Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

  • Thread starter Dianelos Georgoudis
  • Start date
This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ...People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
>> >> CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
>> >> environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
>> >> dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
>> >> emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
>> >> environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
>> >> the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
>> >> to protect it.
>> >
>> >Oh - you mean like in California where they are protecting the
>> >environment by not allowing the forests to be maintained properly
>>
>> Nature maintains forests very nicely, as she has done for a very long time.
>
>That's fine in an uninhabited environment. But if you're building
>housing developments in a freakin' desert, you'd better do some human
>intervention on nature's natural tendencies so as not to lose lives and
>houses. Fact is the enviro-regulations would not let them even clear
>out the pine trees that died from an infestation of beatles - and that
>contributed greatly to these latest fires. Nor would they allow
>clearing of trees from around at-risk houses. Use some common sense!
>

So don't build houses near forests that are supposed to be preserved.

>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! =-----
 
> You're still clutching onto the old "popular vote" complaint Lloyd. We
didn't have a popular vote. There wasn't a popular election, so there's no
popular vote. Counting up the aggregate of individual state votes and
calling it a "popular vote" doesn't make it so. We've had this argument
before and you always ignore this pertinent fact. >

Well, first, Llyod prefers indictrination to facts. ;-) If we add up the
poopular vote Gore is ALLEGED to have won by around 500,000. I say alleged,
because the 2000 Presidential vote total was never verified. Had we NOT had
an Elctoral College, as of course we do, that 500,000 represented about 1/2
of 1 percent of the total vote, satistically insignificant and therefore it
would have necessitated a National recount. Given the corrupt Democrat
machines in the urban areas of the Country wher there political base is,
it's doubtful those 500,000 votes would have survived.

Nontheless, with the exception of Clinton's re-election in '96 the Democrats
have lost every major campaign since '94 and are now out of power and can
mount no effective opposition other than obstruction. Their recent hero,
Clinton, was a pragmatist and closet conservative, anything so long as it
got him power. So, other than the biggest tax increase in history, name ONE
major liberal adgenda item he either championed or got signed into law. You
can't, becuase he simply co-opted the conservatvive's popular agenda,
repackaged it and called it "progressive". After his stupid cigar tricks
even the women he gave wet panties to in '92 & '96 dropped his ass like a
bad habit.
>


 
In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:

>>You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier.

> Because it's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You know, the kind real
> scientists publish in.

Please provide proof that "Energy and Environment" is not a peer-reviewed
journal. But of course instead of addressing the actual paper,
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf, you decide to attack
where it's published. In other words, you once again put your politics
before science. A real scienist would find arguement with the work itself.


 
LLoyd,
are you published anywhere?

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <duSpb.77564$275.206280@attbi_s53>,
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
> >
> >>>http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994321
> >
> >>>I am sure parker will just call it a 'right-wing' publication
> >>>or something to dismiss it all.
> >
> >> Why not read something a real scientific group says? IPCC, or EPA, or
> >> National Academy of Sciences? Afraid?
> >
> >You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier.
>
> Because it's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You know, the kind
real
> scientists publish in.


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Just like I said - when you have nothing to say, you right-wingers
resort
> >to name-calling. <
> >
> >Why is it you leftist assholes always think anyone who disagreees with
you
> >is a "right-winger"? No wonder no one takes you seriously any longer.
> >
> >> > I register as an independent and in '00 I voted for Nader.
> >
> >> B.S. Nader was well to the left of Gore, and you sound just like a
> >commercial for Rush or Hannity. <
> >
> >But, Nader is not part of the Republicrat establishment, is he? Neither
was
> >Perot, who I voted for the previous two elections.
> >
> >By the way, if you can purge your shallow little leftist mind of all the
> >Socialist indoctrination
>
> If you're going to call people names, it hardly behooves you to **** and
moan
> when they call you names.
>
>
> >you've been fed you'll find that people in the
> >middle and on the right often have quite well formed positions on matters
> >that the left has managed to dominate, and **** UP, for over 50 years.
> >
> >I hate to challenge your little leftist sensibilities, but Bill Clinton
was
> >not a liberal, he was just a politician wanting more & more power. He was
a
> >HYPOCRITE of the first order.
>
> And gee, wasn't the country doing great under him?
>
> >Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got
creamed
> >because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent him to
> >Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green
vote
> >which he'd not convinced.
> >
> >> Given the crap the Democrats are putting up as leaders, I'll vote for
Bush
> >this time for sure.
> >
> >> Uhh-huh. As if there was a chance you'd vote any other way... <
> >
> >And that's the problem, isn't it Jonesey, too many people, indeed a
MAJORITY
> >of us, don't agree with you and your Socialist buddies! (Get used to
being
> >irrelevant....)
> >
> >
> I doubt many agree with you and your fascist buddies either.

Do you even know what a fascist is Lloyd?


 
So now this is becoming a religious thread here, too...?..

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

> for christ's sake.
>


 


Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> ...People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
> >> >> CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
> >> >> environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
> >> >> dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
> >> >> emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
> >> >> environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
> >> >> the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
> >> >> to protect it.
> >> >
> >> >Oh - you mean like in California where they are protecting the
> >> >environment by not allowing the forests to be maintained properly
> >>
> >> Nature maintains forests very nicely, as she has done for a very long time.
> >
> >That's fine in an uninhabited environment. But if you're building
> >housing developments in a freakin' desert, you'd better do some human
> >intervention on nature's natural tendencies so as not to lose lives and
> >houses. Fact is the enviro-regulations would not let them even clear
> >out the pine trees that died from an infestation of beatles - and that
> >contributed greatly to these latest fires. Nor would they allow
> >clearing of trees from around at-risk houses. Use some common sense!
> >
>
> So don't build houses near forests that are supposed to be preserved.
>
> >Bill Putney
> >(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> >address with "x")

Oh - I agree - I think a person is crazy to build a house there or at a
shoreline that gets hit by a hurricane regularly - if you do, do so at
your own risk - don't expect me to subsidize your re-build either
through gov't aid or insurance.

I guess I would only take exception to your phrase "supposed to".
That's determined by the people thru whatever legal or political system
is in place (zoning, etc.) - but either allow the building *AND* the
proper management to protect the property, or don't allow building and
let nature take its course. But don't allow people to build and provide
streets, water and other tax supported infrastructure, and then forbid
them to protect their property - that's insanity.

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! =-----
 

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > You're still clutching onto the old "popular vote" complaint Lloyd. We
> didn't have a popular vote. There wasn't a popular election, so there's
no
> popular vote. Counting up the aggregate of individual state votes and
> calling it a "popular vote" doesn't make it so. We've had this argument
> before and you always ignore this pertinent fact. >
>
> Well, first, Llyod prefers indictrination to facts. ;-) If we add up the
> poopular vote Gore is ALLEGED to have won by around 500,000. I say
alleged,
> because the 2000 Presidential vote total was never verified. Had we NOT
had
> an Elctoral College, as of course we do, that 500,000 represented about
1/2
> of 1 percent of the total vote, satistically insignificant and therefore
it
> would have necessitated a National recount. Given the corrupt Democrat
> machines in the urban areas of the Country wher there political base is,
> it's doubtful those 500,000 votes would have survived.
>
> Nontheless, with the exception of Clinton's re-election in '96 the
Democrats
> have lost every major campaign since '94 and are now out of power and can
> mount no effective opposition other than obstruction. Their recent hero,
> Clinton, was a pragmatist and closet conservative, anything so long as it
> got him power. So, other than the biggest tax increase in history, name
ONE
> major liberal adgenda item he either championed or got signed into law.
You
> can't, becuase he simply co-opted the conservatvive's popular agenda,
> repackaged it and called it "progressive". After his stupid cigar tricks
> even the women he gave wet panties to in '92 & '96 dropped his ass like a
> bad habit.
> >
>
>

The problem with counting up all the votes in 2000 and calling it a popular
votes is that there wasn't a popular vote campaign. The two campaigns spent
all of their time in battleground states trying to get out the vote. They
spent either no time or very little time in states where the state election
was not in doubt. Why would Gore have spent 5 minutes in Massachusetts
trying to get more Democrats out to vote when he didn't need any more to win
there?

I agree about Clinton being less of a liberal than being self absorbed.
I'll never forget when he spoke at the Democrat National Convention back in
'88 when he went on and on rambling even when the crowd started booing him.


 
"Most people view paying taxes in return for government sources as something
necessary"
Most people don't mind paying for infrastructure and defense... It's all the
"social programs" and pork that I HATE...

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
snip
> Most people view paying taxes in return for government sources as
something
> necessary. That's why they live in a society and not an anarchy.


 


FDRanger92 wrote:

> Do you even know what a fascist is Lloyd?

Fascist - 2 : a person who exhibits a tendency toward or actual exercise
of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

Hmmm, This seems to describe all those people who want to tell me what
to drive. Anyone here meet that description?

Ed
 


Joe wrote:

> "Nature doesn't extinguish fires started by lightening "
> if this were true, there would be no vegitation on the planet. It would
> have burned off long before humans showed up.

OK, you got me. I should have said something like "nature lets fires burn until
rain storms put them out and doesn't fight them just becasue they are in
national forests or near populated areas or becasue they dump lots of pollution
into the environment." But I bet you understood what I menat in the first
place....didn't you?

Ed

 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You're still clutching onto the old "popular vote" complaint Lloyd. We
>didn't have a popular vote. There wasn't a popular election, so there's no
>popular vote. Counting up the aggregate of individual state votes and
>calling it a "popular vote" doesn't make it so. We've had this argument
>before and you always ignore this pertinent fact. >
>
>Well, first, Llyod prefers indictrination to facts. ;-) If we add up the
>poopular vote Gore is ALLEGED to have won by around 500,000. I say alleged,
>because the 2000 Presidential vote total was never verified.

Each state certified its election returns.


>Had we NOT had
>an Elctoral College, as of course we do, that 500,000 represented about 1/2
>of 1 percent of the total vote, satistically insignificant and therefore it
>would have necessitated a National recount. Given the corrupt Democrat
>machines in the urban areas of the Country wher there political base is,
>it's doubtful those 500,000 votes would have survived.

And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?

>
>Nontheless, with the exception of Clinton's re-election in '96 the Democrats
>have lost every major campaign since '94 and are now out of power and can
>mount no effective opposition other than obstruction.


Since there're been 2 "major campaigns" since 94, that makes both parties
batting .500.

>Their recent hero,
>Clinton, was a pragmatist and closet conservative, anything so long as it
>got him power. So, other than the biggest tax increase in history, name ONE
>major liberal adgenda item he either championed or got signed into law.

Family leave, environmental protection, workplace safety, kept abortion rights
from being taken away, Brady Bill, assault weapon ban...


>You
>can't, becuase he simply co-opted the conservatvive's popular agenda,
>repackaged it and called it "progressive". After his stupid cigar tricks
>even the women he gave wet panties to in '92 & '96 dropped his ass like a
>bad habit.
>>
>
>
 
In article <iSTpb.107445$e01.369342@attbi_s02>,
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier.
>
>> Because it's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You know, the kind
real
>> scientists publish in.
>
>Please provide proof that "Energy and Environment" is not a peer-reviewed
>journal.

Go to their web site and read about it.


>But of course instead of addressing the actual paper,
>http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf, you decide to attack
>where it's published. In other words, you once again put your politics
>before science. A real scienist would find arguement with the work itself.
>
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"FDRanger92" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Just like I said - when you have nothing to say, you right-wingers
>resort
>> >to name-calling. <
>> >
>> >Why is it you leftist assholes always think anyone who disagreees with
>you
>> >is a "right-winger"? No wonder no one takes you seriously any longer.
>> >
>> >> > I register as an independent and in '00 I voted for Nader.
>> >
>> >> B.S. Nader was well to the left of Gore, and you sound just like a
>> >commercial for Rush or Hannity. <
>> >
>> >But, Nader is not part of the Republicrat establishment, is he? Neither
>was
>> >Perot, who I voted for the previous two elections.
>> >
>> >By the way, if you can purge your shallow little leftist mind of all the
>> >Socialist indoctrination
>>
>> If you're going to call people names, it hardly behooves you to **** and
>moan
>> when they call you names.
>>
>>
>> >you've been fed you'll find that people in the
>> >middle and on the right often have quite well formed positions on matters
>> >that the left has managed to dominate, and **** UP, for over 50 years.
>> >
>> >I hate to challenge your little leftist sensibilities, but Bill Clinton
>was
>> >not a liberal, he was just a politician wanting more & more power. He was
>a
>> >HYPOCRITE of the first order.
>>
>> And gee, wasn't the country doing great under him?
>>
>> >Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got
>creamed
>> >because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent him to
>> >Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green
>vote
>> >which he'd not convinced.
>> >
>> >> Given the crap the Democrats are putting up as leaders, I'll vote for
>Bush
>> >this time for sure.
>> >
>> >> Uhh-huh. As if there was a chance you'd vote any other way... <
>> >
>> >And that's the problem, isn't it Jonesey, too many people, indeed a
>MAJORITY
>> >of us, don't agree with you and your Socialist buddies! (Get used to
>being
>> >irrelevant....)
>> >
>> >
>> I doubt many agree with you and your fascist buddies either.
>
>Do you even know what a fascist is Lloyd?
>
>
Yes, but you right-wingers obviously do not know what a socialist is.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Most people view paying taxes in return for government sources as something
>necessary"
>Most people don't mind paying for infrastructure and defense... It's all the
>"social programs" and pork that I HATE...

OK, ask the middle class if they want college grants and scholarships cut. If
they want their parents' Medicare and Medicaid benefits cut. If they want
workplace safety not enforced. If they want no meat inspections. If they
want to eliminate prisons, or aid to local schools, or law enforcement.

>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>snip
>> Most people view paying taxes in return for government sources as
>something
>> necessary. That's why they live in a society and not an anarchy.
>
>
 
In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <iSTpb.107445$e01.369342@attbi_s02>,
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:

>>>>You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier.
>>> Because it's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You know, the kind real
>>> scientists publish in.

>>Please provide proof that "Energy and Environment" is not a peer-reviewed
>>journal.

> Go to their web site and read about it.

I have. where is your evidence that papers published by them are not
reviewed?

But just in case you were wondering parker, we already know about
this specific paper:

"When asked about the paper, which had undergone review by other
scientists before being published, Mann said he had heard about it but
had not seen it."

(http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20031029/5631011s.htm)

>>But of course instead of addressing the actual paper,
>>http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf, you decide to attack
>>where it's published. In other words, you once again put your politics
>>before science. A real scienist would find arguement with the work itself.

No response from parker, of course.


 
> OK, ask the middle class <<

And, who might the "middle class" be Lloyd? By the tax code the liar
Clinton and the Democrats rammed down everyone's throats, anyone making $50k
a year is Rich"! We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
middle class tax cut. As soon as the worm got elected he promptly went on TV
and abandoned it, then signed into law the biggest tax increase in history.

> if they want college grants and scholarships cut. If they want their
parents' Medicare and Medicaid benefits cut. If they want workplace safety
not enforced. If they want no meat inspections. If they want to eliminate
prisons, or aid to local schools, or law enforcement.>

This rant is precisely why the Liberals are out of power, everyone (even the
elderly) see through these typical Liberal scare tactics and lies. Fact is,
all these people know to do is create more useless Federal agancies, fill
them full of lazy-ass patronage workers and pause taxts to pay for it all.


 
> >> >
> >> >
> >> I doubt many agree with you and your fascist buddies either.
> >
> >Do you even know what a fascist is Lloyd?
> >
> >
> Yes, but you right-wingers obviously do not know what a socialist is.

Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government as
able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
systems. That puts both of them on the opposite side of conservatism where
government is limited precisely because of it's belief in God given,
individual, indivisible, inalienable rights that government as no
jurisdiction over. Fascism and Socialism both reject that notion as
government is the vehicle to compel their values on people.

Democrats are in a constant dance on the edge of socialism. Their values
include rejecting the unfairness of their being a large disparity between
rich and poor, which isn't a bad value.... but their answer is to use
government to compel "charity" or the "transfer of wealth" through taxes.
The effort includes finding "rights" to justify this, like rights to
employment, rights to minimum wages, rights of healthcare, rights to
shelter, right to education, ad infinitum, which rights have to be "found"
in the constitution via "activist", "progressive" judges.


 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> OK, ask the middle class <<
>
>And, who might the "middle class" be Lloyd? By the tax code the liar
>Clinton and the Democrats rammed down everyone's throats, anyone making $50k
>a year is Rich"!

Right-wing propaganda.


>We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
>middle class tax cut.

And when Bush left the budget in much worse shape, to his credit, he took
steps to get it under control.


>As soon as the worm got elected he promptly went on TV
>and abandoned it, then signed into law the biggest tax increase in history.

For the wealthy, not the middle class.

>
>> if they want college grants and scholarships cut. If they want their
>parents' Medicare and Medicaid benefits cut. If they want workplace safety
>not enforced. If they want no meat inspections. If they want to eliminate
>prisons, or aid to local schools, or law enforcement.>
>
>This rant is precisely why the Liberals are out of power, everyone (even the
>elderly) see through these typical Liberal scare tactics and lies. Fact is,
>all these people know to do is create more useless Federal agancies, fill
>them full of lazy-ass patronage workers and pause taxts to pay for it all.
>
>
 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Because it's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You know, the kind real
> scientists publish in.

I find your repeated reference to "real scientist" to be somewhat irritating. Can
you define a "real scientist" as opposed to just a plain old "scientist"? Do you
consider "real scientist" to be ones that agree with you and those who don't are
"false scientist"? I know there are plenty of people who call themselves
scientist that I don't agree with. Many of them publish in peer reviewed
journals. Some of them just post messages to newsgroups. Can we consider that to
be a peer review?

Regards,

Ed White

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Defenders Vs Insurers tomfoolery
Replies
1
Views
4K
lightning
lightning
300bhp/ton
Driven: New Defender - On & Off Road. Is it a Pretender?
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
lightning
lightning
P
Range Rover P38 EKA and BeCM Lockout
Replies
6
Views
5K
Doolinjames
D
natas
Hurricane Dorian survivor.
Replies
8
Views
2K
ProjectX
ProjectX
Alibro
How to recondition a VCU yourself.
15 16 17
Replies
325
Views
47K
Alibro
Alibro
Back
Top