Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

  • Thread starter Dianelos Georgoudis
  • Start date
This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>,
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>> Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed
> in
>>> China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>>
>>See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
>>When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
>>good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
>>a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
>>going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
>>where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.
>>
>>Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
>>of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
>>of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
>>solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
>>squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
>>that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
>>effect.

> OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
> energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
> comparison with any other country.

We cannot forget manufacturing, because it is the key part. But if you
want to talk about wasteful individuals, why don't you reform your
own behavior Dr. Parker? You're driving a mercedes benz, and it's not
an A class either as I recall. Why not a little 4 cylinder car?
How about a bicycle? How about a smaller home?





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

> How about x tons to drive a 6000-lb SUV?

Or a large mercedes benz sedan.

> Or to produce electricity for things
> like game playing and automatic can openers? Just look at the energy we
> waste, and since most of it comes from fossil fuels, there goes more CO2.

Heaven forbid people play games.... you sound like a puritianical right
winger lloyd. Cept you use the environment as your excuse to keep people
from doing things they enjoy.


 

> >>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
> >>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil
consumed in
>
> >>China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
> >
> >In this case, per capita is irrelevant. If the problem is that we're
> >putting out X tons of CO2 annually to produce a widget,
>
> How about x tons to drive a 6000-lb SUV? Or to produce electricity for
things
> like game playing and automatic can openers? Just look at the energy we
> waste, and since most of it comes from fossil fuels, there goes more CO2.
>

How about answering the question! He's right on the money.

And talk about waste, do *you* ride a bike to work? Do you take a bus?
Drive a hybrid? Ride a horse? Do you have a garage door opener? An electric
can opener? A stereo system? An air conditioner? A television (a big
"SUV" style TV)? A large monitor on your computer? More than one computer?
Do you have solar panels? Toilet paper from recycled fibers? A chandelier?
A single low watt light bulb per room?

How far back should we go so you can say there's no waste? Should
government mandate consumption? Does everything I do in my life over riding
a horse for transportation or using anything electric affect the air you
breathe to the point that the government must protect you against the
polluction produced by my consumption? How much?

>
> >how is it
> >improving anything on a global scale if we move production to China,
> >where looser pollution controls mean that creating a widget now puts
> >out anywhere from 1.5X to 2X tons of CO2 yet a greater population base
> >means that the per capita numbers are lower?

Lloyd's answer: Blame SUV's.


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Brandon Sommerville <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On 28 Nov 2003 11:05:34 -0800, [email protected] (z) wrote:
> >
> >>[email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message
> news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
> >>> In article <[email protected]>, z wrote:
> >
> >>> You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
> >>> China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
> >>
> >>Cause there's less of it?
> >>It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
> >>complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
> >>doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
> >>noise.
> >
> >Not quite the same. If noise released is the problem, how is it
> >better to release the same noise in a different location?
>
> China releases less "noise", by far. Which is why most people are
> concentrating on the largest releasers of "noise" first.
>

The pollution in China is way worse than here. Smog is choking.


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Brandon Sommerville <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On 28 Nov 2003 11:05:34 -0800, [email protected] (z) wrote:
> >
> >>[email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message
> news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
> >>> In article <[email protected]>, z wrote:
> >
> >>> You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
> >>> China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
> >>
> >>Cause there's less of it?
> >>It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
> >>complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
> >>doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
> >>noise.
> >
> >Not quite the same. If noise released is the problem, how is it
> >better to release the same noise in a different location?
>
> China releases less "noise", by far. Which is why most people are
> concentrating on the largest releasers of "noise" first.
>

Why not have everyone quiet down? Hmm. I wonder?


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Brandon Sommerville <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On 28 Nov 2003 11:05:34 -0800, [email protected] (z) wrote:
> >
> >>[email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message
> news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
> >>> In article <[email protected]>, z wrote:
> >
> >>> You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
> >>> China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
> >>
> >>Cause there's less of it?
> >>It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
> >>complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
> >>doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
> >>noise.
> >
> >Not quite the same. If noise released is the problem, how is it
> >better to release the same noise in a different location?
>
> China releases less "noise", by far. Which is why most people are
> concentrating on the largest releasers of "noise" first.
>

Isn't your goal reducing *worldwide* emissions? How does shuffling it
around to 3rd world countries help?


 

"z" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message
news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
> > In article <[email protected]>, z wrote:
> > > [email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message
news:<PjQwb.107728$Dw6.513759@attbi_s02>...
> > >> In article <[email protected]>, z
wrote:
> > >> > [email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message
news:<2x8wb.285619$Tr4.884523@attbi_s03>...
> > >> >> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Funk
wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the
people
> > >> >> > who screw up, not the technology).
> > >> >> > Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> And that's what I find puzzling. If CO2 is such an important
problem,
> > >> >> the what-we-can-do-today answer is state of the art nuclear power.
(not
> > >> >> stone age state run without protection like the old soviet plants)
> > >> >>
> > >> >> We are told consistantly that CO2 is a problem, but somehow the
> > >> >> solutions always boil down to telling people how they have to
live,
> > >> >> bring wealth to the 3rd world, and other political and social
issues
> > >> >> rather than *SOLVING* the stated problem of too much CO2 being
released
> > >> >> and meeting energy demands / increasing energy efficency.
> >
> > >> > Yes, having seen that allowing large corporations remarkably free
rein
> > >> > to seek, extract, and sell unreplenishable fossil fuel energy
sources
> > >> > through a centralized structure in order to maximize corporate
> > >> > profitability, which also creates a monetary penalty for the
> > >> > corporations to concentrate on fuel efficiency, environmentalism,
or
> > >> > safety; clearly the way to go is to transition to another
> > >> > unreplenishable source to be sought, extracted, and sold through a
> > >> > centralized structure run by large corporations with a monetary
> > >> > penalty for concentration on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
> > >> > safety.
> > >>
> > >> What's your point? That the concept of global warming via CO2 is
> > >> nothing more than a method/excuse to punish corporations?
> > >
> > > No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
> > > circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
> > > infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
> > > machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
> > > all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
> > > unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
> > > estimates of most-likely scenarios.
> >
> > You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
> > China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>
> Cause there's less of it?
> It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
> complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
> doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
> noise.

So China can have a boombox but the US can't. Still have noise.


 
On Fri, 28 Nov 03 16:20:57 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of

Translation - I am finally admitting all of you are right and loyd
lying parker is wrong, so I am going to try to twist it into something
else.
 
In article <[email protected]>, David J. Allen wrote:

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

>> China releases less "noise", by far. Which is why most people are
>> concentrating on the largest releasers of "noise" first.

> The pollution in China is way worse than here. Smog is choking.

Once upon a time a co-worker of mine went to china to support the plant
there. He returned with pictures. I am looking at the photos and ask,
'what's the haze over the photos?', thinking it was a photographic
problem. The response, 'that's just the way it is there'.


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>,
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
> >>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
> >
> >> Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil
consumed
> in
> >> China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
> >
> >See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
> >When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
> >good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
> >a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
> >going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
> >where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.
> >
> >Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
> >of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
> >of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
> >solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
> >squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
> >that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
> >effect.
> >
> >
> OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
> energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
> comparison with any other country.

Never, in the history of human history has energy production been so
efficient and less wasteful. More work is performed per unit of energy
generated than any place on earth present or past. Leave it to a liberal to
find a negative spin on that.


 
On Fri, 28 Nov 03 16:18:47 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Brandon Sommerville <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Fri, 28 Nov 03 12:44:19 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>,
>>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>
>>>China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>>
>>In this case, per capita is irrelevant. If the problem is that we're
>>putting out X tons of CO2 annually to produce a widget,
>
>How about x tons to drive a 6000-lb SUV? Or to produce electricity for things
>like game playing and automatic can openers? Just look at the energy we
>waste, and since most of it comes from fossil fuels, there goes more CO2.

Which completely ignores the point of the question. Please try again,
this time without going off on a tangent:

How is it improving anything on a global scale if we move production
to China, where looser pollution controls mean that creating a widget
now puts out anywhere from 1.5X to 2X tons of CO2 yet a greater
population base means that the per capita numbers are lower?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 
On Fri, 28 Nov 03 16:19:43 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Brandon Sommerville <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On 28 Nov 2003 11:05:34 -0800, [email protected] (z) wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message
>news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, z wrote:
>>
>>>> You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>> China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>>
>>>Cause there's less of it?
>>>It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
>>>complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
>>>doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
>>>noise.
>>
>>Not quite the same. If noise released is the problem, how is it
>>better to release the same noise in a different location?
>
>China releases less "noise", by far. Which is why most people are
>concentrating on the largest releasers of "noise" first.

How much they release in total is irrelevant. There is no global
improvement if you move X tons from the US to China, or even worse, X
from the US and 2X in China, but lower per capita.

By per capita numbers, you wouldn't have a problem with leaded fuel
vehicles being used in India or China, would you?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 02:23:33 GMT, [email protected] (Brent P)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, David J. Allen wrote:
>
>> "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>> China releases less "noise", by far. Which is why most people are
>>> concentrating on the largest releasers of "noise" first.
>
>> The pollution in China is way worse than here. Smog is choking.
>
>Once upon a time a co-worker of mine went to china to support the plant
>there. He returned with pictures. I am looking at the photos and ask,
>'what's the haze over the photos?', thinking it was a photographic
>problem. The response, 'that's just the way it is there'.
>
China is one of the last bastions of steam locomotion and power
generating.
They use charcoal for heating & cooking.
The pollution is far wors ethan in the US.
No wonder Lloyd likes to move manufacturing there: China's communist,
and moving manufacuring there punishes the US. A liberal's dream.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
If the "Atlantic Conveyor" stops due to the salinity change, then places
like Scotland which are kept warm by it, will experience a lot more ice (we
have the same latitude as Moscow), but I haven't heard anyone claim that
constitutes an ice age.

Dave Milne, Scotland.

"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:yDTub.248491$HS4.2192754@attbi_s01...
> In article <[email protected]>, Robert A. Matern
wrote:
> Oh, but there is the idea that global warming will melt too much ice
> reducing the salinity of oceans, changing the currents, shuting down
> the gulf stream, and resulting in a ICE AGE.


 
> No wonder Lloyd likes to move manufacturing there: China's communist, and
moving manufacuring there punishes the US. A liberal's dream.>

And THERE you have it, the heart of Leftist Lloyd's agenda! Attack the core
of the society and you can cripple it irreparably, make the "big lie" stick.
Meanwhile his comrades in China can do whatever they want, as long as the
society he hates is damaged.

Fortunately people are smart enough in free societies to see through all
this bull****.


 


z wrote:

> But that's what corporations do. Particularly for-profit. What is your
> impression, that people go into climatology research because they
> hunger for power and money, and that corporations plan their actions
> based on what would best improve the lives of the 6 billion humans
> plodding around on the planet?

If you think individuals doing academic research are all sweetness and nice, I think you are naive. Ask yourself this, how
much grant money is flowing to scientist who say everything is OK? What is more likely to generate grant money, a Chicken
Little like performance, or a calm reasoned presentation that says climate is a subject to long term trends that are the
result of many factors which are not well understood?

I'd rather take my chances with global warming rather than turn control over to the wackos who have grabbed onto the global
warming scenario as a way to force the implementation of their ideas of how I should live. If global warming wasn't
available, the wackos would have to create it, or something else like it so they can have an excuse for forcing the
implementation of their ideas.

Ed

 
fact: cow's "fermenting" their dinner, and burping is one of the major
sources of CO2 emissions....

gotta ban the bloody cows!




"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]>,
> > "Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >"z" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:[email protected]...
> > >> "C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:<[email protected]>...
> > >> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the
past.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
> > >> >
> > >> > No we don't!
> > >> >
> > >> > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
> > >concentration
> > >> > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief
> does
> > >not prove
> > >> > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
> > >anything. The
> > >> > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs.
> Looking
> > >at one
> > >> > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS.
> As a
> > >> > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate
research
> > >don't even
> > >> > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last
> few
> > >years.
> > >> > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or
trying
> to
> > >infere
> > >> > it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature.
The
> > >errors
> > >> > associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes
> they
> > >are
> > >> > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and
then
> > >groomed the
> > >> > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is
> > >treated as a
> > >> > loon.
> > >>
> > >> The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
> > >> one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> > >> inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
> > >> the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> > >> confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> > >> reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> > >> declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they
"decided
> > >> on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there
some
> > >> kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> > >> climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw
the
> > >> economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> > >> warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
> > >> have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
> > >> operation?
> > >> And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the
establishment
> > >> who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
> > >
> > >I believe they are wrong.
> >
> > And your data is where?
>
>
> Hiya LP. Now you know it would be a waste of my time to tell you, because
> you don't have the brains to understand it anyway, if you did you wouldn't
> ask such a stupid question, you would have already read all the Data, not
> just what your left wing wackos say.
>
>
> >
> >
> > >They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
> > >far more likely cause.
> >
> > No, they've studied it and found it cannot explain all the current
> warming.
>
> Who is this mysterious 'we" that pops up in every post you make. Don't
> bother answering, it would just be another of your lies.
>
> >
> >
> > > WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
> > >temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating
> (think
> > >seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force
> behind
> > >global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
> > >
> > >
>
>


 
MacIntosh wrote:
>
> fact: cow's "fermenting" their dinner, and burping is one of the major
> sources of CO2 emissions....
>
> gotta ban the bloody cows!

Actually the methane coming out the other end is a much worse greenhouse
gas than CO2.

Ed
 
In article <[email protected]>, Dave Milne wrote:
> If the "Atlantic Conveyor" stops due to the salinity change, then places
> like Scotland which are kept warm by it, will experience a lot more ice (we
> have the same latitude as Moscow), but I haven't heard anyone claim that
> constitutes an ice age.

I don't remember the whole theory off hand, googling it may turn it up.
But the jist of it is that the ice melts, this changes weather patterns,
which in turn makes much of the world colder, building ice sending climate
into an ice age. I am not arguing it's correct or anything, it's just one
I find interesting.


 
> I'd rather take my chances with global warming rather than turn control
over to the wackos who have grabbed onto the global warming scenario as a
way to force the implementation of their ideas of how I should live. If
global warming wasn't
available, the wackos would have to create it, or something else like it so
they can have an excuse for forcing the implementation of their ideas.>

Bravo, Ed! These people are attempting to impose their own social
reengineering upon everyone based upon their own crypto-communist ideals.
They hate capitalism and the abilities of free peoples to do as they choose.
They latched onto this madness when people actually took them seriously 30
years ago that a "new ice age" was upon us, when that fell apart they
concocted this latest scam. The more people pillory these arrogant bastards
the better off we'll all be.


 
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
46K
Alibro
Alibro
Back
Top