Hometown defamed! - $250 Reward!

Read below:
http://www.syracuse.com/business/ind...970.xml&coll=1

"Syracusans contribute more per person to global warming than the residents of any other major city in New York, and far more than people in smog-filled Los Angeles, according to a study released Wednesday by the Brookings Institution."
This is complete bull shi*!

Since I know there's a bunch of educated people involved in the racing community....
We are offering a $250 cash redemption value to the first person who can unsubstantiate and debunk and HAVE PUBLICIZED in our local newspaper and/or a national publication a rebuttal of the completely baseless assertations in this research study.

What the hell are these people thinking?
Anyone who has traveled through upstate NY knows this study is totally flawed. Notwithstanding that we got over 140in. of snow two years ago.
http://goldensnowball.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowfal...l_Award_Cities

I'll admit, it not Santa Monica or Hilton Head, but hey- it's our hometown!
I took my scooter to work today, and on top of that- we're doing our part!
http://www.raceshopper.com/green.shtml

Best Regards,
Edwin Robinson.

P.S. - A reminder - Please Don't FORGET: http://www.raceshopper.com/tribute.shtml

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edwin Robinson

Notwithstanding that we got over 180in. of snow two years ago.

---

Clearly the difference is the lack of snowplows in LA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgipson

Clearly the difference is the lack of snowplows in LA

---

:lol:

James

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edwin Robinson

"Syracusans contribute more per person to global warming than the residents of any other major city in New York, and far more than people in smog-filled Los Angeles, according to a study released Wednesday by the Brookings Institution."
This is complete bull shi*!

---

I agree. There is no way this can't be BS.

First of all, you have to accept their premise that global warming is "man-made", which the liberal Brookings Institution obviously does. This is in stark contrast to the ever-increasing amount of evidence that the so-called science behind the global warming alarmist's claims is terribly flawed and presumptive. The list of scientists who doubt the alarmist claims ("deniers", as they're called - ya know, like Nazi?) is an expanding one, and the so-called "concensus" that Private Jet Gore continues to speak of is a pipe dream.

Senator Jim Inhofe is the ranking minority member of the Senate Environmental & Public Works Committee in Congress and provides some great information to those of us proud "deniers" on his blog at http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...5-798ae9c9ebeb . If you enjoy paying $5/gal for diesel, just wait. By the time the majority gets done ramming through the Warner-Lieberman cap-and-trade legislation, you'll long for the days of $5 fuel.

The media, all the current presidential candidates, most of our politicians, and the "look at me! look at me!" Hollywood-types have all bought into this 'theory'. Luckily, there is a growing group of scientists, with peer-reviewed studies which rightly bring in to question allegations made by the alarmists. Not that it's not happening, but rather to what degree; what is the true cause; what is the net effect; and is there REALLY anything WE can do about it (like "Can we alter increased solar flare activity?").

So if ever there was a time for INaction, it's now. At least until the concept has been studied further, and ample time and attention given to those who dispute the theory. The dangers of acting too soon is likely worse than no action at all. Spread the word.

BTW, I was born and raised in Utica. GO ORANGE!

Amen brother Chris.
Energy is the fuel of the economy. I would assume that energy usage per capita would be a large part of the basis of the Brookings conclusion.
Maybe people from Syracuse are more productive that those in most of the rest of the country. Maybe they use more carbon to produce goods and services to grow the economy.
Maybe the people of Syracuse should be proud of this honor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marilyn Brown, the somewhat baffled researcher

Brown said the rankings may surprise people, but they are based on the best data available. "I stand by this data," she said.

---

The only appropriate question to ask, given Ms. Brown's statement above, is "How far behind ?".

Junk science. I'm going to go all ad hominem here, and start with "What the hell is a Professor of Energy Policy, and what qualifications are required ?" Is it some tarted-up Economics professorship ? If so, it will be easy to find the "bullshit tab" in the research, and pull it, letting the jibberish out of the study.

The magic is in the study methodology...and 'step one' is getting hold of the whole report so you can parse thru the press release crap and figure out where they got their numbers from.

Maybe it is road salt.