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:
>>
>> Wrong. As the media reported, depending on how the votes were counted
>> (strictly, loosely), Bush would win some recounts...
>
>something like 16 out of 17
>
>> ...and Gore would win some
>
>something like 1 out of 17. But of course that *1* method would be the
>only "correct" one.
>
>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! =-----
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> "And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?"
>> >> Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the
>results
>> >of
>> >> Florida? The final results were accurate and valid.
>> >
>> >And what the Dems never acknowledge is the fact that Floridas votes were
>> >recounted again after Bush was declared the winner, every vote was
>counted,
>> >no matter how poorly marked, and it gave Bush more votes than the final
>> >official count had given him.
>>
>> Wrong. As the media reported, depending on how the votes were counted
>> (strictly, loosely), Bush would win some recounts and Gore would win some.
>
>Read what I wrote LP, they counted EVERY vote, not just the proper ones,
>EVERY vote, and Bush won by a larger margin than the official vote gave him.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

>You are wrong once again, which is at least normal for you.
>And I saw the ballots in question, they were very simple to use, I've voted
>with them myself before, and Chicago used the same ballot in the same
>election without a problem.
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[email protected]...
>> >> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> <snip>
>> >> > And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> > >Thanks! Of course these are old arguments. Lloyd's arguments look
>like
>> > >cut/paste jobs from previous posts he's made. He always says the same
>> thing
>> > >over and over. And he always degenerates to name calling....
>> > >"right-winger", "fascist", "hate-monger", etc.
>> >
>> > Only when your side starts with the "socialist" or "communist" name
>> calling.
>> >
>> Ok. I'll hold you to that.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > >or self-agrandizement being
>> > >that he's such an intelligent guy....Phd and all.... "What are YOUR
>> > >credentials?" or "Take a science class!".
>> >
>> > If you're going to challenge established science, you need some
>expertise.
>> >
>>
>> Face it Lloyd. There is no expertise that comes from taking a "science
>> course", whatever that is. The only course I've seen called "science" is
>at
>> my daughters middle school. Heck, I took 5 quarters of physics... not
>just
>> physics, but Berkely Physics... in college and that certainly didn't make
>me
>> an expert in physics.
>>
>> In many areas, there is no level of expertise that gets to the real
>answers,
>> i.e, there's more we don't know that we do know; there's no "established
>> science" yet; or it's wrong. Just because one can wave a degree in
>> "science" around doesn't give you a level of expertise required to know
>the
>> answers to questions like global warming or economics or whatever.
>>
>> For you to generalize your expertise because you have a phd is like
>> presuming there's money in your account because you have checks. The
>Phd's
>> I've worked with are usually people who have expertise in narrow, focused
>> areas. For them to claim expertise in any other area is like writing a
>> check on an account with insufficient funds.
>
>
>You've described LP to a T. He knows a little Chemistry, that does not make
>him an expert on any of the subjects he claims to know all about.

Like atmospheric chemistry?


>Someday I
>really must write Emory a letter concerning our good Doctor Lloyd, let them
>in on how much he has damaged their reputation with his bull**** posting.
>
>
Yeah, tell them about your scientific qualifications to judge me too.
 
C. E. White wrote:


> To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse than
> the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case is being
> dramatically overstated.
>
> Ed
>


If the ecosystem were as unstable as the global warmers implied, one of
the countless cataclysmic events of the past would have tipped the
balance millenia ago and run the environment off to either hellish heat
or a frozen wasteland.

Atmospheric CO2 is no doubt higher now than at the dawn of the
industrial age, but the earth has *huge* buffering mechanisms that can
kick in to stabilize temperatures. Far more than the "ban all cars"
crowd gives it credit for.


 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Lloyd Parker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>CO2 put into the air by nature has been in balance for millions of years.
>>It's man changing this equilibrium that's the problem.
>
>Man's hardly making a dent. (and man is not exactly separate from
>nature anyway).

Gee, you know more science than the thousands in IPCC, EPA, NASA, NOAA,
National Academy of Sciences, and American Geophysical Union!

>
>Now, you want to talk about pollution, at one time there were these
>single-celled organisms that released as waste a corrosive gas which
>eventually became up to 30% of the atmosphere. MAJOR die-offs then,
>the stuff was deadly poison to nearly all the organisms alive at the
>time. And perfectly natural, too. Man? Man's a piker. Pushed up
>CO2 levels a little maybe, but not even anywhere near all-time highs.
>And the stuff's nowhere near as toxic as the earlier gas.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <Khxqb.91903$mZ5.602598@attbi_s54>,
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> CO2 put into the air by nature has been in balance for millions of years.
>>> It's man changing this equilibrium that's the problem.
>>
>>CO2 content of the atmosphere been changing for millions years.

> It's been around 280 ppm for half a million years; now it's up to 350 ppm in
> the last 120 years.

Your wrong again Parker.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/monnin2001/monnin2001.html

Clearly this shows that CO2 levels were aproximately 195ppm 17,000 years
ago. Rising to aproximately 265ppm about 9000 years ago.

>>Did you not
>>look at the data you keep harping on?

> Yes. Have you?

You clearly haven't. In a couple minutes of searching I've turned
up proof from a source you've certified (NOAA), that you are wrong.


 
In article <[email protected]>,
Lloyd Parker <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Lloyd Parker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>CO2 put into the air by nature has been in balance for millions of years.
>>>It's man changing this equilibrium that's the problem.
>>
>>Man's hardly making a dent. (and man is not exactly separate from
>>nature anyway).
>
>Gee, you know more science than the thousands in IPCC, EPA, NASA, NOAA,
>National Academy of Sciences, and American Geophysical Union!

Naa, I just know more science than you. (OK, perhaps not chemistry,
but I wouldn't bet on that if I were you). Heck, I'm even published.
--
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:

> >> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.
> >
> >Prove it.
> >
> >
> http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/aganswers/2002/2-14_Ohio_Peanuts.html

Whoops, you forgot the proof Lloyd. It was a nice opinion piece though. Where is
the peer review? Where did the article support your contention that "Humans put
out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude." The article only said
"Humans are releasing more than 8 billion tons of CO2 into Earth's atmosphere
annually, Thompson said. By comparison, the natural contribution of CO2 from
volcanoes ranges from 300 million to 1.1 billion tons per year." This only
addresses the CO2 from volcanoes, not from all of "nature."

Regards,

Ed White

 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >At a federal level? YES. STATES should do that, NOT the feds...
> >>
> >> So why should a US citizen who lives in Mississippi not have the same
> >rights
> >> and privileges as one who lives in New York?
> >>
> >
> >The feds don't have jurisdiction over all rights. The 14th amendment
> >muddled that concept up a bit, but it's still a fact that many rights are
> >reserved to the people and the states. The feds don't have all power.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> > But why
> >> >listen to what the "founding fathers" wanted...
> >>
> >> They wanted the government to "provide for the general welfare" and
wrote
> >that
> >> into the constitution.
> >>
> >
> >It's just like a liberal to look to the preamble to find a "right".
That's
> >what the Florida Supreme Court did to undo state election law. If you're
to
> >interpret "provide for the general welfare" in the preample, which is a
> >statement of purpose, you can't conclude that citizens have a right of
> >"general welfare" they can lay claim to. The articles that follow the
> >preamble and lay out the function of government ARE the interpretation of
> >general welfare.
> >
> >
> It's just like a right-winger to have not read the constitution. Article
I,
> section 8, pal. Read the constitution!

Ok, but the argument still holds that "provide for the general welfare"
doesn't imply any right to welfare citizens can lay claim to from the
government.


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

> For half a million years, CO2 was around 280 ppm, without much variation. In
> the last 120 years, it's increased to 350 ppm.

Wrong.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/monnin2001/monnin2001.html
Levels have been varied considerably between 9,000 and 22,000 years
ago alone.

Looks like you are using political scare tatics instead of science
from the NOAA et al. Why don't you follow your own 'advice' Parker?

>>In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
>>concentration until about 10,000 years ago.

> Wrong.

They were going up until about 10,000 years ago bounced up and down
slightly and then fell slightly for a couple thousand years.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=129389 (figure 2)
and http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/monnin2001/monnin2001.html

> And you're not qualified to judge any science, are you?

Stop hiding behind a PhD to justify your politics parker and start
presenting science with real cites to back your claims.

I've cited at least 3 different scientific papers on the topic in this
thread alone just to show you to be wrong, you've cited none in return.

 
> It is not money that is being taxed, it is people. After all it is
people who pay taxes, and rich offspring have never paid any taxes on their
parents estate. Even so, Democrats proposed to abolish the tax for estates
of up to 2 million dollars (later 5, 10 or even 100 million), but this was
not good enough for the Bush administration, they had to abolish a tax that
mainly affected the already super-rich.<

Are you nuts? The threshod for ther Estate Tax is $650k, that's hardly
"super rich". My sister's husband has an aunt whose nearly two hundred year
old Indiana farm appreciated to nearly $700k. The estate taxes were such
that it's had to be sold and most of the proceeds broken up into "gifts" to
keep the government from confiscating roughly 60% of its value in taxes. She
never made more than $30k a year.


> BTW there is no free meal. When you abolish a tax to the super-rich
> then the burden is increased for everybody else. After all the total
> cost of government has not come down under Bush, on the contrary in
> has gone up - so the money must come in, one way or the other.
>
> If we were to insist on the view that money is being taxed, then it
> seems to me that money is always taxed several times. When you buy
> something with your already taxed income you pay sales tax - again -
> and I don't see any conservatives proposing the abolition of the sales
> tax (why is that?). When you pay rent, your landlord has to pay taxes
> even though the money you give him was already taxed. When you win the
> lottery or when you get a gift you have to pay taxes. Oh, you say once
> money changes hands it can be taxed again? If so, why not tax
> inheritance moneys?
>
> In fact there is no such moral principle as "money should not be taxed
> twice". This is only a catchy phrase used to justify tax cuts skewed
> to the very rich.


 
> >>
> >> >
> >No, there was ONE way of counting where Gore came out ahead. But it is
all
> >academic because it wasn't how the state law says to count ballots. (Not
> >that THAT would have stopped the Dems). Gore lost every recount
>
> No, the recount was halted.
>

You mean the ever expanding recount? The "one" that could never find enough
extra Gore votes so they kept expanding to the point of wanting to recount
the entire state using a redefined counting starndard?

>
> >and only
> >had the HOPE of finding a way to recount where he would come out ahead.
> >This is what the USSC stopped. It's amazing to hear you say that's how
Bush
> >"stole" the election!
> >
> >


 
> America will heal itself. We're just letting Dean along for the ride
because we think he's going to listen to the average guy... instead of the
wealthy few. <

The "wealthy few" amount to millions of people whom Howard Dean will court
favor with, as does any politician. The last time the poor tried running
countries Mao and Joseph Stalin became their leaders.


 
In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message


>>>>> But I have to admit, this is the product of experience.
>><snip>
>>>>You've learned from experience, Lloyd never has. ;-)

>>> I've learned from science; you never have.

>>I've learned from science, and it's not science that you preach parker.
>>You spout political views and hide behind a PhD in chemistry as if
>>that makes your political views correct. You dismiss without discussion
>>any scientific data or analysis that challenges your beliefs. That is *NOT*
>>science.

> Science tells up CO2 absorbs heat, science tells us the earth is warming,
> science tells us CO2 has increased along with temperature, science tells us
> human activities produce CO2.

Corrolation vs. Causation Parker.

You could equally say the human population has increased and humans
exhale CO2 in your corrolation.... Doesn't mean it's a cause.


 
"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yeah, tell them about your scientific qualifications to judge me too.

lol......its nice to see youre still the same idiot loser twit youve always
been. the same ignorant ass that claimed rear wheel only engine braking was
just as effective as 4 wheel engine braking off road on steep slick declines
because of some "scientific" reasoning you read in a magazine. it doesnt
take any "scientific qualifications" to know youre a idiot lloyd. you speak
for yourself rather well.

and just incase you were wondering, i still hope you die a slow miserable
death as the cholesterol that wraps your obese heart chokes the life out of
you. i read the atlanta journal online daily hoping to find "obese
homosexual professor dies due to massive blood loss when the gerbil he
shoved up his ass worked the tape from his claws". only a matter of time,
feltcher. :)

--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com



 
> Science tells up CO2 absorbs heat, science tells us the earth is warming,
science tells us CO2 has increased along with temperature, science tells us
human activities produce CO2. <

Yeah, WEIRD, GREEN Science!!!!


 
> They have a sense of entitlement and moral superiority that aloows them to
use whatever extreme measures are required to return themselves to their
proper place in the seat of power. <

Precisely, these arrogant, elitist people are currently spouting alarmist
rhetoric about the dangers of "one party rule", but seemed to think it was
okay back in the mid-late 7-'s under Carter and a Dem Congress. What a bunch
of hypocrites!


 
> People are dead because fascists like you herded them into death camps. <

Lloyd, you've reached a new low! (And, what would you Socialists call your
pal Joe Stalin's Gulags, Boy Scout Camps?)


 
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