist societies because they must enforce the
interest of the state against the interests of individuals.

In capitalism, the presumption is personal liberty and free enterprise. No
police state necessary. People are free to work in their self interest all
they want.

The problem with what you say is that a society with personal liberty and
free enterprise can't impose upon individuals that they can't make more than
some arbitrary amount or more than someone else. The existense of vast
wealth, vis a vis, Bill Gates is not bad!!!! These people CREATE wealth.
They don't confiscate it from others!!

Monopolistic wealth is a problem. Government does serve the public interest
in regulating free enterpise when it does harm. However, it should do so
carefully and somewhat reluctantly. The best "check and balance" system is
cometition and education.

No personal attack intended. If by "underclass" you mean the poor living in
poverty, you're dead wrong. If you mean people who make less than the likes
of Bill Gates, then there's nothing bad about that. If people weren't free
to create wealth, wealth wouldn't be created.

 

Are you saying that the existing models don't fit the past climate
spikes? At what point do they miss? Or are you saying that because
there was warming in the past without human interaction, the fit of
the model explaining current warming as tied to current human CO2
release can't be correct? Similar to the argument that, since forest
fires have been going on since the dawn of forests, current forest
fires can't possibly be ignited by human actions?

Well, we do know that we are entering a new ice age; these cycles are
pretty much worked out, and in 4-5 thousand years we are going to be
pretty damn chilly. But most people are more interested in where we
will be for the next few decades. And right now it looks like
continuing to perpetually increase the amount of solar energy trapped
by the atmosphere is probably a worse idea than not doing so.

Not hardly. Show me a model showing that global warming is related to
astrology, then you can say this. In any event, science consists of
'dueling models'; you narrow it down to a few that explain the current
data better than the rest, then narrow it down further by seeing which
ones predict new data better.

Similarly, it's stupid to take a little step away from the bed in the
morning, when what I really need to do is get to my job 20 miles away.
Yet, it works out somehow, and I doubt that it would do so were I not
to take that first step. What's the alternative plan? Tell the third
world that they need to keep their living standard the way it is
unless they can figure out how to improve it without CO2 emissions, so
that we can maintain our standard of living with our vast CO2
emissions? And when they decline to take that advice, just shrug our
shoulders and say, 'Well hell, we tried, but they won't cooperate'?

Facts? Like what, two tablets coming down from heaven with a
mathematical model of climate inscribed on them, and God's handwritten
guarantee? Fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Fact: we are producing CO2
at an unprecedented rate. Fact: the climate is heating up at a
similarly unprecedented rate. Fact: the best fitting and best
supported models show the major agent of the rising temperature to be
the CO2 release. Fact: there isn't enough wiggle room in the models to
eliminate the actions of human CO2 release as a prime cause, without
postulating some big unknown never-before-identified factor. Fact: as
more and more research has piled up over the years, the anthrogenic
CO2 global warming model has not been overthrown, contrary to the
predictions of the opponents over the years; in fact, areas of
uncertainty have become clearer and clearer and estimates of model
parameters have become more precise.

 

Isn't that what I just said? Extra weight gives no advantage when it's a
single-vehicle accident.

The fact that ultra-expensive cars have better safety engineering doesn't
help those of us who cannot afford a $40K vehicle.

No, it is TRUE. The crash-test results are SINGLE-VEHICLE vs FIXED BARRIER.
They tell you ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the results of a TWO-VEHICLE
COLLISION!

Using the crash test results to speculate on two-vehicle accidents is worse
than wrong; it's misuse of the data. A fixed barrier returns ALL of the
force applied to it (Newton's Laws) - the collision with a Civic won't
return anywhere near that much! The Civic, being the lighter car,
experiences far higher accelerational force than the truck. It's not a
50-50 proposition; the ratio of force is equal to the ratio of WEIGHT
(MASS). If the truck weighs twice what the Civic does, the Civic will
experience twice the accelerational force after the collision. Simple
Physics. Don't you remember the experiment in High School colliding spheres
of various size and weight?

Note that this principle also applies to any collision with large trucks or
buses. It's why you should always be very careful and courteous to big
rigs: you can get killed very easily in a collision with one, even in the
largest and heaviest car, truck, or SUV. Not even a Hummer will keep you
safe tangling with a 50 ton tandem rig.

 

Are we on the verge of another ice age?

The ice ages come in cycles... the variation in tilt (wobble) of the earth
on it rotational axis has a period of 23,000 years... and the 41,000 year
precession of the equinoxes plus other 100,000 and 413,000 year cycles.

Milankovich predicted ice ages every half-cycle (11,500 is half of 23,00)
and since the last ice age ended 11,500 years ago...

Are we now near the end of the cycle(s)... when the ice age cycle begins
again?

What if we're not facing 2 degrees warmer, but 10 degrees colder instead?

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sprecess.htm Milankovich Theory &
the July 1999 Postscript

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci100ka.html NOAA on Orbital Dynamics
theory of Ice Ages

http://www.geology.um.maine.edu/ges121/lectures/15-seasons/lecture5.html
interesting analysis

http://culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html

http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/permafrosttunnel/1g1a_Ice_Age_History.htm

http://www.aloha.net/~johnboy/orbitalV.htg/variance.htm Global Warming from
Earth getting closer to the sun!

http://iceagenow.com/index.htm The ICE AGE NOW book... some info links
also...

http://iceagenow.com/QandA.htm The Q&A for the book...

 

Not really. More lives were lost in the Battle of Okinowa than in
Hiroshima and Nagaski combined.

 

Nice selection of studies. Unfortunately, rather than accept the well
documented and monumental forces of nature to explain normal fluctuations in
climate and temperature, socialist green gas (bag) theorists will refute
anything other than "destructive Co2 emissions" from human activities as an
explanation for their totally unproven theories of global warming.

 

Oh, but there is the idea that global warming will melt too much ice
reducing the salinity of oceans, changing the currents, shuting down
the gulf stream, and resulting in a ICE AGE.

 

All that matters is that I have enough ski wax...

Earle

 

Hey, Earle, how much snow up there?

Looks like there's more on the way for the weekend.

 

Jesus will you shut the hell up. What does this have to do with
Jeeps/Willys? Give it a rest already.
Allen

 

Mr. Taylor,

I was inclined to flame your posting, but thought about it for a minute and
read the link posted. I can honestly say I wholeheartedly concur with your
statements.

 

Robert; You have way to much time on your hands. Now go outside and play in
your Jeep and be a good little boy.
Jimmie: If I had a dollar for.... Naw forget it.

 

Enough to keep the snowmobile club happy. ;o)

Earle

 

Why? It'll still be a case of reduction to the absurd. The only suitable speed to reduce CO2
emissions is zero. Anything else is an utterly arbitrary limit that actually condones some amount
of "greenhouse pollution".

--Aardwolf.