Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>, st3ph3nm wrote:

<parker still can't be bothered to snip what he has no response to>

>>> So what's an alternative policy? The Australian Government hasn't
>>> been at all keen on Kyoto, either, but I haven't heard anyone propose
>>> an alternative.

>>If CO2 is really a problem, then it should be considered on a per
>>product manufactured, per unit of fuel consumed, etc basis. Not a
>>which-country-emits-it basis.

> Exactly. You should look at the CO2 per person, not per country. Agreed?

CO2 per person is false measure. It favors nations with *HUGE*
populations like China and India that can then spread the CO2 output of
the goods they make for export over a larger population. If the people
who came up with this per-capita measure don't understand this they are
idiots.

So what we have is a policy that uses per-capitia numbers to drive the
relocation of the means of production, increasing net global CO2
emissions. This is not a policy that solves a problem that is supposedly
due to putting too much CO2 into the air. So, if they aren't idiots, I
am left asking why. Why they want production relocated.

>>>> I have no problems with conservation, but that's not what the left
>>>> is about in this regard.

>>> Bugger the left. What's better for everyone?

>>Conservation. But the kyoto treaty doesn't encourage conservation, it
>>encourages relocating manufacturing.

> OK, then, you propose another way for the US to cut its CO2 emissions.

Conservation is how it's done. How does relocating where the crap americans
buy is made help cut global CO2 emissions?

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

<snip flaming liberal bull****>

when i hadnt heard from you all weekend i had hoped that youd choked to
death while slamming some form of processed fat. then i remembered that you
only post while youre at work on company time using company resources. i
have to wonder if anyone from emory would be interested in the 60,000 easily
verifiable messages youve posted all using emory resources.


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

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Wrong. The last 120 years have shown warming, and the hottest years on
> record have all occurred in the last decade.

There are a lot of problems with this claim. By biggest concern is the source of
the data. A lot of the old data is being inferred from unreliable sources. The
newer data is better, but it is not always corrected for changes in the micro
environment around the reporting station.

Even if the measurements are correct, the current global average temperature is
not particularly high by historic standards. For instance, the current global
average temperature is lower than during the period around 1200 AD.

> Try reading peer-reviewed scientific journals then.

The problem I see with your constantly making this argument is that "peer reviewed
journals" select the articles they publish. If they don't agree with the author's
idea, they don't publish the article, and the author can't claim the article was
published in a peer reviewed journal. Since the people who control these journals
are usually part of the liberal establishment, they are not predisposed to
publishing articles that don't fall in line with their current biases. I suspect
that if you were on the board picking articles to be published, you would
immediately dismiss any article that challenged the global warming theory. In the
end the articles published are chosen through a political process. Not everything
can be published, so articles that don't agree with the biases of the people doing
the choosing are left out. This is a viscous circle, dissenters from the popular
liberal view are shut out, so the peer reviewed "evidence" piles up in favor of
the "commonly accepted view" and this is used as a reason for continuing to shut
out he articles that don't agree with the "commonly accepted view." In Galileo's
time the Catholic church controlled defined the "commonly accepted view", today it
is liberals and the liberal media. In neither case does this guarantee that the
"commonly accepted view" is correct.

Ed

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> OK, then, you propose another way for the US to cut its CO2 emissions.

Persoanlly I am all for a hefty tax on imported oil ramped up over a period of ten
years.

Ed

In article <[email protected]>,
Lloyd Parker <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>>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!
>What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
>including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.

Maybe if you live in a state with no income or sales tax. The average
Marylander, for instance, is paying 8% in income and 5% in sales in
state taxes alone.

--
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:

> The Republicans won't allow me to choose to have clean air and water, national
> parks and forests undamaged by mining and lumbering and drilling, etc.

I believe the EPA was established under a Republican administration. I believe the
first National Parks were established under a Republican administration.

Have you ever been to an oil drilling site? I have. Publishing the picture of the
40 acres that are actually affected by drilling for an oil well out of a 1000 acre
(or larger) tract is about as fair as nitpicking one misspelled word in a
paragraph.

The national forests belong to all of us. "All of us includes" loggers, ranchers,
and environmentalist. I have no problem with some of the National Forest being set
aside as untouched, but I also think it is reasonable for much of the acreage to
be run for the public benefit. The public benefit includes allowing it to be
logged and grazed and even mined. What was missing in the past was proper
management of the public lands. Unfortunately politicians continually interfere
with the implementation of proper management practices.

Ed

Lloyd Parker wrote:

>
> If you think GW isn't real, then you need to learn what "proof" means.
>
> And in 1990, we weren't exactly living in the 1600s.

Thank goodness, the 1600's were COLD.

Ed

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Brent P wrote:

> Why is it better to make a widget in china with no environmental
> controls for sale in the USA than say in georgia with environmental
> protections for sale in the USA?

It isn't, of course. Quite the opposite, in fact, as even the slowest
third-grader would readily be able to tell if asked. Kyoto won't reduce
global CO2 emissions any more than little Timmy hiding his brussels
sprouts under a mountain of mashed potatos makes the sprouts no longer
exist.

If absolute reductions in CO2 emissions are desireable, then reasonable
and proper standards must be applied to processes, not locations. Spacely
Sprockets' sprocket saponification process must emit no more than "n"
amount of CO2 per saponified sprocket, whether they're saponifying
sprockets in Shangai or Sarnia or St. Louis. And Ming Tsian Xiao's
thiotimolene resublimation process must emit no more than Amalgamated
Bizcorp Companyco's thiotimolene resublimation process, and both
companies' processes must be below "x" amount of CO2 per cubic metre of
resublimated thiotimolene if they are to be permitted to manufacture *or*
sell it in any country that is a party to the agreement.

This argument gets rejected by Kyoto proponents, however, on the grounds
that it would be unfair or impossible for "developing" countries to live
up to the same emission standards as developed countries. There are all
kinds of ways of dealing with this -- all it takes is a little creativity
and realism. (One particular form of realism that's badly needed is
independent verification of self-reporting of emissions by countries known
for lying their way out of pesky regulations. Witness UL's special
requirements for UL safety approval labels on products from China, enacted
because of pervasive counterfeiting...)

Suppose the rest of the world refuses to play along, saying "It's Kyoto as
written, no ifs ands or buts". Some might say that would tie the US' hands
and force the country to do nothing. Not so - it would serve nicely as a
defensible basis for Local Content laws of the type with which Australia
had excellent success starting in the 1960s. There would be differences,
of course; the primary goal of the Australian regulations was to protect
Australian industry, while the protection of American industry would be a
mere byproduct of regulations preventing sidestepping of US antipollution
laws in the production of goods for the US market. As under Kyoto,
consumers would very likely wind up paying more for their goods. But
with Local Content laws instead of Kyoto, they wouldn't be paying to
eliminate American jobs -- they'd be paying to create them.

Ironically, first-world environmentalists rail against what they see as a
tendency for Americans in particular to think the waste products of human
activity -- garbage, exhaust, industrial waste, sewage and so forth -- go
to a magical place called "away" when we're done with them, never to
bother anyone again. Of course this isn't so, but it is exactly the sort
of head-in-the-sand behaviour Kyoto seeks to codify. Cut down on CO2
emissions in Georgia, and we'll just pretend the reduction isn't reversed
by the resultant increase in Guangdong. That they claim this is the
enlightened position only redoubles their arrogance and lack of
perspective.

We may not like brussels sprouts, but if the rule is we have to eat 'em or
no dessert, then no fair running to China instead of eating 'em.

DS

"Nathan Collier" <[email protected]> wrote
> "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> <snip flaming liberal bull****>
>
> when i hadnt heard from you all weekend i had hoped that youd choked to
> death while slamming some form of processed fat. then i remembered that
you
> only post while youre at work on company time using company resources. i
> have to wonder if anyone from emory would be interested in the 60,000
easily
> verifiable messages youve posted all using emory resources.

Haven't you noticed? Lloyd posts from his university account, when he
should be in the classroom filling minds with drivel.

Floyd

Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Erik Aronesty wrote:
> >
> > ...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.
>
> The likelihood of my voting for Dean or any of the other existing
> Democratic contenders (including Hillary if she decides to be the hero
> to save the party from it's current demise) with or without this latest
> debacle is less than 0.1%.

The likelihood of my voting for Dean went up after this one. I guess
it's a sort of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" line of thinking.

If the wealthy special interests on *both* sides of the aisle really
jab at him, then I get more and more certain that he's the man for me.

- Erik

In article <[email protected]>, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Wrong. The last 120 years have shown warming, and the hottest years on
>> record have all occurred in the last decade.
>
> There are a lot of problems with this claim. By biggest concern is the source of
> the data. A lot of the old data is being inferred from unreliable sources. The
> newer data is better, but it is not always corrected for changes in the micro
> environment around the reporting station.

After someone altered me to a recent paper via a USA today article I
hunted it down and posted the URL. It was published in the journal
energy and environment. the authors fixed a number of errors in the
original analysis that's the basis for many of the claims lloyd has
made. Some of those claims then fall apart.

In article <[email protected]>, Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> If absolute reductions in CO2 emissions are desireable, then reasonable
> and proper standards must be applied to processes, not locations. Spacely
> Sprockets' sprocket saponification process must emit no more than "n"
> amount of CO2 per saponified sprocket, whether they're saponifying
> sprockets in Shangai or Sarnia or St. Louis. And Ming Tsian Xiao's
> thiotimolene resublimation process must emit no more than Amalgamated
> Bizcorp Companyco's thiotimolene resublimation process, and both
> companies' processes must be below "x" amount of CO2 per cubic metre of
> resublimated thiotimolene if they are to be permitted to manufacture *or*
> sell it in any country that is a party to the agreement.

Exactly. I was trying to find the words to express that well earlier
but couldn't. The above describes it perfectly.

> This argument gets rejected by Kyoto proponents, however, on the grounds
> that it would be unfair or impossible for "developing" countries to live
> up to the same emission standards as developed countries. There are all
> kinds of ways of dealing with this -- all it takes is a little creativity
> and realism.

Exactly what I was trying to express earlier by saying that
environmentalists should be striving to keep the developing countries
from making the same mistakes as those that developed in the last
two centuries.

> Suppose the rest of the world refuses to play along, saying "It's Kyoto as
> written, no ifs ands or buts". Some might say that would tie the US' hands
> and force the country to do nothing. Not so - it would serve nicely as a
> defensible basis for Local Content laws of the type with which Australia
> had excellent success starting in the 1960s.

China also has these local content laws.

> There would be differences,
> of course; the primary goal of the Australian regulations was to protect
> Australian industry, while the protection of American industry would be a
> mere byproduct of regulations preventing sidestepping of US antipollution
> laws in the production of goods for the US market. As under Kyoto,
> consumers would very likely wind up paying more for their goods. But
> with Local Content laws instead of Kyoto, they wouldn't be paying to
> eliminate American jobs -- they'd be paying to create them.

I am sure the whine would change then.

> Ironically, first-world environmentalists rail against what they see as a
> tendency for Americans in particular to think the waste products of human
> activity -- garbage, exhaust, industrial waste, sewage and so forth -- go
> to a magical place called "away" when we're done with them, never to
> bother anyone again. Of course this isn't so, but it is exactly the sort
> of head-in-the-sand behaviour Kyoto seeks to codify. Cut down on CO2
> emissions in Georgia, and we'll just pretend the reduction isn't reversed
> by the resultant increase in Guangdong. That they claim this is the
> enlightened position only redoubles their arrogance and lack of
> perspective.

I think they pretend it isn't reversed because their goal has nothing
to do with the environment. The environment is the tool. But I suppose
it could just be stupidity.

Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
> including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and
property.

Unless you live in the Empire of Pataki, New York

What is a liberal these daze ?

I tried to not to answer these grossly off-topic discussions, but I
couldn't resist <sigh> making just one point. What with the hoopla about
global warming several years back when the Kyoto accords were being
pushed (by nations that hadn't signed them, oddly), I wanted to see just
how bad things were. We have a US weather station in Williamsport that
has continuously recorded data for over 100 years, so I thought I'd
download that for study. Of course, there's a lot of fluctuation, but if
you plot a linear trend line to the data for the last 103 years you find
the average annual temperature here has dropped by about 0.5F, not
increased. Hmmm...where is the warming data? Is that only being
collected in large, growing cities and not rural areas? Secondly, I
plotted a 5 year moving average just to see what might show up and there
is a remarkable cycle that appears, lasting about 11 years or so. Just
the same as the solar cyles for sunspots. Curious. Maybe we're just
different from the rest of the world out here in the country, but
hmmm....

=Vic=
Bear Gap, PA

Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
> st3ph3nm wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Only if the theory of global warming is correct. I don't believe it is
> and none of us will likely live long enough to ever find out. The earth
> has been undergoing massive changes in climate for some time, and I
> don't expect that to stop simply because we started recording it better.
>
> Matt

On Mon, 10 Nov 03 13:13:39 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>If you think GW isn't real, then you need to learn what "proof" means.

What an idiotic statement.

First, is global warming real?

Second, what is the cause?

You have yet to prove the first, yet are already assuming that number
2 is the United States.

On Mon, 10 Nov 03 13:01:38 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>>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!
>What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
>including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.

Yes you are an idiot.

The middle class pays federal rates higher than 25%, plus another 15%
or so in SS (if the employer didn't pay it, we would receive it in
wages), state taxes as high as 5% and more, gas taxes, sales taxes,
phone taxes, property taxes, and on and on and on.

My family is in the lower middle class, in the heartland, and we pay
considerably more than 50% of our income in taxes.

On 9 Nov 2003 17:50:35 -0800, [email protected] (st3ph3nm) wrote:

>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?

Your logic is flawed. The US has the TIGHTEST standards on emissions
in the world. WE PRODUCE the most product. It has ZERO to do with
population.

Even if we did restrict things further, all that would happen is
production would shift to countries with lower standards - resulting
in, can we say it all together now - MORE POLLUTION.

On 9 Nov 2003 18:06:51 -0800, [email protected] (st3ph3nm) wrote:

>Kyoto may be short-sighted, but at the moment, we've got the old 80/20
>rule happening. IE, 80% of the problem being caused by 20% of the

This is such a weak minded argument.

Population has nothing to do with production.

We have 80% of the production causing less than 20% of the pollution.
Nobody cares what the population is, when we export so much to third
world countries where the population is.

How about this for a solution? The US stops selling food worldwide.
Pollution disappears as huge numbers of people die. Problem solved.

On Mon, 10 Nov 03 13:03:53 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>>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,
>
>Yes one does. Just as adding acid to water will lower the pH, adding a gas
>which traps heat will heat up the atmosphere.

Thanks for admitting I am right. Since the Earth is cooling, adding
CO2 will result in a slowing of the rate of change.