Forums | MacLife

Here's 3 of RR's best:

(1) Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." Reagan '81

(2) "I have flown twice over Mt St Helens out on our west coast. I'm not a scientist and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion  that that one little mountain has probably released more sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind that people are so concerned about." Reagan '80. Actually, Mount St. Helens, at its peak activity, emitted about 2,000 tons of sulphur dioxide per day, compared with 81,000 tons per day by cars.

(3) "The American Petroleum Institute filed suit against the EPA [and] charged that the agency was suppressing a scientific study for fear it might be misinterpreted... The suppressed study reveals that 80 percent of air pollution comes not from chimneys and auto exhaust pipes, but from plants and trees." Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, in 1979. There is no scientific data to support this assertion.

I have a hard time believing my other conservative friends when they heap praise upon RR as being "the greatest President of the century" I always ask them "President of which country, and in which century?" the guy was a looney tune from the get-go.

According to http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/Fact … rt/04.html the UK put out 12 thousand tons of S02 in 1999

I don't know if they are metric tons or english tons - I suspect metric, even though the UK is English

I haven't found an output for St. Helens yet - the interesting number for Helens would be when it blew.

Reagan was a dingbat.

That's flippin' unbelievable.

"]

Global Warming

As the above posts seem to point to, the concept of global warming is a crock.

So, putting aside the fact that the earth is getting warmer and the ice caps are melting faster and faster, we must assume that there is a huge conspiracy of scientists who doctor all of their work (it would have to be the lifes work for some meteorologists who study this sort of thing) to show that the earth is getting warmer when it really is not. Why would they do this?

See Kyoto conference.

To keep their funding coming in silly. "No problem=no funding" so how are all those research scientists and ecologists going to keep making payments on their oceanside homes, private schools for the kids, and their Lexus's?

Tell that to my dad who drives a rusted '91 Golf GL to his job at Harvard.  Also we live nowhere near the ocean and both of us kids went to public school.

Right. Meanwhile, rich businessmen with huge economic stakes in the balance are noble knights in the quest for knowledge.

As much as I am jealous of them and their snoughty kids who wouldn't know what work is if they wrote an essay on it - a capitalistic economy needs these filthy rich men.