$4 gas is here yet idiot americans still oppose lower speed limits

"Brent P" > wrote in
message
> On 2008-05-01, Smirnoff > wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Brent P" > wrote in
>> message
>>> On 2008-04-29, Brent P
>>> > wrote:
>>>> On 2008-04-29, Smirnoff > wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba551/
>>>>
>>>> Stable 45%. Unknown 25%. increasing 14%. decreasing
>>>> 16%.
>>>
>>> I forgot the killer....
>>>
>>> "Moreover, when the WWF report is compared with the
>>> Arctic air temperature trend studies discussed earlier,
>>> there is a strong positive (instead of negative)
>>> correlation between air temperature and polar bear
>>> populations. Polar bear populations are declining in
>>> regions (like Baffin Bay) that have experienced a
>>> decrease in air temperature, while areas where polar
>>> bear populations are increasing (near the Bering Strait
>>> and the Chukchi Sea) are associated with increasing air
>>> temperatures."
>>>
>>> Gee... polar bears, like other mammals prefer warmer
>>> weather... whata shocker!
>>>
>>> If things keep warming maybe it will be time to grow
>>> grapes in the UK again!
>>
>> Polar bears prefer food first. If what they eat is in
>> the colder areas that is where they want to be and need
>> to be.
>
> The population grows and shrinks based on food supply.
> Areas that got colder saw a decline in population while
> areas that got warmer saw an increase. Where was there
> more food? Sure they might eat more of B than of A where
> it's warmer, but obviously warmer means better overall
> eating.
>
>> The people that study those animals
>> are all saying they are in danger. They are not running
>> for office to I will believe them before someone that
>> fears being controlled and hates Al Gore. It is your
>> right wing leaders that you should fear if control is
>> you problem.
>
> I just showed you the actual data is that polar bears are
> doing just fine as a whole as far as a those who study
> them can tell. Of course people who 'study them' say
> there is a problem, no problem means no funding. Duh.
> It's just like government sponsored climate research, you
> have to show there is a problem to get the grants. Show
> that it isn't caused by man and watch your government
> funding dry up.... then you have to get it from
> 'corporations' which means that people like you will call
> it biased, as if government isn't a self-serving
> institution of its own.
>
>> Maybe you care to debate those issues.
>
> Maybe you should grow a clue and realize its government
> that funds much of the research. Oh that's right, I'm
> 'paranoid' because I think that government has a
> self-interest as an institution just like a corporation
> does.

SIOW you think there should be no studies of anything as there would never
be any real objective views. This means that anything you show is no more
reliable that anything I point to. Lets just have everyone pack up
everything and send them on their way like all studies of disease and
medicine. There are people that study many things and the study of polar
bears is just a small portion of what they do. If there is a decline in any
animal populations in particular it matters not. You seem to be limited in
your knowledge of scientific studies. There is no agenda to show anything
one way or the other.

On 2008-05-01, Smirnoff > wrote:
>
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in
> message
>> On 2008-05-01, Smirnoff > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Brent P" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>> On 2008-04-29, Brent P
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> On 2008-04-29, Smirnoff > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba551/
>>>>>
>>>>> Stable 45%. Unknown 25%. increasing 14%. decreasing
>>>>> 16%.
>>>>
>>>> I forgot the killer....
>>>>
>>>> "Moreover, when the WWF report is compared with the
>>>> Arctic air temperature trend studies discussed earlier,
>>>> there is a strong positive (instead of negative)
>>>> correlation between air temperature and polar bear
>>>> populations. Polar bear populations are declining in
>>>> regions (like Baffin Bay) that have experienced a
>>>> decrease in air temperature, while areas where polar
>>>> bear populations are increasing (near the Bering Strait
>>>> and the Chukchi Sea) are associated with increasing air
>>>> temperatures."
>>>>
>>>> Gee... polar bears, like other mammals prefer warmer
>>>> weather... whata shocker!
>>>>
>>>> If things keep warming maybe it will be time to grow
>>>> grapes in the UK again!
>>>
>>> Polar bears prefer food first. If what they eat is in
>>> the colder areas that is where they want to be and need
>>> to be.
>>
>> The population grows and shrinks based on food supply.
>> Areas that got colder saw a decline in population while
>> areas that got warmer saw an increase. Where was there
>> more food? Sure they might eat more of B than of A where
>> it's warmer, but obviously warmer means better overall
>> eating.
>>
>>> The people that study those animals
>>> are all saying they are in danger. They are not running
>>> for office to I will believe them before someone that
>>> fears being controlled and hates Al Gore. It is your
>>> right wing leaders that you should fear if control is
>>> you problem.
>>
>> I just showed you the actual data is that polar bears are
>> doing just fine as a whole as far as a those who study
>> them can tell. Of course people who 'study them' say
>> there is a problem, no problem means no funding. Duh.
>> It's just like government sponsored climate research, you
>> have to show there is a problem to get the grants. Show
>> that it isn't caused by man and watch your government
>> funding dry up.... then you have to get it from
>> 'corporations' which means that people like you will call
>> it biased, as if government isn't a self-serving
>> institution of its own.
>>
>>> Maybe you care to debate those issues.
>>
>> Maybe you should grow a clue and realize its government
>> that funds much of the research. Oh that's right, I'm
>> 'paranoid' because I think that government has a
>> self-interest as an institution just like a corporation
>> does.

> SIOW you think there should be no studies of anything as there would never
> be any real objective views.

Nothing of the sort. Damn you have a reading comprehension problem. Grow
a clue.

> This means that anything you show is no more
> reliable that anything I point to. Lets just have everyone pack up
> everything and send them on their way like all studies of disease and
> medicine. There are people that study many things and the study of polar
> bears is just a small portion of what they do. If there is a decline in any
> animal populations in particular it matters not. You seem to be limited in
> your knowledge of scientific studies. There is no agenda to show anything
> one way or the other.

I see you don't want your religion questioned. This is pointless.

"Brent P" > wrote in
message
> On 2008-05-01, Smirnoff > wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Brent P" > wrote in
>> message
>>> On 2008-04-29, Smirnoff > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> LOL. You're not proving the case for CO2 being the
>>>>> cause. You're blathering the same old 'security' line
>>>>> for taking control over people's lives.
>>>
>>>> I guess you are beyond hope and will listen to no
>>>> soirce that says you are wrong.
>>>
>>> I am growing tired of you spewing forth what the
>>> television told you. Grow a clue.
>
>> The TV has told me nothing fool I don't get a political
>> opinion from and TV documentaries so called news shows.
>
> Obviously you do and admitted it already.

I have not. I d said I don't view politically motivated documentaries posing
as new stories. You are unable to tell the difference from nature shows that
have no political agenda. Your claims of funding cut off are unreal.

>
>>>> http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41297
>>>
>>> Your news story is based on the blather of a
>>> "biodiversity policy analyst". Geebus. That's politics!
>
>> It is impossible to get any information online that is
>> not politically motivated.
>
> lol. but your 'TV' documentaries are scientific. Look
> dumbass, you presented information from a POLICY ANALYST
> as science.
>
Once again, all "scientific' studies are not about politics. You are
clearly the dumb ass here. Why don't you go live in a cave where you belong?


>>>> You appear to have other issues not even related to
>>>> climate change. Good luck with that.
>
>>> No sir, you have the problem. I am not putting up with
>>> insults from an idiot like yourself. Here, grow a clue
>>> and read some real science, not some reporter repeating
>>> what a "biodiversity policy analyst" said.
>
>> Observations that you claim you don't want to be
>> controlled with no examples shows paranoia.
>
> Geebus, open your eyes. I've presented tons of examples
> over the years.
I have no idea what you have presented over the years.


What do you think these congestion taxes,
> these tracking systems, all these licensing and credit
> schemes and government approvals in the name of 'global'
> warming are? They are controls on our lives. We won't
> even have a choice in light bulbs in a few years because
> of government's controls for global warming. The whole
> thing is about giving up control of our lives, our
> liberty to government bodies so they can 'save' us from
> 'global warming climate change'.

If you want freedom you will not find it in a democracy. You consent to
control when you live in this country. There have not been any changes in
the light bulb in many years. It is about time we find more efficient way to
supply light. We can't use leaded fuel any more and we have to pay more for
not adding lead. Do you object to this too?

Get used to it. Climate change is here to stay and all your complaining
will not stop any attempts to save energy. You hate the idea because you
think it is only someone is trying to fool everyone and thus no measures to
conserve should be taken.

>
>>> Sadly I cannot find the report that detailed all the
>>> polar bear populations as growing, shrinking, stable, or
>>> unknown. Never mind... just found it.
>>>
>>> http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba551/
>>>
>>> Stable 45%. Unknown 25%. increasing 14%. decreasing 16%.
>>>
>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...9/wpolar09.xml
>>> "In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre
>>> region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in
>>> the mid-1980s to 2,100 today."

Error 404
Sorry, the page you have requested is not available
Please try again later

This error message may occur for a number of reasons:
We are unable to locate any more files relating to this subject
The file may have been moved or deleted because it is out of date
You may have followed a link from another web site that contains an
incorrect or out of date URL (web page address)
You may have typed an incorrect URL into your browser
There may be an error on the telegraph.co.uk site.



>>>
>>> Here it is in a form more your speed:
>>>
>>> http://www.newsbusters.org/node/12694
>>
>>
>> There are many areas that show polar bear populations
>> decreasing and few that show any increase. The areas
>> that show a decline needs to be adressed.
>
> Wrong. See above cite.


How is this guy any different than any sources anyone offers? He is a
business man that makes his living. He is a "news buster". That should tell
you something. I have read that smoking is not harmful. Some say it helps
you. Should I start smoking?
>
>>>>>> The facts
>>>>>> are obvious by those that don't have an agenda.
>>>>>
>>>>> A political statement. IE Al Gore's 'the debate is
>>>>> over'
>
>> So it IS your hate for a Al Gore and you are the one
>> that has a political agenda. Thanks for proving that.
>
> lol. I don't hate him. He makes a slick presentation and
> dumbasses like you fall for it.

Where does it say that I agree with Al Gore. You are the dumb ass here. I
first heard of GW before Al was anywhere to be found. It makes sence to me.
There was little politics involved then. Now it is all an uproar and people
like you make more out of it.


>
>>>> Who cares about what Al Gore says. It is clear that you
>>>> think HE is the problem and if he went away so would
>>>> GW.
>
>>> Ya know what, I don't have the time for your idiotcy any
>>> longer. You bring something up then do this... you
>>> insult, you babble, go back to your TV.
>
>> Your fear of Al and your paranoia of being some how
>> controlled show you don't have much of a clue. Thanks
>> for playing.
>
> This coming from someone who thinks the babblings of a
> 'policy analyst' are science.

You have produced babbling of your own that show nothing.

"Brent P" > wrote in
message
> On 2008-05-01, Smirnoff > wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Brent P" > wrote in
>> message
>>> On 2008-05-01, Smirnoff > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Brent P" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>>>> On 2008-04-29, Brent P
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> On 2008-04-29, Smirnoff > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba551/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stable 45%. Unknown 25%. increasing 14%. decreasing
>>>>>> 16%.
>>>>>
>>>>> I forgot the killer....
>>>>>
>>>>> "Moreover, when the WWF report is compared with the
>>>>> Arctic air temperature trend studies discussed
>>>>> earlier, there is a strong positive (instead of
>>>>> negative) correlation between air temperature and
>>>>> polar bear populations. Polar bear populations are
>>>>> declining in regions (like Baffin Bay) that have
>>>>> experienced a decrease in air temperature, while
>>>>> areas where polar bear populations are increasing
>>>>> (near the Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea) are
>>>>> associated with increasing air temperatures."
>>>>>
>>>>> Gee... polar bears, like other mammals prefer warmer
>>>>> weather... whata shocker!
>>>>>
>>>>> If things keep warming maybe it will be time to grow
>>>>> grapes in the UK again!
>>>>
>>>> Polar bears prefer food first. If what they eat is in
>>>> the colder areas that is where they want to be and need
>>>> to be.
>>>
>>> The population grows and shrinks based on food supply.
>>> Areas that got colder saw a decline in population while
>>> areas that got warmer saw an increase. Where was there
>>> more food? Sure they might eat more of B than of A where
>>> it's warmer, but obviously warmer means better overall
>>> eating.
>>>
>>>> The people that study those animals
>>>> are all saying they are in danger. They are not running
>>>> for office to I will believe them before someone that
>>>> fears being controlled and hates Al Gore. It is your
>>>> right wing leaders that you should fear if control is
>>>> you problem.
>>>
>>> I just showed you the actual data is that polar bears
>>> are doing just fine as a whole as far as a those who
>>> study them can tell. Of course people who 'study them'
>>> say there is a problem, no problem means no funding.
>>> Duh. It's just like government sponsored climate
>>> research, you have to show there is a problem to get
>>> the grants. Show that it isn't caused by man and watch
>>> your government funding dry up.... then you have to get
>>> it from 'corporations' which means that people like you
>>> will call it biased, as if government isn't a
>>> self-serving institution of its own.
>>>
>>>> Maybe you care to debate those issues.
>>>
>>> Maybe you should grow a clue and realize its government
>>> that funds much of the research. Oh that's right, I'm
>>> 'paranoid' because I think that government has a
>>> self-interest as an institution just like a corporation
>>> does.
>
>> SIOW you think there should be no studies of anything as
>> there would never be any real objective views.
>
> Nothing of the sort. Damn you have a reading
> comprehension problem. Grow a clue.
>
Who do you want doing the studies? Where are the ones that truly have no
political involvement? Show me the scientist you think don't get funded by
anyone. You have made no points with your reply. Maybe you can clue me in
and provide something about your claims. Your cite is no different than any
other. A "newsbuster"? You grow a clue.


>> This means that anything you show is no more
>> reliable that anything I point to. Lets just have
>> everyone pack up everything and send them on their way
>> like all studies of disease and medicine. There are
>> people that study many things and the study of polar
>> bears is just a small portion of what they do. If there
>> is a decline in any animal populations in particular it
>> matters not. You seem to be limited in your knowledge of
>> scientific studies. There is no agenda to show anything
>> one way or the other.
>
> I see you don't want your religion questioned. This is
> pointless.

I have no reason to want religeon quesioned. I don't get involed in fairy
tales.

On Apr 24, 10:59 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
> wrote:
> mg > wrote :
>
>
>
> > I commuted 80 miles round trip to work for about 12 years. Several
> > years of that were during the period when the speed limit was 55 MPH.
> > It was a total nightmare. There was lots of road rage, aggressive
> > driving, people even getting shot, tailgating, horns honking. It was a
> > nightmare I had to look forward to twice a day for several years.
> > Unless you've been there and done that, you'll never understand the
> > problems a 55 MPH speed limit can cause on freeways.
>
> Hey stupid. That's like saying child molesting should be made legal to
> keep the molesters happy. If driving 55 causes you to freak, then you
> belong in prison.

You are using philosophy/ideology to refute my argument and adding in
a little bit of name calling and attacking the messenger for good
measure.

You're a ****ing idiot.