Topping Up Fuel Tank
02-26-2007, 07:02 PM
#31
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Topping Up Fuel Tank
As soon as I took all the pollution control off my stang, my mpg went
up.
"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:uFJEh.2826$Oc.165028@news1.epix.net...
> me@privacy.net wrote:
> > Matt Whiting wrote:
> >
> >> me@privacy.net wrote:
> >>
> >>> Vic Garcia wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Actually, those are not the engineers talking, those are the stupid
> >>>> politicians forcing every manufacturer to install expensive devices
> >>>> to protect some Owls in in Oregon.
> >>>> If they removed all that emission crap, the increase on efficiency
> >>>> and lower gas use will make better for the environment, but of
> >>>> course, then, big oil will not make record profits, and Detroit will
> >>>> not sell a single car ... fat chance of that happening.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> AMEN!!!!!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Wow, two clueless folks in a row.
> >>
> >> Catalytic convertors and related pollution controls remove something
> >> upwards of 90% of the pollutants that would otherwise be emitted. To
> >> make that up with better mileage alone would require that cars get 10
> >> times better fuel mileage without the pollution controls. You can
> >> believe all of the gimmick ads you want, but thermodynamics precludes
> >> this happening.
> >>
> >>
> >> Matt
> >
> >
> > Talk about CLUELESS?!?! Read this:
> >
> > *http://tinyurl.com/3b6qz8*
>
> Which has no connection to the discussion at hand. I agree that the
> global warming hysteria is simply that, but that is completely
> unconnected to the discussion about current automotive pollution
> controls contribute to pollution or prevent it. The claims that they
> actually contribute to polluiont through increased gas usage are just
> hilarious. So, I guess maybe there is a connection to global warming
> ... both claims are equally ludicrous.
>
> Matt
up.
"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:uFJEh.2826$Oc.165028@news1.epix.net...
> me@privacy.net wrote:
> > Matt Whiting wrote:
> >
> >> me@privacy.net wrote:
> >>
> >>> Vic Garcia wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Actually, those are not the engineers talking, those are the stupid
> >>>> politicians forcing every manufacturer to install expensive devices
> >>>> to protect some Owls in in Oregon.
> >>>> If they removed all that emission crap, the increase on efficiency
> >>>> and lower gas use will make better for the environment, but of
> >>>> course, then, big oil will not make record profits, and Detroit will
> >>>> not sell a single car ... fat chance of that happening.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> AMEN!!!!!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Wow, two clueless folks in a row.
> >>
> >> Catalytic convertors and related pollution controls remove something
> >> upwards of 90% of the pollutants that would otherwise be emitted. To
> >> make that up with better mileage alone would require that cars get 10
> >> times better fuel mileage without the pollution controls. You can
> >> believe all of the gimmick ads you want, but thermodynamics precludes
> >> this happening.
> >>
> >>
> >> Matt
> >
> >
> > Talk about CLUELESS?!?! Read this:
> >
> > *http://tinyurl.com/3b6qz8*
>
> Which has no connection to the discussion at hand. I agree that the
> global warming hysteria is simply that, but that is completely
> unconnected to the discussion about current automotive pollution
> controls contribute to pollution or prevent it. The claims that they
> actually contribute to polluiont through increased gas usage are just
> hilarious. So, I guess maybe there is a connection to global warming
> ... both claims are equally ludicrous.
>
> Matt
02-26-2007, 07:07 PM
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Topping Up Fuel Tank
razz wrote:
> As soon as I took all the pollution control off my stang, my mpg went
> up.
I don't doubt that, but did it get 10 TIMES better than before? It
would have to get that much better to offset the additional pollution it
spews forth with the pollution controls disabled or removed.
Matt
> As soon as I took all the pollution control off my stang, my mpg went
> up.
I don't doubt that, but did it get 10 TIMES better than before? It
would have to get that much better to offset the additional pollution it
spews forth with the pollution controls disabled or removed.
Matt
02-26-2007, 07:09 PM
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Topping Up Fuel Tank
I would probably say around 20 - 30 % better. 10 times the mpg is quite a
reach. It also got allot quicker.
"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:NCKEh.2830$Oc.164980@news1.epix.net...
> razz wrote:
> > As soon as I took all the pollution control off my stang, my mpg
went
> > up.
>
> I don't doubt that, but did it get 10 TIMES better than before? It
> would have to get that much better to offset the additional pollution it
> spews forth with the pollution controls disabled or removed.
>
> Matt
reach. It also got allot quicker.
"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:NCKEh.2830$Oc.164980@news1.epix.net...
> razz wrote:
> > As soon as I took all the pollution control off my stang, my mpg
went
> > up.
>
> I don't doubt that, but did it get 10 TIMES better than before? It
> would have to get that much better to offset the additional pollution it
> spews forth with the pollution controls disabled or removed.
>
> Matt
02-26-2007, 08:50 PM
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Topping Up Fuel Tank
razz wrote:
> I would probably say around 20 - 30 % better. 10 times the mpg is quite a
> reach. It also got allot quicker.
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:NCKEh.2830$Oc.164980@news1.epix.net...
>
>>razz wrote:
>>
>>>As soon as I took all the pollution control off my stang, my mpg
>
> went
>
>>>up.
>>
>>I don't doubt that, but did it get 10 TIMES better than before? It
>>would have to get that much better to offset the additional pollution it
>>spews forth with the pollution controls disabled or removed.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
>
What year is it? Most new cars run worse with the pollution controls
tampered with as they are tuned for running with all systems operational.
Yes, and 20-30% less fuel burned won't even begin to offset the
additional exhaust emissions, which was the original claim made here.
Matt
> I would probably say around 20 - 30 % better. 10 times the mpg is quite a
> reach. It also got allot quicker.
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:NCKEh.2830$Oc.164980@news1.epix.net...
>
>>razz wrote:
>>
>>>As soon as I took all the pollution control off my stang, my mpg
>
> went
>
>>>up.
>>
>>I don't doubt that, but did it get 10 TIMES better than before? It
>>would have to get that much better to offset the additional pollution it
>>spews forth with the pollution controls disabled or removed.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
>
What year is it? Most new cars run worse with the pollution controls
tampered with as they are tuned for running with all systems operational.
Yes, and 20-30% less fuel burned won't even begin to offset the
additional exhaust emissions, which was the original claim made here.
Matt
02-26-2007, 10:47 PM
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Topping Up Fuel Tank
On Feb 26, 6:01 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
> m...@privacy.net wrote:
> > Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> >> m...@privacy.net wrote:
>
> >>> Vic Garcia wrote:
>
> >>>> Actually, those are not the engineers talking, those are the stupid
> >>>> politicians forcing every manufacturer to install expensive devices
> >>>> to protect some Owls in in Oregon.
> >>>> If they removed all that emission crap, the increase on efficiency
> >>>> and lower gas use will make better for the environment, but of
> >>>> course, then, big oil will not make record profits, and Detroit will
> >>>> not sell a single car ... fat chance of that happening.
>
> >>> AMEN!!!!!
>
> >> Wow, two clueless folks in a row.
>
> >> Catalytic convertors and related pollution controls remove something
> >> upwards of 90% of the pollutants that would otherwise be emitted. To
> >> make that up with better mileage alone would require that cars get 10
> >> times better fuel mileage without the pollution controls. You can
> >> believe all of the gimmick ads you want, but thermodynamics precludes
> >> this happening.
>
> >> Matt
>
> > Talk about CLUELESS?!?! Read this:
>
> > *http://tinyurl.com/3b6qz8*
>
> Which has no connection to the discussion at hand. I agree that the
> global warming hysteria is simply that, but that is completely
> unconnected to the discussion about current automotive pollution
> controls contribute to pollution or prevent it. The claims that they
> actually contribute to polluiont through increased gas usage are just
> hilarious. So, I guess maybe there is a connection to global warming
> ... both claims are equally ludicrous.
>
> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you honestly suggesting that global warming is not occuring at an
unnatural rate?
Chris
> m...@privacy.net wrote:
> > Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> >> m...@privacy.net wrote:
>
> >>> Vic Garcia wrote:
>
> >>>> Actually, those are not the engineers talking, those are the stupid
> >>>> politicians forcing every manufacturer to install expensive devices
> >>>> to protect some Owls in in Oregon.
> >>>> If they removed all that emission crap, the increase on efficiency
> >>>> and lower gas use will make better for the environment, but of
> >>>> course, then, big oil will not make record profits, and Detroit will
> >>>> not sell a single car ... fat chance of that happening.
>
> >>> AMEN!!!!!
>
> >> Wow, two clueless folks in a row.
>
> >> Catalytic convertors and related pollution controls remove something
> >> upwards of 90% of the pollutants that would otherwise be emitted. To
> >> make that up with better mileage alone would require that cars get 10
> >> times better fuel mileage without the pollution controls. You can
> >> believe all of the gimmick ads you want, but thermodynamics precludes
> >> this happening.
>
> >> Matt
>
> > Talk about CLUELESS?!?! Read this:
>
> > *http://tinyurl.com/3b6qz8*
>
> Which has no connection to the discussion at hand. I agree that the
> global warming hysteria is simply that, but that is completely
> unconnected to the discussion about current automotive pollution
> controls contribute to pollution or prevent it. The claims that they
> actually contribute to polluiont through increased gas usage are just
> hilarious. So, I guess maybe there is a connection to global warming
> ... both claims are equally ludicrous.
>
> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you honestly suggesting that global warming is not occuring at an
unnatural rate?
Chris
02-26-2007, 11:28 PM
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Topping Up Fuel Tank
"Guncho" <cgunter@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172548020.147167.38660@t69g2000cwt.googlegro ups.com...
> On Feb 26, 6:01 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
>> m...@privacy.net wrote:
>> > Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>> >> m...@privacy.net wrote:
>>
>> >>> Vic Garcia wrote:
>>
>> >>>> Actually, those are not the engineers talking, those are the stupid
>> >>>> politicians forcing every manufacturer to install expensive devices
>> >>>> to protect some Owls in in Oregon.
>> >>>> If they removed all that emission crap, the increase on efficiency
>> >>>> and lower gas use will make better for the environment, but of
>> >>>> course, then, big oil will not make record profits, and Detroit will
>> >>>> not sell a single car ... fat chance of that happening.
>>
>> >>> AMEN!!!!!
>>
>> >> Wow, two clueless folks in a row.
>>
>> >> Catalytic convertors and related pollution controls remove something
>> >> upwards of 90% of the pollutants that would otherwise be emitted. To
>> >> make that up with better mileage alone would require that cars get 10
>> >> times better fuel mileage without the pollution controls. You can
>> >> believe all of the gimmick ads you want, but thermodynamics precludes
>> >> this happening.
>>
>> >> Matt
>>
>> > Talk about CLUELESS?!?! Read this:
>>
>> > *http://tinyurl.com/3b6qz8*
>>
>> Which has no connection to the discussion at hand. I agree that the
>> global warming hysteria is simply that, but that is completely
>> unconnected to the discussion about current automotive pollution
>> controls contribute to pollution or prevent it. The claims that they
>> actually contribute to polluiont through increased gas usage are just
>> hilarious. So, I guess maybe there is a connection to global warming
>> ... both claims are equally ludicrous.
>>
>> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Are you honestly suggesting that global warming is not occuring at an
> unnatural rate?
>
> Chris
There is not one single shred of evidence that HUMANS are causing global
warming.
The earth has gone through numerous periods of warming and cooling. ALL
happened before humans were in an industrial society. As a matter of FACT
some of these periods happened before humans were present on our planet.
Double Tap
02-26-2007, 11:31 PM
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Topping Up Fuel Tank
On Feb 26, 11:28 pm, "Double Tap" <double...@37.com> wrote:
> "Guncho" <cgun...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172548020.147167.38660@t69g2000cwt.googlegro ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 6:01 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
> >> m...@privacy.net wrote:
> >> > Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> >> >> m...@privacy.net wrote:
>
> >> >>> Vic Garcia wrote:
>
> >> >>>> Actually, those are not the engineers talking, those are the stupid
> >> >>>> politicians forcing every manufacturer to install expensive devices
> >> >>>> to protect some Owls in in Oregon.
> >> >>>> If they removed all that emission crap, the increase on efficiency
> >> >>>> and lower gas use will make better for the environment, but of
> >> >>>> course, then, big oil will not make record profits, and Detroit will
> >> >>>> not sell a single car ... fat chance of that happening.
>
> >> >>> AMEN!!!!!
>
> >> >> Wow, two clueless folks in a row.
>
> >> >> Catalytic convertors and related pollution controls remove something
> >> >> upwards of 90% of the pollutants that would otherwise be emitted. To
> >> >> make that up with better mileage alone would require that cars get 10
> >> >> times better fuel mileage without the pollution controls. You can
> >> >> believe all of the gimmick ads you want, but thermodynamics precludes
> >> >> this happening.
>
> >> >> Matt
>
> >> > Talk about CLUELESS?!?! Read this:
>
> >> > *http://tinyurl.com/3b6qz8*
>
> >> Which has no connection to the discussion at hand. I agree that the
> >> global warming hysteria is simply that, but that is completely
> >> unconnected to the discussion about current automotive pollution
> >> controls contribute to pollution or prevent it. The claims that they
> >> actually contribute to polluiont through increased gas usage are just
> >> hilarious. So, I guess maybe there is a connection to global warming
> >> ... both claims are equally ludicrous.
>
> >> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Are you honestly suggesting that global warming is not occuring at an
> > unnatural rate?
>
> > Chris
>
> There is not one single shred of evidence that HUMANS are causing global
> warming.
Uhh there's tonnes of evidence actually. The temperature and C02
level spikes, mirror identically the population spike that started
during the baby boom.
> The earth has gone through numerous periods of warming and cooling. ALL
> happened before humans were in an industrial society. As a matter of FACT
> some of these periods happened before humans were present on our planet.
> Double Tap- Hide quoted text -
There has been no period of warming that was this off the charts.
It's obviously not natural.
Chris
> "Guncho" <cgun...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172548020.147167.38660@t69g2000cwt.googlegro ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 6:01 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
> >> m...@privacy.net wrote:
> >> > Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> >> >> m...@privacy.net wrote:
>
> >> >>> Vic Garcia wrote:
>
> >> >>>> Actually, those are not the engineers talking, those are the stupid
> >> >>>> politicians forcing every manufacturer to install expensive devices
> >> >>>> to protect some Owls in in Oregon.
> >> >>>> If they removed all that emission crap, the increase on efficiency
> >> >>>> and lower gas use will make better for the environment, but of
> >> >>>> course, then, big oil will not make record profits, and Detroit will
> >> >>>> not sell a single car ... fat chance of that happening.
>
> >> >>> AMEN!!!!!
>
> >> >> Wow, two clueless folks in a row.
>
> >> >> Catalytic convertors and related pollution controls remove something
> >> >> upwards of 90% of the pollutants that would otherwise be emitted. To
> >> >> make that up with better mileage alone would require that cars get 10
> >> >> times better fuel mileage without the pollution controls. You can
> >> >> believe all of the gimmick ads you want, but thermodynamics precludes
> >> >> this happening.
>
> >> >> Matt
>
> >> > Talk about CLUELESS?!?! Read this:
>
> >> > *http://tinyurl.com/3b6qz8*
>
> >> Which has no connection to the discussion at hand. I agree that the
> >> global warming hysteria is simply that, but that is completely
> >> unconnected to the discussion about current automotive pollution
> >> controls contribute to pollution or prevent it. The claims that they
> >> actually contribute to polluiont through increased gas usage are just
> >> hilarious. So, I guess maybe there is a connection to global warming
> >> ... both claims are equally ludicrous.
>
> >> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Are you honestly suggesting that global warming is not occuring at an
> > unnatural rate?
>
> > Chris
>
> There is not one single shred of evidence that HUMANS are causing global
> warming.
Uhh there's tonnes of evidence actually. The temperature and C02
level spikes, mirror identically the population spike that started
during the baby boom.
> The earth has gone through numerous periods of warming and cooling. ALL
> happened before humans were in an industrial society. As a matter of FACT
> some of these periods happened before humans were present on our planet.
> Double Tap- Hide quoted text -
There has been no period of warming that was this off the charts.
It's obviously not natural.
Chris
02-26-2007, 11:42 PM
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Topping Up Fuel Tank
Im trying to help the global warming, I live in Las Vegas and in the summer
I turn my air in my XG350L up on high and roll all the windows down. Now it
should help even more, I turned on the rear air too.
']['unez
--
"I am lost. I have gone to find myself. If I should return before I get
back, please have me wait."
"Guncho" <cgunter@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172550718.252670.120620@t69g2000cwt.googlegr oups.com...
> On Feb 26, 11:28 pm, "Double Tap" <double...@37.com> wrote:
>> "Guncho" <cgun...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1172548020.147167.38660@t69g2000cwt.googlegro ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 26, 6:01 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
>> >> m...@privacy.net wrote:
>> >> > Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>> >> >> m...@privacy.net wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> Vic Garcia wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>> Actually, those are not the engineers talking, those are the
>> >> >>>> stupid
>> >> >>>> politicians forcing every manufacturer to install expensive
>> >> >>>> devices
>> >> >>>> to protect some Owls in in Oregon.
>> >> >>>> If they removed all that emission crap, the increase on
>> >> >>>> efficiency
>> >> >>>> and lower gas use will make better for the environment, but of
>> >> >>>> course, then, big oil will not make record profits, and Detroit
>> >> >>>> will
>> >> >>>> not sell a single car ... fat chance of that happening.
>>
>> >> >>> AMEN!!!!!
>>
>> >> >> Wow, two clueless folks in a row.
>>
>> >> >> Catalytic convertors and related pollution controls remove
>> >> >> something
>> >> >> upwards of 90% of the pollutants that would otherwise be emitted.
>> >> >> To
>> >> >> make that up with better mileage alone would require that cars get
>> >> >> 10
>> >> >> times better fuel mileage without the pollution controls. You can
>> >> >> believe all of the gimmick ads you want, but thermodynamics
>> >> >> precludes
>> >> >> this happening.
>>
>> >> >> Matt
>>
>> >> > Talk about CLUELESS?!?! Read this:
>>
>> >> > *http://tinyurl.com/3b6qz8*
>>
>> >> Which has no connection to the discussion at hand. I agree that the
>> >> global warming hysteria is simply that, but that is completely
>> >> unconnected to the discussion about current automotive pollution
>> >> controls contribute to pollution or prevent it. The claims that they
>> >> actually contribute to polluiont through increased gas usage are just
>> >> hilarious. So, I guess maybe there is a connection to global warming
>> >> ... both claims are equally ludicrous.
>>
>> >> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Are you honestly suggesting that global warming is not occuring at an
>> > unnatural rate?
>>
>> > Chris
>>
>> There is not one single shred of evidence that HUMANS are causing global
>> warming.
>
> Uhh there's tonnes of evidence actually. The temperature and C02
> level spikes, mirror identically the population spike that started
> during the baby boom.
>
>> The earth has gone through numerous periods of warming and cooling. ALL
>> happened before humans were in an industrial society. As a matter of FACT
>> some of these periods happened before humans were present on our planet.
>> Double Tap- Hide quoted text -
>
> There has been no period of warming that was this off the charts.
> It's obviously not natural.
>
> Chris
>
I turn my air in my XG350L up on high and roll all the windows down. Now it
should help even more, I turned on the rear air too.
']['unez
--
"I am lost. I have gone to find myself. If I should return before I get
back, please have me wait."
"Guncho" <cgunter@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172550718.252670.120620@t69g2000cwt.googlegr oups.com...
> On Feb 26, 11:28 pm, "Double Tap" <double...@37.com> wrote:
>> "Guncho" <cgun...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1172548020.147167.38660@t69g2000cwt.googlegro ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 26, 6:01 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
>> >> m...@privacy.net wrote:
>> >> > Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>> >> >> m...@privacy.net wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> Vic Garcia wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>> Actually, those are not the engineers talking, those are the
>> >> >>>> stupid
>> >> >>>> politicians forcing every manufacturer to install expensive
>> >> >>>> devices
>> >> >>>> to protect some Owls in in Oregon.
>> >> >>>> If they removed all that emission crap, the increase on
>> >> >>>> efficiency
>> >> >>>> and lower gas use will make better for the environment, but of
>> >> >>>> course, then, big oil will not make record profits, and Detroit
>> >> >>>> will
>> >> >>>> not sell a single car ... fat chance of that happening.
>>
>> >> >>> AMEN!!!!!
>>
>> >> >> Wow, two clueless folks in a row.
>>
>> >> >> Catalytic convertors and related pollution controls remove
>> >> >> something
>> >> >> upwards of 90% of the pollutants that would otherwise be emitted.
>> >> >> To
>> >> >> make that up with better mileage alone would require that cars get
>> >> >> 10
>> >> >> times better fuel mileage without the pollution controls. You can
>> >> >> believe all of the gimmick ads you want, but thermodynamics
>> >> >> precludes
>> >> >> this happening.
>>
>> >> >> Matt
>>
>> >> > Talk about CLUELESS?!?! Read this:
>>
>> >> > *http://tinyurl.com/3b6qz8*
>>
>> >> Which has no connection to the discussion at hand. I agree that the
>> >> global warming hysteria is simply that, but that is completely
>> >> unconnected to the discussion about current automotive pollution
>> >> controls contribute to pollution or prevent it. The claims that they
>> >> actually contribute to polluiont through increased gas usage are just
>> >> hilarious. So, I guess maybe there is a connection to global warming
>> >> ... both claims are equally ludicrous.
>>
>> >> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Are you honestly suggesting that global warming is not occuring at an
>> > unnatural rate?
>>
>> > Chris
>>
>> There is not one single shred of evidence that HUMANS are causing global
>> warming.
>
> Uhh there's tonnes of evidence actually. The temperature and C02
> level spikes, mirror identically the population spike that started
> during the baby boom.
>
>> The earth has gone through numerous periods of warming and cooling. ALL
>> happened before humans were in an industrial society. As a matter of FACT
>> some of these periods happened before humans were present on our planet.
>> Double Tap- Hide quoted text -
>
> There has been no period of warming that was this off the charts.
> It's obviously not natural.
>
> Chris
>
02-27-2007, 12:41 AM
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Topping Up Fuel Tank
On Feb 26, 11:42 pm, "']['unez" <tun...@***.net> wrote:
> Im trying to help the global warming, I live in Las Vegas and in the summer
> I turn my air in my XG350L up on high and roll all the windows down. Now it
> should help even more, I turned on the rear air too.
>
> ']['unez
That's a great attitude Denis Leary.
Chris
> Im trying to help the global warming, I live in Las Vegas and in the summer
> I turn my air in my XG350L up on high and roll all the windows down. Now it
> should help even more, I turned on the rear air too.
>
> ']['unez
That's a great attitude Denis Leary.
Chris
02-27-2007, 01:40 AM
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Topping Up Fuel Tank
"Guncho" <cgunter@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172550718.252670.120620@t69g2000cwt.googlegr oups.com...
> On Feb 26, 11:28 pm, "Double Tap" <double...@37.com> wrote:
> > "Guncho" <cgun...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1172548020.147167.38660@t69g2000cwt.googlegro ups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 26, 6:01 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
> > >> m...@privacy.net wrote:
> > >> > Matt Whiting wrote:
> >
> > >> >> m...@privacy.net wrote:
> >
> > >> >>> Vic Garcia wrote:
> >
> > >> >>>> Actually, those are not the engineers talking, those are the
stupid
> > >> >>>> politicians forcing every manufacturer to install expensive
devices
> > >> >>>> to protect some Owls in in Oregon.
> > >> >>>> If they removed all that emission crap, the increase on
efficiency
> > >> >>>> and lower gas use will make better for the environment, but of
> > >> >>>> course, then, big oil will not make record profits, and Detroit
will
> > >> >>>> not sell a single car ... fat chance of that happening.
> >
> > >> >>> AMEN!!!!!
> >
> > >> >> Wow, two clueless folks in a row.
> >
> > >> >> Catalytic convertors and related pollution controls remove
something
> > >> >> upwards of 90% of the pollutants that would otherwise be emitted.
To
> > >> >> make that up with better mileage alone would require that cars get
10
> > >> >> times better fuel mileage without the pollution controls. You can
> > >> >> believe all of the gimmick ads you want, but thermodynamics
precludes
> > >> >> this happening.
> >
> > >> >> Matt
> >
> > >> > Talk about CLUELESS?!?! Read this:
> >
> > >> > *http://tinyurl.com/3b6qz8*
> >
> > >> Which has no connection to the discussion at hand. I agree that the
> > >> global warming hysteria is simply that, but that is completely
> > >> unconnected to the discussion about current automotive pollution
> > >> controls contribute to pollution or prevent it. The claims that they
> > >> actually contribute to polluiont through increased gas usage are just
> > >> hilarious. So, I guess maybe there is a connection to global warming
> > >> ... both claims are equally ludicrous.
> >
> > >> Matt- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > >> - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > Are you honestly suggesting that global warming is not occuring at an
> > > unnatural rate?
> >
> > > Chris
> >
> > There is not one single shred of evidence that HUMANS are causing global
> > warming.
>
> Uhh there's tonnes of evidence actually. The temperature and C02
> level spikes, mirror identically the population spike that started
> during the baby boom.
>
> > The earth has gone through numerous periods of warming and cooling. ALL
> > happened before humans were in an industrial society. As a matter of
FACT
> > some of these periods happened before humans were present on our planet.
> > Double Tap- Hide quoted text -
>
> There has been no period of warming that was this off the charts.
> It's obviously not natural.
>
> Chris
Where's you're evidence that there wasn't any spike before man. The ice age
is prominent proof of a global spike 10,000 years ago, and that was
obviously natural.
02-27-2007, 06:46 AM
#41
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Topping Up Fuel Tank
Guncho wrote:
> On Feb 26, 6:01 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
>
>>m...@privacy.net wrote:
>>
>>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>>m...@privacy.net wrote:
>>
>>>>>Vic Garcia wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Actually, those are not the engineers talking, those are the stupid
>>>>>>politicians forcing every manufacturer to install expensive devices
>>>>>>to protect some Owls in in Oregon.
>>>>>>If they removed all that emission crap, the increase on efficiency
>>>>>>and lower gas use will make better for the environment, but of
>>>>>>course, then, big oil will not make record profits, and Detroit will
>>>>>>not sell a single car ... fat chance of that happening.
>>
>>>>>AMEN!!!!!
>>
>>>>Wow, two clueless folks in a row.
>>
>>>>Catalytic convertors and related pollution controls remove something
>>>>upwards of 90% of the pollutants that would otherwise be emitted. To
>>>>make that up with better mileage alone would require that cars get 10
>>>>times better fuel mileage without the pollution controls. You can
>>>>believe all of the gimmick ads you want, but thermodynamics precludes
>>>>this happening.
>>
>>>>Matt
>>
>>>Talk about CLUELESS?!?! Read this:
>>
>>>*http://tinyurl.com/3b6qz8*
>>
>>Which has no connection to the discussion at hand. I agree that the
>>global warming hysteria is simply that, but that is completely
>>unconnected to the discussion about current automotive pollution
>>controls contribute to pollution or prevent it. The claims that they
>>actually contribute to polluiont through increased gas usage are just
>>hilarious. So, I guess maybe there is a connection to global warming
>>... both claims are equally ludicrous.
>>
>>Matt- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> Are you honestly suggesting that global warming is not occuring at an
> unnatural rate?
Yes, I am suggesting that.
Matt
> On Feb 26, 6:01 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
>
>>m...@privacy.net wrote:
>>
>>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>>m...@privacy.net wrote:
>>
>>>>>Vic Garcia wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Actually, those are not the engineers talking, those are the stupid
>>>>>>politicians forcing every manufacturer to install expensive devices
>>>>>>to protect some Owls in in Oregon.
>>>>>>If they removed all that emission crap, the increase on efficiency
>>>>>>and lower gas use will make better for the environment, but of
>>>>>>course, then, big oil will not make record profits, and Detroit will
>>>>>>not sell a single car ... fat chance of that happening.
>>
>>>>>AMEN!!!!!
>>
>>>>Wow, two clueless folks in a row.
>>
>>>>Catalytic convertors and related pollution controls remove something
>>>>upwards of 90% of the pollutants that would otherwise be emitted. To
>>>>make that up with better mileage alone would require that cars get 10
>>>>times better fuel mileage without the pollution controls. You can
>>>>believe all of the gimmick ads you want, but thermodynamics precludes
>>>>this happening.
>>
>>>>Matt
>>
>>>Talk about CLUELESS?!?! Read this:
>>
>>>*http://tinyurl.com/3b6qz8*
>>
>>Which has no connection to the discussion at hand. I agree that the
>>global warming hysteria is simply that, but that is completely
>>unconnected to the discussion about current automotive pollution
>>controls contribute to pollution or prevent it. The claims that they
>>actually contribute to polluiont through increased gas usage are just
>>hilarious. So, I guess maybe there is a connection to global warming
>>... both claims are equally ludicrous.
>>
>>Matt- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> Are you honestly suggesting that global warming is not occuring at an
> unnatural rate?
Yes, I am suggesting that.
Matt
02-27-2007, 06:47 AM
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Topping Up Fuel Tank
Guncho wrote:
> On Feb 26, 11:28 pm, "Double Tap" <double...@37.com> wrote:
>
>>"Guncho" <cgun...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>news:1172548020.147167.38660@t69g2000cwt.googleg roups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Feb 26, 6:01 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>m...@privacy.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>>>>m...@privacy.net wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>Vic Garcia wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>Actually, those are not the engineers talking, those are the stupid
>>>>>>>>politicians forcing every manufacturer to install expensive devices
>>>>>>>>to protect some Owls in in Oregon.
>>>>>>>>If they removed all that emission crap, the increase on efficiency
>>>>>>>>and lower gas use will make better for the environment, but of
>>>>>>>>course, then, big oil will not make record profits, and Detroit will
>>>>>>>>not sell a single car ... fat chance of that happening.
>>
>>>>>>>AMEN!!!!!
>>
>>>>>>Wow, two clueless folks in a row.
>>
>>>>>>Catalytic convertors and related pollution controls remove something
>>>>>>upwards of 90% of the pollutants that would otherwise be emitted. To
>>>>>>make that up with better mileage alone would require that cars get 10
>>>>>>times better fuel mileage without the pollution controls. You can
>>>>>>believe all of the gimmick ads you want, but thermodynamics precludes
>>>>>>this happening.
>>
>>>>>>Matt
>>
>>>>>Talk about CLUELESS?!?! Read this:
>>
>>>>>*http://tinyurl.com/3b6qz8*
>>
>>>>Which has no connection to the discussion at hand. I agree that the
>>>>global warming hysteria is simply that, but that is completely
>>>>unconnected to the discussion about current automotive pollution
>>>>controls contribute to pollution or prevent it. The claims that they
>>>>actually contribute to polluiont through increased gas usage are just
>>>>hilarious. So, I guess maybe there is a connection to global warming
>>>>... both claims are equally ludicrous.
>>
>>>>Matt- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>>Are you honestly suggesting that global warming is not occuring at an
>>>unnatural rate?
>>
>>>Chris
>>
>>There is not one single shred of evidence that HUMANS are causing global
>>warming.
>
>
> Uhh there's tonnes of evidence actually. The temperature and C02
> level spikes, mirror identically the population spike that started
> during the baby boom.
>
>
>>The earth has gone through numerous periods of warming and cooling. ALL
>>happened before humans were in an industrial society. As a matter of FACT
>>some of these periods happened before humans were present on our planet.
>>Double Tap- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> There has been no period of warming that was this off the charts.
> It's obviously not natural.
That is only because we only have records for a couple of hundred years.
What about the global cooling warnings of the 70s? What happened to that?
Matt
> On Feb 26, 11:28 pm, "Double Tap" <double...@37.com> wrote:
>
>>"Guncho" <cgun...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>news:1172548020.147167.38660@t69g2000cwt.googleg roups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Feb 26, 6:01 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>m...@privacy.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>>>>m...@privacy.net wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>Vic Garcia wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>Actually, those are not the engineers talking, those are the stupid
>>>>>>>>politicians forcing every manufacturer to install expensive devices
>>>>>>>>to protect some Owls in in Oregon.
>>>>>>>>If they removed all that emission crap, the increase on efficiency
>>>>>>>>and lower gas use will make better for the environment, but of
>>>>>>>>course, then, big oil will not make record profits, and Detroit will
>>>>>>>>not sell a single car ... fat chance of that happening.
>>
>>>>>>>AMEN!!!!!
>>
>>>>>>Wow, two clueless folks in a row.
>>
>>>>>>Catalytic convertors and related pollution controls remove something
>>>>>>upwards of 90% of the pollutants that would otherwise be emitted. To
>>>>>>make that up with better mileage alone would require that cars get 10
>>>>>>times better fuel mileage without the pollution controls. You can
>>>>>>believe all of the gimmick ads you want, but thermodynamics precludes
>>>>>>this happening.
>>
>>>>>>Matt
>>
>>>>>Talk about CLUELESS?!?! Read this:
>>
>>>>>*http://tinyurl.com/3b6qz8*
>>
>>>>Which has no connection to the discussion at hand. I agree that the
>>>>global warming hysteria is simply that, but that is completely
>>>>unconnected to the discussion about current automotive pollution
>>>>controls contribute to pollution or prevent it. The claims that they
>>>>actually contribute to polluiont through increased gas usage are just
>>>>hilarious. So, I guess maybe there is a connection to global warming
>>>>... both claims are equally ludicrous.
>>
>>>>Matt- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>>Are you honestly suggesting that global warming is not occuring at an
>>>unnatural rate?
>>
>>>Chris
>>
>>There is not one single shred of evidence that HUMANS are causing global
>>warming.
>
>
> Uhh there's tonnes of evidence actually. The temperature and C02
> level spikes, mirror identically the population spike that started
> during the baby boom.
>
>
>>The earth has gone through numerous periods of warming and cooling. ALL
>>happened before humans were in an industrial society. As a matter of FACT
>>some of these periods happened before humans were present on our planet.
>>Double Tap- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> There has been no period of warming that was this off the charts.
> It's obviously not natural.
That is only because we only have records for a couple of hundred years.
What about the global cooling warnings of the 70s? What happened to that?
Matt
02-27-2007, 09:49 AM
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Topping Up Fuel Tank
"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>
> I always read my owner's manual cover to cover when I get a new car.
> However, I also realize that I'm on the fringe in this regard! :-)
I read mine twice. When I first get the car, but then 30 to 60 days later,
going through it again you seem to spot something of interest that you
either missed the first time or some feature that can be made to work
better.
02-27-2007, 10:04 AM
#44
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Topping Up Fuel Tank
On Feb 27, 1:40 am, "razz" <r...@mts.net> wrote:
> "Guncho" <cgun...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172550718.252670.120620@t69g2000cwt.googlegr oups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 11:28 pm, "Double Tap" <double...@37.com> wrote:
> > > "Guncho" <cgun...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1172548020.147167.38660@t69g2000cwt.googlegr oups.com...
>
> > > > On Feb 26, 6:01 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
> > > >> m...@privacy.net wrote:
> > > >> > Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> > > >> >> m...@privacy.net wrote:
>
> > > >> >>> Vic Garcia wrote:
>
> > > >> >>>> Actually, those are not the engineers talking, those are the
> stupid
> > > >> >>>> politicians forcing every manufacturer to install expensive
> devices
> > > >> >>>> to protect some Owls in in Oregon.
> > > >> >>>> If they removed all that emission crap, the increase on
> efficiency
> > > >> >>>> and lower gas use will make better for the environment, but of
> > > >> >>>> course, then, big oil will not make record profits, and Detroit
> will
> > > >> >>>> not sell a single car ... fat chance of that happening.
>
> > > >> >>> AMEN!!!!!
>
> > > >> >> Wow, two clueless folks in a row.
>
> > > >> >> Catalytic convertors and related pollution controls remove
> something
> > > >> >> upwards of 90% of the pollutants that would otherwise be emitted.
> To
> > > >> >> make that up with better mileage alone would require that cars get
> 10
> > > >> >> times better fuel mileage without the pollution controls. You can
> > > >> >> believe all of the gimmick ads you want, but thermodynamics
> precludes
> > > >> >> this happening.
>
> > > >> >> Matt
>
> > > >> > Talk about CLUELESS?!?! Read this:
>
> > > >> > *http://tinyurl.com/3b6qz8*
>
> > > >> Which has no connection to the discussion at hand. I agree that the
> > > >> global warming hysteria is simply that, but that is completely
> > > >> unconnected to the discussion about current automotive pollution
> > > >> controls contribute to pollution or prevent it. The claims that they
> > > >> actually contribute to polluiont through increased gas usage are just
> > > >> hilarious. So, I guess maybe there is a connection to global warming
> > > >> ... both claims are equally ludicrous.
>
> > > >> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Are you honestly suggesting that global warming is not occuring at an
> > > > unnatural rate?
>
> > > > Chris
>
> > > There is not one single shred of evidence that HUMANS are causing global
> > > warming.
>
> > Uhh there's tonnes of evidence actually. The temperature and C02
> > level spikes, mirror identically the population spike that started
> > during the baby boom.
>
> > > The earth has gone through numerous periods of warming and cooling. ALL
> > > happened before humans were in an industrial society. As a matter of
> FACT
> > > some of these periods happened before humans were present on our planet.
> > > Double Tap- Hide quoted text -
>
> > There has been no period of warming that was this off the charts.
> > It's obviously not natural.
>
> > Chris
>
> Where's you're evidence that there wasn't any spike before man. The ice age
> is prominent proof of a global spike 10,000 years ago, and that was
> obviously natural.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Show me some evidence that this is not unnatural.
Chris
> "Guncho" <cgun...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172550718.252670.120620@t69g2000cwt.googlegr oups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 11:28 pm, "Double Tap" <double...@37.com> wrote:
> > > "Guncho" <cgun...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1172548020.147167.38660@t69g2000cwt.googlegr oups.com...
>
> > > > On Feb 26, 6:01 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
> > > >> m...@privacy.net wrote:
> > > >> > Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> > > >> >> m...@privacy.net wrote:
>
> > > >> >>> Vic Garcia wrote:
>
> > > >> >>>> Actually, those are not the engineers talking, those are the
> stupid
> > > >> >>>> politicians forcing every manufacturer to install expensive
> devices
> > > >> >>>> to protect some Owls in in Oregon.
> > > >> >>>> If they removed all that emission crap, the increase on
> efficiency
> > > >> >>>> and lower gas use will make better for the environment, but of
> > > >> >>>> course, then, big oil will not make record profits, and Detroit
> will
> > > >> >>>> not sell a single car ... fat chance of that happening.
>
> > > >> >>> AMEN!!!!!
>
> > > >> >> Wow, two clueless folks in a row.
>
> > > >> >> Catalytic convertors and related pollution controls remove
> something
> > > >> >> upwards of 90% of the pollutants that would otherwise be emitted.
> To
> > > >> >> make that up with better mileage alone would require that cars get
> 10
> > > >> >> times better fuel mileage without the pollution controls. You can
> > > >> >> believe all of the gimmick ads you want, but thermodynamics
> precludes
> > > >> >> this happening.
>
> > > >> >> Matt
>
> > > >> > Talk about CLUELESS?!?! Read this:
>
> > > >> > *http://tinyurl.com/3b6qz8*
>
> > > >> Which has no connection to the discussion at hand. I agree that the
> > > >> global warming hysteria is simply that, but that is completely
> > > >> unconnected to the discussion about current automotive pollution
> > > >> controls contribute to pollution or prevent it. The claims that they
> > > >> actually contribute to polluiont through increased gas usage are just
> > > >> hilarious. So, I guess maybe there is a connection to global warming
> > > >> ... both claims are equally ludicrous.
>
> > > >> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Are you honestly suggesting that global warming is not occuring at an
> > > > unnatural rate?
>
> > > > Chris
>
> > > There is not one single shred of evidence that HUMANS are causing global
> > > warming.
>
> > Uhh there's tonnes of evidence actually. The temperature and C02
> > level spikes, mirror identically the population spike that started
> > during the baby boom.
>
> > > The earth has gone through numerous periods of warming and cooling. ALL
> > > happened before humans were in an industrial society. As a matter of
> FACT
> > > some of these periods happened before humans were present on our planet.
> > > Double Tap- Hide quoted text -
>
> > There has been no period of warming that was this off the charts.
> > It's obviously not natural.
>
> > Chris
>
> Where's you're evidence that there wasn't any spike before man. The ice age
> is prominent proof of a global spike 10,000 years ago, and that was
> obviously natural.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Show me some evidence that this is not unnatural.
Chris
02-27-2007, 10:06 AM
#45
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Topping Up Fuel Tank
On Feb 27, 6:46 am, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
> Guncho wrote:
> > On Feb 26, 6:01 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
>
> >>m...@privacy.net wrote:
>
> >>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> >>>>m...@privacy.net wrote:
>
> >>>>>Vic Garcia wrote:
>
> >>>>>>Actually, those are not the engineers talking, those are the stupid
> >>>>>>politicians forcing every manufacturer to install expensive devices
> >>>>>>to protect some Owls in in Oregon.
> >>>>>>If they removed all that emission crap, the increase on efficiency
> >>>>>>and lower gas use will make better for the environment, but of
> >>>>>>course, then, big oil will not make record profits, and Detroit will
> >>>>>>not sell a single car ... fat chance of that happening.
>
> >>>>>AMEN!!!!!
>
> >>>>Wow, two clueless folks in a row.
>
> >>>>Catalytic convertors and related pollution controls remove something
> >>>>upwards of 90% of the pollutants that would otherwise be emitted. To
> >>>>make that up with better mileage alone would require that cars get 10
> >>>>times better fuel mileage without the pollution controls. You can
> >>>>believe all of the gimmick ads you want, but thermodynamics precludes
> >>>>this happening.
>
> >>>>Matt
>
> >>>Talk about CLUELESS?!?! Read this:
>
> >>>*http://tinyurl.com/3b6qz8*
>
> >>Which has no connection to the discussion at hand. I agree that the
> >>global warming hysteria is simply that, but that is completely
> >>unconnected to the discussion about current automotive pollution
> >>controls contribute to pollution or prevent it. The claims that they
> >>actually contribute to polluiont through increased gas usage are just
> >>hilarious. So, I guess maybe there is a connection to global warming
> >>... both claims are equally ludicrous.
>
> >>Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>- Show quoted text -
>
> > Are you honestly suggesting that global warming is not occuring at an
> > unnatural rate?
>
> Yes, I am suggesting that.
>
> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, you would be wrong.
Chris
> Guncho wrote:
> > On Feb 26, 6:01 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
>
> >>m...@privacy.net wrote:
>
> >>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> >>>>m...@privacy.net wrote:
>
> >>>>>Vic Garcia wrote:
>
> >>>>>>Actually, those are not the engineers talking, those are the stupid
> >>>>>>politicians forcing every manufacturer to install expensive devices
> >>>>>>to protect some Owls in in Oregon.
> >>>>>>If they removed all that emission crap, the increase on efficiency
> >>>>>>and lower gas use will make better for the environment, but of
> >>>>>>course, then, big oil will not make record profits, and Detroit will
> >>>>>>not sell a single car ... fat chance of that happening.
>
> >>>>>AMEN!!!!!
>
> >>>>Wow, two clueless folks in a row.
>
> >>>>Catalytic convertors and related pollution controls remove something
> >>>>upwards of 90% of the pollutants that would otherwise be emitted. To
> >>>>make that up with better mileage alone would require that cars get 10
> >>>>times better fuel mileage without the pollution controls. You can
> >>>>believe all of the gimmick ads you want, but thermodynamics precludes
> >>>>this happening.
>
> >>>>Matt
>
> >>>Talk about CLUELESS?!?! Read this:
>
> >>>*http://tinyurl.com/3b6qz8*
>
> >>Which has no connection to the discussion at hand. I agree that the
> >>global warming hysteria is simply that, but that is completely
> >>unconnected to the discussion about current automotive pollution
> >>controls contribute to pollution or prevent it. The claims that they
> >>actually contribute to polluiont through increased gas usage are just
> >>hilarious. So, I guess maybe there is a connection to global warming
> >>... both claims are equally ludicrous.
>
> >>Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>- Show quoted text -
>
> > Are you honestly suggesting that global warming is not occuring at an
> > unnatural rate?
>
> Yes, I am suggesting that.
>
> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, you would be wrong.
Chris