Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Nov 7, 2003

• #1,261

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:43:53 -0900, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:

>Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:56:41 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>In article <[email protected]>, Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>>>>
>>>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
>>
>>It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
>>Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
>
>You are basing your conclusion on an unproven premise. It was "fairly
>obvious" that the earth was flat as well. That didn't make it true...
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

However, the flat earth theory was based on a false premise, without
observation.
That tax increases hurt economies is an observed fact.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Nov 7, 2003

• #1,262

On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:46:39 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> > Llotd: Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy. >
>>
>>> First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. Second, money taken out of
>>the private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of
>>where the money comes from (rich or poor). The "drag" the Clinton tax
>>increase put on the economy wasn't enought to stop the dot com speculation,
>>which was
>>wild beyond caring about the diffence between 33% and 39%. <
>>
>>Good for you! Clinton lucked out, the internet boom and tech speculation of
>>the mid-90's fueled the entire "Clinton recovery" and simply brushed aside
>>the Democrats' egregious middle class tax increases. Then the inevetable
>>happened, the bubble burst and the weight of the tax increases weight
>>collapsed the economy in on itself.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>Care to compare Clinton's economy to either of the Bushs'?

How did Clinton effect the dot.com bubble?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Nov 7, 2003

• #1,263

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:45:44 -0900, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:

>"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. Second, money taken out of the
>>private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of where
>>the money comes from (rich or poor).
>
>If you take $1,000,000,000 out of the private sector and move it to the
>public sector and create exactly the same number of jobs at exactly the
>same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that affect the economy?
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

If those jobs are in the government, they are non-productive.
They don't produce anything that can be sold, serviced, bought and
used.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Nov 7, 2003

• #1,264

On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:18:14 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:05:06 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>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?
>>
>>Maybe because the US Constitution says so?
>
>Doesn't being an American mean anything?

How do you connect those two?
If one state gives its citizens rights and priviledges that another
state doesn't, how does that affect your being an American?
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>"General Welfare" and "welfare" are not the same.
>
>No, but it's subjective what general welfare includes. To me and most
>Americans, it includes education, transportation, environmental protection,
>etc.

The Federal Government has no mandate about education. Look it up.
The Constitution very carefully defines the obligations of the
Government. It also is very explicit in saying that anything not
specifically defined as the province of the Federal Government, it is
then reserved to the states.

>
>>But you knew that, and are just trying to obfuscate (for you, that
>>means lie).
>>

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Nov 7, 2003

• #1,265

On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:18:48 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:00:50 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <P3gqb.313110$9l5.188454@pd7tw2no>,
>>> "Kingbarry2000" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>> "C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Jonesy wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:<[email protected]>...
>>>>> >> > Or, an idealist who gets his first pay check and realizes he's just
>>>>spent
>>>>> >> > 50% of his time working for the Government.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Yet another right-wing lie.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> No beginning worker spends even half that amount to The Government.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >In defense of Gerald, it dpends on your loaction and the starting pay.
>>>>I'd
>>>>> guess some engineers in high
>>>>> >tax staes could be approaching 50% when you include Social Security
>(both
>>>>> sides, not just "your half") and
>>>>>
>>>>> Then let's include the employer's property taxes and utility bills.
>>>>>
>>>>> >state and city taxes. And if you include all the taxes you pay, both
>>>>direct
>>>>> annd indirect, I'd guess a lot
>>>>> >of people pay more than 50% of their income to various governments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gee, if you right-wingers include everything anybody pays as YOUR taxes,
>I
>>>>bet
>>>>> you could get up over 100%!
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Ed
>>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.
>>>>
>>>Do you have any idea how few estates are subject to the estate tax?
>>
>>You changed the subject again.
>>Do you ramble like this in class?
>
>Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Not at all.
You responded with a non sequitor.
It matter not how many or few are affected by the tax in question.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Nov 7, 2003

• #1,266

On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:10:09 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <qlxqb.95265$ao4.280496@attbi_s51>,
> [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.

What does science tell us about prior warming periods?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

C

C. E. White

Guest

• Nov 7, 2003

• #1,267

Bill Funk wrote:

> If those jobs are in the government, they are non-productive.
> They don't produce anything that can be sold, serviced, bought and
> used.

Workers bulding and maintaining roads are non-productive? Soldiers, sailors and
airmen defending our country are not providing a service? Agriculture inspectors
checking beef are not providing a service. Policeman fighting crime aren't
providing a service? The National Weather Service is non-productive?

Ed

 

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Nov 7, 2003

• #1,268

On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:12:18 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Not proven. <
>>
>>Was proven and confirmed. The resulting squeal you jeard was Joan Claybrook
>>and her idiot friends at the Center for Auto Safety making up more lies.
>>
>>> And the NAS looked at it and said NHTSA's study was flawed -- they lumped
>>together cars of different weights, they lumped together model years with
>>different safety features, etc. <
>>
>>Not true, the NAS had no role in either the original or sunbsequent
>>research.
>
>They analyzed it.
>
>
>>These people died because the cars lacked mass.
>
>Not so.
>
>
>>Simple, end of
>>argument fact, Lloyd, they're DEAD because they got forced into death traps
>>by meddling, know-nothing Socialists.
>
>People are dead because fascists like you herded them into death camps.

Interesting.
Those who propose free choice are fascists.
Those who propose less governmental interference are fascists.
When I look up 'fascist', that's not even close to the definition I
get.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Nov 7, 2003

• #1,269

On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:23:45 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "C. E. White"
>><[email protected]> 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
>>
>>I don't think there's any question that global warming is happening.
>>But there are a lot of questions about that:
>>
>>*Why* is it happening? Truth is, we don't know. We can *model*
>>scenarios that say we are at fault, but those models don't admit that
>>it's happened in the past, without the possibility of us interfering
>>at all.
>
>Actually, they don't need to. Something can have more than one cause. For
>example, your body temp. can rise due to many factors; just because factor A
>caused it to rise yesterday doesn't mean factor B can't be the cause today.

Actually, if the remedies being proposed will cause an upheaval in the
way we live, they'd damn well better find out of the remedies will
actually work.
>
>>*How long* will it last? Again, we don't know.
>>Will reducing the CO2 output from our manufacturing/transportation
>>slow/reverse the warming? Again, we don't know. And, we have
>>absolutely no idea of what would happen if we were to reverse it.
>>Would we enter another ice age? We simply don't know.
>>
>>Models can be made to say anything the people making the models want
>>to hear. That's reality.
>
>The models now predict current conditions quite well; the test of a model.

Like I said, models can be made to say anything the makers want it to
say.
Including, in the short run, current conditions.
Since the current environment is fairly static in the short run, it's
easy to do this.
>
>>It's stupid to say that CO2 that we are putting out is the cause of
>>global; warming, then push something like Kyoto, which merely shifts
>>the location of the CO2 production. Yet, that's what the tree-huggers
>>want.
>
>Shifts location? Huh? It would require cuts.

In industrialized nations.
Where do you think the production will go?
>
>>
>>Maybe if we had more facts about what the problem is, we could come up
>>with some workable answers.
>>
>Maybe if more people would read what the scientists say -- IPCC, EPA, NASA,
>NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, etc. -- they'd
>know we already have "more facts." Reading right-wing web sites and thinking
>that constitutes science would be laughable if it were not such a pathetic
>commentary on the state of education today.

I *have* read much of it. And I'm not particularly impressed with
those who have an obvious bias against mankind.
When those scientists are able to divorce themselves from political
bias (including yourself), they will have much more credibility. As it
is, their science so reeks of politicization that their results are
open to much debate.
Especially when you come along and completely ignore past warming
periods, and act as if this one is somehow a freakish occurance, and
we are the cause.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Nov 7, 2003

• #1,270

On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:20:50 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:53:29 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>> "FDRanger92" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into the
>>>>air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any thinning
>>>>of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and contributing
>>>>to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
>>>>truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>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.
>>
>>If so, and CO2 is the reason for our current warming trend, then what
>>caused all the other warming trends?
>>
>If exercise caused your temp. to rise yesterday, does that mean a virus cannot
>cause it to do so today?

No, of course not.
But until you rule out other causes, simply treating the virus can
leave you dead.
If you don't know the causes of prior warmings, how can you possibly
rule them out now?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

K

Kingbarry2000

Guest

• Nov 7, 2003

• #1,271

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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:
> >> >> 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?
> >>
> >
> >Not as many as Democratic. The counties Gore tried to Cherry-pick in
Florida
> >were Democratic strongholds. Do you think that was an accident?
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >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...
> >>
> >>
> >I can't fault FMLA, in itself its a good thing. Workplace safety
sometimes
> >goes to far the way the laws are written. Whether you like it or not
Lloyd
> >there is such a thing as over regulation. I think abortion is wrong, but
its
> >not for me or anyone else to legislate it, hence I don't think it should
be
> >an issue.
> >The Brady Bill and assault weapons ban are a joke, if you actually got
out
> >of that ivory tower you're holed up in you might realize it. If it were
up
> >to you I could think of three people off the top of my head who might be
> >dead at the moment if they didn't have a firearm handy.
> >An Atlanta police officer's wife who killed her would be rapist.
> >A man who shot a would be carjacker on the northside of Atlanta somewhere
in
> >a Wal-Fart parking lot.
> >A wal-Fart employee in Florida somewhere IIRC who was being stabbed by
some
> >nutcase who was foiled by an old lady w/ a pistol.
> >
> >
> >
> And for each of those, there are family members shot in anger or
accidentally,
> suicides with a handy gun, children shooting children with a gun found in
the
> house, shooting of a neighbor the homeowner thought was a burglar, etc.

And arrows. Specially the pointy ones ...

--
Certe, toto, sentio nos in kansate non iam adesse

 

K

Kingbarry2000

Guest

• Nov 7, 2003

• #1,272

"Nathan Collier" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "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
>
>
>

Well, why don't you, like, get emotional about it.

--
Certe, toto, sentio nos in kansate non iam adesse

 

K

Kingbarry2000

Guest

• Nov 7, 2003

• #1,273

"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:56:41 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
> >>In article <[email protected]>, Bill Funk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
> >>>
> >>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
> >
> >It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
> >Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
>
> You are basing your conclusion on an unproven premise. It was "fairly
> obvious" that the earth was flat as well. That didn't make it true...
>


Doesn't make it false either.
The earth is Flat, my friend.
It may not look like it from where you are, but just go to Saskatchewan.

--
Certe, toto, sentio nos in kansate non iam adesse

 

K

Kingbarry2000

Guest

• Nov 7, 2003

• #1,274

"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. Second, money taken out of
the
> >private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of
where
> >the money comes from (rich or poor).
>
> If you take $1,000,000,000 out of the private sector and move it to the
> public sector and create exactly the same number of jobs at exactly the
> same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that affect the economy?
>


1) Politicos get a cut, say 15%
2) You have to set up a department for this, say 30%
3) All government employees belong to unions, another 5%
4) see:3 - Union employees work a little slower, another 20%
5) see:3 - It takes two union members to do the work of 1, another 30%
6) see:3 - Union dues, another 2%
7) Total - 102%.
8) 2% of $1,000,000,000 ===> $20,000,000
9) Marc - please come up with another $20,000,000





--
Certe, toto, sentio nos in kansate non iam adesse

 

G

Gerald G. McGeorge

Guest

• Nov 7, 2003

• #1,275

> I am sure you know of many cases where the collective wisdom of the
scientists of the day proved to be wrong. <

Yeah, like in 1975 when they all said we were heading for the new ice age
due to, guess what, human industrial emissions ...we've been down this
(yawn) road before. See, Lloyd knows full well the "greenhous gas (bag)"
theorists are just that, however the THEORY suits the social revisonist
philosophy of him and his leftist buddies. So what if they're worng if they
can conficate more wealth and reengineer sociaty to suit their leftist
ideals.

 

G

Gerald G. McGeorge

Guest

• Nov 7, 2003

• #1,276

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. <

Tell us how you REALLY feel, Nate!

 

G

Gerald G. McGeorge

Guest

• Nov 7, 2003

• #1,277

> If you take $1,000,000,000 out of the private sector and move it to the
public sector and create exactly the same number of jobs ...... <

Governments cannot create as many jobs for the same amount of money as the
private sector. As they have no profit motive, the internal waste, etc. goe
unchedcked and money oozes out due to low productivity, patronage, protected
absenteesism, etc.

...... at exactly the same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that
affect the economy? <

Government cannot pay the same salaries as the private sector for the same
number of jons, plus since they produce no goods or services the money they
absorb is merely transfers private sector assets to public sector
liabilities. For the given amount of revenue they produce no profit,
therefore have nothing to reinvest and create new wealth. They must
therefore either cut costs, raise taxes, or print money, devaluing all
revenues to the detrimant of the entire economy. Name the last time before
the Republicans took control in the 90s the liberals govt reduced spending
to balance a budget? That's right NEVER! That's why Carter and his lib
biddies in congress gave us double-digit inflation prining money, which they
then turened in touble didgit unemployment. All that in only 4 short years!

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

 

G

Gerald G. McGeorge

Guest

• Nov 7, 2003

• #1,278

> Assuming government spending is linked to government income, when you tax
people, you take the money out of their hands and into the hands of an
entity that does not save. The government expands to fill all possible
revenue.<

Replace "fill" with "waste nearly all" and you unerestand government.

> So, a tax cut will pull money out of the active economy, causing a
recession. <

Hmm,. I guess that's why Reagan's tax cut more than douled tax revenues back
to the Govt! (Where the Hell did you get YOUR economics degree, McDonalds?)

 

G

Gerald G. McGeorge

Guest

• Nov 7, 2003

• #1,279

> How did Clinton effect the dot.com bubble? <

Why, Al Gore invented the Internet, of course, don't you remember?


> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"

 

G

Gerald G. McGeorge

Guest

• Nov 7, 2003

• #1,280

> What does science tell us about prior warming periods? <

Well, it depends what "scientists" you ask. If you ask the greenies, there's
nver been any period of waqrming, the earth and it's atmosphere were in
perfect balance before man and his SUVs came along.

If you ask other scientists, they'll tell you the earth is in a continual,
gradual shift between periods of warming & cooling, caused between
geothermal, solar and magnetic variables. They point to the ice age, and the
creation of massive deserts like the Sahara as proof....Lloyd's scientists
are certain these events were caused by primitives driving gas-guzzling
Hummer SUVs
>