Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

rnf2 wrote:

> I've never owned anything like a small hot hatchback, nor even driven them,
> as far as performance cars go, rather than a 1.6 turbo four in a Civic, I'd
> rather have a V-8 in a serious big car.
>
> Have a search on Google for V8 Holden Monaro, and HSV 185i Senator. Thats
> what I'd like, big grunty serious cars.
> rhys

Right now you guys get the only real American cars still made. Even if they are
made in Australia.

--Aardwolf.

In article <[email protected]>, Aardwolf wrote:
>
>
> rnf2 wrote:
>
>> I've never owned anything like a small hot hatchback, nor even driven them,
>> as far as performance cars go, rather than a 1.6 turbo four in a Civic, I'd
>> rather have a V-8 in a serious big car.
>>
>> Have a search on Google for V8 Holden Monaro, and HSV 185i Senator. Thats
>> what I'd like, big grunty serious cars.
>> rhys
>
> Right now you guys get the only real American cars still made. Even if they are
> made in Australia.

Other than mustang, vette, and viper.

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. That means driving
> less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles, using coal less, using more
> renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not clear-cutting forests...

I'll ignore the rest of your opinions on the subject. But explain to me
how not clear cutting forest will help with global warming - assuming
the clear cut land is returned to use as a new forest. It is my opinion
that young trees that replace old stand trees when a forest is clear cut
actually tie up more CO2 per year than slower growing old trees. In fact
I am sure that this is true. There may be other unrelated reasons for
preserving old growth forest, but reducing CO2 concentrations is not one
of them. In fact I think if you are only concerned about tying up more
CO2 you should advocate clear cutting all old growth forest and replace
them with faster growing trees that will tie up CO2 at a faster rate.

Personally I think global warming has been latched onto my modern
Ludites as a justification for their desire to smash everything and
return to the non-existent pristine past.

Ed

Shhh....!!!!! Don't say anything about this in California or they'll put a
"fart tax" on garlic, salsa & refried beans!

"rnf2" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "FDRanger92" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > You know along the lines of discounting a period of higher solar
activity
> > while everything from cow farts to cold snaps are directly linked to
> global
> > warming.
> >
>
> You been reading about the NZ fart tax?
>
> rhys
>
>

Thanks for posting the link & text, Doug. Indeed, back in the mid-70's
theses same looney greens took all the "global cooling" crap just as
seriously as they do all the hand wringing carbon dioxide theories now.

"Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Mr. Parker:
> >
> > > Are you saying the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, EPA, NOAA,
etc.,
> > have jumped onto something that's not proven? <
> >
> > Yes, and despite the bleatings of certain mavens of socialist dogma (for
> > whom this entire theory has become a convenint mantra) those agencies
look
> > upon the greenhouse gas theory as just that, a THEORY among others. No
one
> > has conclusiely proven that "global warming" even exists. Indeed, the
temp
> > fluctuations gas (bag) theorists espouse aren't even significant within
> the
> > margin of error of their measuiring techniques.
> >
> > Might I remind you, my over zealous, green friend, 25 years ago these
same
> > social and scientific radicals were predicting the dawn of a NEW ICE
AGE,
> > becuase, they theorized, global temps were falling due to man made gases
> > blocking the sun. Funny how it turned out that at that same time we were
> in
> > a period of low solar activity....
>
> Just for Lloyd:
>
> http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm
>
> For those who don't use links, here it is, but it is a little long:
>
> FROM
> Newsweek
> April 28, 1975 Studies
> Facts & Figures
> Selected Links
> Weather
> Health
>
> The Cooling World
> There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns
> have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a
> drastic decline in food production- with serious political implications
for
> just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin
quite
> soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its
> impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in
the
> North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas -
> parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where the
> growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
>
> The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun
to
> accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up
with
> it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about
two
> weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production
> estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the
average
> temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree - a
> fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April,
in
> the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters
> killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of
> damage in 13 U.S. states.
>
> To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents
represent
> the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather.
> Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well
as
> over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost
> unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity
> for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some
> of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A
> major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a
> worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of
Sciences,
> "because the global patterns of food production and population that have
> evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."
>
> A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the
> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a
> degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between
> 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite
> photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow
cover
> in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA
> scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the
> continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
>
> To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature
> and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of
> Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the great
> Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras -
> and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way
> toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to
the
> "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe
> and northern America between 1600 and 1900 - years when the Thames used to
> freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats
> sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
>
> Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages
> remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is
at
> least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of
Sciences
> report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered,
but
> in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."
>
> Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term
> results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by
noting
> the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of
> pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow
of
> westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way
> causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods,
> extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local
> temperature increases - all of which have a direct impact on food
supplies.
>
> "The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D.
> McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is
much
> more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago."
> Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national
> boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their
> devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
>
> Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will
> take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to
> allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular
solutions
> proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black
soot
> or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those
> they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders
> anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food
> or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic
> projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the
more
> difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results
> become grim reality.
>
> Reprinted from Financial Post - Canada, Jun 21, 2000
>
> All Material Subject to Copyright.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > > The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. <
> >
> > How about this: there is NO solution, because 1) there may not even be a
> > problem, 2) if it is actually occuring, then natural forces, such as
> > geothermal and solar activity, may be the primary, indeed the only
source.
> >
> > > That means driving less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles, using
> coal
> > less, using more renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not
> > clear-cutting forests... <
> >
> > On, and how convenient all of those solutions will be in making the
> > Draconian, confiscatory dreams of social radicals come true!
> >
> > > >GGM: Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming has
a
> > perfect correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity. <
> >
> > > Parker: Funny how that's nonexistent. <
> >
> > Might I refer you, my science-spouting, but ill-informed friend, to all
> of
> > the studies being done that show we are just leaving a period of high
> solar
> > activity, which began in the early '80's. Funny how this activty
PRECISLY
> > parallels data showing a rise in global temps. (Look it up, if you can
> stand
> > the truth.)
> >
> > > GGM: Two Danish scientists (Friz-Christiansen & Lassen) have proven a
> > direct cause & effect between periods of high solar activity and earth
> > temps, going back hundreds of years. <
> >
> > > Parker: Which has been studied and cannot account for all the current
> > warming. <
> >
> > It has NOT been studied by the gas (bag) theorists, they even tried to
> quash
> > the two scientists findings because it was too shocking to their pet
> > theories. However, objective greehouse gas theorists has been forced to
> > admit the accuracy of their findings and they cannot explain away their
> > findings of a direct correlation between periods of high solar activity
/
> > low cloud formation and vice versa. Tree ring data, etc. have all been
> > studied and the correlation has been proven...the gas (bag) theorists
just
> > don't want to accept it because it puts the lie to all of their carping.
> >
> > > GGM: How arrogant (but typical) of anti-society, socialist green
zealots
> > to assume the puny effect of man vs. the absolute effect of the sun on
> > global climatic norms.
> >
> > > Parker: Like we almost destroyed the ozone layer? Or don't you
believe
> > that either? <
> >
> > You again hope the world will ignore recent findings that the entire
scare
> > was over blown and more likely caused by naturally occuring events.
> >
> > > GGM: So, tell me oh green ones, 10,000 years ago, how many primitives
> > driving gas-guzzling SUVs did it take to turn the Sahara from a lush
oasis
> > into a desert? (Oh, I see, you're hoping no one knows about that event,
> > aren't you?) <<
> >
> > > Parker: No answer ....what a surprise. <
> >
> > I will point out that Mr Parker has conveniently ignored my point re:
the
> > Sahara's transformation from a lush, green oasis into a desert some 7 -
> 10k
> > years ago. The Sahara was created by totally naturally occuring changes
in
> > weather patterns that had NOTHING to do with the insignificant effects
of
> > man. It just must be really hard for people like this to grasp that in
the
> > total scheme of things, man and his puny, insignificant activities
really
> > don't matter at all.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Perhaps if you knew some science, we could have an intelligent discussion
> about science.

Explain to me the methods being used to measure the average global
temperature that are both precise enough and consistent enough to
separate a 0.4 degree C temperature rise out of the normal background
variation over the past 1000 years. Explain to me any computer model
that can predict 1 degree C average global temperature rises with any
certainty when they can't even predict tomorrow's temperatures with 3
degrees on a consistent basis.

I assume you don't know any scientist who adjust their data to fit their
preconceived notions.

Weren't those cold fusion guys "scientist"? Heck I think they were even
honest scientist.

Do you honestly think the Earth's environment has ever been static and
unchanging? Can you say with any certainty that global warming is worse
than the environmental changes that would occur in its absence?

Literally billions of tons of carbon have been effectively removed from
the atmosphere over the last few billion years. At some point, might me
have too little CO2?

History is full of widely accepted theories that turned out to be wrong.
Why are you so sure that Global Warming isn't one of these?

I assume you believe that all scientist and government agency are
completely honest and that they would never jump on a popular bandwagon
as means of securing funding to support their careers/agencies? It has
been my experience that people who say things are OK tend not to secure
funding and soon need to find something else to do.

Even if you are 100% right about global warming, might not the fixes be
worse than doing nothing?

Ed

None of us is as dumb as all of us

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:16:28 -0500, "The Ancient One"
<[email protected]>

>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >
>> >> >> Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000
>US
>> >> >troops
>> >> >> haven't found them.
>> >> >
>> >> >Bingo, The UN couldn't find them, although it is well documented that
>> >they
>> >> >existed.
>> >>
>> >> Not in 2003.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >That is why they were still looking, that is why we are still
>> >> >looking. We haven't found Saddam yet either, but we know he exists as
>> >well.
>> >> >Or do you think that is also a lie?
>> >>
>> >> Is he as big as the WMD?
>> >
>> >You do realize Saddam had twelve years in which to hide them. Where is
>Jimmy
>> >Hoffa?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> We claimed direct evidence and knowledge that WMD were there in 2003.
>
>No, we asked for proof of where they were and if they had been destroyed, as
>per the UN Mandate. Saddam refused to provide said proof. You really are
>dumb aren't you.


Not as dumb as you, who can't remember back as far as 8 months ago.

>

They can't AUCL(?) would scream about discrimination against hispanics or
lovers of mexican foods. and Taco Bell would lobby congress...

rhys

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Shhh....!!!!! Don't say anything about this in California or they'll put a
> "fart tax" on garlic, salsa & refried beans!
>
> "rnf2" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "FDRanger92" <[email protected]> wrote
> >
> > > You know along the lines of discounting a period of higher solar
> activity
> > > while everything from cow farts to cold snaps are directly linked to
> > global
> > > warming.
> > >
> >
> > You been reading about the NZ fart tax?
> >
> > rhys
> >
> >
>
>

"rnf2" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "FDRanger92" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > You know along the lines of discounting a period of higher solar
activity
> > while everything from cow farts to cold snaps are directly linked to
> global
> > warming.
> >
>
> You been reading about the NZ fart tax?
>
> rhys
>
>

Yep, little while back though.

Either that or they'll perfrom exhaust emission tests and make sure
everything's CARB certified ;-)

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Shhh....!!!!! Don't say anything about this in California or they'll put a
> "fart tax" on garlic, salsa & refried beans!
>
> "rnf2" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "FDRanger92" <[email protected]> wrote
> >
> > > You know along the lines of discounting a period of higher solar
> activity
> > > while everything from cow farts to cold snaps are directly linked to
> > global
> > > warming.
> > >
> >
> > You been reading about the NZ fart tax?
> >
> > rhys
> >
> >
>
>

"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ahHnb.38164$mZ5.209686@attbi_s54...
> In article <[email protected]>, Aardwolf wrote:
> >
> >
> > rnf2 wrote:
> >
> >> I've never owned anything like a small hot hatchback, nor even driven
them,
> >> as far as performance cars go, rather than a 1.6 turbo four in a Civic,
I'd
> >> rather have a V-8 in a serious big car.
> >>
> >> Have a search on Google for V8 Holden Monaro, and HSV 185i Senator.
Thats
> >> what I'd like, big grunty serious cars.
> >> rhys
> >
> > Right now you guys get the only real American cars still made. Even if
they are
> > made in Australia.
>
> Other than mustang, vette, and viper.
>
>
The Monaro and HSV's outdo the 'Stang by a fair margin, and the 'Vette and
Viper are actually American competitors/derivations to/of the European
Supercar and High Performance Sports cars.

rhys

"FDRanger92" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "rnf2" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "FDRanger92" <[email protected]> wrote
> >
> > > You know along the lines of discounting a period of higher solar
> activity
> > > while everything from cow farts to cold snaps are directly linked to
> > global
> > > warming.
> > >
> >
> > You been reading about the NZ fart tax?
> >
> > rhys
> >
> >
>
> Yep, little while back though.
>
>
Thats been sunk with all hands, too much noise from the farmers pointing out
they're already paying industry good levies for exactly that sort of
research.

rhys <- NZer

"Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> WE know he had them, we don't know what he did with them. If you owned a
> house twelve years ago, and you could not provide evidence that you had
sold
> it, would it not be logical to assume you still owned it?
>

Not if it was a mobile trailer house, WMD's are generally pretty mobile.

In any case who is "we". The CIA certainly wasn't claiming that Saddam had
WMD's
and why did the Bush administraton blow a deep-CIA agent's cover in revenge?
And
why haven't they come up with the name of the person in the Bush
administration who
released the name?

Your wasting your time attempting to use WMD's as a justification for going
to war
in Iraq. Nukes might have been there 10 years ago, or partial nukes, but
it's preposterous
to suggest they were there before the war. The case is a bit stronger for
bio agents,
but still inconclusive. It is clearly obvious to anyone with any education
that basing the
Iraq invasion on WMD was a lie.

However what is not clear to most people, even now it seems, is that WMD's
are not
the only justification for a unilateral invasion of another country. Lloyd
may be able to
make a coherent argument that Bush was lying when Bush used WMD's as pretext
for
going to war in Iraq. But there is absolutely no logical, reasonable, or
moral argument
Lloyd can make for allowing a dictator to remain in power who for fun would
cut the eyes
and tongues of people out of their heads, who killed his own brother in
broad daylight
and who committed numerous other atrocities. It was a terrible terrible
thing for the
nations of the world to stand idly by and allow this to continue year after
year, and they
damn well know it, they know it even now because they all want to pretend
that Iraq
doesen't exist right now. The invasion of Iraq was justified on moral and
human rights
grounds, and does not need further justification. Iraqi's today, despite
the mess in the
country, are better off now than they were under Saddam.

It is a shame that the President has not made this clear. But I can tell
you why he has not,
because if he did, then he would have to hold his own administration up to
the same moral
standards. This is why people in the Bush administration have no problem
with basically
committing treason by revealing the name of one of our better CIA agents,
thank God she
was in the country when they did it. In short, the Bush administration is
totally morally
bankrupt. They do not believe that the invasion of Iraq was justified on
moral grounds
simply because they themselves give absolutely no credit to morality. All
they care about
is personal power and greed.

Ted

>

"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:xlznb.50720$Tr4.107112@attbi_s03...

>
> Yes, something *IS* happening to the climate. Why, and what it all
> involves is hardly decided or fully understood. I see this, the
> science. You sit back and see that CO2 content has increased and
> jump to a conclusion that is to blame. Why? Because it fits your
> politics.
>

It is true that this is what the politicians do, but keep in mind politics
is
an inexact science, and quite frequently to get to There from Here, you
have to go sideways.

Look at it this way. We all probably can agree that polluting the air is
bad,
although I'll allow that there's no doubt disagreement on the levels of what
constitutes pollution. We all can probably agree that acid rain today is
doing millions of dollars of damage to buildings and plantlife every year,
and is being caused by air pollution.

The problem is that in order to force the polluters to clean up their air
pollution to the extent that acid rain disappears, we have to bring pressure
to bear on them. If just the existence of acid rain itself was enough to
get the public riled up enough to bring sufficient pressure, then there
would
be no problem. Unfortunately the public is unable to grasp complex ideas
(well the majority of people are it seems) so loses interest in this whole
acid
rain thing rather quickly.

So, the politicians picked global warming, which is ill defined but a
simplistic
concept, and serves the purpose of grabbing the public attention, getting
them
to apply pressure to their elected officials, who apply pressure to the
polluters,
who eventually when this goes on long enough, finally buckle and pay the
money
to install the scrubbers needed to clean the smokestack emissions so that
the
acid rain problem finally gets fixed. In the last analysis, neither side
really gives
a danm about global warming, the argument is really over acid rain. Only
the
general public is being manipulated by the image of global warming.

The politicians used this quite effectively to shut down the logging of old
growth
in the Pacific NW with the Northern Spotted Owl. People's eyes would glaze
over when you started talking about biodiversity, wildlife corridors, the
fact that
just about all the old growth was gone and none of the sawmills here had
retooled
for smaller logs and once the old growth was gone their lumber companies
were
just going to ashcan the mills anyhow. But, an owl is a simple thing to
understand
and as well you get the icon of "wise owl" and so forth. They certainly
didn't pick
the Northern spotted rat to fight over.

That is how politics works. It's ugly, but nobody has thought up anything
better.

Ted

"C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. That means
driving
> > less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles, using coal less, using more
> > renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not clear-cutting
forests...
>
> I'll ignore the rest of your opinions on the subject. But explain to me
> how not clear cutting forest will help with global warming

If you don't clearcut old growth, you aren't able to manufacture anymore
these
nice, long, smooth-grained beautiful pieces of wood. Thus, the yuppies with
the SUV's see a bunch of icky knotty pine in the bins at Home Depot, and
lose
interest in their remodeling plans, thus are not driving the SUV back and
forth
from Home Depot all the time.

;-)

Ted

> Personally I think global warming has been latched onto my modern Ludites
as a justification for their desire to smash everything and return to the
non-existent pristine past.
>

Precisely, the entire theory, and it's purported solutions, concur with the
anti-society philosophies of these green gadflies. Some of the scientific
community falls into line just to be on the wine & cheese party guest lists.

Bravo!

"C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > Perhaps if you knew some science, we could have an intelligent
discussion
> > about science.
>
> Explain to me the methods being used to measure the average global
> temperature that are both precise enough and consistent enough to
> separate a 0.4 degree C temperature rise out of the normal background
> variation over the past 1000 years. Explain to me any computer model
> that can predict 1 degree C average global temperature rises with any
> certainty when they can't even predict tomorrow's temperatures with 3
> degrees on a consistent basis.
>
> I assume you don't know any scientist who adjust their data to fit their
> preconceived notions.
>
> Weren't those cold fusion guys "scientist"? Heck I think they were even
> honest scientist.
>
> Do you honestly think the Earth's environment has ever been static and
> unchanging? Can you say with any certainty that global warming is worse
> than the environmental changes that would occur in its absence?
>
> Literally billions of tons of carbon have been effectively removed from
> the atmosphere over the last few billion years. At some point, might me
> have too little CO2?
>
> History is full of widely accepted theories that turned out to be wrong.
> Why are you so sure that Global Warming isn't one of these?
>
> I assume you believe that all scientist and government agency are
> completely honest and that they would never jump on a popular bandwagon
> as means of securing funding to support their careers/agencies? It has
> been my experience that people who say things are OK tend not to secure
> funding and soon need to find something else to do.
>
> Even if you are 100% right about global warming, might not the fixes be
> worse than doing nothing?
>
> Ed
>
> None of us is as dumb as all of us

In article <[email protected]>, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> The problem is that in order to force the polluters to clean up their air
> pollution to the extent that acid rain disappears, we have to bring pressure
> to bear on them. If just the existence of acid rain itself was enough to
> get the public riled up enough to bring sufficient pressure, then there
> would be no problem. Unfortunately the public is unable to grasp
> complex ideas (well the majority of people are it seems) so loses
> interest in this whole acid rain thing rather quickly.

> So, the politicians picked global warming, which is ill defined but a
> simplistic concept, and serves the purpose of grabbing the public
> attention, getting them to apply pressure to their elected officials,
> who apply pressure to the polluters, who eventually when this goes on
> long enough, finally buckle and pay the money to install the scrubbers
> needed to clean the smokestack emissions so that the acid rain problem
> finally gets fixed. In the last analysis, neither side really gives a
> danm about global warming, the argument is really over acid rain. Only
> the general public is being manipulated by the image of global warming.

The concept of acid rain is relatively simple compared to the computer
climate models and everything else being used to try and 'prove' global
warming theories. If anything just put acid rain into a computer model
and the same folks should be made to follow along.

Global warming theory is being used for a political agenda because it
allows for _control_ of the population, control of economies, central
control by self appointed elites. It allows them to micro manage
everyone's life for the good of the planet. Meanwhile they get to
continue living the way they want. Note how dr. parker screams about
putting too much CO2 into the air yet drives a mercedes benz. This
is rather typical. There'd be alot more credibility if drove an insight
or a metro.

Then there are all the environmental policies designed to constrain
developed western nations while allowing 'developing' nations to
make all the same mistakes that were made in the west. We know better
now. If it were about the environment the policies would not be
structured this way. Needless harm to the environment simply would
not be allowed.

P e t e F a g e r l i n <[email protected]> wrote:

>It is impossible to predict the actions of every driver.

And in your pointing that out, you implied that trying was pointless, as
you ridiculed someone that said you should.

I did read it. I read it again. Apparently, those that read it didn't
take it the way you intended, but the intent was clear. You insulted
someone that said you should predict the actions of others.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

In article <[email protected]>,
"Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"A senile incontinent old fool named Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]>
>wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>---snippy---
>> Perhaps if you knew some science, we could have an intelligent
>> discussion about science. But to claim, as some have here, that
>> evolution is not a fact is as UNintelligent as claiming atoms aren't
>> factual.
>>
>Evolution is not a fact Lloyd. It is a theory.

Bzzzt. Again, someone does not know what "theory" means in science. We have
something called "atomic theory." Does that mean atoms are not factual?


>It happens to be a good
>theory which explains much of the observed data, but it is still a theory.
>If you were a real scientist you would know this.
>
>Earle
>
>
It is a fact. It is as factual as atoms. It is as much a cornerstone of
biology as atoms are of chemistry.