CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
There was talk in the 1970s about the threat of climate change when the Earth was cooling and what to do about it. People adapted by wearing more clothes in the winter and running their furnace longer into the spring. Same can be said now. People are adjusting to the Earth's natural warming by running their AC longer into Autumn and dressing more appropriately. In a couple of decades or so when the Earth begins its new cycle of cooling we will adjust to that again like we have done so many times in the past.
Terrorism is the bigger threat since your life can be taken away in an instance. Of course we can adapt to that also by taking the necessary precautions to keeping us safe. One example would be by carrying around an AK-47 wherever we go, or by staying away from Muslims whenever possible.
Out of curiosity, what evidence do you have that you believe should be presented to the global scientific community that so easily shatters their understanding of Anthropogenic Climate Change?
Very simple. The NOAA has used compromised thermometers to record temperatures on the ground. Out of 1218 of these recordings, only 410 were unperturbed. The rest were put in places that inaccurately recorded higher temperatures due to the fact they were near asphalt, concrete, or other heat sources like AC exhausts. This is over a 30 year period.
The most accurate way to gather temperatures is through satellites. These satellites have shown no statistically significant warming since 1994.
But the global scientific community disregards this since they need funding from the government to continue to support themselves. Almost all scientists who receive government funding cannot be trusted. The NOAA and NASA are so dishonest that their funding should be cut off completely.
Now if the CO 2 levels are so high according to your government that you praise then why is it that the pine trees are still green in the winter ? You have a intelligent response for that ?
Sure, I can provide citations. But is it going to do any good? You are closed minded on the subject. The question is why. I am assuming you like the idea of trillions of US dollars going to corrupt, third world countries, some run by dictators who will hoard all the money for themselves. Or is it the power control Washington will achieve at the expense of individual and states rights. Or is it the massive carbon tax that is coming to make the middle class more dependent on the federal government. Three good options for people on the left.
Anyway, the NOAA is such a corrupt government agency that it should be disbanded. They have on numerous occasions changed their numbers and EVERY time it has resulted in the Earth warming. Any time someone changes numbers and it always results in their favor cannot be trusted.
This is all the articles that were inside the original article. BTW, the scientists at the University of Alabama are funded by government grants, and they have taken ZERO money from special interest groups, like the oil industry. I figure you would probably throw that one out right away to discredit them.
Sometimes its hard to tell where to start untangling something when that something is wrong at a very basic level. What is cited above by foratag isn't science but its trying to masquerade as science.
His paper never was published in peer reviewed journals because it doesn't really contribute anything scientific and has glaring errors and unsupported assumptions that go counter to the current literature without addressing current literature.
Yes you heard right; Watts "paper" doesn't discuss the current literature on the subject of UHI. I really should have started with this because it speaks of the low quality of Watts paper. Of course if he did use others papers it would show his claims to be baseless so of course he omits these. Watts paper not only fails to support his conclusion he fails to even participate in the discussion.
These peer reviewed studies aren't all from NOAA or NASA, what you have here is other studies conclusions from across the globe coming to similar conclusion with different methods showing the conclusion to be robust. Independent methods have confirmed what others have said. This is where your claims of conspiracy fall apart. The conclusions regarding climate science are not resting on the likes of NASA or NOAA but is the result of a global scientific effort.
No professional science organizations in the world deny Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC). The larger a conspiracy is the harder it would be to keep, it is more likely that the minority of the scientists who disagree ACC are incorrect are in the wrong rather than the majority of the worlds leading science organizations all in some globally held lie.
This is just an example of to call into question things you say, apparently your claims are at odds with reality and you will call both sides of a coin. This probably stems from your lack of working knowledge of what makes good science and poor sources you use to validate your beliefs.
The "study" from the daily caller you link is from a political think tank and not a science institute and "study" hasn't been peer reviewed. Of course this representation you give here won't pass peer review because it has obvious methodological errors. For instance they are using data which is at 25k feet and trying to use that to represent the average of all what is going on. The data is avoiding where the majority of the warming goes and is just fousing on a part of the atmosphere that hasn't warmed. If they used the upper troposhphere it would show cooling, if the lower (which they did) it would show levelish temps, if they used surface temp it would show an increase. Why not look at it all then show from there?
About 3% of the warming goes into the atmosphere and over 90% goes into the ocean. The graph in this link really illustrates how bad this claim the caller puts forth is. They are looking at one piece of the atmosphere which gets a tiny amount of the warming and saying 'look here no warming' don't look anywhere else though. Their failed method is cherry picking at the highest level, they are fighitng for less 3% of an irrelevant piece of data and ignoring the bulk 90%+ of the warming. Its a good represntation of smoke and mirrors the daily caller is attempting to pull off.
The caller isn't a reputable source for anything science, its a politcal mouthpiece. I would be highly skeptical of anything they put out. Skepticism is a process of reviewing information not a stance.
Foratag, I suggest looking at peer reviewed journals and starting there rather than somebodies blog. I could go page by page and show how bad Watts conclusions are, his avoidance of current literature, bad math and lack of context are his main failings. There is a reason many of his things dont get published in peer reviewed journals and its not because of some global conspiracy.
BTW, the scientists at the University of Alabama are funded by government grants, and they have taken ZERO money from special interest groups, like the oil industry. I figure you would probably throw that one out right away to discredit them
Who pays for what doesn't discredit any study, thats also where your claims of global conspiracy fail because it is all you allude to. It is the methodology that you target to show if a study is weak and this is what you fail to show.
Next time, leave out all the ignorant nonsense. You have literally no basis from which to make any of the claims you did about me, or "the left" in general. It just undermined the rest of your post.
As for the actual science involved, Watts missed a crucial factor. The "warming" involved isn't taken based on absolute temperatures, which means the surfaces leading to a higher absolute temperature make no difference when determining warming trends, which are taken from comparing like temperatures from the same station over time. This would mean that the surfaces involved would not have any effect on the data's legitimacy.
I'd recommend going here. You can ignore what they say about him and go straight to the citations. Really destroys his credibility (and yes, Watts has received money from special interest groups).
So that previous paragraph addressed the first two articles. As for the third article, I'm a little confused by its credibility, so maybe you can help me out. The only citation I am seeing is one to Watts speculating on one of the possible ways that NOAA got the adjusted data. Am I missing another citation, or actual evidence of the accusation?
The fourth article didn't even have one citation, and to be honest, the Daily Caller isn't a place I can going to trust without some substantiating citations (no offense, I wouldn't trust ThinkProgress without citations either).
For the last article, the only citations are to NOAA, but they don't have a single citation for their accusations about inflated numbers.
As for sources with citations regarding the "hiatus" (a mistaken term since warming still occurred, just at a slower rate):
So seeing as how there wasn't a hiatus, a conclusion reached by people that aren't NOAA, the assumption that NOAA removing the hiatus from their models must have been via fudged numbers (an accusation that Watts did not substantiate with anything more than supposition) is a bit...silly.
Well, there you go. I read all 5 of your articles, did the research and provided some counter examples. All without trying to make ridiculous and insulting claims about you :P
If you find new articles that have citations (or better yet are from scientific sources) please feel free to respond with them. Otherwise take a look at the studies I provided for you.
I read your citations. I will get back to that in a little while. When I was referring to not taking special interest money, I meant Dr. Christy and Dr. Spencer of the U of Alabama. I did not mean to imply Watts, who I didn't know did or did not take money. So that clears that up.
The NOAA own rules clearly state that no temperature reading can be within 100 meters of an artificial surface. This citation if you scroll down shows hundreds of them right next to artificial surfaces.
The NOAA purposely put them near objects that would show higher temperatures. Therefore, any conclusions that the NOAA comes to can be discarded easily as fraud. Why do I say they did it on purpose. I am guessing they figured that they would never get caught, but someone did the research and exposed them as an organization that cannot be trusted.
Also, I only have a bachelors degree, not a PHD like the scientists at NOAA. So, therefore, they would have known that concrete raises the temperature. I am a home owner and the first part of my lawn that will turn brown in summer is the section between the sidewalk and the street. Just about everyone knows this, so I find it hard to believe these highly intelligent people at the NOAA didn't. Therefore, they are con artists and anything they publish cannot be used by any other scientist. Which brings me up to one of you citations. The one with Stanford. They used information from the NOAA, so anything they claim cannot be used.
Also, the article mentions the IPCC, which is another government agency. Since the NOAA cannot be trusted, they are government funded, the same can be said of the IPCC.
You keep talking about how many scientists believe in global warming. Everyone of them who relied on the NOAA for any information can now be invalidated as for their expertise on the subject.
Funny you did not address the NOAA and their corruption. You did say you wanted a citation about inflated numbers. Well, temperature readings by artificial surfaces is all the proof you need about inflating numbers. Everyone knows that temperatures are much higher by concrete and other artificial heat sources. I assume you trust the NOAA, after all, they are a huge supplier of information to the global warming alarmists, and they are liars and cheaters.
The NOAA purposely put them near objects that would show higher temperatures. Therefore, any conclusions that the NOAA comes to can be discarded easily as fraud. Why do I say they did it on purpose. I am guessing they figured that they would never get caught, but someone did the research and exposed them as an organization that cannot be trusted.
Then why do the figures involved regarding warming disregard absolute values if that was their intent? By focusing on incremental change instead of absolute values, the artificial increase caused by said surfaces doesn't end up factoring into the relevant figures.
Additionally, the information Watts uses on standards regarding the distance from artificial surfaces is outdated by about 6 years. I recommend you look at the current standards here, as you will find no such contradiction now exists.
Also, I only have a bachelors degree, not a PHD like the scientists at NOAA. So, therefore, they would have known that concrete raises the temperature. I am a home owner and the first part of my lawn that will turn brown in summer is the section between the sidewalk and the street. Just about everyone knows this, so I find it hard to believe these highly intelligent people at the NOAA didn't. Therefore, they are con artists and anything they publish cannot be used by any other scientist. Which brings me up to one of you citations. The one with Stanford. They used information from the NOAA, so anything they claim cannot be used.
Again, your claim would be right only if they were basing it on absolute temperatures, which, again, they aren't. You have yet to demonstrate how incremental changes in temperature based on a local absolute would be effected in any way, or how it would discredit said incremental findings. As for the citations, I noticed you still ignored the more pressing of the two. Why?
Also, the article mentions the IPCC, which is another government agency. Since the NOAA cannot be trusted, they are government funded, the same can be said of the IPCC.
Complete non-sequitur. Not only are we still establishing whether or not the NOAA are trustworthy, the groups involved are entirely different. If you are going to claim the IPCC is not trustworthy, first you must demonstrate how they have been untrustworthy.
You keep talking about how many scientists believe in global warming. Everyone of them who relied on the NOAA for any information can now be invalidated as for their expertise on the subject.
No they didn't. NOAA is hardly the only organization that has been taking readings on this issue.
Funny you did not address the NOAA and their corruption. You did say you wanted a citation about inflated numbers. Well, temperature readings by artificial surfaces is all the proof you need about inflating numbers.
Why would I address their corruption if the entire point of this conversation is determining whether or not they are corrupt? When you can demonstrate to me how a higher absolute temperature caused by artificial surfaces would have any impact on their incremental readings, then I might agree with you. Until then, you are jumping at discrepancy in an outdated procedure that resulted in data that didn't even impact the resulting trend.
Since you don't believe the NOAA is totally corrupt, after me showing you numerous gauges placed in violation of their own rules, there is no need for any further debate.
BTW, the citation you provided was from the NOAA, enough said.
Your other citation was nothing more than an article claiming there is no hiatus. No facts, no data, no nothing.
You just keep believing the NOAA is a just, objective organization. Get back to me when you change your mind, until then I can't see me getting into any discussion with you since you can't even see the obvious problems with the NOAA. Hundreds of photos and you can't even acknowledge it. Good God.
Since you don't believe the NOAA is totally corrupt, after me showing you numerous gauges placed in violation of their own rules, there is no need for any further debate.
I don't believe they are innocent or corrupt, I have yet to make a decision. Why are you giving up simply because I haven't agreed with you?
BTW, the citation you provided was from the NOAA, enough said.
....You mean the citation regarding NOAA regulations for taking measurements? You are upset that the citation on NOAA regulations and procedures is from NOAA? What?
Your other citation was nothing more than an article claiming there is no hiatus. No facts, no data, no nothing.
You clearly didn't read it. It links to a University of Bristol study done via compiling 40 different studies on global climate trends which demonstrates, if you bother to actually follow the information, that no such hiatus existed.
You just keep believing the NOAA is a just, objective organization
At no point did I say or think that they are just or objective. I simply have not been provided by you any legitimate evidence that they are unjust or corrupt. I have even told you a simple way you could demonstrate to me that they are corrupt: by showing how the artificial surfaces involved in the study from Watts had any impact on changing the incremental trends that NOAA referenced.
Get back to me when you change your mind, until then I can't see me getting into any discussion with you since you can't even see the obvious problems with the NOAA.
Seriously, I told you I would admit it if you provided a single argument to back up your claims. A single simple argument. The fact that you are declaring I am a hopeless case because I haven't immediately agreed with you seems to undermine the validity of your complaints against NOAA, considering how easy it would be to prove to me that you are right (if you were).
Hundreds of photos and you can't even acknowledge it. Good God.
Again, I will acknowledge it if you provide the incredibly basic argument I asked for.
It really shouldn't be this difficult to defend your views, Foratag.
Edit: And I would like to demonstrate that you have behaved very hypocritically. You have declare that I am not open to citations or sources that would contradict preconceptions, and yet I read each and every one of them and followed their citations. Meanwhile, you have demonstrated that you did not bother to read the NOAA citation regarding their procedures, you did not bother to actually read the Stanford citation (as only one of the two sets was done using the NOAA figures for the very point of demonstrating the validity of said figures against other non-NOAA figures) and you didn't read the University of Bristol article considering how prominently it links to the "facts...data" you claim it lacks.
If you are going to behave the way you did, indignantly decrying closed mindedness, then the least you could do it avoid behaving the very way you accuse others of. Especially when the person involved took the time to legitimately read yours.
If Climate Chaos is real as you are made to believe then why can't the computer models you believe in show the Climate Chaos for next month or next year ?
The biggest threat to America and the world is neither. The biggest threat to our world is debt!
What do you think will happen when enough nation's default on their debt? What will happen when the Banks in those nations shut their doors and there are no other Governments with the money to keep them aflaot.
When that happens do you think anyone will be thinking about terrorism or the exxageration of global warming?
There will be riots in every street when the free welfare checks stop coming in. It will be survival of the fittest. I would suggest getting a gun to protect your family when it all comes crashing down.
America is 19 TRILLION In debt and most of the socialist nations around the world are in great debt. The notion that you can tax the sweat of one man to pander to irresponsible lazy men, and have a continued balance between workers and non workers is ludicrous.
Our wellfre roles in America continue to swell under 7 years of this extremist closet socialist Obama. People living in poverty keeps going up because when you take from the hard working people to give to the lazy, you are rewarding irresponsisibility and punishing hard work.
It can never work as we are seeing. Soon the hard working people seeing their good life taken from them through high taxes, forced Obamacre, etc. etc. will quit their jobs and join the charity cases. If you can no longer afford Obamacare, and can get free medicaid by quitting your job, we are seeing what people do.
First, most socialist nations are actually not in debt. Some are, others are doing quite well.
Second, Obama is objectively not a socialist. You don't know what that word means.
Third, your argument would be that economic collapse is the greatest threat, not debt. Debt itself is not a threat, the collapse that it could cause if left unchecked is.
What might the personal income tax be in Socialist Nations ?
If you want to be really informed just take a look at what Barney Sanders has to say about taxation and then get back with a somewhat intelligence response if you will !
Without question it is terrorism ! The Obama Regime has no clue who is crossing our borders but when the terrorist attack comes just watch the Progressive / Leftist cry how it is someone else's fault that it has happened and America needs more gun control. Their tactics are to easily seen through !
And a whopping zero deaths from anthropogenic climate change. That's because it doesn't exist. But people like you ignore the actual facts about science and ignore the terrorists chanting "death to America." the logic, or lack thereof, is mind-boggling.
...First off, this is about the biggest threat to America. I never claimed that Terrorism isn't a threat at all, but considering the statistics I just provided you, I'd like to see you present an actual argument (as opposed to ad hominem) as to why Terrorism would be the biggest thread.
Second, I am curious why you believe the global scientific community has a very massive consensus on the existence of ACC, especially if they are all "ignoring the actual facts about science".
Third, ACC wouldn't have much of a death toll now, that's not in dispute. It's a process, not a sudden event.
So do show how government will control the environment without taxation ! Now with that said will the Progressive Elitists that preach Climate Chaos to the masses ever stop burning fossil fuels ?
1. Climate change hasn't killed anyone or anything. You can't even prove to me it exists.
2. Terrorism is growing exponentially, especially when we have a president who refuses to do anything about it or even mutter the words "radical Islam."
3. ISIS is literally cooking people alive, raping, beheading, etc., including women and children as they chant "death to America" all in the name Islam.
Please explain to me how driving my car too much is worse than ISIS. Give me a break.
1. Climate change hasn't killed anyone or anything. You can't even prove to me it exists.
I already addressed the relevance of Climate Change killing anyone currently, and of course I can't prove to you it exists. Evidence clearly doesn't matter in that regard, now does it? :P
2. Terrorism is growing exponentially, especially when we have a president who refuses to do anything about it or even mutter the words "radical Islam."
And yet the terrorism that is growing exponentially is still 90% non-Islamic and wracking up some very small death tolls.
3. ISIS is literally cooking people alive, raping, beheading, etc., including women and children as they chant "death to America" all in the name Islam.
And how does that in any way, shape, or form undermine any the statistics I gave you?
Please explain to me how driving my car too much is worse than ISIS. Give me a break.
This is the 2nd time I have had to direct you to the title: "Biggest threat to America".
How many Americans are being killed by ISIS? Very, very few. How many Americans are being killed by cars? Tens of thousands. Disease? Hundreds of thousands.
The only thing you have are emotional appeals thus far.
-Okay so let me get this straight. Climate change has not killed a single person, but it's still a bigger threat? And no, evidence matters very much to me. My entire argument is based on evidence.
-Your statistic is based off of just America, where the Muslim population is under 1%. For being less than 1%, 10% is a lot of attacks. Between 1980 and 2005, the amount of terrorist attacks that resulted in death Islamic extremists were responsible for 24% (2,981 kills). Non-Muslims were at 196 kills. Let me remind you, that's just in the United States. Muslims make up 1% of the population and account for about 25% of deadly attacks.
-Why are you talking about disease and car accidents? Neither of those have to do with what we're talking about here. Stay on topic and get the facts straight.
-Okay so let me get this straight. Climate change has not killed a single person, but it's still a bigger threat? And no, evidence matters very much to me. My entire argument is based on evidence.
Yes, because Climate Change has the capacity of actually severely impacting our entire species.
Your statistic is based off of just America, where the Muslim population is under 1%. For being less than 1%, 10% is a lot of attacks. Between 1980 and 2005, the amount of terrorist attacks that resulted in death Islamic extremists were responsible for 24% (2,981 kills). Non-Muslims were at 196 kills. Let me remind you, that's just in the United States. Muslims make up 1% of the population and account for about 25% of deadly attacks.
The statistics I provided were actually for both Europe and the United States. But where are you getting this 25% deadly attack figure?
Why are you talking about disease and car accidents? Neither of those have to do with what we're talking about here. Stay on topic and get the facts straight.
It's called context. Terrorism is considered a threat due to, you know, death. If terrorism isn't even as big of a threat (by the means one uses to measure terrorism threat capacity) as disease and car accidents, then it isn't the biggest threat to America.
-You still haven't proved to me anthropogenic climate change exists. Even so, there are many other things that could impact us. You're gonna see aliens drop nukes before you see global warming do anything.
-You shouldn't list off your so-called statistics about car accidents, disease, etc. in America and then list off statistics about terrorism in America AND Europe. You're comparing apples and oranges. My statistics are from the FBI and I'm only talking about in the United States. The worldwide statistics are a different story and the worldwide statistics only reinforce my claim that a majority of terrorist attacks are performed by Muslims.
-Just so you know, I never said that car accidents and disease weren't concerns. But you chose the side that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism, when again, terrorism has killed FAR more than climate change (zero). If you're going to choose that side, then back it up. Don't bring in these different things just because you can't back up climate change. You know what else is a threat? Cigarettes, gangs, mental illness, school shootings, and the list goes on. The question above clearly states "terrorism OR climate change." Not all of the other nonsense you're bringing in because you can't form an argument and stick to it.
-You still haven't proved to me anthropogenic climate change exists. Even so, there are many other things that could impact us. You're gonna see aliens drop nukes before you see global warming do anything.
Wait, so do you recognize that it exists and just disagree with timetables for its effects? If so, why would I need to prove to you it exists?
You shouldn't list off your so-called statistics about car accidents, disease, etc. in America and then list off statistics about terrorism in America AND Europe. You're comparing apples and oranges. My statistics are from the FBI and I'm only talking about in the United States. The worldwide statistics are a different story and the worldwide statistics only reinforce my claim that a majority of terrorist attacks are performed by Muslims.
Can you please provide a citation for the source within the FBI regarding your statistics, as I did, as well as the "worldwide statistics" you are referring to?
Just so you know, I never said that car accidents and disease weren't concerns. But you chose the side that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism, when again, terrorism has killed FAR more than climate change (zero). If you're going to choose that side, then back it up. Don't bring in these different things just because you can't back up climate change. You know what else is a threat? Cigarettes, gangs, mental illness, school shootings, and the list goes on. The question above clearly states "terrorism OR climate change." Not all of the other nonsense you're bringing in because you can't form an argument and stick to it.
I have addressed this multiple times now. Climate Change is a long term issue. Nobody claims that climate change is going to kill us all today. Terrorism is an immediate issue. That means that the measurements one uses to compare the two are different. I used other immediate issues as a means of undermining the concept that terrorism is even that destructive when compared to other more "mundane" issues.
The question is ridiculed by trying to compare an immediate issue to a long term one, so don't get mad at me for using proper-tense evidence.
I guess the cockeyed point he is making with his wholly inappropriate statistical comparison is to highlight that deaths by terrorism are so relatively small in number they are of little or no consequence. The grieving relatives and loved ones of those murdered and the mutilated victims are all making an unnecessary fuss about such insignificant events. The inability to distinguish between premeditated slaughter and deadly crimes of passion as well as the alarming threat which Muslim terrorists represents to the United States illustrates his arrested intellect. The fool fails to appreciate the $/£ billions I.S.I.S, is causing the governments of the west in additional security measures, intolerable inconvenience for millions of travelers and anxiety for everyone. Would you sit calmly in a Parisian cafe' without wondering if Abdul the assassin was about to spray the place with machine gun fire? Tip of the year, this guy clearly suffers from some form of complex psychosis and should be avoided at all costs. He tries to bait participants with his outrageous statements in the hope that they will engage him in a series of madcap discussions.
You're just angry that I was able to provide you with evidence from the FBI and Interpol that demonstrated the majority of terrorism in the West is not done by Muslims.
Well what would you do to combat traffic fatalities?
They're the cost of using automobiles.
Considering how different countries have different rates of traffic fatalities, I'd say no.
Terrorism isn't the same.
I agree that Terrorism isn't the cost of using cars, but terrorism being the cost of anything would have no impact on whether or not it is the largest thread to this country or world.
Between 1995 and 2014, there were 3264 deaths from terrorist attacks.
In 2014 alone, 610,000 people died of cardiovascular disease in the United States.
In 2014 alone, there were 14,000 murders in the United States.
In 2014 alone, there were 32,000 traffic fatalities in the United States.
I could go on and on listing the things that kill more people per year than terrorism has in the past two decades. The point is that while it is a concern, it isn't the biggest threat to this country.
In its current state, true, but since climate change is a process, unlike the other things, that means comparing incident statistics to the current state of a process doesn't quite make sense.
Now if you will please tie traffic deaths and terrorism into some real hard numbers that all can see here ! After that show some numbers as to how traffic deaths are more of a threat than terrorism !
Are you saying America is under a bigger threat from cars than Radical Islamist ? If that is true in your mind do show how you have come to that assumption with real stats.