Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

In article <[email protected]>,
"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.

If I want my car's carb fixed, I will go to the best mechanic I can find
to do the job.

If I want my heart fixed, I will go to the best cardiologist I can find
to do the job.

If I want information about a problem with the environment that has the
potential to wipe out life on this planet, I will go to scientists who
spend their lives investigating the environment. I will certainly not go
to rec.driving.autos for such information.

On Sat, 8 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.

> I thought about that before I posted. (BTW, you left out [the] Sun,
> [the] Moon.)

Naw, I didn't. Those aren't planets.

> The fact is, normal people (in the U.S. anyway), while they refer to the
> other planets as [name of planet] *without* the "the" refer to the earth
> as "the Earth". You want to argue with that, go right ahead. I'm not
> saying it's logical that we use "the" when referring to the Earth but
> not with the other planets - but it happens to be a fact of common
> usage.


You must not get out much. Lots and lots of normal people in the US refer
to Earth as Earth. Without any "the".

DS

When you go to these scientists "who spend their lives investigating the
environment," please remember where the money comes from that allows them to
investigate the environment. Do not overlook the fact that these scientists
also receive their paychecks and funding for their research based on the
results of that research. It's a huge confict of interest. If they find
there is no problem with the environment, then they are basically saying
there's no more need for them to have a job. If, on the other hand, they
say there's a huge problem with the environment, they can then say that they
need more money to investigate this problem and therefore keep themselves
"useful" until that money runs out. They just have to make sure the new
research points to further problems.
IMHO

"Me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "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.
>
> If I want my car's carb fixed, I will go to the best mechanic I can find
> to do the job.
>
> If I want my heart fixed, I will go to the best cardiologist I can find
> to do the job.
>
> If I want information about a problem with the environment that has the
> potential to wipe out life on this planet, I will go to scientists who
> spend their lives investigating the environment. I will certainly not go
> to rec.driving.autos for such information.

Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > Were you offended? I wasn't.
>
> No - I'm part of the other 5%. I can do that since I take nothing he
> says seriously.

Were you actually offended by what Howard Dean said?

> > Were you offended? I wasn't. Speak for youself, lest you become a
> > "Sharpton" of your own.
>
> No - I'm part of the other 5%. I can do that since I take nothing he
> says seriously. Sharpton of my own? What the heck does that mean?

So you weren't offended by what he said, yet you feel free to point
out that "some people" were offended on the basis of Al Sharpton's
assertions.

Are you a follower of Al Sharpton?

Do you seriously think that Al Sharpton was offended by Dean?

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 09:39:14 -0500, Me <[email protected]> wrote:

>If I want information about a problem with the environment that has the
>potential to wipe out life on this planet, I will go to scientists who
>spend their lives investigating the environment. I will certainly not go
>to rec.driving.autos for such information.


Another liberal missing the point?

Nobody is expecting you to think these newsgroups are doing the
research. What some are telling you though is that what you do
believe isn't coming from an unbiased source and you should seek out
the unbiased research. It is out there and it isn't what you hear
about in the mainstream media.

Matt
99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003, Matt Mead wrote:

> Nobody is expecting you to think these newsgroups are doing the
> research. What some are telling you though is that what you do
> believe isn't coming from an unbiased source and you should seek out
> the unbiased research. It is out there and it isn't what you hear
> about in the mainstream media.

Well...no. There is no "unbiased research" sitting on a dark shelf
somewhere waiting to be sought out. It's up to the reader to look at a
broad enough range of research to get an idea of the variety of hypotheses
and experimental results and do the homework of finding out who paid for
each study, then make up his own mind.


DS

> Do you seriously think that Al Sharpton was offended by Dean? <

Of course not, it was a typical Sharpton canard. No one should have been
offended by Dean's candid remark, and it had nothing to do with the South.
He was just expressing the reality of the Democrat's predicament. They have
allowed themselves to become a party that only represents urban, minority &
radical green special interests. Unless they can return to the center they
can not win over the majority, regardless of geography. The more people like
Sharpton keep referring to the South has the home of racists & rednecks, the
longer it will take for Democrats to return to relevance. As it is,
Lieberman is the only one of the bunch with even a slight chance of winning
in '04.

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 8 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.
>
> > I thought about that before I posted. (BTW, you left out [the] Sun,
> > [the] Moon.)
>
> Naw, I didn't. Those aren't planets.

So are these "rules" written down somewhere, or is it by common useage?

>
> > The fact is, normal people (in the U.S. anyway), while they refer to the
> > other planets as [name of planet] *without* the "the" refer to the earth
> > as "the Earth". You want to argue with that, go right ahead. I'm not
> > saying it's logical that we use "the" when referring to the Earth but
> > not with the other planets - but it happens to be a fact of common
> > usage.
>
> You must not get out much. Lots and lots of normal people in the US refer
> to Earth as Earth. Without any "the".
>
> DS

We disagree. I probably get out as much as you do. My observations are
different, or perhaps you hang out with pretentious people. 8^) I
don't know anyone that leaves the "the" out (except in the movies, on
TV, etc.).

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! =-----

Erik Aronesty wrote:
>
> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > Were you offended? I wasn't.
> >
> > No - I'm part of the other 5%. I can do that since I take nothing he
> > says seriously.
>
> Were you actually offended by what Howard Dean said?

You asked "Were you offended?". I replied "No..." You kept your direct
question and my direct answer in your reply. Why do you ask the same
question again?

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! =-----

When you go to these scientists "who spend their lives investigating the
environment," please remember where the money comes from that allows them to
investigate the environment. Do not overlook the fact that these scientists
also receive their paychecks and funding for their research based on the
results of that research. It's a huge confict of interest. If they find
there is no problem with the environment, then they are basically saying
there's no more need for them to have a job. If, on the other hand, they
say there's a huge problem with the environment, they can then say that they
need more money to investigate this problem and therefore keep themselves
"useful" until that money runs out. They just have to make sure the new
research points to further problems. <

Now there someone goes again, drawing logical, insightful conclusions out of
this issue. We Green Socialists have to do something about these common
people being able to read and think if we're ever going to get this Earth
cleaned up.

>
> "Me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "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.
> >
> > If I want my car's carb fixed, I will go to the best mechanic I can find
> > to do the job.
> >
> > If I want my heart fixed, I will go to the best cardiologist I can find
> > to do the job.
> >
> > If I want information about a problem with the environment that has the
> > potential to wipe out life on this planet, I will go to scientists who
> > spend their lives investigating the environment. I will certainly not go
> > to rec.driving.autos for such information.
>
>

> If I want information about a problem with the environment that has the
potential to wipe out life on this planet, I will go to scientists who spend
their lives investigating the environment. I will certainly not go to
rec.driving.autos for such information. <

See ya!

> Well...no. There is no "unbiased research" sitting on a dark shelf
somewhere waiting to be sought out. It's up to the reader to look at a broad
enough range of research to get an idea of the variety of hypotheses and
experimental results and do the homework of finding out who paid for each
study, then make up his own mind.>

It's a lot easier just believeing everything spouted by a Leftist green gas
(bag) theorist on CNN, like all the rest of your friends....

Erik Aronesty wrote:
>
> > > Were you offended? I wasn't. Speak for youself, lest you become a
> > > "Sharpton" of your own.
> >
> > No - I'm part of the other 5%. I can do that since I take nothing he
> > says seriously. Sharpton of my own? What the heck does that mean?
>
> So you weren't offended by what he said, yet you feel free to point
> out that "some people" were offended on the basis of Al Sharpton's
> assertions.

Let's just say that my comments were tongue-in-cheek, as in: I believe
everything liberals tell me, so I must believe Al Sharpton when he
indicates that we should be offended, and the subsequent theater of
Sharpton publicly stating that he isn't sure that he accepts Dean's
apology to him on behalf of all black people. It just points out the
absurdity of the liberal mind being demonstrated by the so-called
Democratic contenders' debates.

I particulary liked the question (and the "candidates" answers) about
whether the candidates preferred Macs or pc's. It showed how serious
they all aren't.

Apparently Dean felt that people should have been offended by his own
remarks since he personally felt compelled to apologize to Reverend Al
for having made them. Again, since I believe whatever liberals say, I
must agree with Dean that his remarks were offensive to people. (note:
more tongue-in-cheek sarcasm that doesn't warrant followup by serious
questions)

> Are you a follower of Al Sharpton?

Heh! You have to ask?

> Do you seriously think that Al Sharpton was offended by Dean?

Who knows (and does it really matter)? He publicly refused to accept
Dean's apology. So who am I to believe? Reverend Al is obviously
either truly offended or playing a part in a pathetic bit of theater. I
think that the character that Sharpton plays demands that he pretend to
be offended. Maybe that's what you think he's doing? Or do you think
he's genuinely offended? (I think I've got you wrapped around the axle
no matter how you answer. If there's a third alternative to how I
interpreted the "event" that would put either Dean or Reverend Al or
both in a good light, then throw it on the table.)

Howard Dean could tell me personally to my face that I am an idiot and I
would not be offended since I would consider the source.

The point in my original post was that Dean (and all the other
"candidates") is deparately trying to convince people to vote for him,
and that the south (and all of its constituency) is critical to whoever
gets elected. All the candidates know this, but he basically stepped on
his dork trying to appease certain "favored" groups and in that attempt
offended practically everyone who would otherwise potentially take his
remarks seriously (that would not include me). Hence my reference to
his spastic tap dancing. Is it really that hard to comprehend? You're
reading way too much into this (or at least pretending to, but I think
your charade is backfiring on you).

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 Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:26:51 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals stand
>for.<
>
>That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the decisions for
>you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut up! They
>know far better than you how it should be spent...

50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!

On 8 Nov 2003 18:11:28 -0800, [email protected] (st3ph3nm) wrote:

>> I don't doubt that an increase in the concentration of CO2 might cause a change
>> in the climate.
>
>Yes, most researchers seem to agree that it will.
>
>> However, climate change will occur whether there is or is not a
>> change in the CO2 concentration.
>
>Of course it will. The question isn't whether or not, it's how much.
>The problem with our greenhouse gas emissions is that it is very
>likely to increase the *rate* of change to our climate quite
>dramatically.

Bzzzt. Wrong answer. Thanks for playing.

The fact is that while greenhouse gas emissions may affect the rate of
change, one does not know if it will increase or decrease that rate,
as one does not know what nature will actually be doing from one year
to the next.

>A change in global temperatures over the next 100 years that would
>normally be seen over 10,000 years is not going to be insignificant.
>Nor a "good thing".

More pseudo science. Fact is the planet just exited an ice age a
short time ago, and so if the planet continues as would be expected,
we have another 40,000 years of warm up. Of course, the last decade
has actually shown a cooling trend, so nobody knows.

>The only studies I've read that don't support the findings of the UN
>research into climate change have been published by people funded by
>vested interests.

Note: studies you choose to read are not all inclusive. Even once
respected magazines such as Scientific American are now refusing to
even publish the work that proves global warming is a farce. So how
you expect pseudo science magazines like discover to educate you, we
will never understand.

>> I think the science supporting global warming is not
>> subject to the sort of scrutiny that it should be because it is a "popular
>> theory" with liberals.
>
>I don't believe that you're right at all about this. I believe that
>global warning has been subject to a great deal of scrutiny.
>Industries that stand to lose money short term will argue against it,
>both ways: Fossil fuel companies argue it's insignificant, insurance
>companies argue that it's quite significant.

Yes it has been subject to scrutiny, but the liberal media refuse to
publish all the evidence that shows it is a liberal fallacy.

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, [email protected] (Brent P)
wrote:

>I have no problems with conservation, but that's not what the left
>is about in this regard. If they were about conservation they would
>be for limiting *GLOBAL* CO2 output, not that of only selected nations.
>They would be *for* making sure that the developing countries develop
>clean instead of making the same mistakes the 'west' made over again.
>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
>are using this topic as their tool to do so.

You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, [email protected] (Brent P)

>In article <[email protected]>, st3ph3nm wrote:
>
>>> hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it as an
>>> excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals.
>
>> What goals could they be?
>
>Social and political ones. (see earlier posts)

Oh, so it's not the economic destructiobn of the US?
>
>Then why does the proposed solution, the kyoto treaty, do nothing but
>encourage the relocation of CO2 output to China, India, and other such
>nations?
>

You're assuming that a belief in global warming also means that you
think Kyoto was a good idea.

>>> If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
>>> happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
>>> rearranged for no reason.
>
>> If they're right, we'll be moving almost 50% of the world's population
>> inland.
>
>And if they are right, then their proposed solution won't stop it.
>It's so obvious that their solution won't stop CO2 based global warming
>that it makes me think that they either *want* it to happen, or know
>it *isn't* going to happen.
>
>>> We will just continue to move most of our CO2
>>> generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will still be
>>> underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.
>
>> What on earth brings you to this conclusion?
>
>The proposed solution to stop global warming by CO2 emissions is to put
>tight controls on developed nations and none on developing nations.

That's not the only option - in fact, it's one which the US should not
agree to.

>All
>this will do is further fuel a relocation of factories to the developing
>nations where they won't have to buy carbon credits. In turn all the
>products will have to be shipped longer distances resulting in *MORE*
>CO2 output per product.
>
>Or do you think that companies will just stop making stuff and go out
>of business? No, they will relocate or be replaced by businesses that
>are in a more favorable environment. So, more CO2 is released into the
>atmosphere. Some solution.
>
>> You talk about the effects on Americans to change the way they live.
>
>And here we hit the nail on the head, it's about telling americans
>how to live. As much as I dislike the wasteful stereotypical american,
>I can't get behind a flawed policy that only has a chance of making
>things worse if the theory is correct.
>
>> I suggest you think more globally, and think about the possibility
>> that no major change needs to occur to any individual for there to be
>> major drops in greenhouse gas emissions. Is anyone put out by
>> clicking on a lower wattage light globe? Is anyone harmed by living
>> in a house that requires dramatically less cooling or heating, due to
>> good design? Does anyone really care what kind of engine gets them to
>> work in the morning? Is anyone hurt by the job opportunities that are
>> created by getting cleaner, more efficient technology up and running a
>> little bit quicker. After all, you have acknowledged the move from
>> fossil fuels is a matter of "when", not "if", so why not now? Even
>> the big oil companies won't lose out: One of the biggest suppliers in
>> Australia of photo-electric cells is BP Solar. Efficiency isn't a bad
>> thing, you know. Nor is change.
>
>I have no problems with conservation, but that's not what the left
>is about in this regard. If they were about conservation they would
>be for limiting *GLOBAL* CO2 output, not that of only selected nations.
>They would be *for* making sure that the developing countries develop
>clean instead of making the same mistakes the 'west' made over again.
>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
>are using this topic as their tool to do so.

You just want to bash an obviously flawed treaty which the US will never
enter into - got anything ideas on tackling the actual problem?

>

> Apparently Dean felt that people should have been offended by his own
> remarks since he personally felt compelled to apologize to Reverend Al
> for having made them. Again, since I believe whatever liberals say, I

Actually, I read his apology. It was better than I thought. He
apologized for hurting Al's feelings. Not for making the statement.
There's a BIG difference.


> > Do you seriously think that Al Sharpton was offended by Dean?
> I think that the character that Sharpton plays demands that he pretend to
> be offended. Maybe that's what you think he's doing? Or do you think
> he's genuinely offended?

I think he's playing. I agree with you here.

> The point in my original post was that Dean (and all the other
> "candidates") is deparately trying to convince people to vote for him,

Yes. Of course, that is the nature of politics. The question, when
you vote, is not whther the candidate is trying to get your vote. The
question is how.

Dean is raising money in a grassroots camapaign, and he publishes all
his policies, in detail, on his website.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/ (Click on the issues)

You can't say that about any other of the top candidates.

> gets elected. All the candidates know this, but he basically stepped on
> his dork trying to appease certain "favored" groups and in that attempt

I would contend that offending Al Sharpton and raising a brouhaha in
the media is NOT a bad thing for Dean. I would contend that this is
precisely the sort of incident that will make him more popular with
people like you and I. Although less popular wih a minority of angry
idiots that won't matter in the long run.

DTJ <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, [email protected] (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
<snip>
> >We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
> >lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
> >is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
> >are using this topic as their tool to do so.
>
> You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
> those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.

I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts? And
there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
sell them on to the developing markets. I wish Australia hadn't
followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.

Cheers,
Steve