GM says new fuel requirements will add $6k to the prices of theircars. Toyota engineers point and laugh.

In article >,
"HLS" > wrote:

> "sharx35" > wrote in message news:h2Ykj.13288
> >
> > Well I am neither but global warming being attributed mainly to human
> > activity is TOTAL BULL**** and those who promulgate that opinion are
> > IDIOTS, IMBECILES and self-serving MORONS. Long before there were ANY
> > human on earth, we had periods of warming...and cooling. What is happening
> > now all part of normal climatic cycling. PERIOD.
>
> And what made you an expert, turdhead?

sharc35 is 90% correct, but neither he or you know how to debate in a
civil manner.
Don't fight children.

In article >,
(Dersu Uzala) wrote:

> >"sharx35" > wrote in message news:h2Ykj.13288
> >>
> >> Well I am neither but global warming being attributed mainly to human
> >> activity is TOTAL BULL**** and those who promulgate that opinion are
> >> IDIOTS, IMBECILES and self-serving MORONS. Long before there were ANY
> >> human on earth, we had periods of warming...and cooling. What is happening
> >> now all part of normal climatic cycling. PERIOD.
>
> Fires being attributed mainly to human
> activity is TOTAL BULL**** and those who promulgate that opinion are
> IDIOTS, IMBECILES and self-serving MORONS. Long before there were ANY
> humans on earth, we had fires caused by lightning strikes. What is happening
> now all part of normal combustion events. PERIOD. The availability of
> matches, butane lighters, and such is purely coincidental. My logic is
> un-assailable.

Now we have increasing knowledge of an active volcano under the
Antarctic ice sheet, causing lakes under the very thick ice.
There is so much we have yet to learn about our own planet!

I don't believe that what he said about ALL of those folks was true either,
simply asking a guestion on what should one believe about what the "experts"
are telling us, since they too are often wrong. Consensis is NOT enough.
The world is flat, man will never leave the earth?

You are free to believe whatever you choose. All I know is as far back as
when I was earning my Engineering degree, in the late forties, we were being
told man was causing the world to COOL DOWN, now the Profs and the Al Gore
types are telling my grand children we are making it HEAT UP.

The Engineer in me makes me believe the numerous forces of nature are far
beyond the controll of man, particurally when history tells us the world was
far warmer and far cooler over the bullions of years before man

Those that know it all today, who are using computers to tell the future can
not account for the fact that when the computer models look back they do not
find the last mini ICE AGE in Europe just a few hundred years ago.. Should
we believe them?


"SilentOtto" > wrote in message
...
> On Jan 23, 2:00 pm, "Mike hunt" > wrote:
>> Were the National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society, NOAA, AAAS,
>> American
>> Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, all the world's scientific
>> bodies, all the world's scientific agencies, all the world's scientific
>> journals, all the world's leaders, and 99% of all the world's scientists
>> etc.RIGHT back in the sixties and seventeis when they are agrreed the
>> world
>> was headed into another ICE AGE becasue man made polution was BLOCKING
>> the
>> sun?
>
> All those groups made that claim?
>
> I think you're lying.
>
> Let's see your cites from each of those groups.
>
> And, a popular science article published in Newsweek doesn't qualify.
>
> Get to it, rightard.
>
>
>>
>> Do a search and you will dicover the same typs were saying that we had
>> onely
>> ten years to act before it was too late and that we should place carbon
>> black on the glaicers to help them to melt to cool the ocean
>>
>> The fact is the earths temperature has not risen since 1998. RUN, RUN
>> the
>> sky is falling, the sky is falling and it is the Presidents and the
>> Republicans fault, vote for Dimocrats LOL
>>
>> "Lloyd" > wrote in message
>> news:117ffdb5-426a-45c8-a675-f
>> > So the National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society, NASA, EPA, NOAA,
>> > AAAS, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, all the
>> > world's scientific bodies, all the world's scientific agencies, all
>> > the world's scientific journals, all the world's leaders, and 99% of
>> > all the world's scientists are wrong, and you're right? The chances
>> > of that are about the same as the chances of every Corvette owner
>> > suddenly trading in for a Toyota Prius.
>>
>> .
>

witfal wrote:

> On 2008-01-24 20:54:07 -0800, "larry moe 'n curly"
> > said:
>
>>> The Engineer in me makes me
>>
>>
>> How about the climatologist in you, you know, the kind of people most
>> qualified to determine if the world is cooling or heating?
>
>
> While I most certainly don't agree with your view on man-made global
> warming, you're right about calling him on the carpet over being an
> engineer.
>
> I'm amazed at how many of them consider themselves to be scientists in
> the truest sense of the word.
>
A lot of us (engineers) are scientists. Not all, but a lot. And frankly,
the average engineer developing something that can kill or maim if it
fails to function properly has to follow good scientific method a bit
more rigorously than the stereotypical guy in an ivory tower and white
lab coat has to. The words "engineering" and "scientist" both appear in
my official job title. So there :-p


On the flipside of the coin, the global-warming-is-proven side often
makes statements beginning "thousands of scientists agree...." that
global waming is proven, without pointing out that the majority of the
"scientists" they reference have no expertise in climatology (ie they're
chemists, biologists, materials scientists, particle physicists, etc.),
making their opinion no more valid than anyone grabbed at random off the
street. Yes, a qualified scientist or engineer should have a critical
way of thinking that makes his/her opinions more well-founded, but a) it
often doesn't work that way- scientists often wind up falling into the
same "belief" vs "fact" traps as everyone else, and b) opinions outside
ones area of expertise are still just that. Opinions.

Besides- Parker claims to be a scientist, and anyone who's read the
autos groups for a while knows what THAT is worth... :-/

Actually a qualified scientist or engineer HAS a critical way of thinking
that makes his/her opinions well-founded, because our work can be proven by
others by repeating our work and getting the SAME result.



When we crashed vehicles to verify that they met NHTSA requirements we did
not crash one vehicle of the model, but by repeat smashing the same model
vehicle. That is one reason the Insurance Institutes crashingONE
representation of a vehicle under very diffent circumstances, is invalid



The man is the cause crowd has proven nothing. They are using a hypothesis
based on computer models to 'predict' what might happen. This is not
scientific simply conjecture based on a minuscule period of recent time.
Paleo-climatologist based on the fossil record dispute their hypothesis as a
result. The CO levels and the average temperature have been both higher and
low over the billions of years long before man was even on the scene.



They can not show that addition CO leads to higher temperatures. The fact
is the historical record indicates higher temperatures leads to higher CO
levels, not the other way around









"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> witfal wrote:
>
>> On 2008-01-24 20:54:07 -0800, "larry moe 'n curly"
>> > said:
>>
>>>> The Engineer in me makes me
>>>
>>>
>>> How about the climatologist in you, you know, the kind of people most
>>> qualified to determine if the world is cooling or heating?
>>
>>
>> While I most certainly don't agree with your view on man-made global
>> warming, you're right about calling him on the carpet over being an
>> engineer.
>>
>> I'm amazed at how many of them consider themselves to be scientists in
>> the truest sense of the word.
>>
> A lot of us (engineers) are scientists. Not all, but a lot. And frankly,
> the average engineer developing something that can kill or maim if it
> fails to function properly has to follow good scientific method a bit more
> rigorously than the stereotypical guy in an ivory tower and white lab coat
> has to. The words "engineering" and "scientist" both appear in my official
> job title. So there :-p
>
>
> On the flipside of the coin, the global-warming-is-proven side often makes
> statements beginning "thousands of scientists agree...." that global
> waming is proven, without pointing out that the majority of the
> "scientists" they reference have no expertise in climatology (ie they're
> chemists, biologists, materials scientists, particle physicists, etc.),
> making their opinion no more valid than anyone grabbed at random off the
> street. Yes, a qualified scientist or engineer should have a critical way
> of thinking that makes his/her opinions more well-founded, but a) it often
> doesn't work that way- scientists often wind up falling into the same
> "belief" vs "fact" traps as everyone else, and b) opinions outside ones
> area of expertise are still just that. Opinions.
>
> Besides- Parker claims to be a scientist, and anyone who's read the autos
> groups for a while knows what THAT is worth... :-/
>
>
>
>
>

Mike hunt wrote:
> Actually a qualified scientist or engineer HAS a critical way of thinking
> that makes his/her opinions well-founded, because our work can be proven by
> others by repeating our work and getting the SAME result.

"Our?" You can't even figure out how to use a spell checker, how to
in-line post or get your facts strait!

ROTFL!

Jeff

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:10:55 -0800, witfal > wrote:

>who claims that ALL engineers are scientist

Care to clean up your English, Mr. p's and q's?

--
Scott in Florida

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:54:07 -0800 (PST), "larry moe 'n curly"
> wrote:

>
>
>Mike hunt wrote:
>
>> All I know is as far back as
>> when I was earning my Engineering degree, in the late forties, we were being
>> told man was causing the world to COOL DOWN,
>
snip
>
>> The Engineer in me makes me
>
>How about the climatologist in you, you know, the kind of people most
>qualified to determine if the world is cooling or heating?

snip

A climatologist is a TV weather man, not a scientist.

Jack

Jeff wrote:

> Mike hunt wrote:
>
>> Actually a qualified scientist or engineer HAS a critical way of
>> thinking that makes his/her opinions well-founded, because our work
>> can be proven by others by repeating our work and getting the SAME
>> result.
>
>
> "Our?" You can't even figure out how to use a spell checker, how to
> in-line post or get your facts strait!


Ah, picking on spelling and posting method. The last bastion of the
net.LOSER.

witfal wrote:

> On 2008-01-25 10:04:20 -0800, Steve > said:
>
>>> I'm amazed at how many of them consider themselves to be scientists
>>> in the truest sense of the word.
>>>
>> A lot of us (engineers) are scientists. Not all, but a lot.
>
>
> Obviously I must agree with you. There are exceptions.
>
> I do know one engineer who claims that ALL engineers are scientist. It
> makes it easy for him to claim that title, though he's as far removed as
> one can be.
>

Right. There are many plumbers, electricians, and backhoe operators that
practice better scientific method based problem solving skills than some
physicists I know. Science is a way of thinking and solving problems,
not what you do for a living or (necessarily) how you are trained.

Not to digress too far down my view of the world, but I've often noticed
that contrary to the way they're generally perceived, physicians are
often horrible at basic science. And that's a good thing- medicine often
involves arriving at a conclusion from incomplete facts and doing so
fast enough to solve the problem before the patient dies, at the expense
of rigorous science. The exception would be the Pathologist that works
in a lab analyzing tissue samples, but in general medical doctors are
not very scientific at all.