On Feb 27, 6:47 am, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
> 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Or how bout how once doctor's said it was good to smoke cigarettes?
Puts the whole thing in doubt eh? Guess we should all start smoking.

PS We actually have records going back thousands of years obtained
from ice core samples in the arctic.

Chris

 

Guncho wrote:
> On Feb 27, 6:47 am, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
>
>>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.googl egroups.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- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> Or how bout how once doctor's said it was good to smoke cigarettes?
> Puts the whole thing in doubt eh? Guess we should all start smoking.
>
> PS We actually have records going back thousands of years obtained
> from ice core samples in the arctic.
>
> Chris
>
>

Those aren't temperature records. We can only speculate and infer
temperatures from ice core samples.

Matt

 

Guncho wrote:

> 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
>
>

No, and in a few more years the truth will come out and this hoax will
pass as have the previous hoaxes such as global cooling, cold fusion, etc.


Matt

 

On Feb 27, 6:56 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
> Guncho wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 6:47 am, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
>
> >>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.googl egroups.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- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>- Show quoted text -
>
> > Or how bout how once doctor's said it was good to smoke cigarettes?
> > Puts the whole thing in doubt eh? Guess we should all start smoking.
>
> > PS We actually have records going back thousands of years obtained
> > from ice core samples in the arctic.
>
> > Chris
>
> Those aren't temperature records. We can only speculate and infer
> temperatures from ice core samples.
>
> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So carbon dating is just speculation and inferrence?

Chris

 

On Feb 27, 6:57 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
> Guncho wrote:
> > 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
>
> No, and in a few more years the truth will come out and this hoax will
> pass as have the previous hoaxes such as global cooling, cold fusion, etc.
>
> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Guess we'll find out.

PS Have you done any research on this or is this all just off the top
of your head?

Chris

 

"Guncho" <cgunter@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1172641057.586349.302640@q2g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com:

>> No, and in a few more years the truth will come out and this hoax
>> will pass as have the previous hoaxes such as global cooling, cold
>> fusion, etc.
>>
>> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Guess we'll find out.
>
> PS Have you done any research on this or is this all just off the top
> of your head?
>
> Chris

Chris, if you look back at this groups archives a bit, you'll see this
was discussed ad naseum on a few different occasions. At this point in
time, you'll not convince Matt that global warming is real. That won't
happen until his home is beach front property.

Although I agree that global warming is happening faster than ever
before in recorded (or analyzed) history, you have to admit that there
is research that does show this is nothing more than a big blip on the
screen.

Only time will tell for sure...

My big problem with the research showing global warming is that they
mostly blame man as the cause. I don't buy that. I think this is a
normal cycle that has happened before, albeit at a time earlier than we
have the capability of measuring with today's science.

Just yesterday I had a chuckle reading that the EU countries are
considering a ban on the NEW refrigerant R-134a. I think we should just
switch back to Ammonia as the refrigerant of choice.

Eric

 

Guncho wrote:
> On Feb 27, 6:56 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
>
>>Guncho wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 27, 6:47 am, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>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.goo glegroups.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- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>>Or how bout how once doctor's said it was good to smoke cigarettes?
>>>Puts the whole thing in doubt eh? Guess we should all start smoking.
>>
>>>PS We actually have records going back thousands of years obtained
>>>from ice core samples in the arctic.
>>
>>>Chris
>>
>>Those aren't temperature records. We can only speculate and infer
>>temperatures from ice core samples.
>>
>>Matt- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> So carbon dating is just speculation and inferrence?

Yes, we have no fool-proof way to know that the decay mechanism is
predictable over thousands of years.

Matt

 

Guncho wrote:

> On Feb 27, 6:57 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
>
>>Guncho wrote:
>>
>>>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
>>
>>No, and in a few more years the truth will come out and this hoax will
>>pass as have the previous hoaxes such as global cooling, cold fusion, etc.
>>
>>Matt- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> Guess we'll find out.
>
> PS Have you done any research on this or is this all just off the top
> of your head?

Not a tremendous amount, but I have read articles by the scientists and
climatologists who have been courageous enough to speak out against this
(many of whom are now losing their jobs because they didn't follow the
party line) and their arguments are more compelling to me that the
global warming camp.

Also, just look at the history. I'm old enough to remember the global
cooling and pending "mini ice age" scare of the 70s. Are you?

Matt

 

Eric G. wrote:

> "Guncho" <cgunter@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:1172641057.586349.302640@q2g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com:
>
>
>>>No, and in a few more years the truth will come out and this hoax
>>>will pass as have the previous hoaxes such as global cooling, cold
>>>fusion, etc.
>>>
>>>Matt- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>Guess we'll find out.
>>
>>PS Have you done any research on this or is this all just off the top
>>of your head?
>>
>>Chris
>
>
> Chris, if you look back at this groups archives a bit, you'll see this
> was discussed ad naseum on a few different occasions. At this point in
> time, you'll not convince Matt that global warming is real. That won't
> happen until his home is beach front property.

And I live on a mountain in PA at an elevation of probably 1500' MSL or
more so if I get beachfront property most of you will be in a world of hurt!

Matt

 

Guncho wrote:

> On Feb 27, 6:57 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
>
>>Guncho wrote:
>>
>>>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
>>
>>No, and in a few more years the truth will come out and this hoax will
>>pass as have the previous hoaxes such as global cooling, cold fusion, etc.
>>
>>Matt- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> Guess we'll find out.
>
> PS Have you done any research on this or is this all just off the top
> of your head?

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/storie....59f5d04a.html

This clearly illustrates why more "scientists" are afraid to speak their
real opinions.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1363818.ece

Matt

PS Have you done any research on this?

 

On Feb 28, 7:09 am, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
> Guncho wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 6:56 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
>
> >>Guncho wrote:
>
> >>>On Feb 27, 6:47 am, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>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.goo glegroups.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- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>- Show quoted text -
>
> >>>Or how bout how once doctor's said it was good to smoke cigarettes?
> >>>Puts the whole thing in doubt eh? Guess we should all start smoking.
>
> >>>PS We actually have records going back thousands of years obtained
> >>>from ice core samples in the arctic.
>
> >>>Chris
>
> >>Those aren't temperature records. We can only speculate and infer
> >>temperatures from ice core samples.
>
> >>Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>- Show quoted text -
>
> > So carbon dating is just speculation and inferrence?
>
> Yes, we have no fool-proof way to know that the decay mechanism is
> predictable over thousands of years.
>
> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Okay let me ask you this.

#1 Do you agree that we are pumping tonnes of C02 into the
atmosphere?

#2 Do you agree that 100 years ago humans were not putting this amount
of C02 into the air?

#3 What do you think happens to this C02? Do you think it harmlessly
disapates into the air.

Chris

 

On Feb 28, 6:37 am, "Eric G." <NgOrSePeAn...@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote:
> "Guncho" <cgun...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1172641057.586349.302640@q2g2000cwa.googleg roups.com:
>
> >> No, and in a few more years the truth will come out and this hoax
> >> will pass as have the previous hoaxes such as global cooling, cold
> >> fusion, etc.
>
> >> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Guess we'll find out.
>
> > PS Have you done any research on this or is this all just off the top
> > of your head?
>
> > Chris
>
> Chris, if you look back at this groups archives a bit, you'll see this
> was discussed ad naseum on a few different occasions. At this point in
> time, you'll not convince Matt that global warming is real. That won't
> happen until his home is beach front property.
>
> Although I agree that global warming is happening faster than ever
> before in recorded (or analyzed) history, you have to admit that there
> is research that does show this is nothing more than a big blip on the
> screen.
>
> Only time will tell for sure...
>
> My big problem with the research showing global warming is that they
> mostly blame man as the cause. I don't buy that. I think this is a
> normal cycle that has happened before, albeit at a time earlier than we
> have the capability of measuring with today's science.
>
> Just yesterday I had a chuckle reading that the EU countries are
> considering a ban on the NEW refrigerant R-134a. I think we should just
> switch back to Ammonia as the refrigerant of choice.
>
> Eric

Well we weren't pumping this much C02 into the atmosphere 100 years
ago and I believe that for every action, there is an equal and
opposite reaction.

If you swallow a little bit of poison, you probably won't die. If you
keep swallowing little bits of poison do you think it will never kill
you cause the first bit didn't?

Chris

 

On Feb 28, 7:11 am, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
> Guncho wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 6:57 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
>
> >>Guncho wrote:
>
> >>>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
>
> >>No, and in a few more years the truth will come out and this hoax will
> >>pass as have the previous hoaxes such as global cooling, cold fusion, etc.
>
> >>Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>- Show quoted text -
>
> > Guess we'll find out.
>
> > PS Have you done any research on this or is this all just off the top
> > of your head?
>
> Not a tremendous amount, but I have read articles by the scientists and
> climatologists who have been courageous enough to speak out against this
> (many of whom are now losing their jobs because they didn't follow the
> party line) and their arguments are more compelling to me that the
> global warming camp.
>
> Also, just look at the history. I'm old enough to remember the global
> cooling and pending "mini ice age" scare of the 70s. Are you?
>
> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Did you know that global warming is capable of causing another mini
ice age in Europe? If the ice in Greenland continues to melt into the
sea it will stop the warm tropical current that keeps Europe at a
reasonable temperature.

Chris

 

On Feb 28, 7:19 am, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
> Guncho wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 6:57 pm, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
>
> >>Guncho wrote:
>
> >>>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
>
> >>No, and in a few more years the truth will come out and this hoax will
> >>pass as have the previous hoaxes such as global cooling, cold fusion, etc.
>
> >>Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>- Show quoted text -
>
> > Guess we'll find out.
>
> > PS Have you done any research on this or is this all just off the top
> > of your head?
>
> http://www.kgw.com/news-local/storie...aylor_title.59...
>
> This clearly illustrates why more "scientists" are afraid to speak their
> real opinions.
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1363818.ece
>
> Matt
>
> PS Have you done any research on this?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes I have and it's pretty obvious what is happening to anyone but the
hardiest of skeptics.

Chris

 

"Guncho" <cgunter@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172680162.324335.84890@k78g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...

>
> Did you know that global warming is capable of causing another mini
> ice age in Europe? If the ice in Greenland continues to melt into the
> sea it will stop the warm tropical current that keeps Europe at a
> reasonable temperature.
>

That could be reason enough to ship a boat load of acetylene torches up to
Greenland...

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net