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.
> 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. <

Well, in Lloyd's politically correct, all-must-be-equal world, you wouldn't
have a dictionary to look it up in, nor be literate enough to read it
anyway. That way we can ensure the equality of mankind and the salvation of
the Earth!

(I think Lloyd is runing out of spit, each response is less lucid than the
previous one.)


 
Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Well he just offended 95% of the "average guy" in the last couple of
> days with his spastic tap dancing. Al Sharpton still hasn't decided if

Were you offended? I wasn't. Speak for youself, lest you become a
"Sharpton" of your own.

The only think that got me upset was that he apologized at all to that
prick.
 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > 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.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >I was thinking the same thing when I went out to get the paper on
Sunday
> >> >morning and saw plumes of smoke the size of thunderheads all the way
> >across
> >> >the horizon. There aren't enough SUV's in the world.... NO!.... in
> >history
> >> >to put out the amount of greenhouse gases being released in one day!
The
> >> >whole SUV/Greenhouse gases thing is a canard.
> >> >
> >> >Ironically, one of the reasons SUV's are so popular is the supply of
> >large
> >> >cars with powerful engines were so restricted starting with the1973
CAFE
> >> >regulations.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> 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

As I thought you couldn't do it. If I posted a site like that to prove a
point to you, you would dismiss it as right wing garbage because it doesn't
come from a peer reviewed jounal. You should hold yourself to the standards
you demand from others Lloyd, now again, prove it.
BTW, what peer reviewed journals do you read Lloyd, and what articles have
you published in peer reviewed journals?


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
>
> >*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.
>
> >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.
>
> >
> >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."

Those same sites had "massive" amounts of evidence 25 years ago "proving:"
we were heading into a new ice age.
Thier "opinion" is no more valuable now than it was then.

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.

You reading left wing sites and calling it science is laughable Lloyd.
Learn some real science.


 


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

I particularly like these two paragraphs:
"'Life on Earth, in general, cannot be sustained above 104 degrees
Fahrenheit,' he said. 'In July of 1995 when temperatures rose to over
104 degrees over a large section of the Midwest, over 600 people died in
Chicago, not to mention the loss of livestock.'"

"One of the problems with global warming is that there will be winners
and losers," Thompson said. "There are 6 billion people who live on this
planet, and there are 2 billion who make less than $300 a year. It's
those people who won't be able to deal with changes in the environment.
If those people are displaced, where will they go and who pays the bill
for them going?"

WHAT an idiot!

The wording in this sentence was also rather telling: "Various global
warming models have predicted an increase in Earth's average temperature
over the next century, ranging from 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit to as high as
10 degrees Fahrenheit". I always am skeptical of people who
pretentiously refer to the Earth as if it were a person saying "Earth"
instead of "the Earth" as any normal person (at least in the U.S.) would
do (these are strangely the same people who say someone is "in
hospital", rather than "in the hospital" - NPR and people from England
say "in hospital" - for the latter, it's normal for their culture - for
U.S. born and raised NPR announcers, it's affectatious.

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! =-----
 


Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> 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.

Soil absorbs heat. Air absorbs heat. Water absorbs heat. Just making
a statement like "CO2 absorbs heat" tells us nothing.

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! =-----
 


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

Wow - that one came awfully close to the Godwin threshold! 8^)

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! =-----
 

"Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> 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.

A lab rat knows more science than Lloyd.
His feeble rants have clearly demonstrated his ignorance of science.


 


Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
> >>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?

Well, yeah - for one thing, that states can differ in certain areas
according to the will of the people as long as they stay within the
bounds of the Consitituion.

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! =-----
 
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Bill Putney wrote:

> I always am skeptical of people who pretentiously refer to the Earth as
> if it were a person saying "Earth" instead of "the Earth" as any normal
> person (at least in the U.S.) would do

Have you looked through a telescope lately and seen the Mars, the Saturn,
the Venus, the Jupiter, the Neptune, the Pluto...?

Looks like you're talking out of (the) Uranus.

DS

 
In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Soil absorbs heat. Air absorbs heat. Water absorbs heat. Just making
> a statement like "CO2 absorbs heat" tells us nothing.

What parker should have wrote, is that CO2 acts to retain heat. It's
a slight, but important difference.

 

"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:RGXqb.100665$mZ5.656765@attbi_s54...
> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney wrote:
> >
> >
> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > Soil absorbs heat. Air absorbs heat. Water absorbs heat. Just making
> > a statement like "CO2 absorbs heat" tells us nothing.
>
> What parker should have wrote, is that CO2 acts to retain heat. It's
> a slight, but important difference.
>

It's over his head, he only understands pseudo-science.


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> "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
>

Remember what you always say about CNN whenever someone uses it against you
Lloyd? :p


> >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?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

Hell Lloyd, all he has to do is show them this thread, you've damned
yourself here a hundred times over with your ignorant rantings.


 
I never did understand how the demo-crazies thought Jeb could do ****...

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > 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 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!>
>
> Now, David, there you go again, trying to bring reality rather than
Democrat
> fable into this entire matter. Now, Everyone knows Gore won, but those
awful
> Bush brothers and the Republicans conspired to steal the election by not
> allowing the Democrats to only count the votes they wanted counted, and
that
> AWFUL, Kathryn Harris had the audacity to interpret Florida election law
the
> way it was written. Maybe Howard Dean can fix all this after he wins the
> Presidency....
>
>


 
Um, no. There was a recount that wasn't finished in the LEGAL amount of
time... All recounts done after the elections was closed came out with bush
winning.

"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]>,
> >> "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.
> >>
> >> >
> >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.
>
>
> >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!
> >
> >


 
what's funny is the libs had no problem with gore asking for point
recounts... when bush asked for a statewide recount he was "stealing" the
election...

"Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the
> results
> > >of Florida? The final results were accurate and valid.>
> > >
> > >Actually it looks like the ORIGINAL results were accurate & valid!
> > >
> > >The Democrats proved their disegenuousness when they only wanted to
> recout
> > >three heavily Democratic counties.
> >
> > FL law allowed for a candidate to ask for a recount in specific
counties.
>
> No one minded Gore asking for a recount, he had that right. He did not
have
> the right to insist on recount after recount until he could find one that
> favored him.
> Had he bowed out gracefully after the first recount he would have had an
> excellent chance of beating Bush in 2004, way he went on though he
destroyed
> any chance he ever had at winning the Presidency. Sort of like the way you
> would do better in debates if you quit after the first reply instead of
> digging yourself in deeper with every lie you post.
>
> >
> >
> > >Worse, with a perfectly straight face
> > >they had Bill Daley act as their spokesperson! For those too young to
> > >remember, Daley is the son of the late Richard J. Daley, mayor of
Chicago
> in
> > >the 50's & 60's. Daley stole the 1960 election for Kennedy, which had a
> much
> > >closer National vote count than 2000, only 100,000 difference. Daley's
> > >Democratic machine created massive voter fraud, people voted twice,
dead
> > >people voted, Hell, dead people's DOGS voted. Hence the old Chicago
> saying
> > >"vote early, vote often!"
> >
> > The US constitution provides that a person's transgressions do not
extend
> to
> > their children. Guess that puts you on the wrong side of the
> constitution.
>
> Constitution does not always affect public perception. If you wish to be
> seen as honest you find someone publicly recognized as honest.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >No, old Al Gore screwed himself and the entire Democrat party by what
he
> > >did, and the public hasn't forgotten. By the way, Texas has only
recently
> > >become a Republican state. The Democrats have controlled politics there
> > >since the 1870's, and their latest trick to keep from accepting reality
> was
> > >to LEAVE THE STATE! Some representation!
> > >
> > >
>
>


 
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 01:30:25 GMT, [email protected] (Brent P)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>>
>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Soil absorbs heat. Air absorbs heat. Water absorbs heat. Just making
>> a statement like "CO2 absorbs heat" tells us nothing.
>
>What parker should have wrote, is that CO2 acts to retain heat. It's
>a slight, but important difference.

What all the computer models in the world miss is the effects of cloud
cover. It isn't certain if the heat retained because of clouds
offsets the heat reflected because of clouds.

Worse, computer models divide the globe into discrete sections and
none of these sections can accurately account for cloud cover.

As a result, all models treat cloud cover as a parameterized input.
That is, he who wishes to model a prediction just adds in the cloud
cover affect just as he wishes.

 
"OK, but would you then agree that a government that tries to take away
women's right to choose is being fascist?"
Jesus, a woman also doesn't have the right to attempt suicide (yes,
attempted suicide is illegal). Personally, I feel that abortion is
premeditated murder; my opinion has nothing to do with a relegious stance.
I also don't care if abortion is legal or not. I do think it's funny that
libs are pro-baby-murder but anti death penalty. Of course, it's also funny
that anti-baby-murder folks are also pro death penalty. I like the military
motto of "kill them all, let god sort them out"


 
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