Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> As far as I can tell there is no functional difference between not
> having a right and having a right but not having it recognized. It's
> simply a matter of semantics.

For someone without principles, maybe you are correct. But someone who
thinks that prinicples have value and are worth fighting (and at times,
dieing) for, then there is a definite difference. A person *without*
principles will not fight for a right whether it is genuine or false
unless there is some ulterior motive in doing so. A person *with*
principles will fight for a genuine right but not for a false right.
Therefore, the difference is hope for the future and a just cause for
the present as long as there is a critical mass of principled people
around to re-claim the genuine right, whereas a false right will just
die on its own.

To me, that is a *HUGE* difference. But I explained this earlier, and
you still don't get it, and maybe never will.

The Consitution says that men are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights - period. It doesn't say that if the government
ignores those rights, that those rights cease to exist (inalienable =
that cannot be taken away or transferred). Maybe it also means that
those who deny those rights will have to answer to the Creator for
denying that which he freely granted to all men (according to the
Constitution).

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


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:26:10 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>
>> As far as I can tell there is no functional difference between not
>> having a right and having a right but not having it recognized. It's
>> simply a matter of semantics.
>
>For someone without principles, maybe you are correct. But someone who
>thinks that prinicples have value and are worth fighting (and at times,
>dieing) for, then there is a definite difference. A person *without*
>principles will not fight for a right whether it is genuine or false
>unless there is some ulterior motive in doing so. A person *with*
>principles will fight for a genuine right but not for a false right.
>Therefore, the difference is hope for the future and a just cause for
>the present as long as there is a critical mass of principled people
>around to re-claim the genuine right, whereas a false right will just
>die on its own.

Which affects the future, not the present. If you live in a society
without freedom of speech, then you simply don't have the right. It's
not good, but that's the way it is. How many societies without
freedom of speech have lots of people rebelling?

>To me, that is a *HUGE* difference. But I explained this earlier, and
>you still don't get it, and maybe never will.

I hope you aren't trying to imply that I don't think that those rights
are worth fighting for, because they certainly are. It's just that
without a society and government willing to support them anyone who
speaks up will be "disappeared", in other words those rights won't
exist for them.

>The Consitution says that

*Exactly*! Who came up with the Constitution?

>men are endowed by their Creator with certain
>inalienable rights - period. It doesn't say that if the government
>ignores those rights, that those rights cease to exist (inalienable =
>that cannot be taken away or transferred).

The government is bound to honour those rights because it's founding
was based on it not being able to take them away.

>Maybe it also means that
>those who deny those rights will have to answer to the Creator for
>denying that which he freely granted to all men (according to the
>Constitution).

Which is great if you believe in the creator. Me, I don't see how one
planet around a star, mixed in with billions of stars in this galaxy,
mixed in with billions of galaxies in the universe can be all that
important to something that was apparently able to create all of it.
But that's just me.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

x-no-archive: yes

FrankW wrote:

> Stop cross posting!!!!!!!

Everybody, except Frank W should stop cross posting?

Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:26:10 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >>
> >> As far as I can tell there is no functional difference between not
> >> having a right and having a right but not having it recognized. It's
> >> simply a matter of semantics.
> >
> >For someone without principles, maybe you are correct. But someone who
> >thinks that prinicples have value and are worth fighting (and at times,
> >dieing) for, then there is a definite difference. A person *without*
> >principles will not fight for a right whether it is genuine or false
> >unless there is some ulterior motive in doing so. A person *with*
> >principles will fight for a genuine right but not for a false right.
> >Therefore, the difference is hope for the future and a just cause for
> >the present as long as there is a critical mass of principled people
> >around to re-claim the genuine right, whereas a false right will just
> >die on its own.
>
> Which affects the future, not the present.

Which is what I said. That *DOES* constitute a difference.

> If you live in a society
> without freedom of speech, then you simply don't have the right.

Well yeah - if you don't do anything about it. Someone may have to
fight and die to get it back.

> It's
> not good, but that's the way it is. How many societies without
> freedom of speech have lots of people rebelling?

Then those societies deserve what they get (at least intially, and the
longer it is allowed, the more blood may need to be shed to get it back,
if ever). That's why I mentioned the fighting and the dieing if the
right in question is genuine. And of course there comes a point where
the society has reached the point of no return, such as Stalinist
Russia, Iraq, etc..., in which case either internal changes need to be
made, or an external liberator comes to the country's aid.

> >To me, that is a *HUGE* difference. But I explained this earlier, and
> >you still don't get it, and maybe never will.
>
> I hope you aren't trying to imply that I don't think that those rights
> are worth fighting for, because they certainly are. It's just that
> without a society and government willing to support them anyone who
> speaks up will be "disappeared", in other words those rights won't
> exist for them.

....fighting...dieing - there may need to be sacrifices. That's why in
U.S. history, phrases like "our freedom was purchased with blood" crop
up even though they may seem like clichés to some (think: Revolutionary
War, WWII).

> >The Consitution says that
>
> *Exactly*! Who came up with the Constitution?
>
> >men are endowed by their Creator with certain
> >inalienable rights - period. It doesn't say that if the government
> >ignores those rights, that those rights cease to exist (inalienable =
> >that cannot be taken away or transferred).
>
> The government is bound to honour those rights because it's founding
> was based on it not being able to take them away.
>
> >Maybe it also means that
> >those who deny those rights will have to answer to the Creator for
> >denying that which he freely granted to all men (according to the
> >Constitution).
>
> Which is great if you believe in the creator. Me, I don't see how one
> planet around a star, mixed in with billions of stars in this galaxy,
> mixed in with billions of galaxies in the universe can be all that
> important to something that was apparently able to create all of it.
> But that's just me.

Which puts a huge question mark on the validity of and respect for the
Constitution for you I guess. Which may explain why you keep insisting,
it seems to me, that there are no inalienable rights endowed by the
Creator. Sounds like a personal problem to me. 8^)

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


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 23:02:46 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:26:10 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>> >>
>> >> As far as I can tell there is no functional difference between not
>> >> having a right and having a right but not having it recognized. It's
>> >> simply a matter of semantics.
>> >
>> >For someone without principles, maybe you are correct. But someone who
>> >thinks that prinicples have value and are worth fighting (and at times,
>> >dieing) for, then there is a definite difference. A person *without*
>> >principles will not fight for a right whether it is genuine or false
>> >unless there is some ulterior motive in doing so. A person *with*
>> >principles will fight for a genuine right but not for a false right.
>> >Therefore, the difference is hope for the future and a just cause for
>> >the present as long as there is a critical mass of principled people
>> >around to re-claim the genuine right, whereas a false right will just
>> >die on its own.
>>
>> Which affects the future, not the present.
>
>Which is what I said. That *DOES* constitute a difference.

Not really. What it means to me is that some rights are more
important than others and some are necessary to have a truly free
society. It doesn't mean that they are granted by some outside source
any more than the foundation of your house was built by a different
group of people than built the rest of your house.

>> If you live in a society
>> without freedom of speech, then you simply don't have the right.
>
>Well yeah - if you don't do anything about it. Someone may have to
>fight and die to get it back.

In a society any right is like that. You don't have it unless you (or
someone else) has actively sought it.

>> >To me, that is a *HUGE* difference. But I explained this earlier, and
>> >you still don't get it, and maybe never will.
>>
>> I hope you aren't trying to imply that I don't think that those rights
>> are worth fighting for, because they certainly are. It's just that
>> without a society and government willing to support them anyone who
>> speaks up will be "disappeared", in other words those rights won't
>> exist for them.
>
>...fighting...dieing - there may need to be sacrifices. That's why in
>U.S. history, phrases like "our freedom was purchased with blood" crop
>up even though they may seem like clichés to some (think: Revolutionary
>War, WWII).

I understand that.

>> >The Consitution says that
>>
>> *Exactly*! Who came up with the Constitution?
>>
>> >men are endowed by their Creator with certain
>> >inalienable rights - period. It doesn't say that if the government
>> >ignores those rights, that those rights cease to exist (inalienable =
>> >that cannot be taken away or transferred).
>>
>> The government is bound to honour those rights because it's founding
>> was based on it not being able to take them away.
>>
>> >Maybe it also means that
>> >those who deny those rights will have to answer to the Creator for
>> >denying that which he freely granted to all men (according to the
>> >Constitution).
>>
>> Which is great if you believe in the creator. Me, I don't see how one
>> planet around a star, mixed in with billions of stars in this galaxy,
>> mixed in with billions of galaxies in the universe can be all that
>> important to something that was apparently able to create all of it.
>> But that's just me.
>
>Which puts a huge question mark on the validity of and respect for the
>Constitution for you I guess. Which may explain why you keep insisting,
>it seems to me, that there are no inalienable rights endowed by the
>Creator. Sounds like a personal problem to me. 8^)

No, I respect the Constitution and think it's a great piece of work.
In it they appeal to a higher authority than the government to explain
why the government can't take those rights away. Essentially all it
is though is a contract limiting the abilities of the government.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

In article <[email protected]>,
Daniel J. Stern <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
>
>> > > Marriage is relevent in the traditional sense.
>> >
>> > The plus-50 percent failure rate of marriage as currently defined gives
>> > lie to this statement.
>
>> A more relevent metric wouldn't be the divorce rate, but the
>> percent of people married regardless of how many times.
>
>H'm. So it's OK with you for some dumb slob to tell lies every couple
>years about "In sickness and in health" and "til death do us part" when
>s/he really means "...or until someone better/richer comes along,

Some ceremonies don't have "'til death do us part" any more.
Acknowledgement of reality if nothing else.
--
Matthew T. Russotto [email protected]
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

Hey guys, I think we're missing the overal point, if we're talking Global
Warming. As far as environmental controls go, you guys are correct in that
we can't implement world environmental policy when the bigger developing
countries like China refuse to play. Continuing to work with these guys to
resolve this policy is a good thing.... but:

The focus is all hosed. Just like I learned in college physics.... you can
"prove" anything you want with statistics, if you massage the data
appropriately. If you blindly look ONLY at the meteorological data over the
last 30 years, we seem to have a global warming problem, and the liberal
wackos in the media are really playing that up. HOWEVER, if you look back
further.... say back to the beginning .... when we first started really
collecting met data.... you'll find that, even over the short period of 100
years, we've seen a period of global COOLING.... and now we're in the upside
of the cycle. Climate changes are cyclic, and I've never seen the scare
tactics in the history books about the cooling side of the cycle....
hmmmm... guess there was no political advantage to it! Furthermore, climate
changes take HUNDREDS of years, not 10 or 20 or 30.... The scare about
global warming is simply unfounded...

Remember the panic about the "growing" hole in the ozone layer? It's like
somebody in the media realized there was a hole, and then created a panic,
because they arbitrarily decided it was growing when, in fact, it was
SHRINKING.... and it's HAS been shrinking since the 50's.... Hmmm....
haven't heard about that one lately have we?

I'm a snow skier.... and I don't quite understand why, if the climate is
warming at such an alarming rate, why Mount Baker got their all-time record
of 1100 inches of snow in '98, well into the "warming period" and why we've
seen so many epic snow years in the Rockies AND out east.... Targhee in
Wyoming has received over 200 inches so far this year.... shouldn't these
things happen during global "cooling" and not global "warming"? For some
reason, I don't see any reason to worry about Northern Alabama becoming the
next Mojave Desert soon....

But really don't have a strong opinion on this....



Steve

2000 Cherokee Classic

"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Brent P wrote:
> >
> > The people of those countries are just trying to make some money and
> > get some food on the table. IMO, if the environmentalists and labor
> > unions really put their fundamental beliefs before politics there would
> > be a huge outcry about the pollution and the total lack of worker
> > protections in these countries. Instead there's a whimper now and then
> > about jobs going overseas, protecting US jobs and which famous person
> > has their signature line made in a sweat shop somewhere in the 3rd
world.
> > If there really was a desire to protect US jobs and the environment they
> > would be pushing for laws that prevented the sale of products unless the
> > production met set a standards. This way the workers would have a safe
> > work environment, a clean environment, etc and so on.
>
> There's the other side of that coin on which the local people are being
> paid slave wages but resent idealistic U.S. college students protesting
> the sweat shops, and the result being that the sweat shops close down
> over the publicity and pressure, and instead of, say, a young girl
> having a poor paying job in a sweat factory, she is now forced into
> prostitution in order to live. I heard a program on NPR in which they
> interviewed some of the angry foreigners about that while college
> protests were going on in the U.S. (OK OK - I admit it - I sometimes
> listen to NPR, or IPR or whatever they're calling themselves these
> days).
>
> Bill Putney
> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with "x")
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Stroyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hey guys, I think we're missing the overal point, if we're talking Global
> Warming. As far as environmental controls go, you guys are correct in
that
> we can't implement world environmental policy when the bigger developing
> countries like China refuse to play.

You mean Developed countries like America? They decided to ratiy the treaty
then Bush said no...
So much dfor democracy, thats a dictatorship.

>
> I'm a snow skier.... and I don't quite understand why, if the climate is
> warming at such an alarming rate, why Mount Baker got their all-time
record
> of 1100 inches of snow in '98, well into the "warming period" and why
we've
> seen so many epic snow years in the Rockies AND out east.... Targhee in
> Wyoming has received over 200 inches so far this year.... shouldn't these
> things happen during global "cooling" and not global "warming"?

Extra heat means more evaporation leading to more water in the air than upon
hitting cold areas precipate out as heavier than normal rain or snow.

For some
> reason, I don't see any reason to worry about Northern Alabama becoming
the
> next Mojave Desert soon....
>
> But really don't have a strong opinion on this....
>
>
>
> Steve
>
> 2000 Cherokee Classic

Rhys.

1988 Isuzu Bighorn, (Trooper in the states)

In article <[email protected]>, rnf2 wrote:
>
> "Stroyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Hey guys, I think we're missing the overal point, if we're talking Global
>> Warming. As far as environmental controls go, you guys are correct in that
>> we can't implement world environmental policy when the bigger developing
>> countries like China refuse to play.

> You mean Developed countries like America? They decided to ratiy the treaty
> then Bush said no...
> So much dfor democracy, thats a dictatorship.

So why didn't the US approve the kyoto treaty durring 8 years of the
rule of Bill Clinton? The answer is easy, the kyoto treaty does nothing
to reduce CO2 emissions. It only relocates them to other parts of the
world. This alone exposes it for what it is, a political and social
agenda, not for protecting the environment. If it were about protecting
the environment various manufacturing processes would have a set maximium
level of CO2 released regardless of where in the world the manufacturing
plant was located. Also, by encouraging yet more manufacturing to go to
nations with little in the way of environmental protections the treaty
would only bring about more environmental damage, not less. See the
rest of this thread as it has all be covered already.

> Extra heat means more evaporation leading to more water in the air than upon
> hitting cold areas precipate out as heavier than normal rain or snow.

That's the beauty of the global warming theory, no matter what happens
it proves global warming theory. Colder, wetter, hotter, drier, doesn't
matter it's all covered.

"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:LdGJb.213224$8y1.751183@attbi_s52...
> In article <[email protected]>, rnf2 wrote:
>
> That's the beauty of the global warming theory, no matter what happens
> it proves global warming theory. Colder, wetter, hotter, drier, doesn't
> matter it's all covered.
>

Well, exactly. The fundamental part of the global warming theory is that
global warming is causing weather change. Thus, the weather change would
logically be either or any of colder, wetter, hotter, drier, etc.

However, weather change in and of itself, does not prove that global warming
is happening and is causing weather change. While the general public - like
you
- seems to have made this cyclical connection the scientists prove that the
globe is warming by the act of actually measuring it's temperature change
with
a thermometor over time. They also prove (or attempt to prove) that weather
change is happening by actually measuring that over time too.

Ted

In article <[email protected]>, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> "Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:LdGJb.213224$8y1.751183@attbi_s52...
>> In article <[email protected]>, rnf2 wrote:
>>
>> That's the beauty of the global warming theory, no matter what happens
>> it proves global warming theory. Colder, wetter, hotter, drier, doesn't
>> matter it's all covered.

> Well, exactly. The fundamental part of the global warming theory is that
> global warming is causing weather change. Thus, the weather change would
> logically be either or any of colder, wetter, hotter, drier, etc.

And thusly for politics it works wonderfully. Scare the people into
adopting a political agenda they otherwise wouldn't stand for by blaming
every big snow storm or other big weather event on it.

> However, weather change in and of itself, does not prove that global warming
> is happening and is causing weather change. While the general public - like you
> - seems to have made this cyclical connection the scientists prove that the
> globe is warming by the act of actually measuring it's temperature change
> with a thermometor over time. They also prove (or attempt to prove) that weather
> change is happening by actually measuring that over time too.

Don't put words into my mouth, I gave no indication of anything of the
sort. Global warming, true or not, is part of the new religion that
stifles real science as much as the catholic church did centuries ago.
Instead of torture and imprisonment the means are ridicule and wrecked
careers, but the point is the same. Don't question the belief system.

Weather by definition changes. By itself it is not an indicator of
anything as the global warming true believers are so apt to point
out every time there is a spell of brutal winter cold. (of course that is
forgoten with every summer heat wave when anyone who suffers is
delcared a victim of global warming and the evil corporations)

Global warming has become a nebulus thing that cannot be shown faulty
because it morphs over time to fit what is happening like the "Centuries"
as written by Nostradomus. (wrong when read before the event, correct when
read after the event) The whole earth could become frozen over and the
posts in sci.environment would be saying it was the result of CO2
emissions.

"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:dh%Jb.747652$Fm2.680262@attbi_s04...

> > However, weather change in and of itself, does not prove that global
warming
> > is happening and is causing weather change. While the general public -
like you
> > - seems to have made this cyclical connection the scientists prove that
the
> > globe is warming by the act of actually measuring it's temperature
change
> > with a thermometor over time. They also prove (or attempt to prove)
that weather
> > change is happening by actually measuring that over time too.
>
> Don't put words into my mouth, I gave no indication of anything of the
> sort.

Ah, yes you did.

> Global warming, true or not, is part of the new religion

If you believed the globe was warming up you would never say "true or not"
much less equate it as a religion.

"global warming" as the general public puts it - and as your putting it
here - is not only the _observation_ that global temps are on the rise, but
the _assumption_ that it's man-made.

"global warming" as the scientists put it is pretty much restricted to the
observational part.

You may not believe the assumption that the globe is warming up because of
man-made
things. That I can understand, and so far it is still a somewhat defensible
position. But your foolish if you don't believe that the globe is getting
warmer.
It is. Whether we are causing it or can do anything about it is a different
kettle of fish.

Ted

In article <[email protected]>, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> "Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> > However, weather change in and of itself, does not prove that global warming
>> > is happening and is causing weather change. While the general public - like you
>> > - seems to have made this cyclical connection the scientists prove that the
>> > globe is warming by the act of actually measuring it's temperature change
>> > with a thermometor over time. They also prove (or attempt to prove) that weather
>> > change is happening by actually measuring that over time too.
>>
>> Don't put words into my mouth, I gave no indication of anything of the
>> sort.

> Ah, yes you did.

Then you should have no trouble quoting it and pointing to relevant
post in your favorite usenet archive, so do so.

>> Global warming, true or not, is part of the new religion

> If you believed the globe was warming up you would never say "true or not"
> much less equate it as a religion.

I am not a true believer. Others however are, and will defend the *entire*
religon from temps are going up to it's due to evil american corporations
to their last breath.

> "global warming" as the general public puts it - and as your putting it
> here - is not only the _observation_ that global temps are on the rise, but
> the _assumption_ that it's man-made.

Depends on which scientific papers one reads. The religon has not surpressed
all other thought on the matter.

> "global warming" as the scientists put it is pretty much restricted to the
> observational part.

"global warming" refers to much more than that and you know it. And don't
forget the mixing of science and religon that we see here on usenet. There
is a new religon and it masks itself within science.

> You may not believe the assumption that the globe is warming up because of
> man-made things. That I can understand, and so far it is still a somewhat
> defensible position. But your foolish if you don't believe that the globe is
> getting warmer.

Warmer than what? We have maybe 50 years of good *global* data. Maybe a
century of much of the world. The rest gets pretty spotty and the remaining
is from proxy data that has to be interpeted correctly. Throw into that
the proper use of statistics etc, and this warming trend does become
questionable. However the religon demands that any analysis of the data
that doesn't agree with the tenet that the globe is getting warmer is
blasphemy.

> It is. Whether we are causing it or can do anything about it is a different
> kettle of fish.

The leaders of the religon have already decided upon the path to salvation.

"rnf2" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Stroyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Hey guys, I think we're missing the overal point, if we're talking
Global
> > Warming. As far as environmental controls go, you guys are correct in
> that
> > we can't implement world environmental policy when the bigger developing
> > countries like China refuse to play.
>
> You mean Developed countries like America? They decided to ratiy the
treaty
> then Bush said no...
> So much dfor democracy, thats a dictatorship.

Nope... I mean DEVELOPING countries like China. By actually checking out
the Kioto treaty verbiage, you might also discover that the treaty had
absolutely no teeth.... that the price would be paid by the US, but with
essentially no real effect. These other countries would have to do
essentially nothing per the treaty, but the US would have to place
significant restrictions on the already strict emissions standards,
resulting in huge costs and essentially no positive benefit.
>
> >
> > I'm a snow skier.... and I don't quite understand why, if the climate is
> > warming at such an alarming rate, why Mount Baker got their all-time
> record
> > of 1100 inches of snow in '98, well into the "warming period" and why
> we've
> > seen so many epic snow years in the Rockies AND out east.... Targhee in
> > Wyoming has received over 200 inches so far this year.... shouldn't
these
> > things happen during global "cooling" and not global "warming"?
>
> Extra heat means more evaporation leading to more water in the air than
upon
> hitting cold areas precipate out as heavier than normal rain or snow.

Hmmm.... so the 1 or 2 degrees of additional temperature (based on an
arbitrary "baseline" that fits the argument) would then result in snow falls
in the range of 30% or more over average? Interesting. When I was studying
for my physics degree, I don't recall the evaporation rates rising at
exponential rates with respect to the temperature. For that matter, it
would only make sense that there must have been a major global cooling trend
in the 30s that caused the dust bowl, eh?

The real problem is that there is a significant difference between CLIMATE
and WEATHER. The measured temperatures in a specific area, whether that be
a small area, or even the entire plant, over a small number of years
(a.k.a., less that a few hundred) can't substantiate a scientifically-based
conclusion that there is a CLIMATE change. Have average temperatures been
on the rise the last few years? yes..... have we yet caught up with the
average temperatures from around 50 years ago? ... NO!... Sounds like Global
cooling to me... (if we're going to define it that way). The average
temperatures started down in the late 50s, then started an upward trend in
the 70s.... the "warming" we've experienced is the upward cycling nature of
the climate. It will likely reverse in nature in the next 10 years, and
some liberal will take credit for it.... like inventing the internet.

OH, I understand how snow is made. Made some myself a couple of weekends
ago.

One thing we DON'T want to do is confuse those few "scientists" out there
that are looking for the next buck, regardless of how the data has to be
skewed, or how a statistically insignificant quantity of data can suddenly
become "conclusive" to meet the political agenda of their clients with the
real scientists that live by a code of professional ethics.

Bottom line..... I'm not a meteorologist. I'm a physicist. However, in my
work in atmospheric transport / dispersion over the past 15 years, I have
learned one thing with almost painful clarity. If you can make such a broad
statement such as claiming major climate changes based on single parameter
measurements over a statistically insignificant amount of time, then why
can't the Whether Channel or the Clinton News Network tell me if it's REALLY
going to rain tomorrow? Or maybe what time it will rain? Anybody that can
claim to perform such a miracle isn't a scientist.....

ST
2000 Cherokee Classic

>
> For some
> > reason, I don't see any reason to worry about Northern Alabama becoming
> the
> > next Mojave Desert soon....
> >
> > But really don't have a strong opinion on this....
> >
> >
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > 2000 Cherokee Classic
>
> Rhys.
>
> 1988 Isuzu Bighorn, (Trooper in the states)
>
>

x-no-archive: yes

"L0nD0t.$t0we11" wrote:

>> Hmmm.... so the 1 or 2 degrees of additional temperature (based on an
>> arbitrary "baseline" that fits the argument) would then result in snow falls
>> in the range of 30% or more over average? Interesting. When I was studying
>> for my physics degree, I don't recall the evaporation rates rising at
>> exponential rates with respect to the temperature. For that matter, it
>> would only make sense that there must have been a major global cooling trend
>> in the 30s that caused the dust bowl, eh?
>>
>> The real problem is that there is a significant difference between CLIMATE
>> and WEATHER. The measured temperatures in a specific area, whether that be
>> a small area, or even the entire plant, over a small number of years
>> (a.k.a., less that a few hundred) can't substantiate a scientifically-based
>> conclusion that there is a CLIMATE change. Have average temperatures been
>> on the rise the last few years? yes..... have we yet caught up with the
>> average temperatures from around 50 years ago? ... NO!... Sounds like Global
>> cooling to me... (if we're going to define it that way). The average
>> temperatures started down in the late 50s, then started an upward trend in
>> the 70s.... the "warming" we've experienced is the upward cycling nature of
>> the climate. It will likely reverse in nature in the next 10 years, and
>> some liberal will take credit for it.... like inventing the internet.
>>
>> OH, I understand how snow is made. Made some myself a couple of weekends
>> ago.
>>
>> One thing we DON'T want to do is confuse those few "scientists" out there
>> that are looking for the next buck, regardless of how the data has to be
>> skewed, or how a statistically insignificant quantity of data can suddenly
>> become "conclusive" to meet the political agenda of their clients with the
>> real scientists that live by a code of professional ethics.
>>
>> Bottom line..... I'm not a meteorologist. I'm a physicist. However, in my
>> work in atmospheric transport / dispersion over the past 15 years, I have
>> learned one thing with almost painful clarity. If you can make such a broad
>> statement such as claiming major climate changes based on single parameter
>> measurements over a statistically insignificant amount of time, then why
>> can't the Whether Channel or the Clinton News Network tell me if it's REALLY
>> going to rain tomorrow? Or maybe what time it will rain? Anybody that can
>> claim to perform such a miracle isn't a scientist.....
>>
>> ST
>> 2000 Cherokee Classic
>>
> Roughly 1/5/04 18:36, Stroyer continued mutilation of the dead horse.
>
> [Totally disinterested groups trimmed...]

What is your point?

x-no-archive: yes

"L0nD0t.$t0we11" wrote:

> Roughly 1/5/04 08:53, Brent P's kept beating this dead horse:
>
> [totally freakingly disinterested groups removed...]

That's nice, Lon.

x-no-archive: yes

"L0nD0t.$t0we11" wrote:

> Stroyer:
>
> WTFC.

Whatever.

x-no-archive: yes

"L0nD0t.$t0we11" wrote:

> Roughly 1/3/04 12:47, rnf2's monkeys randomly typed:
>
> ...nothing of interest.

Except to you of course.

x-no-archive: yes

"L0nD0t.$t0we11" wrote:

> Roughly 1/4/04 04:28, Ted Mittelstaedt's monkeys randomly typed:
>
> [groups that really really don't give a flying flip trimmed off]

Fixed. Just for you.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> "rnf2" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Stroyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Hey guys, I think we're missing the overal point, if we're talking
> Global
> > > Warming. As far as environmental controls go, you guys are correct in
> > that
> > > we can't implement world environmental policy when the bigger developing
> > > countries like China refuse to play.
> >
> > You mean Developed countries like America? They decided to ratiy the
> treaty
> > then Bush said no...
> > So much dfor democracy, thats a dictatorship.
>
> Nope... I mean DEVELOPING countries like China. By actually checking out
> the Kioto treaty verbiage, you might also discover that the treaty had
> absolutely no teeth.... that the price would be paid by the US, but with
> essentially no real effect. These other countries would have to do
> essentially nothing per the treaty, but the US would have to place
> significant restrictions on the already strict emissions standards,
> resulting in huge costs and essentially no positive benefit.

We wouldn't want to stop the US buying pollution credits from developing
countries now would we.

>
> Hmmm.... so the 1 or 2 degrees of additional temperature (based on an
> arbitrary "baseline" that fits the argument) would then result in snow falls
> in the range of 30% or more over average? Interesting. When I was studying
> for my physics degree, I don't recall the evaporation rates rising at
> exponential rates with respect to the temperature. For that matter, it
> would only make sense that there must have been a major global cooling trend
> in the 30s that caused the dust bowl, eh?
>
> The real problem is that there is a significant difference between CLIMATE

As sure as I am that there was a rain forest in my back yard where there
is snow now, I'm sure there will be again some day.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.