Actually one word was repeated eight times, with one for effects. Then
again who expect the global warming ***** to be accurate? LOL


mike hunt


"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:VPurg.956$vO.270@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink .net...
>
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:qi-dnVT_fIIetjDZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>> Haw, haw, haw, haw, haw, haw, haw, haw, haw, haw that's funny.
>>
>> mike
>>
>>
>
> GREAT post Mike!!! One word repeated 10 times with 2 more for effect.
>

 

That man should be arrested. Then again perhaps we should glad he is not
omitting that much methane, the environuts would want to attach a bag to
him, like the would like to do to cows LOL


mike hunt


"Tom The Great" <Post@here.com> wrote in message
news:l8ata2tvmr3jdf3h6u37vclt176ov8mt43@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:07:10 GMT, "grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>Global warming is over and the 77 million tons of carbon dioxide man
>>injects
>>into the atmosphere every DAY contributes to it. To say there is no way
>>that amount can be reduced is laughable.
>>
>
>
> http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/Wh...as/volgas.html
>

 

That man should be arrested. Then again perhaps we should glad he is not
omitting that much methane, the environuts would want to attach a bag to
him, like the would like to do to cows LOL


mike hunt


"Tom The Great" <Post@here.com> wrote in message
news:l8ata2tvmr3jdf3h6u37vclt176ov8mt43@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:07:10 GMT, "grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>Global warming is over and the 77 million tons of carbon dioxide man
>>injects
>>into the atmosphere every DAY contributes to it. To say there is no way
>>that amount can be reduced is laughable.
>>
>
>
> http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/Wh...as/volgas.html
>

 

That man should be arrested. Then again perhaps we should glad he is not
omitting that much methane, the environuts would want to attach a bag to
him, like the would like to do to cows LOL


mike hunt


"Tom The Great" <Post@here.com> wrote in message
news:l8ata2tvmr3jdf3h6u37vclt176ov8mt43@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:07:10 GMT, "grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>Global warming is over and the 77 million tons of carbon dioxide man
>>injects
>>into the atmosphere every DAY contributes to it. To say there is no way
>>that amount can be reduced is laughable.
>>
>
>
> http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/Wh...as/volgas.html
>

 

grinder wrote:
> "nothermark" <nothermark@not.here> wrote in message
> news:gv1ra2dk2tgpkpk6d0fiv91k30r56odvq0@4ax.com...
>
>>On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:07:10 GMT, "grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Global warming is over and the 77 million tons of carbon dioxide man
>>>injects
>>>into the atmosphere every DAY contributes to it. To say there is no way
>>>that amount can be reduced is laughable.
>>>
>>
>>You are correct. However, no one has the guts to depopulate Asia and
>>the Indian sub continent. If you aren't willing to do that the little
>>we can do in this country is negligible.
>
>
> U.S. accounts for 30% of the CO2 pollution. That is hardly negligible.
>
>

Except that CO2 isn't pollution. Just ask a tree.

Matt

 

grinder wrote:
> "nothermark" <nothermark@not.here> wrote in message
> news:gv1ra2dk2tgpkpk6d0fiv91k30r56odvq0@4ax.com...
>
>>On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:07:10 GMT, "grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Global warming is over and the 77 million tons of carbon dioxide man
>>>injects
>>>into the atmosphere every DAY contributes to it. To say there is no way
>>>that amount can be reduced is laughable.
>>>
>>
>>You are correct. However, no one has the guts to depopulate Asia and
>>the Indian sub continent. If you aren't willing to do that the little
>>we can do in this country is negligible.
>
>
> U.S. accounts for 30% of the CO2 pollution. That is hardly negligible.
>
>

Except that CO2 isn't pollution. Just ask a tree.

Matt

 

grinder wrote:
> "nothermark" <nothermark@not.here> wrote in message
> news:gv1ra2dk2tgpkpk6d0fiv91k30r56odvq0@4ax.com...
>
>>On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:07:10 GMT, "grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Global warming is over and the 77 million tons of carbon dioxide man
>>>injects
>>>into the atmosphere every DAY contributes to it. To say there is no way
>>>that amount can be reduced is laughable.
>>>
>>
>>You are correct. However, no one has the guts to depopulate Asia and
>>the Indian sub continent. If you aren't willing to do that the little
>>we can do in this country is negligible.
>
>
> U.S. accounts for 30% of the CO2 pollution. That is hardly negligible.
>
>

Except that CO2 isn't pollution. Just ask a tree.

Matt

 

gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 07:05:34 GMT, Roy L. Fuchs
> <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 22:34:12 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com Gave us:
>>
>>
>>>. When the patent expired and Dow
>>>Chemical stopped being the biggest producer of R22 and R12 it suddenly
>>>became evil.
>>
>>"Freon" is (was) a DuPont product.
>
>
> You are right, sorry for the confusion. The principle is still valid.
> Fat cats were not making money on it anymore, they had a new product
> so the old one was made evil.
> In a few years we will find out how "evil" R-134 is and that will be
> banned.

Uhh, if you check, you'll find that the DuPont patent ran out many years ago.1940s I
believe. It also cost the chemical companies millions to gear up to make R134a, which
was actually sold at a very low return for quite a few years. The new systems designed
for R134a are smaller and aren't as leak prone as R12 systems so the overall volume of
refrigerant sold has gone way down.
Part of the reason for the recent R134 price jump was decreased production, the
chemical companies switched a number of plants to make more profitable chemicals.
R134a was not the money grab that a lot of folks would like to believe it was.
R134 is (supposedly) not as environmentally friendly as originally thought. The EPA
wants to phase it out. The chemical companies and the folks who design AC systems are
scrambling to come up with a replacement even now. Most known refrigerants
(supposedly) arent suitable for mobile AC systems, for environmental or safety
reasons, so the systems will have to be totally redesigned.

 

gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 07:05:34 GMT, Roy L. Fuchs
> <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 22:34:12 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com Gave us:
>>
>>
>>>. When the patent expired and Dow
>>>Chemical stopped being the biggest producer of R22 and R12 it suddenly
>>>became evil.
>>
>>"Freon" is (was) a DuPont product.
>
>
> You are right, sorry for the confusion. The principle is still valid.
> Fat cats were not making money on it anymore, they had a new product
> so the old one was made evil.
> In a few years we will find out how "evil" R-134 is and that will be
> banned.

Uhh, if you check, you'll find that the DuPont patent ran out many years ago.1940s I
believe. It also cost the chemical companies millions to gear up to make R134a, which
was actually sold at a very low return for quite a few years. The new systems designed
for R134a are smaller and aren't as leak prone as R12 systems so the overall volume of
refrigerant sold has gone way down.
Part of the reason for the recent R134 price jump was decreased production, the
chemical companies switched a number of plants to make more profitable chemicals.
R134a was not the money grab that a lot of folks would like to believe it was.
R134 is (supposedly) not as environmentally friendly as originally thought. The EPA
wants to phase it out. The chemical companies and the folks who design AC systems are
scrambling to come up with a replacement even now. Most known refrigerants
(supposedly) arent suitable for mobile AC systems, for environmental or safety
reasons, so the systems will have to be totally redesigned.

 

gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 07:05:34 GMT, Roy L. Fuchs
> <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 22:34:12 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com Gave us:
>>
>>
>>>. When the patent expired and Dow
>>>Chemical stopped being the biggest producer of R22 and R12 it suddenly
>>>became evil.
>>
>>"Freon" is (was) a DuPont product.
>
>
> You are right, sorry for the confusion. The principle is still valid.
> Fat cats were not making money on it anymore, they had a new product
> so the old one was made evil.
> In a few years we will find out how "evil" R-134 is and that will be
> banned.

Uhh, if you check, you'll find that the DuPont patent ran out many years ago.1940s I
believe. It also cost the chemical companies millions to gear up to make R134a, which
was actually sold at a very low return for quite a few years. The new systems designed
for R134a are smaller and aren't as leak prone as R12 systems so the overall volume of
refrigerant sold has gone way down.
Part of the reason for the recent R134 price jump was decreased production, the
chemical companies switched a number of plants to make more profitable chemicals.
R134a was not the money grab that a lot of folks would like to believe it was.
R134 is (supposedly) not as environmentally friendly as originally thought. The EPA
wants to phase it out. The chemical companies and the folks who design AC systems are
scrambling to come up with a replacement even now. Most known refrigerants
(supposedly) arent suitable for mobile AC systems, for environmental or safety
reasons, so the systems will have to be totally redesigned.

 

">
> We're just now realizing the "benefit" of long term increasing use of
> fossil fuels to the world's average temperature. It isn't going to change
> tomorrow or a few years from now, no matter what we do. Ignoring it won't
> make it go away either. Maybe your kids might believe your story, but
> they will pay for it if the same things continue to be done the same way
> if that's any incentive. But, in light of other things that require
> change that may inconvenience, I doubt it.
> --
> Jonny
>
>

Huh??????

 

">
> We're just now realizing the "benefit" of long term increasing use of
> fossil fuels to the world's average temperature. It isn't going to change
> tomorrow or a few years from now, no matter what we do. Ignoring it won't
> make it go away either. Maybe your kids might believe your story, but
> they will pay for it if the same things continue to be done the same way
> if that's any incentive. But, in light of other things that require
> change that may inconvenience, I doubt it.
> --
> Jonny
>
>

Huh??????

 

">
> We're just now realizing the "benefit" of long term increasing use of
> fossil fuels to the world's average temperature. It isn't going to change
> tomorrow or a few years from now, no matter what we do. Ignoring it won't
> make it go away either. Maybe your kids might believe your story, but
> they will pay for it if the same things continue to be done the same way
> if that's any incentive. But, in light of other things that require
> change that may inconvenience, I doubt it.
> --
> Jonny
>
>

Huh??????

 

THIS THREAD MUST DIE!!!

 

THIS THREAD MUST DIE!!!