Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

In article <Cj0ob.59593$Fm2.41498@attbi_s04>,
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:

Another fool who believes what he reads on right-wing web sites:

>In article <[email protected]>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>
>> Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key research
>> green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming theory.
>> In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
>> global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the
second
>> half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
>> reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.
>
>I think I've found the paper mentioned in the article:
>http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm
>http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
>before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
>made such a claim. This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even
>National Academy of Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From
>Lloyd about it. He must really hate being proven wrong on every statement
>he makes. ;-) >

Try reading some science. USA Today is your source for science? LOL!

>
>LOL! I remember this "new ice age" scam well, I was in Collee at the time
>and all the Socialist faculty were flapping their gloom & doom gums about
>it, claiming if we didn't all stsrt driving VWs we'd all freeze to death
>come 1990.Typical hogwash, sure glad you posted the link.
>
>BTW, read today's USA Today. It has a prominent piece on how the gas (bag)
>theorists pet study from the '80's has been proven faulty and that theris no
>evidence global average temps of the second half of the 20th century were
>anything but perfectly normal. (Notice how quiet Lloyd's been today?)
>
>

Whatsa matter, Lloyd, logic get your tongue? You were spouting all the green
tripe like an advocate a few days ago until contrary info and logic showed
up, now all you can say is "More BS"? No Greenpeace awards for YOU!

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>
> More BS:
>
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
> >
> >http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
> >
> >They still can't shake the ingrained notion that man has caused this,
> >but they'll come around eventually and likely add new "causes" as well.
> > Trouble is, it is very hard to separate causes from correlation,
> >especially in areas like this where it is pretty hard to run controlled
> >experiments. Simple observation of data can easily lead to such
> >confusion. I suspect many other things can be found to correlate with
> >global climate changes, but I'll also bet that few of them are causes.
> >
> >
> >Matt
> >

More logic, eh Lloyd?

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Here's one of the fools:
>
> >Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
> >
> >These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
> >masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll
use
> >any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
> >gain political control.
> >
> >The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
> >morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
> >When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
> >had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2
emissions
> >are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
> >caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
> >housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse
for
> >wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
> >"communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
> >paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
> >sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
think
> >I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
> >
> >
> >> 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. <
> >
> >

We're waiting for a lucid response Lloyd? (Hey, how come you can't explain
for us the creation of the Sahara, huh? How many coal-fired powerplants did
that take?)

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <aBWnb.57501$Fm2.35469@attbi_s04>,
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>
> And another fool:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> >> Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >> These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control
the
> >> masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll
use
> >> any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt
to
> >> gain political control.
> >
> >I don't know how far it goes so I won't comment on this. But there
> >seems to be a favoring of China IMO.
> >
> >> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
> >> morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's &
70's.
> >> When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily,
they
> >> had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2
emissions
> >> are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into
the
> >> caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
> >> housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse
for
> >> wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
> >> "communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
> >> paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
> >> sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to
> think
> >> I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
> >
> >There is nothing wrong with learning to have controlled and minimized
> >all the toxins that shouldn't be released into the atmosphere. When
> >it comes to controling toxins I usually don't have a problem with
> >environmentalists until they start supporting different standards for
> >different people or go well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
> >This is really the 'everyone likes clean air and water' view.
> >
> >CO2 is different. It's part of the life cycle, and it isn't a toxin.
> >Is it worth controling CO2? I don't know. But I do know that CO2 released
> >for building widgets to meet US demand in China isn't any better than CO2
> >released in USA for building widgets to meet US demand. Environmentalists
> >however see this differently and that means politics come first, the
> >environment second. It's the only explaination.
> >
> >Everytime I bring it up, the true believers divert into talk about the
> >chinese cleaning up their open air cookstoves or per capita CO2
> >releases per nation, etc etc instead of addressing the point. CO2 is
> >CO2. The location of the manufacturing plant is not relevant for the
> >global environment. If the environment came first, the CO2 per widget
> >and the number of widgets made would be the issue, not where they were
> >made.
> >
> >On another note, often in global warming arguements I will do a 'what
> >about the water' arguement. Combustion, ideal combustion produces two
> >things. CO2 and H2O. As many molucules of H2O as CO2... actually more as
> >hydrocarbon chains have H on both ends too. In anycase water vapor is
> >also a 'green house' gas. Sea level rise is also a problem created by
> >'global warming', so I ask, what about the water?
> >
> >To date, none of these gobal warming true believers has put forth
> >any explaination why the water isn't a problem. The best they can
> >do is say 'it rains'. So it rains? It could also be more humid
> >when not raining, and once it rains the water has to go *someplace*
> >See level rise, erosion, change in weather paterns, ice increases, or
> >even ice decreases, sality changes, etc etc all could be a result of
> >the huge amounts of water being added to the global environment via
> >combustion.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

C. E. White wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> The big problem for ford with the pinto was a known failure mode (the
>> long seatbelt hold down bolt) that they didn't correct, but instead
>> did a cost calculation on. But true, pintos were no more prone to
>> fire than other cars of that size class and era.
>
> This isn't even right. There was no cost calculation related directly
> to the Pinto and it wasn't necessarily a seat belt bolt that ruptured
> the tank. There were supposedly three modes of failure that could
> cause a problem - 1) the fuel tank was shoved into the rear axle or
> body hardware and ruptured, 2) the fuel filler tube pulled out of the
> tank during a violent crash and fuel spilled from the opening in the
> side of the tank, and 3) the fuel filler detached from the body
> leaving the gas cap behind and fuel spilled from the open tube. Early
> Pintos were recalled and fitted with three things to address these
> problem - 1) a polyethylene shield that wrapped around the bottom of
> the tank and up to the front to reduce potential damage from the rear
> axle or body hardware, 2) a longer filler pipe, and 3) a
> reinforcement ring and security screws to secure the filler neck to
> the body. I was very familiar with the fixes (we owned two Pintos).
> Also I worked at Ford for a brief period during the peak of the trial
> hysteria. You would not believe how many perfectly good cars Ford
> crashed in order to gather supporting evidence for the trial. I
> particularly lusted after the remains of a Datsun 240Z they crashed.
> Unfortunately truth and justice had little or nothing to do with the
> outcome of the trial. Ford lost and we all pay.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed White

OK, if I understand this (and it was my fault the Pinto was named!) Ford
lost a court case that did involve a fire. They then did a recall designed
to protect the fuel tank from other components in a rear end collision, so
that if another accident caused a fire they couldn't be blamed for not doing
something. In litigious times, this is certainly a valid business response.

I certainly didn't intend to imply that a Pinto, casually driving along
would suddenly burst into flames (was that in Naked Gun?).

Presumably, from your comments, the Ford position was that the Pinto was no
more prone to fire than other vehicles of the same class, but they could not
afford not to do something. (Sorry about the double negative).

Was any organisation (such as the NUTS) used to validate what Ford did, or
was it just evaluated within Ford that this would be sufficient to avoid
losing other cases?

--
Rickety

Brent P wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>
>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> If you look at the data (I know that's a foreign concept to you),
>>> global warming began around the middle of the 19th century, as
>>> human combustion activities started picking up.
>>
>>
>> Ahh yes, more support for my theory that baseball is responsible for
>> global warming! After all didn't baseball get started around the
>> middle of the 19th century. Didn't global warming really begin to
>> accelerate as professional teams were formed? And look at the most
>> recent spike - doesn't it correlate well to the addition of the
>> Marlins, Diamondbacks, and Devil Rays? Adding hot weather teams was
>> obviously the stray that will destroy our climate. At all cost we
>> must keep the Expos out of Puerto Rico.
>
> All we need is a plot of baseball games played vs. global mean temp.
>
> Oh and to add to this, according to the global warming true believers
> it really started ramping up in the post war years.... this fits the
> baseball model as the sport was introduced to new populations.
>
> We just need to gather all this baseball data and plot it agains mann,
> 1998.

Was it baseball in general, or home runs? Shouldn't we plot those against
temperature. Trouble is, I think I sense some global cooling coming on.

--
Rickety

Lloyd, the world trembles at the searing intellect behind your pithy
posts....

Hey, don't worry, one of those 9 morons the Democrats have out there wagging
their tax & spend, cut & run gums might get elected and save your whole
little comfy green peer group from further humiliation.


"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Same old, same old.
>
> >
> >"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> >Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
> >before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
> >made such a claim.
> >This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even National Academy
of
> >Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From Lloyd about it. He
must
> >really hate being proven wrong on every statement he makes. ;-)
> >
> >
> >> "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.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >

In article <b__nb.45699$ao4.111788@attbi_s51>,
Brent P <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>I remember "global cooling" too. Got that in early grade school in the
>late 1970s. Much like they teach kids "global warming" today. But cites
>on the net were always few and far between due it being well prior to
>1995.

I have some Analog magazine articles from 1972 on the coming ice age.

Then there's the theory expressed in Niven's _Falling Angels_ --
humans ARE causing global warming, AND we're set to go into a new ice
age. But they cancel out, until those pesky environmentalists get
their way.

(Yes, _Falling Angels_ is a work of fiction, and Analog is known as an
SF magazine, though the articles were "fact" articles. Climatological
predictions are also works of fiction -- the climate is a chaotic
system and we have only the foggiest idea what the initial conditions are).
--
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.

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> >Ford presented evidence in court that the fuel tanks
> >in Pinto were no more likely to rupture ina crash than other
> >contemporary cars.
>
> Too bad their own internal documents not only contradicted this, but talked
> about how many deaths would be worth not installing a part costing a few
> cents.

This is false. No such document related to the Pinto existed. People repeat
this lie so often it has become a "truth." For once can you prove that the
document exists?

Regards,

Ed White

In article <[email protected]>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:

> Now, for political reasons it might be a good idea to stop depending upon
> middle east oil. To do that in the short term we'd have to tap our own oil
> sources, like off shore, ANWAR, etc.

On this topic I think that taping these sources would just result in
their depletion and return to foreign sources once dry. I think it
should be a national defense priority to leave this oil in the ground
until it's really needed.

> So, now, what happens when we begin to deploy massive numbers of solar
> panels around the world, how is the environment going to cope with all that
> HEAT??? Well, none of the greens want to answer that question, nor can they
> address where all the space will come from to actually deploy these things.
> Solar power is hugely inefficient in terms of it's actual power generation
> capability vs. space requirements, and production of solar panels is hugely
> toxic.

> Next, where, pray tell, will we place all of the so-called "green" wind
> generating stations, hmmmm???? Oh, not anywhere near a green's home, no sir,
> too unsightly, threatening to birds and the noise, WELL!!!

You are scraping the surface on a bigger aspect of the political
environmental movement. It's essentially anti-energy. What I have seen
is that massive clean energy proposals are fought on environmental
grounds. Because once they are scaled up there are *some*
environmental effects. Generally the ugliness of them is the primary
objection. The end result is staying with coal and other fossil fueled
plants, the status-quo.

> When greens get off their anti-society high horses and start working for
> real conservation maybe then there can be some discourse. All I know is that
> for over 30 years the same zealots have been waving their arms and flapping
> their gums yet have not proposed a single realistic solution. As it is now,
> no one can drill, mine, cut, dam, etc. All venues are off and the greens
> can't propose a single alternative save go live in yurt by the river
> somewhere and live on sprouts. Give me a break!

I'd really wish they focus their efforts on getting 19th century mineral
laws updated so the US tax payer wasn't taken for a ride by elected
officals and their buddies. But that's another story.

Much of the time I wish we could get another president like TR with
regards to conservation. As it sits we seem to get ones that try to
make a good image to the greens while profiting from enviromentally
damaging businesses (Al Gore) to the sort of situation where the
environment is damaged and the US taxpayer gets ripped off. (typical
republican policies)

I suppose it depends on what you use as definition of the sun. Strictly,
the verse implying the sun and the moon certainly comes after plants, but
"light" in general came before that.

The rest of the sequence is not bad, though, is it?

Then there is the question of the definition of a "day".

Does Creationism require a belief in Joshua stopping the sun?


If we had been there in a Sebring convertible with the roof off we could
have seen for ourselves.


As regards a flood, it is interesting that some sort of flood has been
reported in a number of old, unrelated texts, IIRC.

DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[...............]

> >Not necessarily. The Bible, and other religious records, have been show
> >to be quite accurate and correlate well with science ..
>
> 100% flat-out wrong. Earth created in 6 days? Plants before sun? Flood
that
> covered the earth? (Where did the water run off to?) Sun stood still?
.........................

Actually, humans as we know t hem have been around how long?

And who said that the five days preceding were 'days' as we know them...?
Wasn't time a bit different in the first microseconds of Big Bang? Or maybe
Fred Hoyle was right and then where do we start?

;-)
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <7cwmb.25220$e01.49323@attbi_s02>,
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <[email protected]>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> >
> >>> I especially like how they try to explain away the dinosaurs. That
> >>> they lived 6000 years ago. There are acient monuments built to star
> >>> alignments older than that. (The pyramids of giza for one) There is
> >>> alot of real evidence that civilization (and the knowledge/technology)
> >>> is far older than established science claims, older than your
> >>> creationists claim the dinosaurs are.
> >>>
> >>> For instance the kind of real evidence I speak of are things like star
> >>> alignments of various acient monuments around the world. Monuments
that
> >>> go under water, on ground that hasn't been dry land since the last
> >>> ice age, etc and so forth. Come up with hard stuff like that for
> >>> creation. Not just the bible says so, so it is.
> >>
> >> All of the above depends on an accurate means of dating things that
> >> occurred before any of us were around, and that simply doesn't exist.
> >> And there is no way to calibrate accurately or prove it anyway.
> >
> >It's very easy to get an accurate rate. By measuring the precession (sp?)
> >of stars now we can tell how they appeared thousands of years ago.
> >Some acient cultures appear to have been able to make these calculations
> >as well. The same goes for layers of ice, tree rings, soil depth, etc
> >etc etc...
> >
> >
> Yes, but creationists insist the universe is only 6000 years old.
Biblical
> infallability, you know.

rickety wrote:

> Was any organisation (such as the NUTS) used to validate what Ford did, or
> was it just evaluated within Ford that this would be sufficient to avoid
> losing other cases?
>

Do you mean NHTSA? NHTSA forced the recall. There is plenty of evidence to
support the notion that Ford (and other manufacturers) lobbied against the
implementation of safety standards that would have forced all cars, including
the Pinto, to have better protection for the fuel tanks. I can understand the
companies motivation. However why do we have giant bureaucracies to protect us,
if they roll over and play dead every time some executive whines about a new
standard. If NHTSA had done its job, the Pinto would have had the gas tank
shield and longer filler neck from day one. Even without the shield the total
number of Pinto fire related death was probably less than 30 (and don't forget
there were millions of Pintos). I am not saying that 30 is an acceptable number,
but it is not a number that sets the Pinto apart as an especially dangerous
vehicle for its time.

As I recall (and this is from memory), the case that garnered the most publicity
involved a Pinto backing down an expressway that was rammed by a dump truck
moving at highway speed. The gas cap was not on the vehicle. Ford contended that
it had been left off and this was a major contributor to the fuel spill and
fire. The plaintiffs lawyers claimed that it was detached in the accident
(although it was never found) and that it was irrelevant anyway since the tank
had ruptured - not surprising since it was mostly pushed into the rear seat.
After losing a 100+ million dollar case (in 1978 dollars), the guys at Ford just
threw every fix at the gas tank they could think of - at least short of
installing NASCAR style fuel cells.

GM had a similar problem with early Chevettes. A suspension bolt would puncture
the fuel tanks in relatively minor collisions. GM never fought any of the cases
in court and quietly recalled the Chevettes to change the fasteners and had a
shield to the tank (this recall was in 1978). No one ever mentions the Chevette
as a fire bomb, yet the early Chevettes were at least as dangerous as the Pinto.

If you do a Google search, you can still find a number of very inflammatory
articles on the subject. Mother Jones created one worthy of Dateline. If you can
find the article it may convince you to drive to Dearborn and try to torch Ford
World Headquarters. The fact that a lot of it is creative journalism should
probably stop you. The Pinto was, and still is, a favorite poster child for
Trail Lawyers that want to encourage otherwise honest people to treat every
misfortunate like a winning lottery ticket. They exaggerate the danger and
exaggerate the pay out in a blatant attempt to recruit client that they use to
enrich themselves. People need a way of punishing manufacturers who knowingly
build dangerous products. I just don't think that every honest engineering
decision that goes wrong rises to the level of a capital offense. I drove a
Pinto for 5 years, and my Sisters drove one for almost 10. None of use worried
about the potential for a gas tank fire. When the recall was announced in 1978
we had both of our Pintos updated. However, I would not have spend $10 to do the
upgrade if it had not been free. The risk was below the noise level as far as I
was concerned.

Millions of Pintos drove billions of miles and never burst into flames.

Regards,

Ed White

Looks like Lloyd replied to every other post except this one. I guess that
when he shouts "Learn some science", our educator didn't mean from himself.
Interesting how he is vocal in criticizing other opinions as long as they
don't come from other scientists, and equally has no intention in backing up
what he believes himself.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: Lloyd, what's your opinion on the sunspot theory ? This has been a long
and
: boring thread, but if you can give us an intelligent critique on it, I for
: one would be genuinely interested.
:
: Dave Milne, Scotland
: '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
:
: "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: news:[email protected]...
: : And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
: :
: : http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
:
:

Dori Schmetterling wrote:

> And who said that the five days preceding were 'days' as we know them...?
> Wasn't time a bit different in the first microseconds of Big Bang? Or maybe
> Fred Hoyle was right and then where do we start?

Its not the start that worries me....

Ed

No, No, No Lloyd, it was in USA Today, not exactly a bastion of right-wing
propaganda last time we looked.

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> ill-informed and typically
arrogant, wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> In article <Cj0ob.59593$Fm2.41498@attbi_s04>,
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>
> Another fool who believes what he reads on right-wing web sites:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> >
> >> Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key
research
> >> green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming
theory.
> >> In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
> >> global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the
> second
> >> half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
> >> reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.
> >
> >I think I've found the paper mentioned in the article:
> >http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm
> >http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf
> >
> >

We repeatedly ask YOU to provide some science and you can't. Other than to
spout mantras from the green playbook you're clueless...PROVE YOUR POSITION!

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to
Lloyd
> >before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
> >made such a claim. This article proves LP wrong again, it names names,
even
> >National Academy of Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From
> >Lloyd about it. He must really hate being proven wrong on every
statement
> >he makes. ;-) >
>
> Try reading some science. USA Today is your source for science? LOL!
>
> >
> >LOL! I remember this "new ice age" scam well, I was in Collee at the time
> >and all the Socialist faculty were flapping their gloom & doom gums about
> >it, claiming if we didn't all stsrt driving VWs we'd all freeze to death
> >come 1990.Typical hogwash, sure glad you posted the link.
> >
> >BTW, read today's USA Today. It has a prominent piece on how the gas
(bag)
> >theorists pet study from the '80's has been proven faulty and that theris
no
> >evidence global average temps of the second half of the 20th century were
> >anything but perfectly normal. (Notice how quiet Lloyd's been today?)
> >
> >

> On this topic I think that taping these sources would just result in their
depletion and return to foreign sources once dry. I think it should be a
national defense priority to leave this oil in the ground until it's really
needed. >

Probably, unless it was tied to a comprehensive conservation program, but
we'll likely never see thatbecause both sides would have to compromise.

> You are scraping the surface on a bigger aspect of the political
environmental movement. It's essentially anti-energy. What I have seen is
that massive clean energy proposals are fought on environmental grounds.
Because once they are scaled up there are *some* environmental effects.
Generally the ugliness of them is the primary objection. The end result is
staying with coal and other fossil fueled plants, the status-quo. <

Right, and it's incredible how much could be done without the obstructionist
tctics of radical greens, their trial lawyer buddies, non-profit scam
artists, etc. as I said we've had decades to develop alternative sources and
every proposal is killed before it can move forward. Europeans have
continually refined nuclear power over that period of time while we've sat
around blocking development. The only two nuclear accidents occured with
aging old-tech operations, particularly the Russian site. Yet technology
exixts to not only make it safer, it can provide an immediate stop-gap to
the greens fears of drilling, etc.

My favorite hy[pocritical green stance is their drive to de-commision the
glen canyon dam, drain Lake Powell and tear it down. Naturally this would
destry the town of Page, AZ, remove a perfectly clean source of energy and
recreation for millions in the Southwest. Why? So they can walk in the old
slot canyons under the lake and look at the petroglyphs on the walls of the
canyon, like there aren;t thousands of otehr places around the area that
provide the same assests. No, these are the most obstinate, selfich people
on the face ofth Earth and they deserve all the derision that comes their
way. It's always "no, no, no", but they have no alternative solutions other
than to live in a cave somewhere.



> > When greens get off their anti-society high horses and start working for
> > real conservation maybe then there can be some discourse. All I know is
that
> > for over 30 years the same zealots have been waving their arms and
flapping
> > their gums yet have not proposed a single realistic solution. As it is
now,
> > no one can drill, mine, cut, dam, etc. All venues are off and the greens
> > can't propose a single alternative save go live in yurt by the river
> > somewhere and live on sprouts. Give me a break!
>
> I'd really wish they focus their efforts on getting 19th century mineral
> laws updated so the US tax payer wasn't taken for a ride by elected
> officals and their buddies. But that's another story.
>
> Much of the time I wish we could get another president like TR with
> regards to conservation. As it sits we seem to get ones that try to
> make a good image to the greens while profiting from enviromentally
> damaging businesses (Al Gore) to the sort of situation where the
> environment is damaged and the US taxpayer gets ripped off. (typical
> republican policies)

"Gerald G. McGeorge" wrote:

>
> ...................................No, these are the most obstinate, selfich
> people
> on the face ofth Earth and they deserve all the derision that comes their
> way. It's always "no, no, no", but they have no alternative solutions other
> than to live in a cave somewhere.

They aren't planning on living in a cave. That's for you. They are planning on
sitting in a warm home and being flown to environmental support functions in
private jets or driven in limos. I mean the world only has enough resources for
truly dedicated environmentalist to live well. The rest of us, well we need to
preserve those precious resources for the truly committed environmentalist -
right?

Wasn't there an environmentalist that arrived at an event in an Insight and then
drove the Insight just out of sight of the masses and got into a limo? Wasn't it
Ariana Huffington who flew across country in a private yet to attend an
SUV-bashing event? The hypocrisy on both sides is enormous.

Ed