Why we should listen to the 97%

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your link was written by a member of the Hoover Institute funded by:

''The Hoover Institution is funded by multiple sources. It receives nearly half of its funding from private gifts, including corporate charitable foundations, and the other half from its endowment.[27]''

''Past corporate donors have included:''

''Archer Daniels Midland Foundation
ARCO Foundation
Boeing-McDonnell Foundation
Chrysler Corporation Fund
Dean Witter Foundation
Exxon Educational Foundation [28][unreliable source?]
Ford Motor Company Fund
General Motors Foundation
JFPI Corporation
J.P. Morgan Charitable Trust
Merrill Lynch & Company Foundation
Procter & Gamble Fund
Rockwell International Corporation Trust
Transamerica''

So, American car companies and big oil object to being forced into solving the fossil fuel problems that they created. However, that's why we, the people have a democratic government. To solve problems when each company operating under the one rule of business, make more money regardless of the cost to others, leads companies to make more money, and we, the people to waste more.

You think that the corporate donors somehow fool the physics of a collision?

There are many ways to design and build safe fuel efficient cars. We are much smarter than thinking that you have to compromise one to get the other. Mankind has made huge strides in safety over my life because we, the people directed our government to insist on it.

The auto and oil companies feeding think tanks in order to excuse themselves from public responsibility is a very old and tired game. It was the main reason for Detroit's failure to thrive against foreign competition for decades.

We should insist in the marketplace on better. And we have.

A June report by a group called the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) includes some data from Ross and co-author Tom Wenzel of the U.S. Energy Department's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. That Ross-Wenzel data show that drivers of the safest small cars are only 13% to 15% more likely to die in crashes than drivers of midsize and full-size cars are. But the chart also shows that the least-safe small cars are at least 90% more dangerous than midsize and full-size cars, meaning the driver is almost twice as likely to be killed.

"If you say light cars are more dangerous, in an average sense they are, and some are much more dangerous," Ross says.


People buy small cars even though they can be deadly - USATODAY.com

Typical liberals, ignore the cost of their "good ideas".

 

[PMZ]

You think that the corporate donors somehow fool the physics of a collision?

There are many ways to design and build safe fuel efficient cars. We are much smarter than thinking that you have to compromise one to get the other. Mankind has made huge strides in safety over my life because we, the people directed our government to insist on it.

The auto and oil companies feeding think tanks in order to excuse themselves from public responsibility is a very old and tired game. It was the main reason for Detroit's failure to thrive against foreign competition for decades.

We should insist in the marketplace on better. And we have.

A June report by a group called the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) includes some data from Ross and co-author Tom Wenzel of the U.S. Energy Department's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. That Ross-Wenzel data show that drivers of the safest small cars are only 13% to 15% more likely to die in crashes than drivers of midsize and full-size cars are. But the chart also shows that the least-safe small cars are at least 90% more dangerous than midsize and full-size cars, meaning the driver is almost twice as likely to be killed.

"If you say light cars are more dangerous, in an average sense they are, and some are much more dangerous," Ross says.


People buy small cars even though they can be deadly - USATODAY.com

Typical liberals, ignore the cost of their "good ideas".

I agree that we need to get big cars off the road due to the danger they create.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There are many ways to design and build safe fuel efficient cars. We are much smarter than thinking that you have to compromise one to get the other. Mankind has made huge strides in safety over my life because we, the people directed our government to insist on it.

The auto and oil companies feeding think tanks in order to excuse themselves from public responsibility is a very old and tired game. It was the main reason for Detroit's failure to thrive against foreign competition for decades.

We should insist in the marketplace on better. And we have.

A June report by a group called the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) includes some data from Ross and co-author Tom Wenzel of the U.S. Energy Department's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. That Ross-Wenzel data show that drivers of the safest small cars are only 13% to 15% more likely to die in crashes than drivers of midsize and full-size cars are. But the chart also shows that the least-safe small cars are at least 90% more dangerous than midsize and full-size cars, meaning the driver is almost twice as likely to be killed.

"If you say light cars are more dangerous, in an average sense they are, and some are much more dangerous," Ross says.


People buy small cars even though they can be deadly - USATODAY.com

Typical liberals, ignore the cost of their "good ideas".

I agree that we need to get big cars off the road due to the danger they create.

That Ross-Wenzel data show that drivers of the safest small cars are only 13% to 15% more likely to die in crashes than drivers of midsize and full-size cars are.

We must not allow people to drive safer cars, for their own good.
Save the Earth, screw the people.
Typical liberal.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There are many ways to design and build safe fuel efficient cars. We are much smarter than thinking that you have to compromise one to get the other. Mankind has made huge strides in safety over my life because we, the people directed our government to insist on it.

The auto and oil companies feeding think tanks in order to excuse themselves from public responsibility is a very old and tired game. It was the main reason for Detroit's failure to thrive against foreign competition for decades.

We should insist in the marketplace on better. And we have.

A June report by a group called the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) includes some data from Ross and co-author Tom Wenzel of the U.S. Energy Department's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. That Ross-Wenzel data show that drivers of the safest small cars are only 13% to 15% more likely to die in crashes than drivers of midsize and full-size cars are. But the chart also shows that the least-safe small cars are at least 90% more dangerous than midsize and full-size cars, meaning the driver is almost twice as likely to be killed.

"If you say light cars are more dangerous, in an average sense they are, and some are much more dangerous," Ross says.


People buy small cars even though they can be deadly - USATODAY.com

Typical liberals, ignore the cost of their "good ideas".

I agree that we need to get big cars off the road due to the danger they create.

Sales and registration data show that small cars — what most people call compacts and subcompacts, such as Civic, Toyota Corolla, Ford Focus, Mazda3, Nissan Sentra, Chevrolet Cobalt and smaller — are about 14% of vehicles on the road. But they accounted for nearly 24% of occupants killed in one- and two-vehicle crashes in 2005, the latest year for which specific information is available.

 

[bripat9643]

There are many ways to design and build safe fuel efficient cars. We are much smarter than thinking that you have to compromise one to get the other. Mankind has made huge strides in safety over my life because we, the people directed our government to insist on it.

The auto and oil companies feeding think tanks in order to excuse themselves from public responsibility is a very old and tired game. It was the main reason for Detroit's failure to thrive against foreign competition for decades.

We should insist in the marketplace on better. And we have.

A June report by a group called the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) includes some data from Ross and co-author Tom Wenzel of the U.S. Energy Department's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. That Ross-Wenzel data show that drivers of the safest small cars are only 13% to 15% more likely to die in crashes than drivers of midsize and full-size cars are. But the chart also shows that the least-safe small cars are at least 90% more dangerous than midsize and full-size cars, meaning the driver is almost twice as likely to be killed.

"If you say light cars are more dangerous, in an average sense they are, and some are much more dangerous," Ross says.


People buy small cars even though they can be deadly - USATODAY.com

Typical liberals, ignore the cost of their "good ideas".

I agree that we need to get big cars off the road due to the danger they create.

What we really need to do is keep idiots from voting. Then we would have the government telling us what kind of cars we can drive.

 

[bripat9643]

A June report by a group called the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) includes some data from Ross and co-author Tom Wenzel of the U.S. Energy Department's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. That Ross-Wenzel data show that drivers of the safest small cars are only 13% to 15% more likely to die in crashes than drivers of midsize and full-size cars are. But the chart also shows that the least-safe small cars are at least 90% more dangerous than midsize and full-size cars, meaning the driver is almost twice as likely to be killed.

"If you say light cars are more dangerous, in an average sense they are, and some are much more dangerous," Ross says.


People buy small cars even though they can be deadly - USATODAY.com

Typical liberals, ignore the cost of their "good ideas".

I agree that we need to get big cars off the road due to the danger they create.

Sales and registration data show that small cars — what most people call compacts and subcompacts, such as Civic, Toyota Corolla, Ford Focus, Mazda3, Nissan Sentra, Chevrolet Cobalt and smaller — are about 14% of vehicles on the road. But they accounted for nearly 24% of occupants killed in one- and two-vehicle crashes in 2005, the latest year for which specific information is available.

We all know how liberal turds like PMS have literally destroyed major corporations because some idiot used their product incorrectly and injured themselves. Why doesn't the same rule apply here?

 

[PMZ]

A June report by a group called the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) includes some data from Ross and co-author Tom Wenzel of the U.S. Energy Department's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. That Ross-Wenzel data show that drivers of the safest small cars are only 13% to 15% more likely to die in crashes than drivers of midsize and full-size cars are. But the chart also shows that the least-safe small cars are at least 90% more dangerous than midsize and full-size cars, meaning the driver is almost twice as likely to be killed.

"If you say light cars are more dangerous, in an average sense they are, and some are much more dangerous," Ross says.


People buy small cars even though they can be deadly - USATODAY.com

Typical liberals, ignore the cost of their "good ideas".

I agree that we need to get big cars off the road due to the danger they create.

That Ross-Wenzel data show that drivers of the safest small cars are only 13% to 15% more likely to die in crashes than drivers of midsize and full-size cars are.

We must not allow people to drive safer cars, for their own good.
Save the Earth, screw the people.
Typical liberal.

You're ignoring the fact that big cars cause danger as well as oil supply protection wars as well as extreme weather damages as well as being unaffordable by most who drive them.

You celebrate citizens gone stupid. Probably family for you.

I'm sick of paying for stupid people tricks.

 

[westwall]

Wow that website is worse than world nut daily.

Using that reasoning we should ban all eighteen wheelers and big trucks.

Gee I didn't think you cared,

We should also outlaw bikes, motorcycles, and motor scooters.

Make cars lighter, what could go wrong?

Idiot!

Your link was written by a member of the Hoover Institute funded by:

''The Hoover Institution is funded by multiple sources. It receives nearly half of its funding from private gifts, including corporate charitable foundations, and the other half from its endowment.[27]''

''Past corporate donors have included:''

''Archer Daniels Midland Foundation
ARCO Foundation
Boeing-McDonnell Foundation
Chrysler Corporation Fund
Dean Witter Foundation
Exxon Educational Foundation [28][unreliable source?]
Ford Motor Company Fund
General Motors Foundation
JFPI Corporation
J.P. Morgan Charitable Trust
Merrill Lynch & Company Foundation
Procter & Gamble Fund
Rockwell International Corporation Trust
Transamerica''

So, American car companies and big oil object to being forced into solving the fossil fuel problems that they created. However, that's why we, the people have a democratic government. To solve problems when each company operating under the one rule of business, make more money regardless of the cost to others, leads companies to make more money, and we, the people to waste more.

So what. Who funds your choice of groups? Oh, yes, it's good old Soros and others like him. All that matters is if the information is good asshat. The source of the money is immaterial. If the information is bad then it should be expunged and ignored. So why do you insist on using information that has been PROVEN false?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I agree that we need to get big cars off the road due to the danger they create.

That Ross-Wenzel data show that drivers of the safest small cars are only 13% to 15% more likely to die in crashes than drivers of midsize and full-size cars are.

We must not allow people to drive safer cars, for their own good.
Save the Earth, screw the people.
Typical liberal.

You're ignoring the fact that big cars cause danger as well as oil supply protection wars as well as extreme weather damages as well as being unaffordable by most who drive them.

You celebrate citizens gone stupid. Probably family for you.

I'm sick of paying for stupid people tricks.

You're ignoring the fact that big cars cause danger as well

Please explain the danger you feel I've ignored.

 

[PMZ]

That Ross-Wenzel data show that drivers of the safest small cars are only 13% to 15% more likely to die in crashes than drivers of midsize and full-size cars are.

We must not allow people to drive safer cars, for their own good.
Save the Earth, screw the people.
Typical liberal.

You're ignoring the fact that big cars cause danger as well as oil supply protection wars as well as extreme weather damages as well as being unaffordable by most who drive them.

You celebrate citizens gone stupid. Probably family for you.

I'm sick of paying for stupid people tricks.

You're ignoring the fact that big cars cause danger as well

Please explain the danger you feel I've ignored.

The bigger the car, the more gasoline they consume. The more gasoline burned the more GHGs. The more GHGs, the more AGW. The more AGW, the more death and destruction inflicted on civilization.

That’s not even mentioning where the world will be when the oil is all gone nor the wars to be fought trying to protect dwindling supplies.

 

[bripat9643]

You're ignoring the fact that big cars cause danger as well as oil supply protection wars as well as extreme weather damages as well as being unaffordable by most who drive them.

You celebrate citizens gone stupid. Probably family for you.

I'm sick of paying for stupid people tricks.

You're ignoring the fact that big cars cause danger as well

Please explain the danger you feel I've ignored.

The bigger the car, the more gasoline they consume. The more gasoline burned the more GHGs. The more GHGs, the more AGW. The more AGW, the more death and destruction inflicted on civilization.

That’s not even mentioning where the world will be when the oil is all gone nor the wars to be fought trying to protect dwindling supplies.

You have us confused with gullible drones who believe your AGW abracadabra

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're ignoring the fact that big cars cause danger as well as oil supply protection wars as well as extreme weather damages as well as being unaffordable by most who drive them.

You celebrate citizens gone stupid. Probably family for you.

I'm sick of paying for stupid people tricks.

You're ignoring the fact that big cars cause danger as well

Please explain the danger you feel I've ignored.

The bigger the car, the more gasoline they consume. The more gasoline burned the more GHGs. The more GHGs, the more AGW. The more AGW, the more death and destruction inflicted on civilization.

That’s not even mentioning where the world will be when the oil is all gone nor the wars to be fought trying to protect dwindling supplies.

Thousands of additional deaths, every year, to prevent imaginary AGW deaths sometime in the future.

A trade-off only a liberal could embrace.

 

[Saigon]

Todd-

The deaths have already been occuring for 20 years.

Deaths from lack of water as glaciers disappear, deaths from unprecedented drought and floods.

Your lack of general knowledge is absolutely staggering.

 

[bripat9643]

Todd-

The deaths have already been occuring for 20 years.

Deaths from lack of water as glaciers disappear, deaths from unprecedented drought and floods.

Your lack of general knowledge is absolutely staggering.

There are no such deaths. Eagles can fly, ya know. That means they can easily fly to where water is or to where it isn't. They generally don't live in areas subject to drought.

 

[Saigon]

Bri Pat -

There are no such deaths

As I pointed out to Todd, a staggering lack of general knowledge is not always an acceptable excuse.

Between July 2011 and mid-2012, a severe drought affected the entire East Africa region. Said to be "the worst in 60 years", the drought caused a severe food crisis across Somalia, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Kenya that threatened the livelihood of 9.5 million people. Many refugees from southern Somalia fled to neighboring Kenya and Ethiopia, where crowded, unsanitary conditions together with severe malnutrition led to a large number of deaths. Other countries in East Africa, including Sudan, South Sudan and parts of Uganda, were also affected by a food crisis.

2011 East Africa drought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We know that climate change creates more droughts, and more severe droughts. More droughts = more deaths from drought.

 

[bripat9643]

Bri Pat -

There are no such deaths

As I pointed out to Todd, a staggering lack of general knowledge is not always an acceptable excuse.

Between July 2011 and mid-2012, a severe drought affected the entire East Africa region. Said to be "the worst in 60 years", the drought caused a severe food crisis across Somalia, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Kenya that threatened the livelihood of 9.5 million people. Many refugees from southern Somalia fled to neighboring Kenya and Ethiopia, where crowded, unsanitary conditions together with severe malnutrition led to a large number of deaths. Other countries in East Africa, including Sudan, South Sudan and parts of Uganda, were also affected by a food crisis.

2011 East Africa drought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We know that climate change creates more droughts, and more severe droughts. More droughts = more deaths from drought.

So how many eagles died?

 

[Saigon]

BriPat -

On threads like this where you have been proven wrong, and where you obviously realise that you have been proven wrong, it is probably better if you just note that your previous comment was incorrect and that you now understand the facts, rather than going with smart-arse non-sequtiors.

To answer your ridiculous question - tens of thousands of birds die from drought every year. Climate change is forcing those numbers up every year.

 

[Abraham3]

As has been clearly demonstrated by the release of the IPCC's AR5 Summary for Policymakers, the certainty of the "A" part of AGW has only grown. It is ridiculous - and more importantly - DANGEROUS, to continue to attempt to refute this proposition. The Top-of-Atmosphere (TOA) radiative imbalance is unchanged. Global warming continues unabated. That it's processes have altered to move more energy into the ocean will assuage only the scientifically ignorant and the politically petulant.

It would never have been easy, simple or inexpensive to deal with this problem. That those opposed to an appropriate response should have successfully delayed action till now (and likely beyond) has truly put an effective response beyond our financial or technological reach. I guess they can hold their heads up in pride that, by their words and their deeds, the world - whose financial health they claimed to hold dear - will beggar itself in a Pyrrhic effort to deal with the changes it will suffer. They can stand tall when it is pointed out to what an extent all of our children and all of our children's children will be so well and truly fucked. BZ, you god damned bloody idiots.

The 97% are right.

 

[bripat9643]

BriPat -

On threads like this where you have been proven wrong, and where you obviously realise that you have been proven wrong, it is probably better if you just note that your previous comment was incorrect and that you now understand the facts, rather than going with smart-arse non-sequtiors.

To answer your ridiculous question - tens of thousands of birds die from drought every year. Climate change is forcing those numbers up every year.

In other words, you haven't got a shred of evidence that eagles have ever died because of drought. Ya see, Saigon, drought is always a local event. It never covers an area of more than a few thousand square miles. Eagles can see for hundreds of miles and find water. If the rain isn't falling where they live, they just go somewhere else.

 

[PMZ]

BriPat -

On threads like this where you have been proven wrong, and where you obviously realise that you have been proven wrong, it is probably better if you just note that your previous comment was incorrect and that you now understand the facts, rather than going with smart-arse non-sequtiors.

To answer your ridiculous question - tens of thousands of birds die from drought every year. Climate change is forcing those numbers up every year.

In other words, you haven't got a shred of evidence that eagles have ever died because of drought. Ya see, Saigon, drought is always a local event. It never covers an area of more than a few thousand square miles. Eagles can see for hundreds of miles and find water. If the rain isn't falling where they live, they just go somewhere else.

I've never met anyone else with your attitude that, as long as Eagles survive, no other life form matters.