Comments on: The Next Time You’re in New Hampshire

By: Marylou

Marylou — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 16:46:00 +0000

Stop Drunk Driving Now’s President and Founder, Ron Bellanti, gives high school students the cold hard facts on drunk driving. Ron is dedicated to helping teenagers realize the consequences of drunk driving and have them make the right decisions as well. Learn more about drunk driving prevention, statistics and how to get your school involved at http://www.stopddnow.com

Recently, Ron spoke at Londonderry High School in Londonderry, New Hampshire educating students on the perils of drunk driving. Read more on what the Derry News thought of the drunk driving prevention event at http://www.derrynews.com/londonderry/x2073120501/LHS-students-hear-cold-hard-facts

By: david

david — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:13:47 +0000

John,

“Or do you just want to make laws that force me to behave the way you behave?”

Directly the contrary. You have not understood what I said nor the references. I am opposed to seat belt laws.

I directed you to John Adams’ work because I think you would find it interesting and because it would support your core argument against seatbelt laws. Bruce suggested you should have a reference to back up your criticism of others’ statistics and I thought I would be helpful to provide it. It demonstrates that the statistical claims of lives saved by seatbelt legislation are false. It is an unfortunate reflection on human nature that in many instances the inaccuracy can only be deliberate, i.e. they are lies.

Bruce, if you read Adams you’ll realise that’s wrong with the NHTSA study is that it is a reductionist model. It assumes that one can establish the impact of seatbelts by estimating the impact of seatbelts in each collision and summing the results. However, population-level statistical analysis of what has happened in the real world demonstrates that the predicted reductions in deaths simply have not happened. Why don’t seatbelt laws save lives? The phenomenon of risk compensation: the use of seatbelts changes driver behaviour.

What is most iniquitous is that seatbelt laws result in a transfer of deaths to pedestrians and cyclists.

By: john Willson

john Willson — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 21:32:44 +0000

Yes, you did.

By: John Médaille

John Médaille — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 00:01:20 +0000

Well, I’m sure there’s an LJAA in here somewhere, but before we start the nominating speeches, could you explain to me why it is “on point” for you to bring up global warming, and “off point” for any one to respond? I missed that part.

By: john Willson

john Willson — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:56:01 +0000

Gosh, John M, you are just devastating. I submit to your subtle rhetoric and pleasing personality. It would be nice, however, if sometime you could speak to the topic. By the way, do you have a place, or limits, or liberty? Or just ideology?

By: Mark Perkins

Mark Perkins — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 06:28:10 +0000

John G.,

You are probably correct. Over 50% does not mean a consensus, but, at the very least, there does not appear to have been anything close to a global cooling consensus. Some interest in the possibility, certainly.

By: John Médaille

John Médaille — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 02:02:52 +0000

Let’s see, You start talking about global warming, and object when others respond. You hurl insults, and complain that others engage in name calling. Asked for evidence for your preposterous claims, you say “give me a break.” As for your threat to cease responding, it is an empty threat, given that you respond mainly with petulance.

By: john Willson

john Willson — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 01:54:37 +0000

John M,
Give me a break. The post was not about warming, global or otherwise. You know that, but want to make this an issue that you can control. Deal with seat belts, please, and don’t give me any more nonsense about who is “childish.” By the way, if you want to resort to name calling, this is the last, the very last, time that I will respond.

By: John Gorentz

John Gorentz — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 01:37:15 +0000

Mark,

The article says the score in the scientific literature was 7 to 20 to 44. I hope you don’t call that a consensus. The article itself is careful not to.

By: John Médaille

John Médaille — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 01:36:56 +0000

John W., it may surprise you to learn that merely insisting on a thing doesn’t make it so, even if the insistence is surrounded by childish insults. This is an empirical question, solved by an appeal to the evidence. If there was such a consensus, then the National Academy of Science knew nothing about it, and said so. The articles that did talk about cooling were about 10 and 20,000 years cycles based on Earth orbits, not about imminent glaciation. If you have evidence to the contrary, I am open to hearing it. Otherwise, mere assertion is not persuasive, at least not to me.

And John, you brought up global warming, not me.

By: Mark Perkins

Mark Perkins — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 01:34:08 +0000

There was wide speculation about cooling but the consensus was global warming even then.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm

By: John Gorentz

John Gorentz — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 01:34:05 +0000

I was around in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and I remember the conservative press making fun of the global cooling hysteria. Dunno about any consensus, though.

By: john Willson

john Willson — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 01:11:57 +0000

As usual, you don’t address the issue, but report a Time magazine crappola. in fact, there was a very wide “consensus” about global cooling in the 70s, and your assertion to the contrary is not credible. What do you want to report to the FPR? Is it that my argument about bad law is wrong because you think that global warming and Al Gore are sainted? As I remember it, the post was about seat belts.

By: John Médaille

John Médaille — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:59:32 +0000

John W., You repeat something that is widely reported, namely that in the 70′s, there was a “scientific consensus” about global cooling. Alas, like many things reported in the press and the blogosphere, that isn’t true. A survey of the scientific literature of the time reveals just the opposite, a growing concern about warming. What you will find is a Time magazine article on global cooling reporting such a consensus.

Like many things in Time, it turned out to be false.

By: john Willson

john Willson — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 23:44:01 +0000

David,
You are a hoot! I watch TV commercials every day that are more convincing than “the greatest collaberation of scientists the world has known.” They usually say something like “I trust my heart to Lipitor,” or “ask your doctor.” Have you ever asked yourself why the earth warmed up in the middle ages, or cooled down just in time for Puritans to survive in the 1630s? Was it cows farting or not farting, and why have we had “scientific consensus” tell us in the 1970s that a new ice age was about to arrive? I think you should put great faith in seat belts. The “data” you present is foolish, and you should read it again. Or do you just get mesmerized by charts and grafts? If you read my original post, I said that I do indeed, most of the time, buckle up. But can you explain why New Hampshire has a very low death-by-automobile statistic, since you seem to like statistics so much? Or do you just want to make laws that force me to behave the way you behave? I am the least libertarian guy you would ever want to find, but you guys that make laws based on specious “statistics” brings out the anarchist in me.

By: John Gorentz

John Gorentz — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 23:16:29 +0000

“Anthropogenic global warming is as solidly scientifically demonstrated as you can get.”

As solidly as you can get? It has a pretty good scientific basis — good enough for me, anyway — but it’s not as good as you can get. There are a lot of phenomena that have a more solid scientific explanation than that one.