Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
That is the problem presented to the US population. we do not understand it vs. acid rain is a chemical reaction from CO2 Looking at this issue over the last 150 years, the ponds and rivers will never get polluted, and it did.. The Greats Lakes will never get polluted because it is so large, and they did. The Oceans will not get polluted because their size is so great and it did. The air is so large and huge it will not be polluted and it happen .. and the list can go on in other words, RED FLAGS are flying from the past events of pollution and what is facing us today.If we are to learn from history, the rate of increase of pollution is very positive to the other counter effects. In other words, input of pollution is not equally neutralized by other effects. The pollution rate of growth is very positive looking at the way the WHOLE WORLD is on the path of Industrialization. New pollution factories are coming on line and CO2 is increasing which will cause this and that issue. This whole environment issue has a solid ONE ITEM linkage to the 911 commission report. Many, many red flag warning are told and reported from bottom to top. Few people are moved by the red flags. A few people take the falling red flag and wave it to warn againbut few listen and none actthe rest is history. Bill Hendrik Riessen wrote: The problem I see is that we do not understand enough about our atmosphere and how everything interacts. This is a number one priority as far as I am concerned. We have to know what is going on. If scientists continue to just guess, pretty soon the average person is going to lose interest and start thinking that it is just a big hooh haah to get money for research. Once we know what is happening we can prioritise our efforts to reverse the damage, no good focusing on one thing only to find that thing is not as much of a problem as something else. I remember seeing something on TV a while back that showed how pollution is actually keeping the planet cool by creating a layer of smog that acts as a shield. This program used the grounding of all aircraft in the US after 9/11 to give an example of the theory. It showed that due to the lack of commercial aircraft in the air and a subsequent reduction in jet emmisions, all of a sudden there was a relatively massive jump in temperatures across the US. What I got out of this TV show was that we know very little about what is going on up there and a lot of the current knowledge is guesswork and theories. - Original Message - From: Bill Gallagher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 11:29 AM Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal Correction: It's parts per million in volume and cause of acid rain CO2 levels are at very small amount in the air around the earth, SNIPPED ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
Acid rain was caused by sulpher compounds dumped into the air by power plants and had nothing to do with CO2. The problem was solved by installing scrubbers in the stacks. Tom Hargrave -Original Message- From: Bill Gallagher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Sent: 2/10/07 6:11 PM Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal That is the problem presented to the US population. we do not understand it vs. acid rain is a chemical reaction from CO2 Looking at this issue over the last 150 years, the ponds and rivers will never get polluted, and it did.. The Greats Lakes will never get polluted because it is so large, and they did. The Oceans will not get polluted because their size is so great and it did. The air is so large and huge it will not be polluted and it happen .. and the list can go on in other words, RED FLAGS are flying from the past events of pollution and what is facing us today.If we are to learn from history, the rate of increase of pollution is very positive to the other counter effects. In other words, input of pollution is not equally neutralized by other effects. The pollution rate of growth is very positive looking at the way the WHOLE WORLD is on the path of Industrialization. New pollution factories are coming on line and CO2 is increasing which will cause this and that issue. This whole environment issue has a solid ONE ITEM linkage to the 911 commission report. Many, many red flag warning are told and reported from bottom to top. Few people are moved by the red flags. A few people take the falling red flag and wave it to warn againbut few listen and none actthe rest is history. Bill Hendrik Riessen wrote: The problem I see is that we do not understand enough about our atmosphere and how everything interacts. This is a number one priority as far as I am concerned. We have to know what is going on. If scientists continue to just guess, pretty soon the average person is going to lose interest and start thinking that it is just a big hooh haah to get money for research. Once we know what is happening we can prioritise our efforts to reverse the damage, no good focusing on one thing only to find that thing is not as much of a problem as something else. I remember seeing something on TV a while back that showed how pollution is actually keeping the planet cool by creating a layer of smog that acts as a shield. This program used the grounding of all aircraft in the US after 9/11 to give an example of the theory. It showed that due to the lack of commercial aircraft in the air and a subsequent reduction in jet emmisions, all of a sudden there was a relatively massive jump in temperatures across the US. What I got out of this TV show was that we know very little about what is going on up there and a lot of the current knowledge is guesswork and theories. - Original Message - From: Bill Gallagher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 11:29 AM Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal Correction: It's parts per million in volume and cause of acid rain CO2 levels are at very small amount in the air around the earth, SNIPPED ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
Correction: It's parts per million in volume and cause of acid rain CO2 levels are at very small amount in the air around the earth, Carbon dioxide, CO_2 , is one of the gases in our atmosphere, being uniformly distributed over the earth's surface at a concentration of about 0.033% or 330 ppm. Commercially, CO_2 finds uses as a refrigerant (dry ice is solid CO_2 ), in beverage carbonation, and in fire extinguishers. In the United States, 10.89 billion pounds of carbon dioxide were produced by the chemical industry in 1995. fossil fuels and other products add more CO2, and to really more the problem to fourth power and beyond, other countries are developing and creating CO2 . certainly is a world problem... What strikes me is how just a small amount in the air will change the earth's environment. Chemistry at work here. The rate of CO2 increase is what alarms some people, in 50 to 100 years Add a few large volcano erupt by nature, more CO2 Bill 1981 300 TD http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/chemweek/CO2/CO2.html Tom Hargrave wrote: Curt, I agree that we are burning a lot of fossel fuels but the rise in CO2 is in the PPB (parts per billion) range. Like another list member mentioned, the impact is comparable to pissing in the ocean. Thanks, Tom Hargrave www.kegkits.com 256-656-1924 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Curt Raymond Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 9:15 AM To: Diesel List Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal Its cold right now on the east coast... 2 years in a row I've ridden my motorcycle after Thanksgiving. We had the second warmest December on record. Climate, not weather. Don't judge based on one city or state in a week, whats the overall average for the world per year? This baby's warming up. I can't believe that all the heat we make as a species by burning (if nothing else) fossil fuels hasn't contributed to the temperature of our planet. You realize we burn BILLIONS of gallons of fuel a year? Its hard to conceive of how big that number is. Billions, totally unavailable to the average mind. That heat has to be somewhere, it can't all just shed away from the planet, air is insulating... -Curt Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:21:08 -0600 From: Tom Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal To: 'Mercedes Discussion List' mercedes@okiebenz.com Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Oh, I agree that we are polluting the air and we need to stop ASAP. My only issue is with the current Global Warming mass hysteria. It's to the point where the experts were blaming this year's earlier warm weather on global warming but now that it's actually cold in the mid-west and east coast, I don't hear a thing. Why? Because the cold weather no longer supports global warming. But then neither did the unseasonable warm spell, did it? This hysteria is more like a religion than scientific fact. If it weren't so, the experts would not be cherry picking data to support their theories. Thanks, Tom Hargrave www.kegkits.com 256-656-1924 - No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
The problem I see is that we do not understand enough about our atmosphere and how everything interacts. This is a number one priority as far as I am concerned. We have to know what is going on. If scientists continue to just guess, pretty soon the average person is going to lose interest and start thinking that it is just a big hooh haah to get money for research. Once we know what is happening we can prioritise our efforts to reverse the damage, no good focusing on one thing only to find that thing is not as much of a problem as something else. I remember seeing something on TV a while back that showed how pollution is actually keeping the planet cool by creating a layer of smog that acts as a shield. This program used the grounding of all aircraft in the US after 9/11 to give an example of the theory. It showed that due to the lack of commercial aircraft in the air and a subsequent reduction in jet emmisions, all of a sudden there was a relatively massive jump in temperatures across the US. What I got out of this TV show was that we know very little about what is going on up there and a lot of the current knowledge is guesswork and theories. - Original Message - From: Bill Gallagher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 11:29 AM Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal Correction: It's parts per million in volume and cause of acid rain CO2 levels are at very small amount in the air around the earth, SNIPPED
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
Curt Raymond wrote: I'm with you Tom, whats a moderate to do? http://tinyurl.com/yrswxg http://tinyurl.com/yrlm9o
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
Just sit back watch the hysteria. It's already gone too far for any hope of recovery. And by the way, they might even be right. There may be a correlation between CO2 levels global warming, which brings me to my next point. Is the earth is warming necessarily a bad thing? Why do they all predict doom gloom when no-one knows the impact of warmer temperatures? Also, why to they predict mass flooding when there was no mass flooding in the 1100 - 1300 period? Maybe we will have extended growing seasons a much more moderate climate. Thanks, Tom Hargrave www.kegkits.com 256-656-1924 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mitch Haley Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 7:28 PM To: Mercedes Discussion List Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal Curt Raymond wrote: I'm with you Tom, whats a moderate to do? http://tinyurl.com/yrswxg http://tinyurl.com/yrlm9o ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
Curt, I agree that we are burning a lot of fossel fuels but the rise in CO2 is in the PPB (parts per billion) range. Like another list member mentioned, the impact is comparable to pissing in the ocean. Thanks, Tom Hargrave www.kegkits.com 256-656-1924 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Curt Raymond Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 9:15 AM To: Diesel List Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal Its cold right now on the east coast... 2 years in a row I've ridden my motorcycle after Thanksgiving. We had the second warmest December on record. Climate, not weather. Don't judge based on one city or state in a week, whats the overall average for the world per year? This baby's warming up. I can't believe that all the heat we make as a species by burning (if nothing else) fossil fuels hasn't contributed to the temperature of our planet. You realize we burn BILLIONS of gallons of fuel a year? Its hard to conceive of how big that number is. Billions, totally unavailable to the average mind. That heat has to be somewhere, it can't all just shed away from the planet, air is insulating... -Curt Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:21:08 -0600 From: Tom Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal To: 'Mercedes Discussion List' mercedes@okiebenz.com Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Oh, I agree that we are polluting the air and we need to stop ASAP. My only issue is with the current Global Warming mass hysteria. It's to the point where the experts were blaming this year's earlier warm weather on global warming but now that it's actually cold in the mid-west and east coast, I don't hear a thing. Why? Because the cold weather no longer supports global warming. But then neither did the unseasonable warm spell, did it? This hysteria is more like a religion than scientific fact. If it weren't so, the experts would not be cherry picking data to support their theories. Thanks, Tom Hargrave www.kegkits.com 256-656-1924 - No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
Curt, I do basically the same. My wood stove burns every night it's cold I consider wood the ultimate renewable resource. And regarding replacing older vehicles with newer fuel efficient models. Has anyone calculated the environmental impact of manufacturing a new car? Even with recycled steel, I'd bet that just the energy cost is equal to hundreds if not thousands of gallons of gas. Thanks, Tom Hargrave www.kegkits.com 256-656-1924 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Curt Raymond Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 8:24 AM To: Diesel List Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal I'm with you Tom, whats a moderate to do? I'll tell you what I do, I drive at 20 year old car that averages better than 35mpg. I've got 85 acres that within a decade should be covered with trees. Every month I invest in insulating my house a little better. I replace incadescent lightbulbs with cf. I use my woodstove which is of the new low particulate clean burn type. We don't throw out any food or paper waste, that all gets composted. Everything metal, glass or plastic goes in the recycling. The block heater for my car is on a timer, outside lights are off at night since theres a streetlight anyway. I'm not a fanatic, just trying to do little things to reduce my ecological footprint. I'd say your 28mpg car is not as big a pollution problem as some soccer mom with 2 kids in a Suburban. Think what it costs in terms of environmental impact to MAKE that stupid SUV and in the next 10 years she'll have 2 or maybe even 3... Driving an older moderately efficient car is recycling at its best. -Curt Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 19:40:17 -0500 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=original I find it interesting that allot of US citizens (who by the way make up 5% of the worlds population but consume 26% of its energy) refuse to believe what we are doing cannot harm the 20 mile deep ocean of air we have surrounding us. Even in the face of facts and greatest scientific minds refuse to agree. I guess the other countries who are on board with this are not as smart as them. All you have to do is look at the amount of NOx, SOx, CO and CO2 we emit which is in the millions of tons per year do the computer modeling and ask yourself how can it not affect our ocean of air. What amazes me is none of our leaders or so called leaders every (or I have not heard it shouted out) have asked joe American public to turn off unneeded lights, drive 65 instead of 80 on the highways, make one less trip to Wal-Mart a month, mandate 30mpg new cars, have these places with all the parking lots light up like fort Knox go to night vision systems for surveillance ect ect ect. I bet with a little effort we could reduce our consumption by 15 to 20% (and some pollution) if we would be lead as a group with some good incentives and direction to suck it up a little. We can do this immediately with little effort or capital outlay. My 2 cents. Good reading is Mid Course Correction by J. Anderson Tom Scordato 1979 240D only 28mpg and contributing to the global night mare - Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by Green Rating at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 11:49:27 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Peter Frederick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Too bad they all contain mercury I'm thinking white LEDs someday, although those have some nasty ecological implications from manufacture, too. White LEDs indeed are very promising. While they do have chemical disposal problems at manufacture, they don't have the disposal problems post-consumer. Manufacturers can do a better job controlling the toxins than consumers and the toxins are all in one spot. Craig
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
Tom Hargrave wrote: And regarding replacing older vehicles with newer fuel efficient models. Has anyone calculated the environmental impact of manufacturing a new car? I just use purchase price as a proxy for energy consumption (total, including what the employees buy and consume with their paychecks). I figure a $50k car costs the planet twice as much as a $25k car.
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
I do basically the same. My wood stove burns every night it's cold I consider wood the ultimate renewable resource. It's what we do. On our place, pine trees are weeds. Sure grow like 'em, they even sprout out of the rocks. And regarding replacing older vehicles with newer fuel efficient models. Has anyone calculated the environmental impact of manufacturing a new car? Even with recycled steel, I'd bet that just the energy cost is equal to hundreds if not thousands of gallons of gas. Lacking a better model, one could do worse than just translate the price into fuel. Figure maybe 10,000 gallons of fuel. That'll run my Frankenheap 300,000 miles. -- Jim
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
Tom - That part is something folks usually do not factor in. An engineer friend of mine [who worked on designing manufacturing facilities] was getting grief about driving his old pickup [just over 15 MPG] rather than buying a new one to get better mileage - for his 7 mile roundtrip daily run to his office and occasional other short trips one needs a pickup for. He figured out the energy cost to make a new vehicle vs. the cost of driving his pickup less than 2,000 miles a year. At the time [maybe 15 years ago] to save the @ 7 mpg he would have to drive a new vehicle longer and further than his working life would allow. I don't recall the figures any more but that one didn't make sense. BillR -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Hargrave Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:48 PM To: 'Mercedes Discussion List' Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal Curt, I do basically the same. My wood stove burns every night it's cold I consider wood the ultimate renewable resource. And regarding replacing older vehicles with newer fuel efficient models. Has anyone calculated the environmental impact of manufacturing a new car? Even with recycled steel, I'd bet that just the energy cost is equal to hundreds if not thousands of gallons of gas. Thanks, Tom Hargrave www.kegkits.com 256-656-1924 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Curt Raymond Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 8:24 AM To: Diesel List Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal I'm with you Tom, whats a moderate to do? I'll tell you what I do, I drive at 20 year old car that averages better than 35mpg. I've got 85 acres that within a decade should be covered with trees. Every month I invest in insulating my house a little better. I replace incadescent lightbulbs with cf. I use my woodstove which is of the new low particulate clean burn type. We don't throw out any food or paper waste, that all gets composted. Everything metal, glass or plastic goes in the recycling. The block heater for my car is on a timer, outside lights are off at night since theres a streetlight anyway. I'm not a fanatic, just trying to do little things to reduce my ecological footprint. I'd say your 28mpg car is not as big a pollution problem as some soccer mom with 2 kids in a Suburban. Think what it costs in terms of environmental impact to MAKE that stupid SUV and in the next 10 years she'll have 2 or maybe even 3... Driving an older moderately efficient car is recycling at its best. -Curt Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 19:40:17 -0500 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=original I find it interesting that allot of US citizens (who by the way make up 5% of the worlds population but consume 26% of its energy) refuse to believe what we are doing cannot harm the 20 mile deep ocean of air we have surrounding us. Even in the face of facts and greatest scientific minds refuse to agree. I guess the other countries who are on board with this are not as smart as them. All you have to do is look at the amount of NOx, SOx, CO and CO2 we emit which is in the millions of tons per year do the computer modeling and ask yourself how can it not affect our ocean of air. What amazes me is none of our leaders or so called leaders every (or I have not heard it shouted out) have asked joe American public to turn off unneeded lights, drive 65 instead of 80 on the highways, make one less trip to Wal-Mart a month, mandate 30mpg new cars, have these places with all the parking lots light up like fort Knox go to night vision systems for surveillance ect ect ect. I bet with a little effort we could reduce our consumption by 15 to 20% (and some pollution) if we would be lead as a group with some good incentives and direction to suck it up a little. We can do this immediately with little effort or capital outlay. My 2 cents. Good reading is Mid Course Correction by J. Anderson Tom Scordato 1979 240D only 28mpg and contributing to the global night mare - Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by Green Rating at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
Just make them in China - it seems they don't care anyway. Original Message From: Craig McCluskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02/07/07 11:02 PM To: Peter Frederick [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 11:49:27 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Peter Frederick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Too bad they all contain mercury I'm thinking white LEDs someday, although those have some nasty ecological implications from manufacture, too. White LEDs indeed are very promising. While they do have chemical disposal problems at manufacture, they don't have the disposal problems post-consumer. Manufacturers can do a better job controlling the toxins than consumers and the toxins are all in one spot. Craig ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg8feb08,0,5612072.column?coll=la-opinion-rightrail Even so, the costs are just too high for too little payoff. Even if the Kyoto Protocol were put into effect tomorrow — a total impossibility — we'd barely affect global warming. Jerry Mahlman of the National Center for Atmospheric Research speculated in Science magazine that it might take another 30 Kyotos over the next century to beat back global warming. Thirty Kyotos! That's going to be tough considering that China alone plans on building an additional 2,200 coal plants by 2030. Oh, but because China (like India) is exempt from Kyoto as a developing country, the West will just have to reduce its own emissions even more.
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
Yup, I read an article some years ago that postulated that upgrading to a new more efficient car from a moderately efficient car wasn't very helpful because of the manufacture of the new car and the disposal of the old one. Of course that treats cars like washing machines to be disposed of when used up. In reality even a junker gets stripped for many parts before recycling. Anyway I still consider owning an older but still fuel efficient car to be an environmentally friendly act. I feel the same about buying used parts... -Curt Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 21:47:54 -0600 From: Tom Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal To: 'Mercedes Discussion List' mercedes@okiebenz.com Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Curt, I do basically the same. My wood stove burns every night it's cold I consider wood the ultimate renewable resource. And regarding replacing older vehicles with newer fuel efficient models. Has anyone calculated the environmental impact of manufacturing a new car? Even with recycled steel, I'd bet that just the energy cost is equal to hundreds if not thousands of gallons of gas. Thanks, Tom Hargrave www.kegkits.com 256-656-1924 - Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by Green Rating at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Feb 08 14:44:26 2007 Received: from mail.cnsp.com ([208.3.80.17] helo=mail.cnsp.biz) by server8.arterytc8.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) id 1HFAVe-0003QM-F9 for mercedes@okiebenz.com; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:44:26 + Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.cnsp.biz (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4E234A9C49 for mercedes@okiebenz.com; Thu, 8 Feb 2007 07:43:44 -0700 (MST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cnsp.biz Received: from mail.cnsp.biz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.cnsp.biz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id SFJrE57vwksQ for mercedes@okiebenz.com; Thu, 8 Feb 2007 07:43:44 -0700 (MST) Received: from mccluskey.linux (208-3-82-31.cnsp.net [208.3.82.31]) by mail.cnsp.biz (Postfix) with SMTP id 0B17D48C3B9 for mercedes@okiebenz.com; Thu, 8 Feb 2007 07:43:43 -0700 (MST) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 07:43:43 -0700 From: Craig McCluskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.6 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus-Scanner: Clean mail though you should still use an Antivirus Subject: Re: [MBZ] 1985 300D for $1500 X-BeenThere: mercedes@okiebenz.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9.cp2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com List-Id: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes_okiebenz.com.okiebenz.com List-Unsubscribe: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] List-Archive: http://okiebenz.com/pipermail/mercedes_okiebenz.com List-Post: mailto:mercedes@okiebenz.com List-Help: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] List-Subscribe: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:44:26 - On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 23:30:08 -0800 kevin kraly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I want another Mercedes, gotta have it, I need it, I've got the disease! Oh, oh! Craig
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
Dave said: It doesn't surprise me. People once believed that we could never wipe out the passenger pigeon, that we could never exhaust our supply of old-growth timber, that we could never over-hunt whales, and that we could dump anything we wanted into lakes, oceans, and rivers with no consequences. People tend to assume that human activity can't influence things that are on a vast scale. It's true for one human, but there are now over 6 billion of us and that changes things a bit. Amen Dave and 10 billion fold by the year 2050 all looking or a house and a big car in the subburbs.. Tom - Original Message - From: David Brodbeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I find it interesting that allot of US citizens (who by the way make up 5% of the worlds population but consume 26% of its energy) refuse to believe what we are doing cannot harm the 20 mile deep ocean of air we have surrounding us. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I find it interesting that allot of US citizens (who by the way make up 5% of the worlds population but consume 26% of its energy) refuse to believe what we are doing cannot harm the 20 mile deep ocean of air we have surrounding us. It doesn't surprise me. People once believed that we could never wipe out the passenger pigeon, that we could never exhaust our supply of old-growth timber, that we could never over-hunt whales, and that we could dump anything we wanted into lakes, oceans, and rivers with no consequences. People tend to assume that human activity can't influence things that are on a vast scale. It's true for one human, but there are now over 6 billion of us and that changes things a bit.
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
Oh, I agree that we are polluting the air and we need to stop ASAP. My only issue is with the current Global Warming mass hysteria. It's to the point where the experts were blaming this year's earlier warm weather on global warming but now that it's actually cold in the mid-west and east coast, I don't hear a thing. Why? Because the cold weather no longer supports global warming. But then neither did the unseasonable warm spell, did it? This hysteria is more like a religion than scientific fact. If it weren't so, the experts would not be cherry picking data to support their theories. Thanks, Tom Hargrave www.kegkits.com 256-656-1924 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 6:40 PM To: Mercedes Discussion List Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal I find it interesting that allot of US citizens (who by the way make up 5% of the worlds population but consume 26% of its energy) refuse to believe what we are doing cannot harm the 20 mile deep ocean of air we have surrounding us. Even in the face of facts and greatest scientific minds refuse to agree. I guess the other countries who are on board with this are not as smart as them. All you have to do is look at the amount of NOx, SOx, CO and CO2 we emit which is in the millions of tons per year do the computer modeling and ask yourself how can it not affect our ocean of air. What amazes me is none of our leaders or so called leaders every (or I have not heard it shouted out) have asked joe American public to turn off unneeded lights, drive 65 instead of 80 on the highways, make one less trip to Wal-Mart a month, mandate 30mpg new cars, have these places with all the parking lots light up like fort Knox go to night vision systems for surveillance ect ect ect. I bet with a little effort we could reduce our consumption by 15 to 20% (and some pollution) if we would be lead as a group with some good incentives and direction to suck it up a little. We can do this immediately with little effort or capital outlay. My 2 cents. Good reading is Mid Course Correction by J. Anderson Tom Scordato 1979 240D only 28mpg and contributing to the global night mare - Original Message - From: L. Mark Finch [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:59 AM Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal Rebut this: http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical03.jsp http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3.lrg.gif ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
You brought up the nuts bolts behind what I've been saying, that there is no proven correlation between CO2 levels global warming. A nit: there _is_ a correlation, under question is the causal relationship. As I recall from Philosophy 201 (?), that would be the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. -- Jim
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
Tom Hargrave wrote: Oh, I agree that we are polluting the air and we need to stop ASAP. My only issue is with the current Global Warming mass hysteria. It's to the point where the experts were blaming this year's earlier warm weather on global warming but now that it's actually cold in the mid-west and east coast, I don't hear a thing. Which experts? I heard a lot of ignorant media speculation about it but I doubt very much any actual climate scientists were saying that. You can't point to any one event and say this was caused by global warming.
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
They damn well better NOT contain mercury. :(( My sense is they do last longer, at least the ones from Home Depot. I don't know yet about the cheapies from Ikea that we just purchased @3 for $3.99). Curt - you are hardly a moderate. You are a green zealot, in the best sense of both words. :) On 2/7/07, Allan Streib [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curt Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I replace incadescent lightbulbs with cf. What's your experience with this? I started doing this, and found that they don't last any longer than incandescent, and are much more expensive, so I stopped. With the lifespans I've experienced, I doubt that the savings in electricity is going to offset the premium I paid for the bulb (though I haven't actually done the math). Plus don't they contain mercury? What do you do with them when they burn out. -- 1983 300D 1966 230 ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
Or my favorite: some soccer mom using her suburban to drive her kids 300 yds (max) down the driveway, only to sit there idling until the bus picks them up, then back up the drive and go back in the house. I see it MANY mornings, and it doesnt have to be any colder than 40 for it to occur! -j. -- Original message -- From: Curt Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd say your 28mpg car is not as big a pollution problem as some soccer mom with 2 kids in a Suburban. Think what it costs in terms of environmental impact to MAKE that stupid SUV and in the next 10 years she'll have 2 or maybe even 3... Driving an older moderately efficient car is recycling at its best. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Feb 07 15:16:04 2007 Received: from web32814.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.206.44]) by server8.arterytc8.net with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) id 1HEoWi-0001zx-6y for mercedes@okiebenz.com; Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:16:04 + Received: (qmail 85384 invoked by uid 60001); 7 Feb 2007 15:15:19 - X-YMail-OSG: 5W8rL3EVM1lqMaxJZUkX5TqSBPZhUqDITjcQUOoMOzN9br5pEgJaOIj8.vvdeqQPcELZDSEjM0D4Kc5PQSXABSGPjooxsMdmOHG2iuxwpzjqMYIMY_Q.8WCJtsGhDGi64MRrerLxcGbaIglEf9D7EKlyKLiwXscX.WlB74_oiyZ4W6h6YzaONMkHcnFK Received: from [198.51.119.130] by web32814.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 07 Feb 2007 07:15:18 PST Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 07:15:18 -0800 (PST) From: Curt Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Diesel List mercedes@okiebenz.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Antivirus-Scanner: Clean mail though you should still use an Antivirus Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9.cp2 Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal X-BeenThere: mercedes@okiebenz.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9.cp2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com List-Id: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes_okiebenz.com.okiebenz.com List-Unsubscribe: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] List-Archive: http://okiebenz.com/pipermail/mercedes_okiebenz.com List-Post: mailto:mercedes@okiebenz.com List-Help: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] List-Subscribe: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:16:04 - Its cold right now on the east coast... 2 years in a row I've ridden my motorcycle after Thanksgiving. We had the second warmest December on record. Climate, not weather. Don't judge based on one city or state in a week, whats the overall average for the world per year? This baby's warming up. I can't believe that all the heat we make as a species by burning (if nothing else) fossil fuels hasn't contributed to the temperature of our planet. You realize we burn BILLIONS of gallons of fuel a year? Its hard to conceive of how big that number is. Billions, totally unavailable to the average mind. That heat has to be somewhere, it can't all just shed away from the planet, air is insulating... -Curt Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:21:08 -0600 From: Tom Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal To: 'Mercedes Discussion List' mercedes@okiebenz.com Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Oh, I agree that we are polluting the air and we need to stop ASAP. My only issue is with the current Global Warming mass hysteria. It's to the point where the experts were blaming this year's earlier warm weather on global warming but now that it's actually cold in the mid-west and east coast, I don't hear a thing. Why? Because the cold weather no longer supports global warming. But then neither did the unseasonable warm spell, did it? This hysteria is more like a religion than scientific fact. If it weren't so, the experts would not be cherry picking data to support their theories. Thanks, Tom Hargrave www.kegkits.com 256-656-1924 - No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Feb 07 15:27:25 2007 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.247]) by server8.arterytc8.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) id 1HEohg-0002fk-MT for mercedes@okiebenz.com; Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:27:25 + Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b6so199186ana for mercedes@okiebenz.com; Wed, 07 Feb 2007 07:26:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.7.18 with SMTP id 18mr7861477ang.1170862006401; Wed, 07 Feb 2007 07:26:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.90.93.18 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Feb 2007 07:26:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:26:46 -0500 From: Levi Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIME-Version: 1.0 References: [EMAIL
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
Yeah right, good one... Hung out with some newer friends the other night and the skeletons in my closet came out. 2 motorcycles 4 snowmobiles 2 Cub Cadet tractors 2 lawn tractors (for mowing around trees on the farm) Farmall Super M Farmall Regular A plethora of chainsaws, weed whackers and other motorized devices. All my other footprint reducing endevors are to payoff the fun stuff... -Curt Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:00:48 -0500 From: andrew strasfogel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Curt - you are hardly a moderate. You are a green zealot, in the best sense of both words. :) - Never Miss an Email Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started! From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Feb 07 16:21:53 2007 Received: from wsip-24-249-104-140.ks.ks.cox.net ([24.249.104.140] helo=mtsqhexc1.mtsqh.com) by server8.arterytc8.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) id 1HEpYO-00060K-UF for mercedes@okiebenz.com; Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:21:53 + Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:19:35 -0600 Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Rear Diff Service Thread-Index: AcdK08IF7A7i1G56QAyfGTTR28knjQ== From: Donald Snook [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com X-Antivirus-Scanner: Clean mail though you should still use an Antivirus Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9.cp2 Subject: [MBZ] Rear Diff Service X-BeenThere: mercedes@okiebenz.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9.cp2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com List-Id: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes_okiebenz.com.okiebenz.com List-Unsubscribe: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] List-Archive: http://okiebenz.com/pipermail/mercedes_okiebenz.com List-Post: mailto:mercedes@okiebenz.com List-Help: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] List-Subscribe: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:21:53 - I was considering servicing the rear differential on my car 1990 300SEL. I could not find anything in the service records where that has been done in a long time. I have a few questions:=20 =20 1. What is the Mercedes suggested service interval on this car?=20 2. is it just 80/90 gear oil or is there special MB stuff? 3. Does Mobil 1 make something for this?=20 4. Can I just use the top-sider oil sucker for this?=20 5. Is it better to take off the cover and clean out all the gunk?=20 6. Anything in particular I should know about how to do this. I have done it several times on GM cars, but I can't remember ever doing it on a Benz (despite owning 6 of them over 12 years).=20 =20 Donald H. Snook McDonald, Tinker, Skaer, Quinn Herrington, P.A.=20 300 West Douglas P.O. Box 207 Wichita, Kansas 67201 0207 Tel. (316) 263-5851 This confidential message may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or protected by the attorney work-product doctrine. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and notify me. =20 =20
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
Curt wrote:This baby's warming up. I can't believe that all [SNIP] It's been warming for 20,000+ years. At one time there were glaciers across Kansas! Larry T (67 MGB, 74 911, 78 240D, 91 300D) www.youroil.net for Oil Analysis and Weber Parts Test Results http://members.rennlist.com/oil PORSCHE POSTERS! youroil.net Weber Carb Info http://members.rennlist.com/webercarbs Porsche Road Test http://members.rennlist.com/roadtest/ . - Original Message - From: Curt Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Diesel List mercedes@okiebenz.com Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:15 AM Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal Its cold right now on the east coast... 2 years in a row I've ridden my motorcycle after Thanksgiving. We had the second warmest December on record. Climate, not weather. Don't judge based on one city or state in a week, whats the overall average for the world per year? This baby's warming up. I can't believe that all the heat we make as a species by burning (if nothing else) fossil fuels hasn't contributed to the temperature of our planet. You realize we burn BILLIONS of gallons of fuel a year? Its hard to conceive of how big that number is. Billions, totally unavailable to the average mind. That heat has to be somewhere, it can't all just shed away from the planet, air is insulating... -Curt Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:21:08 -0600 From: Tom Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal To: 'Mercedes Discussion List' mercedes@okiebenz.com Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Oh, I agree that we are polluting the air and we need to stop ASAP. My only issue is with the current Global Warming mass hysteria. It's to the point where the experts were blaming this year's earlier warm weather on global warming but now that it's actually cold in the mid-west and east coast, I don't hear a thing. Why? Because the cold weather no longer supports global warming. But then neither did the unseasonable warm spell, did it? This hysteria is more like a religion than scientific fact. If it weren't so, the experts would not be cherry picking data to support their theories. Thanks, Tom Hargrave www.kegkits.com 256-656-1924 - No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.29/673 - Release Date: 2/6/2007
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
Jim Cathey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Whatever happened to the theory I'd heard that we were due, and headed into, a minor ice age, except for our human CO2 footprint! The last mini ice age, which started with the end of the midieval warm period, ended in the 1800s. We've been warming since the mid 1800s. Cooincidentally in conjunction with the rise of the industry. But you're right, in the mid 1970s, mainstream scientists had reached a consensus that we were entering another cooling. http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm Allan -- 1983 300D 1966 230
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
GF bulbs are sensitve to position (they don't like to be base up) and to heat -- I have some that have lasted years now in sidways ceiling fixtures that open except for the glass diffuser underneath, while some in the basement ceiling (base up) only last six month or so. The ones in the kitchen fixture that eats 40W incandescents (lousy ventilation, I think) also eats CF, although much more slowly -- they last 6-9 months instead of 2-3. With light use in a table lamp, they should last a decade or so. Too bad they all contain mercury I'm thinking white LEDs someday, although those have some nasty ecological implications from manufacture, too. Peter
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
Allan Streib wrote: Curt Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I replace incadescent lightbulbs with cf. What's your experience with this? I started doing this, and found that they don't last any longer than incandescent, and are much more expensive, so I stopped. With the lifespans I've experienced, I doubt that the savings in electricity is going to offset the premium I paid for the bulb (though I haven't actually done the math). When I bought my house I replaced all of them with CF... so I don't have a $$ savings comparison, but I think I've only had one or two go out. Its been 2 years so far. One thing to note with any fluorescent bulb is that every time you turn it on you shorten the bulbs life. IE, if you never turned off the bulbs you might get 5 years of use, but if it was in a bathroom where it was turned on for 10 minutes for 6 times a day you might get 2 years. This might explain why I haven't had but one or two burn out... I always forget to turn lights off (why I got CF in the first place) so my lights don't get cycled as much as a very power conscious person with incandescents would cycle theirs. If for nothing else, they are perfect for shop lights I had a bad experience with a $40 fluorescent hand held light (lowes carries it..), so went with the good old bulb on a cord light. I went through like 3 incandescent bulbs in one day from bumping into things and the light burning out. Put a CF in there and it takes TONS more abuse. I have broken two or three though (they don't like to be dropped 2-3 feet). Plus don't they contain mercury? What do you do with them when they burn out. The ones I bought two years ago do. The one I bought last week doesn't... don't know if this is a brand thing or a industry wide change. John
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
I would hope we have better climate prediction technology and methodologies than those 70s scientists who thought we were in a global cooling phase. Think: supercomputers, satellites, GIS, etc. Our scientific tools have come a long way since 1977. On 2/7/07, John Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Allan Streib wrote: Curt Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I replace incadescent lightbulbs with cf. What's your experience with this? I started doing this, and found that they don't last any longer than incandescent, and are much more expensive, so I stopped. With the lifespans I've experienced, I doubt that the savings in electricity is going to offset the premium I paid for the bulb (though I haven't actually done the math). When I bought my house I replaced all of them with CF... so I don't have a $$ savings comparison, but I think I've only had one or two go out. Its been 2 years so far. One thing to note with any fluorescent bulb is that every time you turn it on you shorten the bulbs life. IE, if you never turned off the bulbs you might get 5 years of use, but if it was in a bathroom where it was turned on for 10 minutes for 6 times a day you might get 2 years. This might explain why I haven't had but one or two burn out... I always forget to turn lights off (why I got CF in the first place) so my lights don't get cycled as much as a very power conscious person with incandescents would cycle theirs. If for nothing else, they are perfect for shop lights I had a bad experience with a $40 fluorescent hand held light (lowes carries it..), so went with the good old bulb on a cord light. I went through like 3 incandescent bulbs in one day from bumping into things and the light burning out. Put a CF in there and it takes TONS more abuse. I have broken two or three though (they don't like to be dropped 2-3 feet). Plus don't they contain mercury? What do you do with them when they burn out. The ones I bought two years ago do. The one I bought last week doesn't... don't know if this is a brand thing or a industry wide change. John ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
Peter, This whole thing reminds me of the days when it was accepted fact that Volvo was the absolute safest car in the world. And Volvo had the data to prove their statement - they had millions of miles of driving, traffic accident fatality data to prove they were way ahead of everyone else. Then a company did an independent study found a Volvo to be no safer than any other car the same size. When they uncovered this fact, they searched further discovered that the typical Volvo owner was a more conservative driver than a typical owner of the other brands! This led to the realization that it was the Volvo driver, not the Volvo that made the Volvo the safest car in the world! That's right, the safest car in the world's safety record had nothing at all to do with the car itself! In other words, Volvo took two completely irrelevant sets of data associated them because they tracked together. And my point is? You are correct, the evidence is there for anyone to look at, or so it would seem. Or are we correlating two unrelated sets of data? And by the way, you do know that the earth was so warm from 1100 through 1300 that the Vikings were grazing livestock on what now is ice bound Greenland? They abandoned Greenland because the area got too cold to support grazing animals. And I doubt that we were dumping massive quantities of CO2 into the air around 1100! Also, grapes were being grown in Northern Europe until about the same time, when the temperatures got to cold to support grape production. It's also true that today's temperature changes are tracking lock step with increased sun spot activity. So what is the cause? Sun spots? CO2? Cow flatulence? I'm not arguing the fact that we are experiencing global warming. Only that so far, there is no hard link between the temperature changes and any cause, including elevated CO2. And we really don't know where the Earth's temperature is going, how high it will rise, how quickly it will rise or where it will stop. Or maybe it's going to drop Thanks, Tom Hargrave www.kegkits.com 256-656-1924 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Frederick Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 5:14 PM To: Mercedes Discussion List Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal Gee, that must explain why sattelite photographs show some much less ice around both poles, eh? As I remember, the warming of the planet has not been in dispute by reputable scientists for going on 30 years now -- there are a few who insist that temperatures at 50,000 ft aren't going up much, but then I don't live there, I live here on the surface. Also not in dispute is that the carbon dioxide content of both air and ocean water is increasing at a rather high rate -- there are fairly accurate numbers going back a couple hundred years, and unless I'm mistaken, the carbon dioxide content is more than double what it was in 1900. All that carbon dioxide is from burning fossil fuels -- renewable fuels (wood and buffalo chips, mostly) get re-absorbed into plant growth, more or less, as they would have been anyway through decay of various sorts. The immense quantities of fossil fuel we are blasting through is having an equally immense impact, and no amount of jawboning is gonna change that. Yes, there have been climate changes in the past (for instance, I am quite certain that there was open ocean in the arctic during the 500s AD), but the carbon dioxide level was constant, not climbing. There are quite a few very wealthy institutions with a vested interest blowing a lot of pseudo science around about global warming, mostly so they can justify drilling and selling more oil and cars -- take a step back and use your own knoggin, the evidence is there for anyone to look at. Peter ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
Tom Hargrave wrote: It's also true that today's temperature changes are tracking lock step with increased sun spot activity. Any ham will tell you sun spot activity increases and decreases on a 22-year-cycle. Are you saying there's a similar 22-year cycle of temperature increases and decreases?
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
Nope, I'm only saying that some of the scientific community is correlating data with no proven relationship. Also, there is a huge community of scientists who are undecided and simply don't believe the current accepted theory. But their voices go unheard. Also, I know that the sun runs a 22 year cycle. Thanks, Tom Hargrave www.kegkits.com 256-656-1924 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Brodbeck Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 9:17 PM To: Mercedes Discussion List Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal Tom Hargrave wrote: It's also true that today's temperature changes are tracking lock step with increased sun spot activity. Any ham will tell you sun spot activity increases and decreases on a 22-year-cycle. Are you saying there's a similar 22-year cycle of temperature increases and decreases? ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
David Brodbeck wrote: Any ham will tell you sun spot activity increases and decreases on a 22-year-cycle. Are you saying there's a similar 22-year cycle of temperature increases and decreases? I can remember the nature magazines telling us that global cooling was caused by humans, seems like that was around 1970. I also remember the summer of the sunspots (1981?). One time I had severe interference on Flint's channel 12 TV station (I was near Lansing). I turned the antenna around, and found I got a nice clear picture with the antenna pointed at Milwaukee. It was quite a novelty, watching Wisconsin TV in mid-Michigan with a medium sized antenna. Mitch.
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
Mitch Haley wrote: David Brodbeck wrote: Any ham will tell you sun spot activity increases and decreases on a 22-year-cycle. Are you saying there's a similar 22-year cycle of temperature increases and decreases? I can remember the nature magazines telling us that global cooling was caused by humans, seems like that was around 1970. There actually *is* a global cooling effect caused by fine particulate pollution. The sunlight hitting the earth's surface is measurably dimmer today that it was in the past because particulates in the atmosphere reflect some back out to space. Global warming is compensating for its effects and then some, though, and the effect is diminishing as more particulate pollution is eliminated.
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
the effect is diminishing as more particulate pollution is eliminated. I guess it's Italian Tune-up time! Vroom vroom vroom! Bring on the soot! Kevin in Hillsboro, OR 1983 300SD 266K miles, Ursula
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
Hi Peter, You wrote:the carbon dioxide content is more than double what it was in 1900. Where is this data? Is there a webpage showing times and locations of data collection? I don't doubt you - just curious about the details - Larry T (67 MGB, 74 911, 78 240D, 91 300D) www.youroil.net for Oil Analysis and Weber Parts Test Results http://members.rennlist.com/oil PORSCHE POSTERS! youroil.net Weber Carb Info http://members.rennlist.com/webercarbs Porsche Road Test http://members.rennlist.com/roadtest/ . - Original Message - From: Peter Frederick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 6:13 PM Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal Gee, that must explain why sattelite photographs show some much less ice around both poles, eh? As I remember, the warming of the planet has not been in dispute by reputable scientists for going on 30 years now -- there are a few who insist that temperatures at 50,000 ft aren't going up much, but then I don't live there, I live here on the surface. Also not in dispute is that the carbon dioxide content of both air and ocean water is increasing at a rather high rate -- there are fairly accurate numbers going back a couple hundred years, and unless I'm mistaken, the carbon dioxide content is more than double what it was in 1900. All that carbon dioxide is from burning fossil fuels -- renewable fuels (wood and buffalo chips, mostly) get re-absorbed into plant growth, more or less, as they would have been anyway through decay of various sorts. The immense quantities of fossil fuel we are blasting through is having an equally immense impact, and no amount of jawboning is gonna change that. Yes, there have been climate changes in the past (for instance, I am quite certain that there was open ocean in the arctic during the 500s AD), but the carbon dioxide level was constant, not climbing. There are quite a few very wealthy institutions with a vested interest blowing a lot of pseudo science around about global warming, mostly so they can justify drilling and selling more oil and cars -- take a step back and use your own knoggin, the evidence is there for anyone to look at. Peter ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.25/669 - Release Date: 2/4/2007
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
Rebut this: http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical03.jsp http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3.lrg.gif
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
L. Mark Finch wrote: Rebut this: http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical03.jsp http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3.lrg.gif Those temperatures were all recorded by lefties and environmental wackos. I'm sure of it. Lee
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
I'll rebut it even though no point has been made. In the case of the first graph it must be stated that just because two events occur together and track in a similar fashion does not establish a cause and effect relationship. It is an interesting and theory that increase concentrations of Co2 can cause warming but the evidence is circumstantial at best. The rise in Co2 in PPM is analogous to pissing in the ocean to increase the salinity. The Y-axis on the second graph and the lack of other data make it highly suspect of the fallacy of lies, damn lies and statistics. Temperature Anomaly, it looks like scales were chosen to amplify a foregone conclusion. The lack of scientific rigor and fanatic hostility to other view points is appalling. There are historic periods in the northern hemisphere were temperature were higher than now. Let's keep the environment clean and healthy, but try to avoid the hysteria and lemming like rush to hand over to governments even more taxing and control authority over the use of energy. Bob D. Parrish, FL On 2/6/07, Lee Einer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: L. Mark Finch wrote: Rebut this: http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical03.jsp http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3.lrg.gif Those temperatures were all recorded by lefties and environmental wackos. I'm sure of it. Lee
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
Bob, You brought up the nuts bolts behind what I've been saying, that there is no proven correlation between CO2 levels global warming. Thanks, Tom Hargrave www.kegkits.com 256-656-1924 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob DuPuy Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 11:43 AM To: Mercedes Discussion List Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal I'll rebut it even though no point has been made. In the case of the first graph it must be stated that just because two events occur together and track in a similar fashion does not establish a cause and effect relationship. It is an interesting and theory that increase concentrations of Co2 can cause warming but the evidence is circumstantial at best. The rise in Co2 in PPM is analogous to pissing in the ocean to increase the salinity. The Y-axis on the second graph and the lack of other data make it highly suspect of the fallacy of lies, damn lies and statistics. Temperature Anomaly, it looks like scales were chosen to amplify a foregone conclusion. The lack of scientific rigor and fanatic hostility to other view points is appalling. There are historic periods in the northern hemisphere were temperature were higher than now. Let's keep the environment clean and healthy, but try to avoid the hysteria and lemming like rush to hand over to governments even more taxing and control authority over the use of energy. Bob D. Parrish, FL On 2/6/07, Lee Einer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: L. Mark Finch wrote: Rebut this: http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical03.jsp http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3.lrg.gif Those temperatures were all recorded by lefties and environmental wackos. I'm sure of it. Lee ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
[MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
The following is a editorial written a few weeks ago - And, now I hear AlGore's movie has been nominated for an Academy Award - I didnt realize they had a catagory for Best Propaganda film by a former VP. Anyway - read this for some surprising alternative explanations -- Algore and Kyoto list China and India as developing nations. Let's see; China built the Great Wall about 200BC around about the time they started using a rudimentary magnetic compass and manufacturing gunpowder... Here's a most excellent summation of the flawed liturgy of the Church of Global Warming: Preaching the climate catechism Lorne Gunter National Post (Canada) Monday, January 29, 2007 On Friday, the United Nations' global warming spin factory will switch into high gear with the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) latest report. Actually, the spin will come mostly in the Summary for Policy Makers. The report itself, running to several hundred pages, will consist mostly of dry scientific papers that are usually far less definitive about the causes and effects of climate change. Expect the summary -- which is not written by scientists, but by politicians and activists -- to be highly alarmist. It will almost certainly insist that since the last report in 2001, proof of a coming man-made climate disaster has mounted and the scientific consensus has grown stronger. It will infer the only solution is a massive remaking of industrialized society presided over by international bureaucrats and environmentalists. Even the scientific papers in the IPCC report will have been doctored a bit. In past versions, scientists who have refused to swallow whole the orthodoxy that Earth is going to hell in a handbasket courtesy of SUVs, power plants and the consumer culture of the developed world have been dropped from the committees that write and review the IPCC report's individual chapters. Their doubts, no matter how substantial and well-documented -- have been expunged from the final drafts. You've no doubt heard there is an international scientific consensus that the planet is warming, that the warming will likely be catastrophic and it is being caused by human-produced emissions. The IPCC shows how this vaunted consensus is reached, not by getting all scientists to agree, but by defaming or ignoring those with opinions and research cast doubt on the dogma. That's not science, it's shunning, the ancient religious punishment for heretics. If you saw Al Gore's propaganda film, An Inconvenient Truth, you may be familiar with Naomi Oreskes, the University of California social scientist who claimed to have found 100% agreement among climate scientists. In a much-quoted article in Science magazine, Ms. Oreskes claimed that of the 928 scientific paper's whose abstracts she reviewed, not a single one disagreed with or raised objections to the man-made warming theory. Not reported though -- because it doesn't reinforce the climate catechism -- was a review of Ms. Oreskes' report by British scientist Benny Peiser. He found that Ms. Oreskes had failed to examine nearly 11,000 other climate reports that may or may not have supported her conclusion. And even among the 928 she carefully selected, only 2% wholly endorsed the view that human activity is driving global warming, while several actually opposed that conclusion, even though Ms. Oreskes claimed their support, too. Remember headlines late last year such as Greenhouse gases help make 2006 warmest year ever? What didn't get reported was the fact those doom-laden records were based on only the first 11 months of last year. When the temperatures for December were added to the mix last week, 2006 turned out to be the coolest year in the past five. But that hardly feeds the public hysteria needed to justify remaking the world's economies in the environmentalists' image. The January issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters, contains an article by scientists at the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, in Liverpool concluding the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. In fact the rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of the [20th] century in comparison with the latter part. In the past decade, the Southern Hemisphere has warmed only half as fast as the Northern Hemisphere. Ice cover at the South Pole is expanding, rather than melting. Since 2003, the upper layer of the Atlantic has lost 25% of the extra heat it had built up in the past three decades. Worries that the Atlantic currents were slowing due to warming have been shown recently to be unfounded: For thousands of years, Atlantic currents have sped up and slowed down as they are doing now. And the broad consensus among solar scientists is that the Earth's warming is almost entirely explicable by increased solar activity that began about 100 years ago, and which will end around 2020. But don't expect any of that to
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
Well now, that sure is good news. Time to get a V12 W140 and not worry about oil reserves and all that nonsense since we can build new refineries all over the country. And I can't wait for the coal burning utility plants to make a comeback. Let's geter done! On 2/5/07, LarryT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The following is a editorial written a few weeks ago - And, now I hear AlGore's movie has been nominated for an Academy Award - I didnt realize they had a catagory for Best Propaganda film by a former VP. Anyway - read this for some surprising alternative explanations -- Algore and Kyoto list China and India as developing nations. Let's see; China built the Great Wall about 200BC around about the time they started using a rudimentary magnetic compass and manufacturing gunpowder... Here's a most excellent summation of the flawed liturgy of the Church of Global Warming: Preaching the climate catechism Lorne Gunter National Post (Canada) Monday, January 29, 2007 On Friday, the United Nations' global warming spin factory will switch into high gear with the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) latest report. Actually, the spin will come mostly in the Summary for Policy Makers. The report itself, running to several hundred pages, will consist mostly of dry scientific papers that are usually far less definitive about the causes and effects of climate change. Expect the summary -- which is not written by scientists, but by politicians and activists -- to be highly alarmist. It will almost certainly insist that since the last report in 2001, proof of a coming man-made climate disaster has mounted and the scientific consensus has grown stronger. It will infer the only solution is a massive remaking of industrialized society presided over by international bureaucrats and environmentalists. Even the scientific papers in the IPCC report will have been doctored a bit. In past versions, scientists who have refused to swallow whole the orthodoxy that Earth is going to hell in a handbasket courtesy of SUVs, power plants and the consumer culture of the developed world have been dropped from the committees that write and review the IPCC report's individual chapters. Their doubts, no matter how substantial and well-documented -- have been expunged from the final drafts. You've no doubt heard there is an international scientific consensus that the planet is warming, that the warming will likely be catastrophic and it is being caused by human-produced emissions. The IPCC shows how this vaunted consensus is reached, not by getting all scientists to agree, but by defaming or ignoring those with opinions and research cast doubt on the dogma. That's not science, it's shunning, the ancient religious punishment for heretics. If you saw Al Gore's propaganda film, An Inconvenient Truth, you may be familiar with Naomi Oreskes, the University of California social scientist who claimed to have found 100% agreement among climate scientists. In a much-quoted article in Science magazine, Ms. Oreskes claimed that of the 928 scientific paper's whose abstracts she reviewed, not a single one disagreed with or raised objections to the man-made warming theory. Not reported though -- because it doesn't reinforce the climate catechism -- was a review of Ms. Oreskes' report by British scientist Benny Peiser. He found that Ms. Oreskes had failed to examine nearly 11,000 other climate reports that may or may not have supported her conclusion. And even among the 928 she carefully selected, only 2% wholly endorsed the view that human activity is driving global warming, while several actually opposed that conclusion, even though Ms. Oreskes claimed their support, too. Remember headlines late last year such as Greenhouse gases help make 2006 warmest year ever? What didn't get reported was the fact those doom-laden records were based on only the first 11 months of last year. When the temperatures for December were added to the mix last week, 2006 turned out to be the coolest year in the past five. But that hardly feeds the public hysteria needed to justify remaking the world's economies in the environmentalists' image. The January issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters, contains an article by scientists at the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, in Liverpool concluding the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. In fact the rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of the [20th] century in comparison with the latter part. In the past decade, the Southern Hemisphere has warmed only half as fast as the Northern Hemisphere. Ice cover at the South Pole is expanding, rather than melting. Since 2003, the upper layer of the Atlantic has lost 25% of the extra heat it had built up in the past three decades. Worries that the Atlantic currents were slowing due to warming have been shown recently to be unfounded: For thousands of
Re: [MBZ] OT - Global Warming rebuttal
Gee, that must explain why sattelite photographs show some much less ice around both poles, eh? As I remember, the warming of the planet has not been in dispute by reputable scientists for going on 30 years now -- there are a few who insist that temperatures at 50,000 ft aren't going up much, but then I don't live there, I live here on the surface. Also not in dispute is that the carbon dioxide content of both air and ocean water is increasing at a rather high rate -- there are fairly accurate numbers going back a couple hundred years, and unless I'm mistaken, the carbon dioxide content is more than double what it was in 1900. All that carbon dioxide is from burning fossil fuels -- renewable fuels (wood and buffalo chips, mostly) get re-absorbed into plant growth, more or less, as they would have been anyway through decay of various sorts. The immense quantities of fossil fuel we are blasting through is having an equally immense impact, and no amount of jawboning is gonna change that. Yes, there have been climate changes in the past (for instance, I am quite certain that there was open ocean in the arctic during the 500s AD), but the carbon dioxide level was constant, not climbing. There are quite a few very wealthy institutions with a vested interest blowing a lot of pseudo science around about global warming, mostly so they can justify drilling and selling more oil and cars -- take a step back and use your own knoggin, the evidence is there for anyone to look at. Peter
