 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / April 2007New Guy Here
Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG to pick up some helpful tips and pointers from guys who probably knew what they were talking about. So what do I find? Three quarters of the posts are off-topic political rants. Sheesh!! >Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG to pick >up some helpful tips and pointers from guys who probably knew what they were >talking about. > >So what do I find? Three quarters of the posts are off-topic political >rants. Sheesh!! Don't let the door hit you in the arse on your way out... The off topic posts are labeled. It is very easy to filter them out....if you don't want to participate in OT threads....  SignatureScott in Florida >>Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG >>to pick up some helpful tips and pointers from guys who probably knew [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It is very easy to filter them out....if you don't want to participate > in OT threads.... It is much harder than you think to filter the OT threads without affecting the on-topic ones. Know why? Toy-OT-a. I had to remove my filtering because most all the others were being filtered as well. SignatureTegger > >>Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG > >>to pick up some helpful tips and pointers from guys who probably knew [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I had to remove my filtering because most all the others were being > filtered as well. I've never had that problem. Must be your newsreading app. I use MT-Newswatcher. When I filter or kill something it stays that way until I remove it from the filter list or choose to read a particular post which was filtered. If I post something OT: I use a colon. Anyway cheers. Don't chase the bunny around too much :) -- > If I post something OT: I use a colon. Don't use a colon. MS Outlook Express strips the OT and colon and replaces it with a Re: if they are the first replier of a branch. > > If I post something OT: I use a colon. > > Don't use a colon. MS Outlook Express strips the OT and colon and > replaces it with a Re: if they are the first replier of a branch. I'll leave it off then, if I don't forget. I've been using the colon all along from day one. -- >> > If I post something OT: I use a colon. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'll leave it off then, if I don't forget. I've been using the colon all > along from day one. I've been doing {OT:}. I wonder how that works? Since I rarely touch Outhouse Express with a 10 foot pole, I won't know. Even on my Windows Box I use Pan Newsreader (http://pan.rebelbase.com) Free, built in yENC decoding and automatic stringing together of parts. Works for me! >>>Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG to >>>pick up some helpful tips and pointers from guys who probably knew what [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I had to remove my filtering because most all the others were being > filtered as well. If you filter exactly on OT: then that won't happen. And good to see you frequenting again! =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in news:XyORh.554$Lm.229@trndny05: >> It is much harder than you think to filter the OT threads without >> affecting the on-topic ones. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > If you filter exactly on OT: then that won't happen. Go check how many threads don't have the colon after the "OT". > And good to see you frequenting again! I'm staying out of the OT stuff for the most part. I find most of it is just pissing matches and you never sway anyone's opinion anyway. SignatureTegger > =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote > in news:XyORh.554$Lm.229@trndny05: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I'm staying out of the OT stuff for the most part. I find most of it is > just pissing matches and you never sway anyone's opinion anyway. You got that right. We are ALL stubborn suckas. And 10-4 on the pissing contests, :} -- >> If you filter exactly on OT: then that won't happen. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'm staying out of the OT stuff for the most part. I find most of it is > just pissing matches and you never sway anyone's opinion anyway. Yeah...for the most part. Some have changed my thinking a little, however, most notably the absent Learning Richard. > Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG to pick > up some helpful tips and pointers from guys who probably knew what they were > talking about. > > So what do I find? Three quarters of the posts are off-topic political > rants. Sheesh!! Yep, I thought exactly the same when i first came here with my nice new 2004 Toyota Sienna, but after a while the Toyota stuff got kind of boring and besides my Sienna has been trouble free. All I do is get the oil changed every 3000 or so miles. If the political crap bugs you just use your filter tool in the application. Good luck with your new Toy. What model by the way? -- >> Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG to >> pick [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > boring and besides my Sienna has been trouble free. All I do is get > the oil changed every 3000 or so miles. There's no need to change the oil that often. You're just wasting money. Next time, buy an American-made van from the Michigan-3 instead of an American-made van from Toyota or Honda. Then you will have questions about repairs to ask. Jeff > If the political crap bugs you just use your filter tool in the > application. > > Good luck with your new Toy. What model by the way? > >> Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG to > >> pick [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Jeff Yes there is a need. I drive short trips in cold weather. I bought a brand new Dodge Caravan in 1994, used it for 10 years. -- >> >> Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG >> >> to pick [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > I bought a brand new Dodge Caravan in 1994, used it for 10 years. I've had two of these, both beaters, both free. One was and LE and the other was an LE AWD. I don't know how Chrysler did it, but these were damn good vans! I put 10,000 miles on each of them in the short time I owned each one, and I liked them! I had the 3.3 in both of them. My first encounter with one of these was in '94. I sent my wife to look for a Taurus wagon, because they had such a high rating from both the Feds and the IIHC (IIHC? You know, the Insurance industry body that does the crash tests...). She came back and said, I bought a car! Turned out to be a '92 Caravan (no SE, no LE; base model) fresh off lease, 24,000 miles. She brought it home and the first thing I noticed was how nice it was laid out, like a Japanese car! Everything was right where you wanted it! I'm looking for another one. I found a REALLY nice '95 LE AWD with Leather and all the stuff, but it's too much. A beater is good for my purposes. > >> >> Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG > >> >> to pick [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > I'm looking for another one. I found a REALLY nice '95 LE AWD with Leather > and all the stuff, but it's too much. A beater is good for my purposes. The 3.3 is a good engine. I never had any problem with the engine and ran it for 10 years. I see these things in the paper for sale all the time with 100K plus miles. -- >> >> >> Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this >> >> >> NG to pick [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > it for 10 years. I see these things in the paper for sale all the time > with 100K plus miles. I found one for $600 with about 165,000. The only real problem was the transmission, and usually those problems were caused by throwing in off-the-rack tranny fluid from the local Convenience store. Or, the trans side cover rotting and leaking fluid. $15 fix. My AWD had the dreaded 3.3 broken rocker tower problem. It sounded like it was going to blow up any second now, but ran for 10,000 miles, highway driving and all! I was going to put a newer motor in it (found a 3.3 for $200 w/80,000 on it) but the rack was going bad and there was a clunking in the rear axle. Someone said the bearings on those go bad and it was a 15 minute fix, but after I broke the engine (broken bolts trying to get the water pump off) I said screw it. > >> >> >> Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this > >> >> >> NG to pick [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > after I broke the engine (broken bolts trying to get the water pump off) I > said screw it. My Caravan had a lumber wagon ride. Every crack in the road went right up to the steering wheel. I had new tires, shocks and it still dident have the ride. My Sienna is a world better. Otherwise, I took good care of the caravan and it was still in very good condition inside and out. Would have made a good second vehicle but the other half didn't like to drive it. She though it was like a long hearse LOL. -- Most American disagree with that opinion, Chrysler has always been number one seller of minivans. Logic tells one buyer do not keep buying something, for around thirty years, that is not a good product. Chrysler has sold almost as many minivans as all of the others combined and the only American manufacturer still making minivans. GM and Ford have gotten out of that dying market. GM and Ford are investing their R&D capital in the fastest new growth market, Crossovers. Both GM and Fords crossovers are selling at a better rate than were their latest minivans mike > Next time, buy an American-made van from the Michigan-3 instead of an > American-made van from Toyota or Honda. Then you will have questions about > repairs to ask. > > Jeff > Most American disagree with that opinion, Chrysler has always been number > one seller of minivans. So most Americans are buying minivans? Why don't you limit what talk about to what you know? That would eliminate 99% of your posts, of course. > Logic tells one buyer do not keep buying something, for around thirty > years, that is not a good product. Chrysler has sold almost as many [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > market, Crossovers. Both GM and Fords crossovers are selling at a better > rate than were their latest minivans And this is relevent how? It has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted, below. Get a clue. Jeff > mike > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> Jeff Any thinking person would understand the comment refers is to those that buy minivans. As to relevance, the reply refers to your personal opinion that other vans are less dependable. Chryslers sales numbers prove your opinion is that of a minority Why don't you limit what talk about to what you know!?! That would eliminate 99% of your posts, of course. Get a clue. ;) mike >> Most American disagree with that opinion, Chrysler has always been number >> one seller of minivans. >> Logic tells one buyer do not keep buying something, for around thirty >> years, that is not a good product. Chrysler has sold almost as many [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >>mike > So most Americans are buying minivans? > > And this is relevent how? > It has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted, below. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>> >>> Jeff >> Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG to >> pick [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Good luck with your new Toy. What model by the way? Nah, doesn't bug me-- just is a pain. Like when I get dressed, I have underwear in one dresser drawer, socks in another, shirts in a third-- not all mishmashed together along with cans of peas and tuna fish ;-) Got an Avalon-- nice car. Except for having to give the dealer $10-15k extra for an "L" on the trunk instead of those offset ovals, I didn't see much difference between it and a Lexus. > >> Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG to > >> pick [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > for an "L" on the trunk instead of those offset ovals, I didn't see much > difference between it and a Lexus. I'm told the 2007 Sienna has the same engine as in the Avalon. It appears to be a little more HP and higher revs. Hows the gas milage on your Avalon? -- >> >> Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG >> >> to [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > appears to be a little more HP and higher revs. Hows the gas milage on > your Avalon? Heh, heh-- don't know. Still on maiden tankfull... > >> >> Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG > >> >> to [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Heh, heh-- don't know. Still on maiden tankfull... Well keep updating I'd like to get this kind of information. -- > Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG to pick > up some helpful tips and pointers from guys who probably knew what they were > talking about. > > So what do I find? Three quarters of the posts are off-topic political > rants. Sheesh!! There are also really good forums at www.ToyotaNation.com > > Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG to pick > > up some helpful tips and pointers from guys who probably knew what they were [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > There are also really good forums at www.ToyotaNation.com I don't like the name, "toyotanation.com" Sounds socialist. The fact that LMC recomends it, it more than likely is. -- > > > Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG to pick > > > up some helpful tips and pointers from guys who probably knew what they were [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I don't like the name, "toyotanation.com" Sounds socialist. The fact > that LMC recomends it, it more than likely is. Must you inject politics into everything? ToyotaNation.com is about cars, and political posts in its off-topic are much more rare there than they are here. > Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG to pick > up some helpful tips and pointers from guys who probably knew what they were > talking about. > > So what do I find? Three quarters of the posts are off-topic political > rants. Sheesh!! If you use a newsreader or Outlook you can block the three musketeers and Subjects with OT: as part of the text. Don't try to talk sense to any of the reichwingnuts. They use the talking points and arguments that issue forth from the evil bunker deep in the Whitehouse. It's always one against the entire Neocon smear team. We are lucky that all the scum collect at the republican party fringes so we can always track their movements. A >> Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG to >> pick up some helpful tips and pointers from guys who probably knew what [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > A Of course, the same thing can be said of the Democrats and their marching orders from the k00ks leading the Democratic party. Guess it just depends on your point of view... > >> Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG to > >> pick up some helpful tips and pointers from guys who probably knew what [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > - Show quoted text - What scares the reichwingnuts is that Democrats allow differing opinions, dissent, open discussions, varying stances on legislation. It looks like chaos to people who can find security only in groupthink, rigid rulesets. Plus, Democratic leaders can be honest with their opinions when speaking so all ideas are heard and discussed. This is the only way to get consensus. Your way looks like consensus but it looks like a straight jacket of rules and beliefs. Did you see/hear Charles Rangel on Meet the Press last week? Honest answers why the spending bills look like they look. Honest answers as to why everything looks like it does right now. Democrats are not one monolithic brain. A >> >> Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG >> >> to pick up some helpful tips and pointers from guys who probably knew [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > consensus. Your way looks like consensus but it looks like a straight > jacket of rules and beliefs. That's fine and well; I'm generally all for hearing all sides of an arguement. But the Democrat's views usually tend to run off into the realms of k00kiness. > Did you see/hear Charles Rangel on Meet the Press last week? Honest > answers why the spending bills look like they look. Honest answers as to > why everything looks like it does right now. Democrats are not one > monolithic brain. > > A I can't remember what was on, but I shut it off after about 10 minutes. Couldn't take it. They were hammering something into the ground for the umpteenth time... Gee most of the DNC code words all in one paragraph, reichwingnuts, talking points, evil, neocons, scum. Is that you Howard Dean? LOL mike \>> So what do I find? Three quarters of the posts are off-topic political >> rants. Sheesh!! > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > A > Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG to > pick up some helpful tips and pointers from guys who probably knew what > they were talking about. > > So what do I find? Three quarters of the posts are off-topic political > rants. Sheesh!! Useful tips: Change your oil regularly and use a very good oil. None of that Quaker State cheap stuff from WallyWorld. I got 230,000 miles out of my last one with some abuse. . . . Most Toyotas will get quite boring after a while. Unlike most American cars, you will get to the point you won't know why you ever thought of buying an American car. Most Toyotas are in the shop a lot less than your average American car. That's why there's so much OT here. We get bored, and it takes a certain mental attitude to own a Toyota called Thinking For Yourself. So a lot of us think about other things like Stupid American Car commericals (selling the sizzle instead of the steak again.) And a lot of politicians seem to be using the same mode of reaching out to the people who don't think, which irritates us to no end. You would think there were two separate Americas: The buyers of Detroit stuff and the buyers of Toyotas. The dichotomy doesn't divide evenly at that point, though. Mike is a Ford guy, but other than that is fairly on the Right. We also have a few that are knee-jerk Liberals, i.e. say something the Left disagrees with and they have to come in with the standard prepackaged Left response that requires no thinking on their part. You'll learn to sort them out. There are one or two on the Left that absolutely have to say something negative about anybody on the Right and have to respond to every post from the Right and refer to the Rights as Righttards and worse. Those you'll learn to ignore. I have my newsgroup filter set to ignore certain people who have that attitude and am working on getting it to block messages with certain key words like rightard. Me, I've been seeing the same old arguments from the Left since 1970. I'm still waiting for them to come up with some facts. Fact: My first Toyota, on bad oil (Kendal 20-20W) lasted 154,000 miles. Fact: Evolution is a theory to explain the things we see. We can't prove it because we can't go back and repeat the experiment, as it were. If it's ongoing, why don't we see things changing species now? Fact: Global warming is a theory. 20 years ago they were talking about Global Cooling. If we're in Global Warming, why is it 24 degrees in Chicago on EASTER WEEKEND? The average temperature this time of year is 48 degrees. That means the low and the high together for the days. What would show me that global warming was indeed happening is if Chicago got over 100 with any regularity in the summer. So far it hasn't. Not in my lifetime. Downstate, now that's another matter., but we have Lake Michigan acting as a huge heatsink. Charles of Schaumburg To cover questions like that the environuts now call it global CLIMATE CHANGE, not global warming but their theme is the same as when the told us we were headed into another ice age, pollution caused man. Ask any one of them what caused the earth to be warmer than it is now, between the last two glacial period, long before man was on the earth, and their eyes glaze over. LOL mike >> Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG to >> pick up some helpful tips and pointers from guys who probably knew what [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > dichotomy doesn't divide evenly at that point, though. Mike is a Ford > guy, but other than that is fairly on the Right. Hey you forgot to mention I once was a Toyota/Lexus guy as well ;) <We also have a few that are knee-jerk > Liberals, i.e. say something the Left disagrees with and they have to come > in with the standard prepackaged Left response that requires no thinking [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Charles of Schaumburg > To cover questions like that the environuts now call it global CLIMATE > CHANGE, not global warming but their theme is the same as when the told us > we were headed into another ice age, pollution caused man. Ask any one of > them what caused the earth to be warmer than it is now, between the last > two glacial period, long before man was on the earth, and their eyes glaze > over. LOL Get a clue, Mike. President Bush calls it climate change. A better term is global heating. How did pollution cause man? You also need to get your history right. Man appeared before the last glacial period. Get a clue, if you can. You're a smart man, but your ability to use your brains has gone downhill. Jeff > mike > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >> >> Charles of Schaumburg > > To cover questions like that the environuts now call it global CLIMATE > > CHANGE, not global warming [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > A better term is global heating. It would be even better to call it "global coziness". Who doesn't want to be cozy? You are free to believe whatever you choose, I could not care less ;) mike >> To cover questions like that the environuts now call it global CLIMATE >> CHANGE, not global warming but their theme is the same as when the told [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Jeff >> mike > To cover questions like that the environuts now call it global CLIMATE > CHANGE, not global warming It was the GW Bush administration that decided to drop all uses of the term "global warming" and replace them with "climate change". Here's administration press secretary Tony Snow saying "climate change" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmXChrVconI GW Bush saying it during his state of the union speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lmOrEEGO_c But you are right that this was done by the environuts -- you know, the ones who have former oil industry lawyers with no scientifuc credentials edit scientific reports. Of course, here's the floating dog video everybody likes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REl64B2oB1U > > To cover questions like that the environuts now call it global CLIMATE > > CHANGE, not global warming [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REl64B2oB1U What's wrong with "climate change"? -- >> > To cover questions like that the environuts now call it global CLIMATE >> > CHANGE, not global warming [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > What's wrong with "climate change"? Ask Mike Hunter - he's the one who seems to have the problem (quoted, above). OTOH, climate change -how-? "Global warming" at least indicates in which direction the temp of the climate's changing. Cathy > >> > To cover questions like that the environuts now call it global CLIMATE > >> > CHANGE, not global warming [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Cathy I like climate change better. The other term has been popularized beyond reality. Everybody needs to lean back and take a deep breath and hard look at the data, make some sensible choices, not emotional, and move on. -- "dbu,." > "Cathy F." >> > "larry moe 'n curly" >> > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > hard look at the data, make some sensible choices, not emotional, and > move on. There has definitely been a helluva lot of hype, but speaking strictly from a pollution/environmental damage standpoint, we need to do better. Natalie > "dbu,." > > "Cathy F." [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Natalie We have done better. If you have been watching this stuff for the last 30 or so years as I have you would see a great progress. Yes, we need to do more, but at what cost, all cost? Let's us all be sensible. Humans are limited as to what we can do short of reducing the world population and I don't advocate that. We are doomed. The Sun will grow over time to a red giant and envelope the entire solar system. -- "dbu,." > "Wickeddoll®" >> > "Cathy F." [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > population and I don't advocate that. We are doomed. The Sun will grow > over time to a red giant and envelope the entire solar system. Well, aren't you just a bundle of sunshine? :-) Natalie > "dbu,." > > "Wickeddoll®" [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > Natalie Yes, it looks really bad. I'm hunkering down for the really big sunshine. :) -- Those that prefer to believe that man is the primary cause of global warming rather than many natural forces of nature, can not account for the fact the temperature over the past five years has NOT increased and the computer models they use can NOT account for most recent mini ice age. As a result they started to referance the term Climate Change rather than Warming. mike "dbu,." <question*mark@einp.com> wrote in message news:question*mark- >> > To cover questions like that the environuts now call it global CLIMATE >> > CHANGE, not global warming oB1U > What's wrong with "climate change"? > Those that prefer to believe that man is the primary cause of global > warming rather than many natural forces of nature, Get a clue yourself (as you admonished someone else in another post.). For the umpteenth time - those who believe (as in most scientists, besides most of the general public), AFAIK, no one is saying that man is responsible re: the *primary* cause of global warming, but that people most certainly contribute to it - that our actions are exacerbating it. And that while we have no control over the earth's natural fluctuations, that we do have at least a modicum of control over out own actions which can influence those fluctuations. Cathy > "dbu,." <question*mark@einp.com> wrote in message news:question*mark- > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> What's wrong with "climate change"? >> Those that prefer to believe that man is the primary cause of global >> warming rather than many natural forces of nature, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Cathy Absolutely NOTHING you say about man having an effect on 'global warming' has been proven or will be in our lifetimes.... SignatureScott in Florida >> Those that prefer to believe that man is the primary cause of global >> warming rather than many natural forces of nature, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Cathy Here is a link to the summary of the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf The leaders of most national governments, including President Bush, who accepts global heating, have accepted the report. Jeff >>> Those that prefer to believe that man is the primary cause of global >>> warming rather than many natural forces of nature, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Jeff ROFLMAO You libs have a religion! What complete B/S!!!!!!!!!!! SignatureScott in Florida > including President Bush, who >>accepts global heating, have accepted the report. ROFLMAO President Bush is an idiot and stupid according to you libs....therefore this stupid report is wrong. SignatureScott in Florida >>>> Those that prefer to believe that man is the primary cause of global >>>> warming rather than many natural forces of nature, [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > What complete B/S!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/02/20070207-5.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/science/earth/07climate.html?_r=1&em&ex=117600 4800&en=9de9e825911968fa&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin I do apologise. I should have said the US endorses the report, not just accepts it. We the US has to regulate CO2 emmissions by cars: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/02/20070207-5.html > >> Those that prefer to believe that man is the primary cause of global > >> warming rather than many natural forces of nature, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Jeff This only covers the time back to 1970? Anyway I printed it and will look it over later. -- "Most" scientists and the general public once believed that the sun revolved around a flat earth and that blacks were inferior to whites, as well. If one reads that report the premise is that man "may be" one of the causes, not positively the primary causes. The "May be's" can be found throughout its pages. On the other hand the Al Gores of the world, as well as Gores discredit movie, would have us believe we are leading to mans extinction. Anybody who does a proper search will find site after site that prove in the historical record that the earth has been warmer, much warmer, during interglacial periods over the billions of years the earth has existed. There are records that prove, post the glacial period, that increases in CO2 occurred AFTER the average temperature increased, not the other way around. Elevated CO2 did not cause the temperature change the temperature change caused increased the CO2 level mike >>> Those that prefer to believe that man is the primary cause of global >>> warming rather than many natural forces of nature, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Jeff > "Most" scientists and the general public once believed that the sun revolved > around a flat earth and that blacks were inferior to whites, as well. The people who still believe those things also tend to believe that manmade global warming doesn't exist and that evolution is a hoax. > Anybody who does a proper search will find site after site that prove in the > historical record that the earth has been warmer, much warmer, during > interglacial periods over the billions of years the earth has existed. Scientists aren't denying that. It's the rate of temperature change that they find alarming. > There are records that prove, post the glacial period, that increases in CO2 > occurred AFTER the average temperature increased, not the other way around. > Elevated CO2 did not cause the temperature change the temperature change > caused increased the CO2 level But that was part of the natural feedback mechanism -- higher temperatures allowed plants to grow more, causing them to reduce CO2 when they lived but increase it when when they died and decayed. But the burning of coal, gas, and oil has added CO2 that's not part of that mechanism. I supose one could believe that if they want, but the fact remains historical records prove that increases in CO2 occurred AFTER the average temperature increased, not the other way around. Elevated CO2 did not cause the temperature change the temperature change caused increased the CO2 level. Do a search for the truth, WBMA mike >> "Most" scientists and the general public once believed that the sun >> revolved [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > the burning of coal, gas, and oil has added CO2 that's not part of > that mechanism. >I supose one could believe that if they want, but the fact remains >historical records prove that increases in CO2 occurred AFTER the average [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >mike The new religion of the loony left only requires them to say something....not state facts.... Try not to confuse them with facts....LOL SignatureScott in Florida A study of several of the climatology sites, or better yet paleo-climatology sites, would help them expand their base of knowledge, but then they would not be able to blame Republicans LOL My wife is Pennsylvania Dutch, bless her heart she still plants vegetable gardens at our homes in Pennsylvania, Delaware and North Carolina. She was reading that the UN report says in 50 years the temperature MAY raise by three degrees. It claims that will effect the rice yield in China. She asked won't that make it easier to grow more rice further north? You know I get far more tomatoes in North Carolina than Delaware and more in Delaware than Pennsylvania. My wife is fifteen years younger than me. I guess is she will never know if it gets warmer, I won't that's for sure LOL mike >>I supose one could believe that if they want, but the fact remains >>historical records prove that increases in CO2 occurred AFTER the average [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Try not to confuse them with facts....LOL Apparently your opinion is similar to mine, as well as that of many true environmental scientologist. There is no question among environmentalist that man can contribute to climate change, particularly in certain areas. However the 'environuts' do not agree with that opinion. Any search of their sites will disclose that fact. They believe man is the primary source for global warming and must be stopped at any cost. THAT is the problem. Anybody that disagrees with their position is shot down. To have a proper debate as to what, IF anything man car do to effect the ever changing global temperature can not take place in the current political atmosphere of that debate. After all the same types that were teaching us pollution was leading to an ice age, are now telling us all the glacier will melt. Both were extremes that can not be proven in the historical record and that was my point. mike >> Those that prefer to believe that man is the primary cause of global >> warming rather than many natural forces of nature, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >>> >>> What's wrong with "climate change"? > Those that prefer to believe that man is the primary cause of global warming No scientist does. They estimate that about 90 degs. F of global warming is natural, but it's the few degrees contributed by manmade CO2 that's causing the fast change in temperature because it's not part of the natural feedback mechanism. > rather than many natural forces of nature, can not account for the fact the > temperature over the past five years has NOT increased and the computer > models they use can NOT account for most recent mini ice age. That's as naive as anti-evolution creationists saying that evolution can't happen by itself because it vioilates the second law of thermodynamics -- would the vast majority of highly educated scientists ignore that law? > As a result they started to referance the term Climate Change rather than Warming. Either term is fine, but "climate change" has more politics behind it from the right wing, which is why they tend to use it instead of "global warming" (remember those videos of Tony Snow and GW Bush?). You are free to believe whatever you choose. What makes you believe global climate change a political problem? Do you not know it was President Clinton that choose not to submit the Kyoto tread to the Senate for ratification? I'm not quoting anyone's talking point, I get my information from climatologist sites. Look at who is claiming man is the primary cause of global climate change, it is not the climatologist. Open you mind for change, do a search and you will discover what I have discovered as well. mike >> Those that prefer to believe that man is the primary cause of global >> warming [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > from the right wing, which is why they tend to use it instead of > "global warming" (remember those videos of Tony Snow and GW Bush?). > Those that prefer to believe that man is the primary cause of global > warming [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > You are free to believe whatever you choose. Not from a moral standpoint, and neither do you. > What makes you believe global climate change a political problem? I don't and never said so. > Do you not know it was President Clinton that choose not to > submit the Kyoto treaty to the Senate for ratification? Yes, but he didn't reject it in an international tantrum, as little boy GW Bush did, and cause us to lose our moral authority to tell China and India what to do about their CO2 emissions. > I'm not quoting anyone's talking point, I get my information from > climatologist sites. Look at who is claiming man is the primary cause of > global climate change, it is not the climatologist. It's not even anybody on the far fringes of the ecology movement. As I mentioned, about 90F of all global warming is natural. > Open you mind for change, Me mind is open. > do a search and you will discover what I have discovered as well. I did several searches. That's why I don't believe the nonsense about increased manmade CO2 being a result of global warming rather than a cause of it. We know, you think it is the Presidents fault LOL mike >> Those that prefer to believe that man is the primary cause of global >> warming [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > increased manmade CO2 being a result of global warming rather than a > cause of it. > > > To cover questions like that the environuts now call it global CLIMATE > > > CHANGE, not global warming [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lmOrEEGO_c > What's wrong with "climate change"? GW Bush won't say "global warming" simply because the Democrats use it, and he automatically wants to oppose his father, oops, I mean, the Democrats and Al Gore. > -- > > > > To cover questions like that the environuts now call it global CLIMATE > > > > CHANGE, not global warming [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > it, and he automatically wants to oppose his father, oops, I mean, the > Democrats and Al Gore. I got a clean crying towel for you. Our cat slept on it last night, but it should still be clean enough for you. -- >> To cover questions like that the environuts now call it global CLIMATE >> CHANGE, not global warming > > It was the GW Bush administration that decided to drop all uses of the > term "global warming" and replace them with "climate change". Actually, Climate Change is a more adequate description. It's been a long time since a 'climate change' and the Earth is overdue for one, according to the record of Earth History. Yeah, maybe Man is changing things a bit. But the Earth changes things quite drastically all by itself... > Actually, Climate Change is a more adequate description. How can something be more adequate? That's like saying that something is more silent. ;) I don't care whether people say "climate change" or "global warming", so long as they don't choose their terms for political or neurotic reasons, as GW Bush has in refusing to say "global warming". Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: > Actually, Climate Change is a more adequate description. How can something be more adequate? That's like saying that something is more silent. ;) I don't care whether people say "climate change" or "global warming", so long as they don't choose their terms for political or neurotic reasons, as GW Bush has in refusing to say "global warming". Global warming implies human activity as the cause. Climate change recognizes that while things are getting different, the causes may not be man made. GWB's instance on climate change appears to be more correct than global warming. > Hachiroku ???? wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Global warming implies human activity as the cause. Huh? It implies that the earth - in general - is warming up. No where in the term is the implication that people are responsible. That's only what you have attached to it. (As in liking or disliking a name because of someone else you knew who had the same name.) Climate change > recognizes that while things are getting different, the causes may not be > man made. Huh? It indicates that the climate is changing - but not in what way. Cathy GWB's instance on climate change appears to be more correct than > global warming. > > I don't care whether people say "climate change" or "global warming", > > so long as they don't choose their terms for political or neurotic > > reasons, as GW Bush has in refusing to say "global warming". > Global warming implies human activity as the cause. Climate change > recognizes that while things are getting different, the causes may not be > man made. GWB's instance on climate change appears to be more correct than > global warming. GWB didn't decide to use the term "climate change" purely in the interest of scientific accuracy. Instead he did it for purely political reasons, knowing that the side that controls the language also controls the debate. That, and only that, is my objection to the term. >> > I don't care whether people say "climate change" or "global warming", >> > so long as they don't choose their terms for political or neurotic [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >also controls the debate. That, and only that, is my objection to the >term. 'Anything' GWB says is objectionable to you loonies on the left.... If he said good morning you would think 'bad' morning... SignatureScott in Florida The term is blind hatred LOL mike >>GWB didn't decide to use the term "climate change" purely in the >>interest of scientific accuracy. Instead he did it for purely [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > If he said good morning you would think 'bad' morning... > > I don't care whether people say "climate change" or "global warming", > > so long as they don't choose their terms for political or neurotic [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > 'Anything' GWB says is objectionable to you loonies on the left.... You can't prove your ridiculous statement. > If he said good morning you would think 'bad' morning... You're grasping at straws -- again. So that is why the environuts are trying so hard to stifle the debate mike >> Global warming implies human activity as the cause. Climate change >> recognizes that while things are getting different, the causes may not be [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > also controls the debate. That, and only that, is my objection to the > term. > >> Global warming implies human activity as the cause. Climate change > >> recognizes that while things are getting different, the causes may not be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > reasons, knowing that the side that controls the language also > > controls the debate. That, and only that, is my objection to the term. > So that is why the environuts are trying so hard to stifle the debate Your conclusion doesn't follow from the propositions and opinions presented here, and it's ridiculous unless you're referring to the GW Bush administration, which wouldn't allow NASA's chief climate expert to publicly express dissent on global warming, or allowed the administration's own environmental report, written by scientists, to be edited by an ex-oil industry lobbyist and non-scientist. Do a search of the so called "NASA's chief climate expert" you referenced and you will discover he is NOT a scientist. LOL mike >> >> Global warming implies human activity as the cause. Climate change >> >> recognizes that while things are getting different, the causes may not [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > administration's own environmental report, written by scientists, to > be edited by an ex-oil industry lobbyist and non-scientist. > I don't care whether people say "climate change" or "global warming", > so long as they don't choose their terms for political or neurotic [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > man made. GWB's instance on climate change appears to be more correct than > global warming. Just how does "global warming" imply human activity? Wouldn't that require a term like "man-caused global warming"? "Climate change" implies just as much or little about human activity as "global warming" does, and if you want to get technical, it's not as good a term because it doesn't say whether it refers to global climate or only local climate. > > I don't care whether people say "climate change" or "global warming", > > so long as they don't choose their terms for political or neurotic [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > term because it doesn't say whether it refers to global climate or > only local climate. You are one of those who when the subject first surfaced where screaming and shouting global warming is caused by human activity. What, did you change your mind already? I guess i don't blame you because the evidence is not there. -- >> > I don't care whether people say "climate change" or "global warming", >> > so long as they don't choose their terms for political or neurotic [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > change your mind already? I guess i don't blame you because the > evidence is not there. Holy mackerel. Your reply doesn't mesh with/answer lm'nc's post, at all. He was talking about the actual, technical meanings of the words themselves, not what various & sundry people have ascribed to the terms. Has absolutely nothing to do what he thinks is happening w/the earth, climate-wise, one way or the other. Cathy > >> > I don't care whether people say "climate change" or "global warming", > >> > so long as they don't choose their terms for political or neurotic [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Cathy I'm not his keeper. What did I just say in the above paragraph? That's what I ment. I don't care if it "meshed" or not. -- >> >> > I don't care whether people say "climate change" or "global >> >> > warming", [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > I'm not his keeper. What did I just say in the above paragraph? That's > what I ment. I don't care if it "meshed" or not. You don't care if your reply is actually relevant? O-kay... Cathy > >> >> > I don't care whether people say "climate change" or "global > >> >> > warming", [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Cathy Never mind blinky. -- >> >> >> > I don't care whether people say "climate change" or "global >> >> >> > warming", [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Never mind blinky. Who's blinky when s/he's at home? (I've never heard the term.) Cathy > >> >> >> > I don't care whether people say "climate change" or "global > >> >> >> > warming", [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Cathy Never mind, not important. Carry on. -- >> >> >> Holy mackerel. Your reply doesn't mesh with/answer lm'nc's post, at >> >> >> all. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> >> way >> >> >> or the other. >> >> > I'm not his keeper. What did I just say in the above paragraph? >> >> > That's >> >> > what I ment. I don't care if it "meshed" or not. >> >> You don't care if your reply is actually relevant? O-kay... >> > Never mind blinky. >> Who's blinky when s/he's at home? (I've never heard the term.) > Never mind, not important. Carry on. Not important because it was rude/impolite, or not important because you made it up? Cathy > >> >> >> Holy mackerel. Your reply doesn't mesh with/answer lm'nc's post, at > >> >> >> all. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Cathy It was not important because it was not important. If you don't like the answer then tough sh.t. -- >> >> >> >> Holy mackerel. Your reply doesn't mesh with/answer lm'nc's post, >> >> >> >> at [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > It was not important because it was not important. If you don't like > the answer then tough sh.t. Jeez, all I asked for was a definition; "blinky" is a new one on me. You asked what a "ho" & "nappy" mean, & got answers. One of them being form me, no less. Cathy > >> >> >> >> Holy mackerel. Your reply doesn't mesh with/answer lm'nc's post, > >> >> >> >> at [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Cathy Ok, well, fair enough question. It was used on me by one of the regulars here and I take it to mean you/I don't get it. I used because I thought you didn't get my answer, that's all. -- >> >> >> >> >> Holy mackerel. Your reply doesn't mesh with/answer lm'nc's >> >> >> >> >> post, [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > Ok, well, fair enough question. It was used on me by one of the > regulars here and I take it to mean you/I don't get it. Thank you. I used because > I thought you didn't get my answer, that's all. No, I didn't get it - at least not in relation to the post it was 'answering'. Cathy > >> >> >> >> .. > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Cathy I thought it was. -- >> >> >> >> Holy mackerel. Your reply doesn't mesh with/answer lm'nc's post, >> >> >> >> at [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > It was not important because it was not important. If you don't like > the answer then tough sh.t. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blinky Okay, which one? I take it it's not the police car... Cathy > I'm not his keeper. Do you mean you're finally setting me free, master? "larry moe 'n curly"... >> I'm not his keeper. > > Do you mean you're finally setting me free, master? LOL You guys. Natalie > > I don't care whether people say "climate change" or "global warming", > > so long as they don't choose their terms for political or neurotic [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > change your mind already? I guess i don't blame you because the > evidence is not there. I haven't changed my mind about human-caused global warming for at least 4-5 years (I used to be a lot more skeptical that it was a problem), and I've always maintained that the vast majority of global warming was natural. I realize that you can't read everything that everybody posts, but I've been consistent about manmade global warming for a long time -- it's going to be a huge problem in a few decades. That my be your personal opinion but that is not factual.. Environmentalists started to refer to their theory as Climate Change, long before the President took office, because there is too much evidence that portions of the planet are not warming and portions that are actually cooling. You need to do more research on the subject mike Hachiroku ???? wrote: I don't care whether people say "climate change" or "global warming", so long as they don't choose their terms for political or neurotic reasons, as GW Bush has in refusing to say "global warming". > Hachiroku ???? wrote: > (actually Larrymoencurly wrote:) > I don't care whether people say "climate change" or "global warming", > so long as they don't choose their terms for political or neurotic > reasons, as GW Bush has in refusing to say "global warming". > That my be your personal opinion but that is not factual.. No, it's factual -- an intentional political strategy of the GW Bush administration. > Environmentalists started to refer to their theory as Climate Change, long > before the President took office, When did I say that other people hadn't previously used the term? > because there is too much evidence that portions of the planet > are not warming and portions that are actually > cooling. None of the scientists and very few of the laymen concerned about man- caused global warming have denied that global warming isn't uniform around the world. So why are you bringing this up? > You need to do more research on the subject As do you, and you need to keep your political bias out of it. >> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >> (actually Larrymoencurly wrote:) [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > As do you, and you need to keep your political bias out of it. Climate change is the science, global warming is the environmentalist perspective. The science of climate change includes both warming and cooling, and is a valid scientific endeavor. It is useful to know if the climate is changing, and what the causes might be. I am pretty sure that most of science believes that warming is currently the change that is taking place, and I also think that most of science believes that natural events are a bigger factor than human activity. >> I don't care whether people say "climate change" or "global warming", >> so long as they don't choose their terms for political or neurotic >> reasons, as GW Bush has in refusing to say "global warming". > Climate change is the science, global warming is the environmentalist > perspective. I thought that climate change was a process or result, while global warming is one type of climate change. But then I'm not a Marxist who sees politics in every non-political term. > The science of climate change includes both warming and cooling, and is a > valid scientific endeavor. So is science about global warming. > It is useful to know if the climate is changing, and what the causes might be. Don't be so pretentious. You just want to know whether you should wash your car or not. > I also think that most of science believes that natural events > are a bigger factor than human activity. As far as global warming goes, all of the climate scientists believe that. The controversey has been about the significance of the small contribution made by humans, and that amount of controversey has been shrinking. >>> I don't care whether people say "climate change" or "global warming", >>> so long as they don't choose their terms for political or neurotic [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > warming is one type of climate change. But then I'm not a Marxist who > sees politics in every non-political term. Global warming is the alarmist term that environmentalists put on climate change. >> The science of climate change includes both warming and cooling, and is a >> valid scientific endeavor. > > So is science about global warming. Global warming is an alarmist term that environmentalists put on climate change. >> It is useful to know if the climate is changing, and what the causes >> might be. > > Don't be so pretentious. You just want to know whether you should > wash your car or not. What? >> I also think that most of science believes that natural events >> are a bigger factor than human activity. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > contribution made by humans, and that amount of controversey has been > shrinking. It's only been shrinking if you listen to Al Gore. If you listen to almost anybody else, the controversey hasn't changed much. Now THAT is funny, you reply proves you are just one more of the kooks on the left that would rather blame President Bush than take the time to do a meaningful search to enlighten yourself of the real facts on the subject. You are free to believe whatever you choose, no mater how convoluted you logic but what you chose to believe does not make a difference in the scheme of things LOL mike >> I don't care whether people say "climate change" or "global warming", >> so long as they don't choose their terms for political or neurotic [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >> mike > When did I say that other people hadn't previously used the term? > None of the scientists and very few of the laymen concerned about man- > caused global warming have denied that global warming isn't uniform > around the world. So why are you bringing this up? > > As do you, and you need to keep your political bias out of it. > That my be your personal opinion but that is not factual.. > Environmentalists started to refer to their theory as Climate Change, long [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > long as they don't choose their terms for political or neurotic reasons, > as GW Bush has in refusing to say "global warming". LOL! I must be Neurotic then! Actually, as Jeff said quite well, Global Warming has connotations of being caused entirely by humans and their by-products. I don't really believe in Global Warming; I do think all the hydrocarbons we're throwing into the atmosphere has SOME effect, but I think what's happening now is more of a Climate Change, due more to the Natural Order of things. But, we are heading for an Ice Age! I think this is a warming before the Deep Freeze! Like the calm bewfore the storm, etc. >> That my be your personal opinion but that is not factual.. >> Environmentalists started to refer to their theory as Climate Change, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Actually, as Jeff said quite well, Global Warming has connotations of > being caused entirely by humans and their by-products. How?? It's only what *you* are attaching to the term. There is nothing in the words that connote man's influence. Cathy I don't really > believe in Global Warming; I do think all the hydrocarbons we're throwing > into the atmosphere has SOME effect, but I think what's happening now is > more of a Climate Change, due more to the Natural Order of things. > > But, we are heading for an Ice Age! I think this is a warming before the > Deep Freeze! Like the calm bewfore the storm, etc. >> LOL! I must be Neurotic then! >> Actually, as Jeff said quite well, Global Warming has connotations of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Cathy How long has the term "Global Warming" been linked with pollution? 15-20 years now? It's impossible at this point in time to unlink the two. They're conjoined twins now. And the Envirok00ks have used Global Warming to connotate 'climate change' caused by Hydrocarbons for almost as long. Don't say that *I* am attaching it to the term. It was decided long ago the two would be intertwined. Go to the Envirok00k gathering on your Town Common this Saturday...oh, never mind...they're still on the No Blood For Oil thing right now. Wait till after the troops return from Iraq and you'll see what I mean... >>> LOL! I must be Neurotic then! >>> Actually, as Jeff said quite well, Global Warming has connotations of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > caused by Hydrocarbons for almost as long. Don't say that *I* am attaching > it to the term. I actrually meant you as the singular & you as the plural. The words themselves don't have any connotations beyond "global" & "warming" - only what a person (better?) attaches to them, in his/her mind. It is understood (as scientifically as is possible at this point in time) that people contribute to the process, but how many people think human activities are the *single* influence, or even major one?? One'd have to be pretty ignorant to do so. Cathy It was decided long ago the two would be intertwined. Go > to the Envirok00k gathering on your Town Common this Saturday...oh, never > mind...they're still on the No Blood For Oil thing right now. Wait till > after the troops return from Iraq and you'll see what I mean... >> And the Envirok00ks have used Global Warming to connotate 'climate >> change' caused by Hydrocarbons for almost as long. Don't say that *I* am [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Cathy Oh, that's much different! Never mind! ;) As far as human activities being the single influence, ask the Sierra Club. Or any other group of Tree Huggers you run across. To them, ALL 'Global Warming' is human induced. >LOL! I must be Neurotic then! >Actually, as Jeff said quite well, Global Warming has connotations of >being caused entirely by humans and their by-products. >>How?? It's only what *you* are attaching to the term. There is nothing >>in the words that connote man's influence. >How long has the term "Global Warming" been linked with pollution? 15-20 >years now? >It's impossible at this point in time to unlink the two. They're conjoined twins now. Few members of the public linke global warming to existing pollution, despite some pollutants having high global warming potentials (methane, NOx). >And the Envirok00ks have used Global Warming to connotate 'climate change' >caused by Hydrocarbons for almost as long. The role of hydrocarbons has been ignored by most lay environmentalists, despite some hydrocarbons, like methane, having much higher global warming potentials per molecule than CO2, the chemical of main concern among the public for global warming. You're making a connotation that generally hasn't been associated with global warming, but if you're going to think that way, you should also associate climate change to dust and aerosol emissions that cause global cooling. ... Hachiroku ???? wrote: >On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:14:16 -0400, Cathy F. wrote: >LOL! I must be Neurotic then! >Actually, as Jeff said quite well, Global Warming has connotations of >being caused entirely by humans and their by-products. >>How?? It's only what *you* are attaching to the term. There is nothing >>in the words that connote man's influence. >How long has the term "Global Warming" been linked with pollution? 15-20 >years now? >It's impossible at this point in time to unlink the two. They're conjoined >twins now. Few members of the public linke global warming to existing pollution, despite some pollutants having high global warming potentials (methane, NOx). >And the Envirok00ks have used Global Warming to connotate 'climate change' >caused by Hydrocarbons for almost as long. The role of hydrocarbons has been ignored by most lay environmentalists, despite some hydrocarbons, like methane, having much higher global warming potentials per molecule than CO2, the chemical of main concern among the public for global warming. You're making a connotation that generally hasn't been associated with global warming, but if you're going to think that way, you should also associate climate change to dust and aerosol emissions that cause global cooling. ... _______________- I bought two packages of sweet and hot pork sausage that lasted over a week in the fridge without spoiling. The containers were moulded plastic instead of styrofoam with a soak-it-up pad, and the plastic warp was a tight thicker skin of plastic. Then I remembered there was an expose' about how some meat packers were injecting carbon monoxide into meat packaging to extend the fresh look of meats. Man, when I finally got around to cooking them, they were gooooooooood. But my breath wouldn't pass inspection ;) Hachiroku ???? wrote: >On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:14:16 -0400, Cathy F. wrote: >LOL! I must be Neurotic then! >Actually, as Jeff said quite well, Global Warming has connotations of >being caused entirely by humans and their by-products. >>How?? It's only what *you* are attaching to the term. There is nothing >>in the words that connote man's influence. >How long has the term "Global Warming" been linked with pollution? 15-20 >years now? >It's impossible at this point in time to unlink the two. They're conjoined >twins now. Few members of the public linke global warming to existing pollution, despite some pollutants having high global warming potentials (methane, NOx). >And the Envirok00ks have used Global Warming to connotate 'climate change' >caused by Hydrocarbons for almost as long. The role of hydrocarbons has been ignored by most lay environmentalists, despite some hydrocarbons, like methane, having much higher global warming potentials per molecule than CO2, the chemical of main concern among the public for global warming. You're making a connotation that generally hasn't been associated with global warming, but if you're going to think that way, you should also associate climate change to dust and aerosol emissions that cause global cooling. Which (particulates), IIRC, has been deemed responsible to the cooling of the 70's. Cathy ... > Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>And the Envirok00ks have used Global Warming to connotate 'climate change' >>>caused by Hydrocarbons for almost as long. >>The role of hydrocarbons has been ignored by most lay >>environmentalists, despite some hydrocarbons, like methane, having >>much higher global warming potentials per molecule than CO2, the >>chemical of main concern among the public for global warming. >>You're making a connotation that generally hasn't been associated with >>global warming, but if you're going to think that way, you should also >>associate climate change to dust and aerosol emissions that cause >>global cooling. >Which (particulates), IIRC, has been deemed responsible to the cooling of >the 70's. I don't know, but generally those from volcanoes, jet engines, forest fires, and industrial smoke stacks are known to cause cooling, and even dust from bomb explosions in WW II contributed to some global cooling in the 1940s. > You're making a connotation that generally hasn't been associated with > global warming, but if you're going to think that way, you should also > associate climate change to dust and aerosol emissions that cause global > cooling. Again, HUH?! The Environutz have been using Global Warming to connotate HUMAN 'contributions' to climate change for almost 2 decades!!! >How long has the term "Global Warming" been linked with pollution? 15-20 >years now? It's impossible at this point in time to unlink the two. >They're conjoined twins now. >And the Envirok00ks have used Global Warming to connotate 'climate change' >caused by Hydrocarbons for almost as long. >>The role of hydrocarbons has been ignored by most lay >>environmentalists, despite some hydrocarbons, like methane, having >>much higher global warming potentials per molecule than CO2, the >>chemical of main concern among the public for global warming. >>You're making a connotation that generally hasn't been associated with >>global warming, but if you're going to think that way, you should also >>associate climate change to dust and aerosol emissions that cause global >>cooling. >Again, HUH?! The Environutz have been using Global Warming to connotate >HUMAN 'contributions' to climate change for almost 2 decades!!! It depends on the particular environutz, as they exist on both the left and right of the political spectrum. Not all human contributions to climate change cause global warming. Some, like particulates, contribute to global cooling, a dramatic example being noticed in the few days just after the 9/11/2001 al- Qaeda attacks, when civilian air traffic in the U.S. came to a virtual halt. It's been concluded that the reduction in particulate emissions from this caused the average temperature to increase about 1 degree F during that period. >>How long has the term "Global Warming" been linked with pollution? 15-20 >>years now? It's impossible at this point in time to unlink the two. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > concluded that the reduction in particulate emissions from this caused the > average temperature to increase about 1 degree F during that period. Yup. And a good volcanic eruption causes cooling also. Scientific evidence points towards cooling of the earth (make that scientific historical evidence). But Global Warming is a term used by the k00ks to blame the climate change on the activities of man. Today on the news the first story I saw was there is going to be some kind of conference to get the government to do something about Global Warming. How the hell can the government control Global Warming?! > > Hachiroku ãƒãƒãƒã‚¯ wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > How the hell can the government control Global Warming?! It can't. All government can do is remove some of your wealth and give it to poor countries, then talk about how much it is doing for the children and hopefully get some votes in the next election. -- <..> > It can't. All government can do is remove some of your wealth and give > it to poor countries, then talk about how much it is doing for the > children and hopefully get some votes in the next election. Incorrect. The government (according the US Supreme Court, the EPA has the duty to regulate greenhouse gases) must regulate the gas, such as CO2 that cause the greenhouse effect. Jeff > must regulate the gas, such as CO2 that > cause the greenhouse effect. Except there is no proof (scientific) that CO2 "causes" the green house effect. It's starting to appear that the Green House effect causes increases in Green House gasses that unscientific sources have been stating are the cause of it. Global warming being caused by MAN is a scam, it's a natural effect of the world and the solar system, not MAN. Global warming is a money making scam. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) >> must regulate the gas, such as CO2 that cause the greenhouse effect. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Global warming is a money making scam. No, there is some truth that certain gasses can cause warming. We can all freeze, I suppose. But cows emit far more methane than anything humans could possibly do. Legislate out the coes? But. climate changes as you have described have been noticed through historical data during the entire history of the Earth. And remember: the entire Universe is trying to reach one temperature, and that temperature would be mighty cold... >> must regulate the gas, such as CO2 that >> cause the greenhouse effect. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > increases in Green House gasses that unscientific sources have been > stating are the cause of it. I would suggest reading at least the executive summary of the Intergoverment Panel on Climate Change. The greenhouse gas effect of CO2 has been know for over a hundred years. It is one of the reasons why Venus is so hot. > Global warming being caused by MAN is a scam, it's a natural effect of the > world and the solar system, not MAN. It is a natural effect of putting CO2 into the atmosphere. > Global warming is a money making scam. If it were not so serious, I would be rolling on the floor laughing right now. Jeff > The greenhouse gas effect of CO2 has been know for over a hundred years. It > is one of the reasons why Venus is so hot. Except that you nor the scientists can prove that the increase caused by MAN is increasing Global Warming. How about the idea the Global Warming increases the amount of CO2 naturally? So far, there has been NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT MAN HAS ANY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON GLOBAL WARMING. What we do know about the Global Warming fear is that a corporation that doesn't want you to know about them and their panel is making money by trying to sell a plan that does not decrease global warming, does not change anything, but it does make select people rich. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) >Except there is no proof (scientific) that CO2 "causes" the green house >effect. It's starting to appear that the Green House effect causes >increases in Green House gasses that unscientific sources have been >stating are the cause of it. In the natural cycle where carbon is kept in balance, yes, but when vast amounts of stored carbon are burned all of a sudden (in a few centuries), CO2 becomes a cause of global warming and not just an effect of it. >Global warming being caused by MAN is a scam, it's a natural effect of the >world and the solar system, not MAN. Not according to the scientists I spoke with, and it's incredible that the vast majority of climate scientists would mix up cause with effect while the fringe would get it right. >>Except there is no proof (scientific) that CO2 "causes" the green house >>effect. It's starting to appear that the Green House effect causes [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the vast majority of climate scientists would mix up cause with effect > while the fringe would get it right. The problem as I see it is there's way too many scientists. > >>Except there is no proof (scientific) that CO2 "causes" the green house > >>effect. It's starting to appear that the Green House effect causes [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > The problem as I see it is there's way too many scientists. And lawyers. -- >>>Except there is no proof (scientific) that CO2 "causes" the green house >>>effect. It's starting to appear that the Green House effect causes [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > The problem as I see it is there's way too many scientists. Before you can do something about a problem, you have to understand it. How do you suggest that we understand the problem? Jeff >> The problem as I see it is there's way too many scientists. > > Before you can do something about a problem, you have to understand it. > > How do you suggest that we understand the problem? How about starting with standard, defined, principals. A group making statements they suggest are founded in scientific fact should be able to provide those scientific facts - scientific facts are not something that can be argued, they are something that all scientists can agree on by means of testing/factual methods. Currently the only thing we have from a group of scientists is their Opinion. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) >>> The problem as I see it is there's way too many scientists. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > How about starting with standard, defined, principals. Elementary school principals, middle school principals or high school principals. I particularly respected Mr. Aikens, but I also like Mr. Wright and Mr. Castrogiovanni. Perhaps you mean principles. ;-) > A group making > statements they suggest are founded in scientific fact should be able to > provide those scientific facts - scientific facts are not something that > can be argued, they are something that all scientists can agree on by > means of testing/factual methods. You don't understand science. Anything that is considered a fact, like gravity, evolution, Newton's laws, etc., can be, in principle, disproven and argued. Not all people who call themselves scientists agree on evolution. Yet all the data are consistant with evolution. Not all scientists will agree with the findings by other scientists on climate change. Some disagree with particular parts of climate change, others will disagree with the entire idea of climate change. > Currently the only thing we have from a group of scientists is their > Opinion. No, we have data consistant with climate change, like increases in CO2 concentration, changes in the glaciers, changes in vegetation, evidence from ice cores and tree rings. In addition, the models of climate that take into account CO2 concentration are run so that they examine periods of time in the past. The models predict the same climate changes that have already been seen. http://www.thewatt.com/pics/ClimateChange.pdf So it more than opinion. Jeff > > How about starting with standard, defined, principals. > > Elementary school principals, middle school principals or high school > principals. Only evil-free, evolution-free, Christian chartered school principals. >> > How about starting with standard, defined, principals. >> >> Elementary school principals, middle school principals or high school >> principals. > > Only evil-free, evolution-free, Christian chartered school principals. Speaking of school, click on the following link and then click on the top story *A Few Days, My ....* http://www.poopreport.com/ mark_digital? wrote: > The problem as I see it is there's way too many scientists. Not in the US, where there's a shortage of scientists. That doesn't bode well for our future. > mark digital? wrote: > > > The problem as I see it is there's way too many scientists. > > Not in the US, where there's a shortage of scientists. That doesn't > bode well for our future. Hogwash. They're competing with each other for research grants. It's a dog eat dog world out there. Too many scientists which dulutes the cash barrel and maybe explains why there is such a bane of bad data and poor quality research. -- >> mark digital? wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > barrel and maybe explains why there is such a bane of bad data and poor > quality research. How about a $60,000 grant to determine that most perople put their right sock and shoe on first? I think most people put on both socks before they put on any shoe ;) mike > How about a $60,000 grant to determine that most perople put their right > sock and shoe on first? >>Except there is no proof (scientific) that CO2 "causes" the green house >>effect. It's starting to appear that the Green House effect causes [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the vast majority of climate scientists would mix up cause with effect > while the fringe would get it right. No, what's incredible is that all of those scientists, fringe or not, can't provide ANY scientific proof that proves their guesses. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) > >>Except there is no proof (scientific) that CO2 "causes" the green house > >>effect. It's starting to appear that the Green House effect causes [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > No, what's incredible is that all of those scientists, fringe or not, > can't provide ANY scientific proof that proves their guesses. It's all based on computer models, LOL. That's their form of scientific data. Garbage in garbage out. -- >> >>Except there is no proof (scientific) that CO2 "causes" the green house >> >>effect. It's starting to appear that the Green House effect causes [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > It's all based on computer models, LOL. That's their form of scientific > data. Garbage in garbage out. Yep, I agree, as it's taken this long to build reasonable models, with all of the computers, data, etc... they still can't predict what's going to happen for 10 days in any area reliably. What's sad is that people believe because a group of scientists have an "opinion" that they somehow seem blind to the fact that there is not a single repeatable fact to back the assertion that man is having a significant impact on global warming. Oh, and then you've got the idiots that equate the polluting of the ecosystem with global warming. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) >>> >>Except there is no proof (scientific) that CO2 "causes" the green >>> >>house [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > single repeatable fact to back the assertion that man is having a > significant impact on global warming. Every measurement of CO2 shows an increase of CO2 over the same values 50 years ago. > Oh, and then you've got the idiots that equate the polluting of the > ecosystem with global warmin The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is one type of pollution. It also effects the metabolism of plants. However, scientists rarely make this mistake. One mistake I wish you would stop doing is calling people names. I am not an idiot. Most people who understand that global heating is real are not idiots, either (President Bush accepts climate change). And that is true of many people who don't think global heating is not warm. Jeff >> Oh, and then you've got the idiots that equate the polluting of the >> ecosystem with global warmin [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > idiots, either (President Bush accepts climate change). And that is true of > many people who don't think global heating is not warm. Global Heat (warming) has nothing to do with the destruction of the ecosystem we see caused by many non-global warming things. Many of the global warming alramists lump the two things into the same FUD message. CO2 was in the air before man existed, levels changed before man existed, there is nothing to say that the act of global warming itself doesn't change the level of CO2 (not the the other way). People that can't provide proof, that are not idiots, don't start spreading FUD. So far the only thing that the Global Warming group has done is create a large company to get rich of the FUD they spread. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) >>> Oh, and then you've got the idiots that equate the polluting of the >>> ecosystem with global warmin [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > ecosystem we see caused by many non-global warming things. Many of the > global warming alramists lump the two things into the same FUD message. Yet scientists rarely do this. > CO2 was in the air before man existed, levels changed before man existed, > there is nothing to say that the act of global warming itself doesn't > change the level of CO2 (not the the other way). Please support your claim that global warming increases the level of CO2. Please don't tell me that I have to go and do a search on google. That's your job. And even if I find something, how do I know that is what you read? I supported my claim that there is much science to support global heating. Now it's your turn to back your claim. Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Where do you think all of the CO2 goes? > People that can't provide proof, that are not idiots, don't start > spreading FUD. So far the only thing that the Global Warming group has > done is create a large company to get rich of the FUD they spread. What is FUD? What company did they create? I want to buy stock in it. Actually, what the global warming group has done is provide much evidence to support their scientifically valid theory that global warming is caused by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere put there by human activity. They haven't proven it by any means. But they have found much evidence to support this, and very little to evidence that goes against this. Jeff >> >>Except there is no proof (scientific) that CO2 "causes" the green house >> >>effect. It's starting to appear that the Green House effect causes [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > It's all based on computer models, LOL. That's their form of scientific > data. Garbage in garbage out. What would you suggest? The computer models have been well tested. The thing is that all the computer models show similar results. The computer models are also consistant with the climate change that has been seen so far, like the shorter winters, polar warming and weather changes already being seen. Jeff > >> >>Except there is no proof (scientific) that CO2 "causes" the green house > >> >>effect. It's starting to appear that the Green House effect causes [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > The computer models have been well tested. But the information that is fed to them has not. > The thing is that all the computer models show similar results. That would be easy to do. > The computer models are also consistant with the climate change that has > been seen so far, like the shorter winters, polar warming and weather > changes already being seen. It would be easy to make computer models show that too. > Jeff To answer your other question about what to do with too many scientists, my answer would be to make it harder to become a scientist. Raise the bar and same goes for lawyers. -- >> >> >>Except there is no proof (scientific) that CO2 "causes" the green >> >> >>house [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > But the information that is fed to them has not. Can you please give some examples? >> The thing is that all the computer models show similar results. > > That would be easy to do. Really? Explain. The models are done by different groups of people using different assumptions (unfortuantely, there is not enough computer power to test all the assumptions at once), different algorithms, and possibly different data sets. >> The computer models are also consistant with the climate change that has >> been seen so far, like the shorter winters, polar warming and weather >> changes already being seen. > > It would be easy to make computer models show that too. Especially if climate change is real. It is. Ask the President. Jeff >> Jeff > > To answer your other question about what to do with too many scientists, > my answer would be to make it harder to become a scientist. Raise the > bar and same goes for lawyers. > Especially if climate change is real. It is. Ask the President. The President, like all before him, is using the information provided by his Advisors. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) >> Especially if climate change is real. It is. Ask the President. > > The President, like all before him, is using the information provided by > his Advisors. Yeah, what do you expect him to do? Go and do his own modeling? His advisors are more knowledgable than you and me put together and have access to the scientists and panels of experts, like the National Academy of Sciences. Please provide an alternative. Also, please realize that the president and vice president have deep connections to the oil industry, including the fact that Cheney was president of Haliburton before taking office. They have clearly supported the oil industry during their terms in office, like encouraging exploration of federal lands. Jeff >>> Especially if climate change is real. It is. Ask the President. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > are more knowledgable than you and me put together and have access to the > scientists and panels of experts, like the National Academy of Sciences. You suggested, in your text, that the President was some form of authority to be believed because he said there is global warming and repeats the mantra of opinion. Large groups of scientists use to say the world was flat too (without scientific proof), and only a few argued that it wasn't - and you see how that came out. > Please provide an alternative. All you have to do is google for alternatives. Just because you have 2500 Scientists giving their OPINIONS does not make them right... Don't give me that crap about you need my links - you can find your own if you're not just trolling, all you have to do is care enough to be educated. > Also, please realize that the president and vice president have deep > connections to the oil industry, including the fact that Cheney was > president of Haliburton before taking office. They have clearly supported > the oil industry during their terms in office, like encouraging exploration > of federal lands. I personally support drilling on ALL American land/property in order to lessen our need for Foreign Oil. Also please realize that zealotry and hate have nothing to do with Scientific Fact - the more you bring up non-fact based science items the less you appear to be honest. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) >>>> Especially if climate change is real. It is. Ask the President. >>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Scientific Fact - the more you bring up non-fact based science items the > less you appear to be honest. Whatever you say. The fact of the matter is that the President and Vice President are two people who have vested interests against global warming. Yet, they agree with it. And they have panels of scientists who look at the data and evidence. You have not been able to provide one link that supports your claim. Until you are able to support your claims, you're just blowing hot air. I won't waste my time with you again, until you are able to support your claim. Jeff > I won't waste my time with you again, until you are able to support your > claim. Your only time wasted is failing to understand what you don't care to hear. Your loss is in your choice to remain ignorant. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) >Also, please realize that the president and vice president have deep >connections to the oil industry, including the fact that Cheney was >president of Haliburton Your facts are wrong.... Cheney was chief executive officer SignatureScott in Florida >Really? Explain. The models are done by different groups of people using >different assumptions (unfortuantely, there is not enough computer power to >test all the assumptions at once), different algorithms, and possibly >different data sets. tell me what the temperature in Tampa Florida will be 10 days from now.... Case closed. SignatureScott in Florida >>> >> >>Except there is no proof (scientific) that CO2 "causes" the green >>> >> >>house [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > Jeff There is no doubt that the Earth is warming. This is a fact. The growing season where I live has increased by about 6 weeks, 3 on either end. The real debate here is how much of an effect Man has on Global Warming. There is also no doubt that Man does have an effect on the increase in the Earth's temperature. Think of heat escaping buildings. Most our energy is derived from heat, and all the heat generated is not converted to energy. Out of the energy generated a lot of it comes from burning an energy source, such as coal, oil, wood, and there is also the heat generated by nucular ( ;) ) power plants. We ALL know not all that heat is converted to energy; otherwise there would be no need for the cooling towers. The real concern here should be, how much of the climate change is brought about by Man, and how much is provided by the Natural Order of things? My bet is that Natural Order is playing much more of a role than is commonly acknowledged. The Organization of Concerned Scientists would have you believe that most of the warming is caused by the activity of Man, while most Geologists will tell you the Earth has natural warming and cooling cycles, and what is happening now is more of a result of this natural cycle. There is also a theory that has been backed up by the study of ice cores from the poles that says there is a warming trend prior to a Deep Freeze. This is my belief: That we are headed for a deep freeze, and this is the "Calm before the storm". Historical Geology backs this up. We won't see the Ice Age in our lifetimes, but perhaps our children's children's children will see the dawn of a new Ice Age. I wish I could be around to see if this is indeed the fact I believe it is. Point me to the Fountain of Youth, please. Oh, and as a side note, perhaps, if Global Warming *is* caused by the activities of Man, that this is a Good Thing! <...> > There is no doubt that the Earth is warming. This is a fact. The growing > season where I live has increased by about 6 weeks, 3 on either end. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > cycles, and what is happening now is more of a result of this natural > cycle. Cite, please. > There is also a theory that has been backed up by the study of ice > cores from the poles that says there is a warming trend prior to a Deep [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > see if this is indeed the fact I believe it is. Point me to the Fountain > of Youth, please. ROTFL. > Oh, and as a side note, perhaps, if Global Warming *is* caused by the > activities of Man, that this is a Good Thing! Yeah, the seas rising, climate change, as in different regions of the globe getting different amounts of rain, etc. Many people in Africa won't be complaining about the lack of crops from a lack of rain. They'll be too dead to complain. Jeff Rising oceans? Really? There is a mark on the rocks in Antarctica, that was placed by Admiral Bird, that is eighteen inches above the tide line today. LOL mike >> There is also a theory that has been backed up by the study of ice >> cores from the poles that says there is a warming trend prior to a Deep [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Jeff Well DUH!. The iceberg is lighter today because it has melted. Wait, the ice cubes sink as then melt, don't they ... > Rising oceans? Really? There is a mark on the rocks in Antarctica, that > was placed by Admiral Bird, that is eighteen inches above the tide line [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> >> Jeff The mass of most glaciers is on the land, practically in the Arctic. How does that equate to alleged higher sea levels, the environuts would have us believe HAS been occurring for 100 years or more, as a result of man activities? The temperature above the Artic circle rarely goes much below freezing in summer and averages more than 100 degrees below zero in winter. In Antarctica the temperatures are even more extreme, as much as 175 degrees below zero according the US Navy records ;) mike > Well DUH!. The iceberg is lighter today because it has melted. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> mike > The mass of most glaciers is on the land, practically in the Arctic. How > does that equate to alleged higher sea levels, the environuts would have us [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > In Antarctica the temperatures are even more extreme, as much as 175 degrees > below zero according the US Navy records Did you notice that he won't answer the statement about CO2 levels changing before MAN was even involved on the planet? SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) >> The mass of most glaciers is on the land, practically in the Arctic. >> How does that equate to alleged higher sea levels, the environuts would [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Did you notice that he won't answer the statement about CO2 levels > changing before MAN was even involved on the planet? Ice studies indicate the level of CO2 has fluctuated widely in the past. There are several causes of this, the major one being Forest Fires. Before man came along, forests would burn wholesale. This releases massive amounts of CO2 and greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Funny thing is, after large amounts of CO2 have been released into the atmosphere in the past, there was usually a cooling of the Earth's temperature. > Funny thing is, after large amounts of CO2 have been released into the > atmosphere in the past, there was usually a cooling of the Earth's > temperature. Don't tell Jeff that, it will mean he'll have to give up all the hate he's stored for the people that drive SUV's. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) >> Funny thing is, after large amounts of CO2 have been released into the >> atmosphere in the past, there was usually a cooling of the Earth's >> temperature. > > Don't tell Jeff that, it will mean he'll have to give up all the hate he's > stored for the people that drive SUV's. Unlike mine, which is based on how they *drive*! >>> Funny thing is, after large amounts of CO2 have been released into the >>> atmosphere in the past, there was usually a cooling of the Earth's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Unlike mine, which is based on how they *drive*! I don't hate anyone, except, although I am not that found of the guy who lives in the White House. jeff >>>> Funny thing is, after large amounts of CO2 have been released into the >>>> atmosphere in the past, there was usually a cooling of the Earth's [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > jeff (I think I could agree on that one...well, I don't *hate* him, but since 2006 I have been cheering: "Two More Years! Two More Years!") >>> The mass of most glaciers is on the land, practically in the Arctic. >>> How does that equate to alleged higher sea levels, the environuts would [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > atmosphere in the past, there was usually a cooling of the Earth's > temperature. Just a reminder; Large pools of surface crude tar (solid, liquid, gaseous) could catch on fire too, so this idea that forest fires were the major culprit is not necessarily set in stone. Hmmm... Natural surface crude fires of long ago. Internal combustion today. Do we have a match? Say it ain't so, please! We love our vehicles too much and there's no viable alternative solution in place yet. >>>> The mass of most glaciers is on the land, practically in the Arctic. >>>> How does that equate to alleged higher sea levels, the environuts [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Say it ain't so, please! We love our vehicles too much and there's no > viable alternative solution in place yet. Check the new thread I started last night. There are links to a couple of excellent articles with charts and graphs. Could be I was wrong? I'll have to look again, it was around midnight and I wasn't too sharp. It could be that an increase in CO2, by itself, leads to warming. The problem is, usually when there is an increase of CO2, there is also usually an increase in particulates, and these filter out the sun and cause cooling. Look what Krakatoa and Pompeii did! > The mass of most glaciers is on the land, practically in the Arctic. How > does that equate to alleged higher sea levels, the environuts would have > us believe HAS been occurring for 100 years or more, as a result of man > activities? "man activities?' Like what? Watching races and football? If you recall, when ice melts in water, it does not raise the level of the water. However, when ice melts on land, almost all the water from the ice ends up in the oceans, either by evaporation followed by percepitation or through streams and rivers. > The temperature above the Artic circle rarely goes much below freezing > in summer and averages more than 100 degrees below zero in winter. And when the water is above freezing in the summer (after all, you say it rarely goes below freezing), the ice slow melts. In addition, the ice flows, like a river. Believe it or not, but the ice in the artic and antartic is melting: http://climateprogress.org/2006/12/26/the-war-on-santa-claus-and-superman/ You can find similar pictutes and information that show that the ice in the artic is melting, the glaciers in the Alps are melting, and the ice and permafrost are melting in Northern Russia. > In Antarctica the temperatures are even more extreme, as much as 175 > degrees below zero according the US Navy records ;) Yet it melting, too: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1429905.htm Jeff > mike > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>> >>> mike How much ice can we expect to melt at temperatures at 100 degrees below zero LOL mike >> The mass of most glaciers is on the land, practically in the Arctic. How >> does that equate to alleged higher sea levels, the environuts would have >> us believe HAS been occurring for 100 years or more, as a result of man >> activities? > Believe it or not, but the ice in the artic and antartic is melting: > http://climateprogress.org/2006/12/26/the-war-on-santa-claus-and-superman/ [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Jeff > The mass of most glaciers is on the land, practically in the Arctic. How > does that equate to alleged higher sea levels, the environuts would have us [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > In Antarctica the temperatures are even more extreme, as much as 175 degrees > below zero according the US Navy records ;) The Guiness Book says the record cold surface temp recorded in Antarctica is -126.9F, at Vostok in 1960, and ThePoles.com says the Arctic's record low is -90.4C (-68C). > <...> > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Cite, please. As I told someone, perhaps you, buy a Geology book. It's all in there. It took me years to amass the knowledge I have about Geology...years and a few thousand dollars. I'm giving you the benefit of what I spent money and a large chunk of time to learn. As a matter of fact, I ought to be charging you a Consulting Fee... >> There is also a theory that has been backed up by the study of ice cores >> from the poles that says there is a warming trend prior to a Deep [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > ROTFL. I hear it's in Florida. Maybe Scott knows... >> Oh, and as a side note, perhaps, if Global Warming *is* caused by the >> activities of Man, that this is a Good Thing! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Jeff It has happened before. Also, make a note of this. If you're at all familiar with the concept of Continental Drift, then you know the tectonic plates are constantly shifting and is the cause of earthquakes, tidal waves, volcanoes etc, etc. As one porfessor used to say, "California is NOT falling into the ocean!!!" "It's moving to Alaska..." It is, too. Another direct effect of Continental Drift is Hawaii. Know how the Hawaiian islands are formed? There is a hot spot under the largest island that is causing the volcanic activity. As the plate slides over the hot spot, more and more land mass is formed as a result of volcanis activity. The older islands move with the Pacific plate, and begin to 'sink' as they move away from the hot spot. Look at a map of Hawaii and you'll get a good idea of the direction of plate movement. So, let's say the forces causing global warming are as inevitable as Plate Tectonics. How can you stop Plate Techtonics? The Continental plates ARE smashing into each other even as I type this. It's going to cause massive death, destruction, movements of the oceans, loss of land mass, etc. Why isn't anyone srying about this? And what makes anyone think global warming can be stopped? It's just about as likely to be stopped as Plate Techtonics. So humans will have to do what they have done iin the past during cataclysmic events: they will adapt, they will move where they need to according to conditions, and regroup. Granted, the Cave Men (sorry, Geico guys) didn't really have a clue as to why they had to move, they just did. Modern man should be a little smarter about it. Rising waters can be dealt with. Will Manhattan exists in the future? Perhaps not. Will a new land mass emerge? Perhaps. Will man adapt? I would hope, certainly. The interesting thing is the loss of Nationality! Let's follow this scenario: global warming heats the Earth so much that the entire Arctic and Antarctic cirlce ice masses disappear. The coasts shrink. Due to the heating of the planet, people are forced to move further north above the Equator and further south below. What happens to Canada? Guess we'd all better learn to live together at some point. Likewise, what happens if there is enough global cooling to cause another Ice Age? And, bear this in mind, too: the North and South poles have shifted many times and thousands of miles over the last few million years. Perhaps this is happenening again? >> <...> >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > few thousand dollars. I'm giving you the benefit of what I spent money and > a large chunk of time to learn. In other words, you can't support your claims. > As a matter of fact, I ought to be charging you a Consulting Fee... ROFL >>> There is also a theory that has been backed up by the study of ice cores >>> from the poles that says there is a warming trend prior to a Deep [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > waves, volcanoes etc, etc. As one porfessor used to say, "California is > NOT falling into the ocean!!!" Over millions of years. I will be dust long before. > "It's moving to Alaska..." > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > So, let's say the forces causing global warming are as inevitable as Plate > Tectonics. Man is causing global warming. Man does not cause plate techtonics. > How can you stop Plate Techtonics? The Continental plates ARE > smashing into each other even as I type this. It's going to cause massive > death, destruction, movements of the oceans, loss of land mass, etc. So let's just cause more death. ;-) > Why isn't anyone srying about this? And what makes anyone think global > warming can be stopped? It's just about as likely to be stopped as Plate > Techtonics. The fact that man is causing global warming and man can at least slow down the rate. As technology develops, man should be able to sequester the CO2, as well. > So humans will have to do what they have done iin the past during > cataclysmic events: they will adapt, they will move where they need to > according to conditions, and regroup. Granted, the Cave Men (sorry, Geico > guys) didn't really have a clue as to why they had to move, they just did. Or, the people who were in the wrong place just died. Like the people in 3rd world countries who just poop to death from diarrhea. > Modern man should be a little smarter about it. Rising waters can be dealt > with. Will Manhattan exists in the future? Perhaps not. Will a new land > mass emerge? Perhaps. Will man adapt? I would hope, certainly. Life will continue. Whether man will be part of that life is not yet known. > The interesting thing is the loss of Nationality! Let's follow this > scenario: global warming heats the Earth so much that the entire Arctic > and Antarctic cirlce ice masses disappear. The coasts shrink. Due to the > heating of the planet, people are forced to move further north above the > Equator and further south below. Why? > What happens to Canada? Guess we'd all better learn to live together at > some point. Canada would be a bit smaller. A lot of other countries have a lot more land to lose (as a percentage of total land) because so much more of it is close to sea level. > Likewise, what happens if there is enough global cooling to cause another > Ice Age? There will be another ice age. > And, bear this in mind, too: the North and South poles have shifted many > times and thousands of miles over the last few million years. Perhaps this > is happenening again? And this is related to global warming how? Jeff > The fact that man is causing global warming and man can at least slow down > the rate. As technology develops, man should be able to sequester the CO2, > as well. LOL, like Flash Gordon did in the movies, Al Gore will invent a super gizmo that will remove CO2 and yet the earth will still warm, next Al Gore will require that all humans be killed to save the planet, and yet the earth will still warm.... It's a NATURAL CYCLE that man has no measurable impact on. Oh, and I still think it's funny that you don't care about the truth enought to look for it, that you would rather be a follower than informed. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) >> The fact that man is causing global warming and man can at least slow >> down [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Oh, and I still think it's funny that you don't care about the truth > enought to look for it, that you would rather be a follower than informed. One could easily say the same thing re: you. Cathy >>> The fact that man is causing global warming and man can at least slow >>> down [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Cathy Cathy, I've never failed to review sites, never failed to look at all sides, even those that I know contradict my current position, and when I've presented with something that contradicts my own information, what I believe is a fact, I always take another look, many times. So, you can't say the same about me - I'm not the one saying "I'm not going to look". Oh, and your news reader is broken, a proper usenet interface strips signture lines when you reply. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) >>>> The fact that man is causing global warming and man can at least slow >>>> down [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> >> One could easily say the same thing re: you. > Cathy, I've never failed to review sites, never failed to look at all > sides, even those that I know contradict my current position, and when > I've presented with something that contradicts my own information, what I > believe is a fact, I always take another look, many times. If you say so... > So, you can't say the same about me - I'm not the one saying "I'm not > going to look". > > Oh, and your news reader is broken, a proper usenet interface strips > signture lines when you reply. Here you go... happier? Cathy >>> <...> >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > In other words, you can't support your claims. Well WTF do you want?! Do your own research! I'm not here to spoon feed you! >> As a matter of fact, I ought to be charging you a Consulting Fee... > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Over millions of years. Actually, over the course of 20,000 years or less. There is an Ice Age every 10-12,000 years, and as few as 8,000 and as much as 15,000. The last one was just over 10,000 years ago. And, since changes take so long to happen, it is quite plausible that we are experiencing the beginning of an Ice Age, and that is why the climate is going haywire. > I will be dust long before. Yes, you will... >> "It's moving to Alaska..." >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Man is causing global warming. Man does not cause plate techtonics. OK, smart a.s. Prove it. Your turn. There is NOTHING in emperical data to suggest Man has any more effect on the changing of the climate than just the natural order of things. It's time for a change, and from what I know, I believe the change is starting. With little effect by man. You fail to see the overall picture: the Earth, the Solar Syatem, and the Universe have been changing for billions of years. The effect of man in the Grand Scheme amounts to a hair on a pimple on a gnat's a.s. >> How can you stop Plate Techtonics? The Continental plates ARE smashing >> into each other even as I type this. It's going to cause massive death, >> destruction, movements of the oceans, loss of land mass, etc. > > So let's just cause more death. ;-) There is nothing that can be done. >> Why isn't anyone srying about this? And what makes anyone think global >> warming can be stopped? It's just about as likely to be stopped as Plate [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the rate. As technology develops, man should be able to sequester the CO2, > as well. Man is not causing Global Warming. >> So humans will have to do what they have done iin the past during >> cataclysmic events: they will adapt, they will move where they need to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Or, the people who were in the wrong place just died. Like the people in > 3rd world countries who just poop to death from diarrhea. That's quite a bit different. That can be changed by throwing money at it, and making sure the money gets used for what it's supposed to and not ending up in the hands of men like Saddam Hussein. >> Modern man should be a little smarter about it. Rising waters can be >> dealt with. Will Manhattan exists in the future? Perhaps not. Will a new >> land mass emerge? Perhaps. Will man adapt? I would hope, certainly. > > Life will continue. Whether man will be part of that life is not yet > known. I think we're sophisticated enough to fend for ourselves. At this point it would take a true global catastrophe to wipe man out. Like the meteor that wiped the dinosaurs. And if something like that happens, no one will know the difference. >> The interesting thing is the loss of Nationality! Let's follow this >> scenario: global warming heats the Earth so much that the entire Arctic [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > And this is related to global warming how? Not very hard to figure out. > Jeff > >>> <...> > >>> [quoted text clipped - 179 lines] > > > Jeff Nobody has never answered my question that I posted a long time ago. Was the earth warm or cold 4 billion years ago. -- > Was the earth warm or cold 4 billion years ago. Both. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) > Nobody has never answered my question that I posted a long time ago. > Was the earth warm or cold 4 billion years ago. Ask those who think carbon dating is an exact science. Signature"Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the liberal, who wishes to replace them with others." ~ Ambrose Bierce, The Devils Dictionary >> Nobody has never answered my question that I posted a long time ago. >> Was the earth warm or cold 4 billion years ago. > > Ask those who think carbon dating is an exact science. Yea, I didn't think he would understand the answer "Both" that I provided earlier. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) > >> Nobody has never answered my question that I posted a long time ago. > >> Was the earth warm or cold 4 billion years ago. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yea, I didn't think he would understand the answer "Both" that I provided > earlier. It was directed at the global warming crowd. None of those have ever responded. They know what my next question would be. -- >> > "Hachiroku ãããã¯" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in >> > message news:wvPUh.2470$F32.1406@trndny02... [quoted text clipped - 189 lines] > Nobody has never answered my question that I posted a long time ago. Was > the earth warm or cold 4 billion years ago. Considering that the trend is that the Earth has been cooling ever since it's creation, I would say warmer...as a guess. Beginning with the Big Bang, the Universe was created. Or so they tell us. I think it's more like Mass was created. As the spinning and swirling from the Big Bang reached outwards, mass began attracting mass and planets, solar systems and suns began to form. Everything in the universe is trying to reach the same tmperature. We know from space exploration that the vacuum of space is cold, so the safe guess is that 4 billion years ago the Earth was much warmer than it is now. >> >> And, bear this in mind, too: the North and South poles have shifted >> >> many times and thousands of miles over the last few million years. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Nobody has never answered my question that I posted a long time ago. Was > the earth warm or cold 4 billion years ago. Here: http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2004/june2/lowegeo-62.html Amazing how much I remember after 30 years... The fact remains that when the criteria of the programs used in those computer models do not even 'find' the last ice age when use to look backward, as paleontologist and paleo-climatologists have pointed out. ;) mike >> It's all based on computer models, LOL. That's their form of scientific >> data. Garbage in garbage out. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Jeff >>>Except there is no proof (scientific) that CO2 "causes" the green house >>>effect. It's starting to appear that the Green House effect causes [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > No, what's incredible is that all of those scientists, fringe or not, > can't provide ANY scientific proof that proves their guesses. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=climate+change&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://books.nap.edu//html/climatechange/ You said you wanted to be well-informed. here is a chance. Jeff >>>>Except there is no proof (scientific) that CO2 "causes" the green house >>>>effect. It's starting to appear that the Green House effect causes [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Jeff Unlike you, I've ready many sides to this issue, ready what many people conisder well reasoned, and I've yet to see anything that provides a factual base that clearly identifies MAN as a significant cause of global WARMING. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) >>>>>Except there is no proof (scientific) that CO2 "causes" the green house >>>>>effect. It's starting to appear that the Green House effect causes [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Unlike you, I've ready many sides to this issue, And you are able to read my mind? I have read many sides to the issues, as well. > ready what many people > conisder well reasoned, and I've yet to see anything that provides a > factual base that clearly identifies MAN as a significant cause of global > WARMING. Well, then, we will have to disagree on this. I have read hundreds of reports on global warming. Man is clearly causing an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels. And this increase in CO2, IMHO as well as that of scientists who understand global warming far better than you (obviously) or I, have concluded that the glacier melting at the poles, the vegetation changes seen, the change in seasons seen (spring coming early, and winter later, e.g.), are caused by global warming. That's my opinion, the opinion of President Bush and the opinion of thousands of climate scientists who worked for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. You have provided no evidence that all these people are incorrect. Jeff > Well, then, we will have to disagree on this. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > seasons seen (spring coming early, and winter later, e.g.), are caused by > global warming. Actually, we only disagree on the impact that MAN is having. I agree in Global Warming, that it's happening, that it will continue to happen. I do not agree or believe that MAN is having any significant impact on Global Warming. As for all of those scientists - how about the entire worlds scientists that use to say that the Earth was the center of the galaxy, that the Sun revolved around the Earth, that the Earth was flat - only a few opposed those views in those days. After scientific fact entered we learned that the earth was not flat, that the Earth revolved around the sun and that the earth was not the center of the universe... If you never understand the difference between scientific fact and opinion you will never know the truth - you are being dragged around by your ignorance. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) > As for all of those scientists - how about the entire world's scientists > that use to say that the Earth was the center of the galaxy, that the > Sun revolved around the Earth, that the Earth was flat - only a few > opposed those views in those days. And why did the opposition's theories become the mainstream's? Hint: It wasn't because political and religious leaders urged reform. >> As for all of those scientists - how about the entire world's scientists >> that use to say that the Earth was the center of the galaxy, that the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And why did the opposition's theories become the mainstream's? Hint: > It wasn't because political and religious leaders urged reform. It was because they were proven. I'm still waiting for the PROOF that MAN is the significant cause of Global Warming. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) >Not according to the scientists I spoke with Name them..... SignatureScott in Florida Leythos wrote: >>>Global warming being caused by MAN is a scam, it's a natural effect of the >>>world and the solar system, not MAN. >>Not according to the scientists I spoke with >Name them..... Krish, Robert, and Tan. NOT so. The historical record shows the numerous increases in CO2, over several different periods of time in the past and long before man appeared on the planet followed the temperature increase, not the other way around. Expand you sources of information on the subject, WBMA mike >>Except there is no proof (scientific) that CO2 "causes" the green house >>effect. It's starting to appear that the Green House effect causes [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > centuries), CO2 becomes a cause of global warming and not just an > effect of it. ><..> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Jeff That just shows you how stupid liberals are....appoint them to the Supreme Court and they go KooK..... SignatureScott in Florida <...> >>Incorrect. The government (according the US Supreme Court, the EPA has the >>duty to regulate greenhouse gases) must regulate the gas, such as CO2 that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That just shows you how stupid liberals are....appoint them to the > Supreme Court and they go KooK..... Of the ten living justices, eight were nominated by Presidents Bush, Bush, Ford or Reagan and two by Clinton. That means that three of the five justices who voted to require the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases were nominated by Republicans and only two by Democrats. Jeff PS, I know one of the living justices, Sandra Day O-Connor resigned and is no longer on the Supreme Court, so there are only nine sitting justices. > <..> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Jeff That might be the case Jeff, but it can't change global warming. I stand by my remark. -- >> <..> >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > That might be the case Jeff, but it can't change global warming. I > stand by my remark. Yet, as the US and other countries reduce their greenhouse gases, the rate of increase of CO2 concentration will slow as well the rate of global heating. It is going to take decades until fossil fuel use no longer increases CO2 concentration. There are two extremes of behavior: Decrease the CO2 concentration back to baseline or let the economy spew out as much CO2 as it wants. With the former, the greenhouse effect will be reversed. With the later, the greenhouse effect and global heating will continue unabated and the earth will get warmer and warmer with more enviornmental damage. The choice is ours. Even Bush says global heating is real and caused by man and it is time to start doing something about it. Jeff All of a sudden the kooks are agreeing with our President who earned a degree from Yale and a Masters from Harvard, that they have been trying for six years to convince the world is a moron and a liar. I guess even someone with whom they disagree, says something with which the kooks agree they are magically transformed from one they once wanted us to believe was a moron and a liar into an intellectual giant, in their minds. Don't you just love it? LOL mike > "dbu.," <question*mark@einp.com> wrote in message <snip> > The choice is ours. Even Bush says global heating is real and caused by > man and it is time to start doing something about it. > > Jeff >>> <..> >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > greenhouse effect and global heating will continue unabated and the earth > will get warmer and warmer with more enviornmental damage. Interesting. Remember in the late 50's and early 60's when emissions of particulate were causing all the Concerned Scientists to predict Global Cooling, rather than warming? > The choice is ours. Even Bush says global heating is real and caused by > man and it is time to start doing something about it. > > Jeff >> -- >> It can't. All government can do is remove some of your wealth and give >> it to poor countries, then talk about how much it is doing for the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Jeff Well, this is true. So, our government regulates the hell out of emissions. SO tight that a lot of indursties have to close their doors here and have their manufacturing done overseas (this has happened already, BTW). So, the current Hot Spot is China. They contract with a company in China to do their manufacturing, and the Chinese start cranking away. Thanks to the Kyoto Agreement (Which, you will remember GHW Bush refused to even consider), China is a 3rd World, 'emerging' nation, and therefore can not only spew into the atmoshpere what the American manufacturer would have, but MORE...MUCH MORE!!! Sooner or later, this all evens out across the globe. So, WHAT good does it do to have the US Government restrict the output of Greenhouse Gasses, again? >>> It can't. All government can do is remove some of your wealth and give >>> it to poor countries, then talk about how much it is doing for the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > So, WHAT good does it do to have the US Government restrict the output of > Greenhouse Gasses, again? It is going to take more than just the US restricting the output of the greenhouse gases. It has to be a global effort. And the Interngovernmental Panel on Climate Change is providing us with lots of information about global heating; different governments and international organizations, including the US, are working to decrease greenhouse gases. Jeff > And the Interngovernmental > Panel on Climate Change is providing us with lots of information about > global heating; different governments and international organizations, > including the US, are working to decrease greenhouse gases. And what about the alternative scientific path that believes that Green House gasses increase as part of the natural global warming phase that man has nothing to do with? Gas levels increase as a RESULT OF global warming, Global Warming does not increase as a result of increasing Green House gases. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) >> And the Interngovernmental >> Panel on Climate Change is providing us with lots of information about [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Global Warming does not increase as a result of increasing Green House > gases. How about some references or web sites that back this "alternative scientific path?" Considering that we can determine how many tons of carbon dioxide we are putting into the air each year, and the number of is consistant with the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide, this path seems far-fetched, but I woud like to see some references, notheless. Jeff >>> And the Interngovernmental >>> Panel on Climate Change is providing us with lots of information about [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide, this path seems far-fetched, but I woud > like to see some references, notheless. Google is your friend - search for it. I don't have the links, it's been a couple months since I read about this view. Have you dismissed the facts of the Solar impact on global warming? The impact that the globe changes temperature naturally? SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) >>>> And the Interngovernmental >>>> Panel on Climate Change is providing us with lots of information about [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Google is your friend - search for it. I don't have the links, it's been a > couple months since I read about this view. In other words, you can't support your claim. Your claim is effectively withdrawn. It is up to you to support your clain, not I. > Have you dismissed the facts of the Solar impact on global warming? The > impact that the globe changes temperature naturally? I imagine if the sun impacted the Earth, there would be quit a bit of warming. The scientists who wrote the report for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did take these factors into account. http://www.ipcc.ch/ - The report for policy makers (there is a link on the right under the map of Earth) should have more details. Jeff >>>>> And the Interngovernmental >>>>> Panel on Climate Change is providing us with lots of information about [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > It is up to you to support your clain, not I. That's how I thought you would reply - you don't want to know the truth, only what you want things to be. People like you always reply the way you did and they remain ignorant and unable to actually learn. I just presented what I had learned - I didn't ask you for anything. If you are not smart enough to learn on your own, if you must be spoon-fed all your knowledge, well, I feel sorry for you. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) >>>>>> And the Interngovernmental >>>>>> Panel on Climate Change is providing us with lots of information [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > only what you want things to be. People like you always reply the way you > did and they remain ignorant and unable to actually learn. ROTFL. > I just presented what I had learned - I didn't ask you for anything. If > you are not smart enough to learn on your own, if you must be spoon-fed > all your knowledge, well, I feel sorry for you. I don't need to be spoon-fed my knowledge. However, I am not going to waste my time trying to back the claims of someone who has a claim that he calls an "alternative scientific path." You loose. Jeff > I don't need to be spoon-fed my knowledge. However, I am not going to waste > my time trying to back the claims of someone who has a claim that he calls > an "alternative scientific path." > > You loose. Actually, by all standards, you just prove that you loose - you lost integrity, knowledge, ability to see, etc... If you wish to remain blindly ignorant that's your call. SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) >>>>>> And the Interngovernmental >>>>>> Panel on Climate Change is providing us with lots of information about [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >you are not smart enough to learn on your own, if you must be spoon-fed >all your knowledge, well, I feel sorry for you. That is the way of the Left....worldwide.... SignatureScott in Florida >>> <..> >>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Jeff So, how long is the Kyoto Accord in effect? I remember here in my home town and across Mass there was an outcry from the EcoNutz when Bush I refused to have anything to do with Kyoto. There were protests with people dressed up as Bush as the Grim Reaper, signs, protest songs, yada yada yada. Guess they didn't read the Accord. "Emerging Nations" don't have to comply to anything! Industrialized nations were the ones paying the heavy price, and Bush saw that. <...> > So, how long is the Kyoto Accord in effect? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to anything! Industrialized nations were the ones paying the heavy price, > and Bush saw that. Industrialized nations have also put out something like 95% of the CO2 that has been added to the atmosphere in the last 100 years or so. Please suggest a better alternative. How about keeping the poor nations poor forever? >Industrialized nations have also put out something like 95% of the CO2 that >has been added to the atmosphere in the last 100 years or so. cite..... SignatureScott in Florida >>Industrialized nations have also put out something like 95% of the CO2 >>that >>has been added to the atmosphere in the last 100 years or so. > > cite..... I am unable to to support my number. I withdraw my comment. However, industrialized nations produce far more carbdon dioxide than developing nations. http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=FB0F13FF35540C728CDDAD08 94DF404482 http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/national_carbon_dioxide_co2_emissions_per_capita Jeff >>>Industrialized nations have also put out something like 95% of the CO2 >>>that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/national_carbon_dioxide_co2_emissions_per_capitai Your first cite is the New York Times that requires sign up. Not only is NYT a lousy source.....I am NOT going to sign up to get their drivel. Your second cite is the United Nations. Now that is NOT a credible source for anything... >Jeff SignatureScott in Florida >>>>Industrialized nations have also put out something like 95% of the CO2 >>>>that [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Now that is NOT a credible source for anything... Two of the best sources for Anti-USA data ever incorporated! >>>Industrialized nations have also put out something like 95% of the CO2 >>>that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > However, industrialized nations produce far more carbdon dioxide than > developing nations. So why don't you also admit that it's been proven that CO2 levels changed before MAN was around? SignatureLeythos spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) > <...> > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Please suggest a better alternative. How about keeping the poor nations > poor forever? How about making ALL nations follow the same set of rules? China, some nations in South America and Eastern Europe all have provisions for burning High-Sulfer coal and oil. Why not make them become environmentally responsible right off the bat? That's why Bush shunned the Kyoto Accord. It gave an unfair advantage to certain nations (The Chinese and Eastern Bloc countries) when it would have been very easy for them to develop good enviromental habits right from the start. Duh" The Kyoto Accord was nixed in the US Congress long before President Bush was elected. Do a search and you will discover the Kyoto Accord was not submitted to the Senate for ratification by President Clinton because he know it did not stand a chance of being ratified. mike >> Please suggest a better alternative. How about keeping the poor nations >> poor forever? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > have been very easy for them to develop good enviromental habits right > from the start. > Duh" The Kyoto Accord was nixed in the US Congress long before President > Bush was elected. Do a search and you will discover the Kyoto Accord was > not submitted to the Senate for ratification by President Clinton because > he know it did not stand a chance of being ratified. > > mike I *MEANT* Bush I, not GWB. George HW was the one that nixed the Kyoto Agreement. Billy had nothing to do with it. It was already off the table by the time he got elected. >>> Please suggest a better alternative. How about keeping the poor nations >>> poor forever? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> have been very easy for them to develop good enviromental habits right >> from the start. Better so more reasearch if that is what you believe. After two and a half years of intense negotiations, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted at COP 3 in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997. mike >> Duh" The Kyoto Accord was nixed in the US Congress long before President >> Bush was elected. Do a search and you will discover the Kyoto Accord was [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >>> have been very easy for them to develop good enviromental habits right >>> from the start. > Better so more reasearch if that is what you believe. After two and a > half years of intense negotiations, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted at COP > 3 in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997. > > mike Adopted by the US? Then it wasn't Bush who agreed to it. It was The Idiot. Bush knew better than to Hamstring the US that way. >>> Duh" The Kyoto Accord was nixed in the US Congress long before >>> President Bush was elected. Do a search and you will discover the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >>>> would have been very easy for them to develop good enviromental habits >>>> right from the start. >But Global Warming is a term used by the k00ks to blame the climate change >on the activities of man. You've reading far too much into the terminology and finding nonexistent conspiracies. >Today on the news the first story I saw was there is going to >be some kind of conference to get the government to do >something about Global Warming. >How the hell can the government control Global Warming?! Taxation or restriction of global warming gases if the problem is manmade, or if it's entirely natural, alter the weather or deploy solar reflectors around the polar regions or in space. >>But Global Warming is a term used by the k00ks to blame the climate >>change on the activities of man. > > You've reading far too much into the terminology and finding nonexistent > conspiracies. Um, not really. Global Warming has become a battle cry for the envirok00ks. >>Today on the news the first story I saw was there is going to be some >>kind of conference to get the government to do something about Global [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > or if it's entirely natural, alter the weather or deploy solar reflectors > around the polar regions or in space. The polar regions already have solar deflectors. It's called Snow. >>>But Global Warming is a term used by the k00ks to blame the climate >>>change on the activities of man. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > The polar regions already have solar deflectors. It's called Snow. Are these solar deflectors increasing or decreasing in size? >>>>But Global Warming is a term used by the k00ks to blame the climate >>>>change on the activities of man. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Are these solar deflectors increasing or decreasing in size? They are decreasing, as they have done many times in the past. I should have bookmarked it. I found an EXCELLENT article on reading ice cores and what they can tell us about the past. It must have been written by a Conservative scientist(s), since there was a definite lack of Alarmist k00kiness about it. It was strictly business. >But Global Warming is a term used by the k00ks to blame the climate >change on the activities of man. >>You've reading far too much into the terminology and finding nonexistent >>conspiracies. >Um, not really. Global Warming has become a battle cry for the envirok00ks. I use the generic version, spelled without capital letters. It's scientific, descriptive, and apolitical. >>>Today on the news the first story I saw was there is going to be some >>>kind of conference to get the government to do something about Global >>>Warming. >How the hell can the government control Global Warming?! > >>Taxation or restriction of global warming gases if the problem is manmade, >>or if it's entirely natural, alter the weather or deploy solar reflectors >>around the polar regions or in space. >The polar regions already have solar deflectors. It's called Snow. The shrinking amount of snow there may not reflect an adequate amount of sunlight to prevent excessive global warming >>But Global Warming is a term used by the k00ks to blame the climate >>change on the activities of man. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > The shrinking amount of snow there may not reflect an adequate amount of > sunlight to prevent excessive global warming Did you have a look at the other new thread I created? i have links to some articlea and charts and graphs that support what I'm saying. In fact, before the last Ice Age, the global temperature spiked even higher than it is now, right before the start of the glacial period. I believe there is far more going on here than the Ecok00ks would have you believe... > How long has the term "Global Warming" been linked with pollution? 15-20 > years now? It's impossible at this point in time to unlink the two. > They're conjoined twins now. My first reaction to the Supreme Court's decision on carbon dioxide was favorable. But the more I thought about it and how this decision could be used against the common man sometime in the future, (i.e. population control, eliminate old folks), the more I dislike the decision. Can our constitution withstand an assault on the population? Give the judicial branch enough time and they'll twist anything in their favor. >>> That my be your personal opinion but that is not factual.. >>> Environmentalists started to refer to their theory as Climate Change, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Cathy Global Warming is an alarmist term that was coined by the environmental lobby. Its very use infers humans are the root cause of all that is evil in the environment. >>>> That my be your personal opinion but that is not factual.. >>>> Environmentalists started to refer to their theory as Climate Change, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > lobby. Its very use infers humans are the root cause of all that is evil > in the environment. YEAH! What he said! Thanks, Jeff! > > > That my be your personal opinion but that is not factual.. > > > Environmentalists started to refer to their theory as Climate Change, long > > > before the President took office, because there is too much evidence that > > > portions of the planet are not warming and portions that are actually > > > cooling. You need to do more research on the subject > > Hachiroku ???? wrote: > > I don't care whether people say "climate change" or "global warming", so > > long as they don't choose their terms for political or neurotic reasons, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Actually, as Jeff said quite well, Global Warming has connotations of > being caused entirely by humans and their by-products. No, it doesn't. It only connotes warming on a global scale. Maybe your eyesight or neurosis is making you add the words "by your hidden enemies" to everything you read, as in "global warming by your hidden enemies". > I don't really believe in Global Warming; Then you must live at the South Pole because if we didn't have global warming, then freezing temperatures would be normal at noon in the summer, even at the equator. > I do think all the hydrocarbons we're throwing into the atmosphere > has SOME effect, but I think what's happening now is more of a > Climate Change, due more to the Natural Order of things. Why the Wierd Capitalization so common among junk studies majors and cult leaders? How much hydrocarbons are being emitted compared to CO2? > But, we are heading for an Ice Age! I think this is a warming before the > Deep Freeze! Like the calm bewfore the storm, etc. And your evidence is? Then you must live at the South Pole because if we didn't have global warming, then freezing temperatures would be normal at noon in the summer, even at the equator. What does that even mean? There has never been ice on the equator at any time during all of human history. Indeed, the retraction of ice on the equator -- if there was any during the Ice Age -- was required in nature before human life could be supported in its earliest stages. Humans migrated to cold climates, they did not come from cold climates to warm ones. Human life in its purest form, demands moderate to warm climates. We are forced to adapt to cold in order to survive. If that needs to be explained to anybody, then perhaps I am trying to make a point with an idiot. I can't believe this needed to be mentioned. > I do think all the hydrocarbons we're throwing into the atmosphere > has SOME effect, but I think what's happening now is more of a > Climate Change, due more to the Natural Order of things. Why the Wierd Capitalization so common among junk studies majors and cult leaders? How much hydrocarbons are being emitted compared to CO2? > But, we are heading for an Ice Age! I think this is a warming before the > Deep Freeze! Like the calm bewfore the storm, etc. And your evidence is? The looming Ice Age was all the rage in the 70s. It was nearly alone as a topic of converstaion for environmentalists. PS You've turned off the means by which we can demark the discussion among the various participants. You should switch the > thingies back on, or select something that allows us to figure out whom said what. > I don't really believe in Global Warming; > > Then you must live at the South Pole because if we didn't have global > > warming, then freezing temperatures would be normal at noon in the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > demands moderate to warm climates. We are forced to adapt to cold in order > to survive. The vast majority of global warming is from natural causes, and even during the last ice age there was lots of natural global warming. All Americans who disapprove of rodent beastiality know this. > > I do think all the hydrocarbons we're throwing into the atmosphere > > has SOME effect, but I think what's happening now is more of a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The looming Ice Age was all the rage in the 70s. It was nearly alone as a > topic of converstaion for environmentalists. Really? Climate scientists have long disagreed on whether Earth is in a long term warming or cooling trend, but they've been concerned about human-caused global warming caused by the emission of greenhouse gases. >> I don't really believe in Global Warming; > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > during the last ice age there was lots of natural global warming. All > Americans who disapprove of rodent beastiality know this. Well, DUH! The Ice Age ended as a result of global warming -- climate change. >> > I do think all the hydrocarbons we're throwing into the atmosphere >> > has SOME effect, but I think what's happening now is more of a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > a long term warming or cooling trend, but they've been concerned about > human-caused global warming caused by the emission of greenhouse gases. Well, before they talked about warming, they talked long and loud about cooling. The mantra in the 70s was that we had f.ck up the air so badly that the sun could not shine through the smog, the result would be a drastic decline in temps around the globe, resulting in increased rainfall in some regions and thickening ice caps in others. I recall speculation that deserts could become rainforests. The nuts are running the asylum!! Remember the USSR plan to place a giant mirror into orbit to melt the glaciers in Siberia? What if the Russians had done that and we had actually covered parts of the Artic with carbon black to melt the glaciers as the environuts insisted, at the time, was necessary to save the planet? LOL mike >>> I don't really believe in Global Warming; >> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > in some regions and thickening ice caps in others. I recall speculation > that deserts could become rainforests. >> But, we are heading for an Ice Age! I think this is a warming before the >> Deep Freeze! Like the calm bewfore the storm, etc. > > And your evidence is? Buy a college level Geology book. It's in all of them. *no the melting Ice at our polls just have a left wing agenda because they are prejudice against SUV's* > >> But, we are heading for an Ice Age! I think this is a warming before the > >> Deep Freeze! Like the calm bewfore the storm, etc. > > > > And your evidence is? > > Buy a college level Geology book. It's in all of them. > *no the melting Ice at our polls just have a left wing agenda because they > are prejudice against SUV's* There has been a warming trend prior to the last two ice ages that I know of for sure. >> >> But, we are heading for an Ice Age! I think this is a warming before > the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> Buy a college level Geology book. It's in all of them. >> *no the melting Ice at our polls just have a left wing agenda because >> they >> are prejudice against SUV's* > > There has been a warming trend prior to the last two ice ages that I know > of for sure. Wow! You are a lot older than I thought!! >>> >> But, we are heading for an Ice Age! I think this is a warming before >> the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> >>> Buy a college level Geology book. It's in all of them. >>> *no the melting Ice at our polls just have a left wing agenda because >>> they [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > Wow! You are a lot older than I thought!! I color my hair so nobody knows... ;) >>>> >> But, we are heading for an Ice Age! I think this is a warming >>>> >> before [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>> >>>> Buy a college level Geology book. It's in all of them. All this time I thought I was the old guy here. ;) mike >>> *no the melting Ice at our polls just have a left wing agenda because >>> they [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>>> >>>> Buy a college level Geology book. It's in all of them. Whether or not the planet is warming is not realy the question. Assuming for a moment that the planet is warming, the question is, why? Is human activity the cause, or is the cause natural? Another question is, assuming human activity is the cause or a significant contributor, are the factors current, or did they appear in the past and are only now catching up to us? If the factors occurred in the past, and we already fixed them through other efforts, then the problems they created are continuing to "coast" into the public shpere. In other words, if we screwed up the air in the 60s, then set about to resolve the major issues but the affects carry on -- kind of like taking a boiling pot off the stove, the pasta inside keeps cooking for several more minutes unless youi arrest the heat through other means. It's not enough to simply turn the flame off, as we did with air pollution controls on motor vehicles, you also have to turn on cold water on the pasta to arrest the cooking at the desired level. Green house gasses -- if they really are a factor in global warming -- have been generated for a very long time. Many sources of green house gasses come from naturally occurring events, such as volcanic eruptions. We can't do much about volcanos, and if automobile pollution in the 60s was such that we could not see even a few miles through the atmosphere at ground level, then that (automobile) pollution could still be having an affect at high levels of the atmosphere today, even though we've managed to correct the pollution issues for the most part. We can see across the Los Angeles Basin today, a feat that was near impossible in 1965, but we don't know if the affects of the pollution are still with us. Assuming we've fixed the source of the pollution, then the affects should start to taper off at some point. Maybe we've not gotten to that point yet. Maybe we (the USA) have fixed auto pollution sources, but 3rd world countries with burgeoning auto populations have not done their part. Personally, I believe that climate change is naturally occurring and there is very little that humans can do to alter the course of natural events. Controlling the output of the sun is more difficult than turning the volcanos off, and it is universal thinking that turning the volcanos off is not within the realm of human effort. Mike, Climate Change is an older term than global warming. Science has talked about climate change forever, global warming is a relatively new term, and one that I _think_ was coined by the environmentalists. > Whether or not the planet is warming is not realy the question. > Whether or not the planet is warming is not really the question. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > we did with air pollution controls on motor vehicles, you also have to turn > on cold water on the pasta to arrest the cooking at the desired level. This isn't like CFCs, where the emissions have been cut or at least have leveled off. CO2 emissions are going to keep increasing because China, India, and the third world are industrializing. > Personally, I believe that climate change is naturally occurring and there > is very little that humans can do to alter the course of natural events. Where is your evidence? > Controlling the output of the sun is more difficult than turning the > volcanos off, But it's probably easier to control the sun's insolation. >> Whether or not the planet is warming is not really the question. >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > have leveled off. CO2 emissions are going to keep increasing because > China, India, and the third world are industrializing. Then go to those countries and impose CO2 restrictions. Do not saddle the US economy with this crap and do nothing to the rest of the world where the emissions are even greater. At least the emissions we generate result from more production. >> Personally, I believe that climate change is naturally occurring and >> there >> is very little that humans can do to alter the course of natural events. > > Where is your evidence? Evidence of what, that there is very little that humans can do to alter the course of natural events? >> Controlling the output of the sun is more difficult than turning the >> volcanos off, > > But it's probably easier to control the sun's insolation. Do you mean insulation? Technically, the sun does not insulate. We insulate against the sun. I'd suggest that we really insulate against the cold, and insulating against the sun is a desireable byproduct. If it's on youtube it must be true ;) mike >> To cover questions like that the environuts now call it global CLIMATE >> CHANGE, not global warming [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REl64B2oB1U > To cover questions like that the environuts now call it global CLIMATE > CHANGE, not global warming [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > the ones who have former oil industry lawyers with no scientifuc > > credentials edit scientific reports. > If it's on youtube it must be true ;) Those two videos are so true that even you have to admit that you were wrong in this case. The moral is that you need to pay closer attention to your daily Republican marching orders/talking points. > Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG to > pick up some helpful tips and pointers from guys who probably knew what > they were talking about. > > So what do I find? Three quarters of the posts are off-topic political > rants. Sheesh!! Because our cars cause us so little trouble, we need *something* to talk about! Besides, 99% of us are opinionated SOBs one way or another. This is a place to vent our opinions as s sounding board. Feel free to join the fray! Now, what model and year Toyota did you buy? If you have any questions, feel free to ask them. Also, bear in mind that the owner's manual is your friend. Any concerns you have that aren't in the Owner's Manual can be addressed here. We have quite a few people who are knowledgable in Toyotas, and one particularly nice fellow who used to be a Factory Rep. And I'm sitting here laughing, because I asked the same question 4 years ago when I first came here, and it took all of about 3 weeks before I joined the fray! You'll find that all of us have our differences of opinion, but that 99% of us share one common thread: we wouldn't trade our Toyotas for anything. Good Luck! Oh, and if you'll notice, most of the OT posts begin with {OT}. This is pretty much understood by all here, being that some people don't even want to see OT posts. So, set your filters to hide the {OT} posts, and you'll see only posts regarding Toyotas. And you'll also miss a great deal of the fun! (NOTE: Make sure you filter out {OT:} exactly, otherwise you'll filter out ToyOTa as well!) > Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG to > pick up some helpful tips and pointers from guys who probably knew what > they were talking about. > > So what do I find? Three quarters of the posts are off-topic political > rants. Sheesh!! Doesn't actually matter, since AFAIK all car/Toyota questions get answered, despite all of the OT posts. Cathy "Cathy F." .. > "J. H. Holliday"... >> Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Cathy And once again, an OT ranter didn't label his/her rant with "OT". Oh, the irony. Natalie If you read what most of the kooks think they knew about politics, you can imagine how little they know about cars. Look elsewhere for competent advice WBMS LOL mike > Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG to > pick up some helpful tips and pointers from guys who probably knew what > they were talking about. > > So what do I find? Three quarters of the posts are off-topic political > rants. Sheesh!! > If you read what most of the kooks think they knew about politics, you can > imagine how little they know about cars. Look elsewhere for competent > advice WBMS LOL > > mike That has got to be the lamest comparison I have seen in a while. But since you are trying to make the connection, remember that it applies to both ends of the spectrum. > Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG to > pick up some helpful tips and pointers from guys who probably knew what > they were talking about. > > So what do I find? Three quarters of the posts are off-topic political > rants. Sheesh!! Welcome to the group. I gave up on trying to filter and just skip the other drivel. Sometimes I read a bit if I want a laugh. There is some very good information going around here so don't give up. Tomes > Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG to > pick up some helpful tips and pointers from guys who probably knew what > they were talking about. > > So what do I find? Three quarters of the posts are off-topic political > rants. Sheesh!! I rest my case! Since I started this thread a few days ago, there have been 86 responses from 17 authors, maybe four of them on topic!! Doc >> Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG to >> pick up some helpful tips and pointers from guys who probably knew what [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Doc I guess the door hit you in the arse on the way out..... SignatureScott in Florida > > Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG to > > pick up some helpful tips and pointers from guys who probably knew what [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Doc You're wasting time keeping track. Face it, there is nothing, nothing you can do about it. You cannot control people and they talk about on the usenet. Why not attend a moderated group if you don't like the unbridled conversation. -- >> Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG to >> pick up some helpful tips and pointers from guys who probably knew what [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Doc You want pointers from guys that probably know what they are talking about. You get it, then complain. Most of us know what we are talking about, and we know that everybody else is wrong. What other tips did you expect? >> Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG to >> pick up some helpful tips and pointers from guys who probably knew what [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Since I started this thread a few days ago, there have been 86 responses > from 17 authors, maybe four of them on topic!! Threads often drift. that's the way Usenet often operates. One tangential thought leads to another, leads to another... Cathy > Doc >> Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG to >> pick up some helpful tips and pointers from guys who probably knew what [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Doc You catch on quick! Any comment can lead to a debate, even if one only said Coke is better than Pepsi. ;) mike >> Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG to >> pick up some helpful tips and pointers from guys who probably knew what [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Doc >Any comment can lead to a debate, even if one only said Coke is better than >Pepsi. ;) > >mike Coke IS better than Pepsi! SignatureScott in Florida > > Any comment can lead to a debate, even if one only said Coke is > > better than Pepsi. ;) > > > > mike > > Coke IS better than Pepsi! Who said it isn't? Besides isn't all soda called Coke anyway? >> > Any comment can lead to a debate, even if one only said Coke is >> > better than Pepsi. ;) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Who said it isn't? Nah, Pepsi's better! (But Dr. Pepper's even better!) > Besides isn't all soda called Coke anyway? No. Esp. when thinking of ginger ale, or 7-Up or Sprite... or orange, or root beer, or cream soda, etc. - all of the non-colas. Cathy > >> > Any comment can lead to a debate, even if one only said Coke is > >> > better than Pepsi. ;) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Cathy People drink too much pop. Everybody needs to cut down on their caloric footprint. Try water instead. -- >> >> > Any comment can lead to a debate, even if one only said Coke is >> >> > better than Pepsi. ;) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> No. Esp. when thinking of ginger ale, or 7-Up or Sprite... or orange, or >> root beer, or cream soda, etc. - all of the non-colas. > People drink too much pop. Everybody needs to cut down on their caloric > footprint. Two words: diet soda. > Try water instead. I drink that, too. All day at work. Cathy We know, most female bartenders do. ;) mike >> People drink too much pop. Everybody needs to cut down on their caloric >> footprint. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Cathy >>> People drink too much pop. Everybody needs to cut down on their caloric >>> footprint. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> I drink that, too. All day at work. > We know, most female bartenders do. ;) I couldn't tend bar if my life depended on it. How do they remember exactly how much of what & what & what goes into each & every drink?? Not only that, but they have to multi-task - or at least dual-task. Which I can no longer do. I can't even program the copier at work while talking to someone any more. One or the other, not both simultaneously. Cathy "Cathy F." ... > "Mike Hunter" ... ... >>>> People drink too much pop. Everybody needs to cut down on their >>>> caloric >>>> footprint. >>> >>> Two words: diet soda. Two more words: NO WAY. Nasty stuff. >>>> Try water instead. >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Cathy Got Some-timer's huh? Sometimes you can... Natalie > "Cathy F." ... >> "Mike Hunter" ... [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> > Got Some-timer's huh? Sometimes you can... Yeah. My only consolation is that everyone I know within several years either side of my age is complaining of the same thing! Cathy > Natalie > I couldn't tend bar if my life depended on it. How do they remember exactly > how much of what & what & what goes into each & every drink?? Not only > that, but they have to multi-task - or at least dual-task. Which I can no > longer do. I can't even program the copier at work while talking to someone > any more. One or the other, not both simultaneously. Another talent of bartenders is detecting phoney IDs. One news organization showed real and fake IDs to bartenders and airport TSA security guards. TSA couldn't tell the real ones form the fakes, while bartenders got every ID correct. >> I couldn't tend bar if my life depended on it. How do they remember >> exactly [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > security guards. TSA couldn't tell the real ones form the fakes, > while bartenders got every ID correct. Forget it - I'd have to take off my glasses - & they're bifocals - to even tell if it was the same person, much less figure out if it was a fake ID or not! <g> Hopeless. Cathy >> >> > Any comment can lead to a debate, even if one only said Coke is >> >> > better than Pepsi. ;) [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > People drink too much pop. Everybody needs to cut down on their caloric > footprint. Try water instead. Agreed. If you need flavor, but want to avoid the calories of soda, I suggest Crystal Light, especially the lemonade flavor. >>> >> > Any comment can lead to a debate, even if one only said Coke is >>> >> > better than Pepsi. ;) [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>> or >>> root beer, or cream soda, etc. - all of the non-colas. >> People drink too much pop. Everybody needs to cut down on their caloric >> footprint. Try water instead. > > Agreed. If you need flavor, but want to avoid the calories of soda, I > suggest Crystal Light, especially the lemonade flavor. I used to drink Crystal Light, umpteen years ago. One day I made some - pink color (flavor =?). That evening a transformer on a nearby electrical pole blew, so no lights for the rest of the night. I wore (soft) contacts at the time (wish I still could), & blindly rinsed them & put them in their case for the night when I went to bed. Next morning I went to put them back in my eyes & literally did a double-take when I opened the case. They were a very pale pink. Pretty in a strange sort of way, but contact lenses aren't supposed to be pink. Took a few minutes to figure out what had happened. That must be some dye... I'd made the Crystal Light in the afternoon, had washed my hands (how many times?, plus hadn't noticed pink fingers) between then & 11 or after - whenever I'd gone to bed & handled the lenses. Yet the dye had still managed to transfer itself to them. They eventually became clear again... Cathy You should sue the maker for not attaching a label warning about using carbonated water to soak your lenses. Greedy American lense makers are moving production off shore in search of higher profits. Who knows what in the material they use to make them. mike >>>> >> > Any comment can lead to a debate, even if one only said Coke is >>>> >> > better than Pepsi. ;) [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Cathy > You should sue the maker for not attaching a label warning about using > carbonated water to soak your lenses. Huh?? What carbonated water? Greedy American lense makers are > moving production off shore > in search of higher profits. Who knows what in the material they use to > make them. This was over 20 years ago. Cathy > mike > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >> >> Cathy > You should sue the maker for not attaching a label warning about using > carbonated water to soak your lenses. You should talk -- your frivolous lawsuit is the reason wrenches come with a warning label saying, "do not eat." ;) "Cathy F.".. > "Truckdude" >> >> "dbu,.">>> >>>> "badgolferman... "Mike Hunter" >>>> >> > Any comment can lead to a debate, even if one only said Coke is >>>> >> > better than Pepsi. ;) [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Cathy Aspartame (NutraSweet) is evil. Natalie > "Cathy F.".. >> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Natalie Sugared soda is more evil. "Truckdude" <... > "Wickeddoll®" >> "Cathy F.".. [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Sugared soda is more evil. Technically, yes, but that's one thing I would only compromise if I developed diabetes. Natalie > "Truckdude" <... >> "Wickeddoll®" [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > Natalie I have a non-compliant diabetic brother-in-law in the house, so having Crystal Light and diet soda makes my job easier. To his credit, he does drink a lot of water. (of course it's the bottled fluoridated stuff, not the tap!) I occasionally buy regular Dr. Pepper for myself, but I keep a close eye on them. > > Aspartame (NutraSweet) is evil. > Sugared soda is more evil. There are 4 basic food groups: 1. Tastes good, is good for you. 2. Tastes bad, is good for you. <- Aspartame 3. Tastes good, is bad for you. <- sugared soda 4. Tastes bad, is bad for you. Only #4 should be avoided at all costs. "larry moe 'n curly" ... Truckdude wrote: > "Wickeddoll®"... > > Aspartame (NutraSweet) is evil. > Sugared soda is more evil. There are 4 basic food groups: 1. Tastes good, is good for you. 2. Tastes bad, is good for you. <- Aspartame 3. Tastes good, is bad for you. <- sugared soda 4. Tastes bad, is bad for you. Only #4 should be avoided at all costs. LMC *high-five* Natalie Most additives should be banned, they can cause cancer. ;) mike >>> >> > Any comment can lead to a debate, even if one only said Coke is >>> >> > better than Pepsi. ;) [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Agreed. If you need flavor, but want to avoid the calories of soda, I > suggest Crystal Light, especially the lemonade flavor. I read a report that concluded research causes cancer in laboratory rats. > Most additives should be banned, they can cause cancer. ;) > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> Agreed. If you need flavor, but want to avoid the calories of soda, I >> suggest Crystal Light, especially the lemonade flavor. >I read a report that concluded research causes cancer in laboratory rats. And I will never give lab rats high doses of aspartame, just in case. Jeff I love it Scott, they are all over this now, but were is DIZZY? Who needs to watch the Comedy channel? LOL mike >>I read a report that concluded research causes cancer in laboratory rats. > > And I will never give lab rats high doses of aspartame, just in case. > > Jeff >>I read a report that concluded research causes cancer in laboratory rats. > > And I will never give lab rats high doses of aspartame, just in case. What about Splenda? Cathy > Jeff >>>I read a report that concluded research causes cancer in laboratory rats. >> >> And I will never give lab rats high doses of aspartame, just in case. > > What about Splenda? I don't think it is harmful, either. Jeff > Cathy > >> Jeff >>I read a report that concluded research causes cancer in laboratory rats. > > And I will never give lab rats high doses of aspartame, just in case. > > Jeff LOL Natalie > And I will never give lab rats high doses of aspartame, just in case. PETA loves you. >> And I will never give lab rats high doses of aspartame, just in case. > > PETA loves you. Not just PETA - which can be way OTT. Cathy >> And I will never give lab rats high doses of aspartame, just in case. > > PETA loves you. You mean People Eating Tasty Animals? > >> And I will never give lab rats high doses of aspartame, just in case. > > > > PETA loves you. > > You mean People Eating Tasty Animals? Provided that its membership doesn't include washed-up 1970s rock stars who are monomaniacally boorish about hunting game on their property because they suffer from scrapie, not that there's anything wrong with that. > Most additives should be banned, they can cause cancer. ;) Aspartame [Nutrasweet] has been studied extensively, and has not been fund to cause cancer or other problems, except headaches. If Aspartame give you a headache, don't drink it. Otherwise, it is fine to drink. Which would be better, drinking diet soda or the same volume of sugar-laden soda? Jeff > mike > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> Agreed. If you need flavor, but want to avoid the calories of soda, I >> suggest Crystal Light, especially the lemonade flavor. See Scott, I told you so. It only took one day for the kooks to jump in ROTFLOL mike >> Most additives should be banned, they can cause cancer. ;) > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Jeff Hey! I'm not a kook. > See Scott, I told you so. It only took one day for the kooks to jump in > ROTFLOL > > mike You're here. ;-) > See Scott, I told you so. It only took one day for the kooks to jump in > ROTFLOL [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> Jeff In a free society people should be able to drink whatever they want, unless it effects those around them by releasing too much CO2 ;) PS; I can't wait for our good friend DIZZY to jump into this debate LOL mike >> >> > Any comment can lead to a debate, even if one only said Coke is >> >> > better than Pepsi. ;) [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > People drink too much pop. Everybody needs to cut down on their caloric > footprint. Try water instead. > In a free society people should be able to drink whatever they want, unless > it affects those around them by releasing too much CO2 ;) You hippie anarchist. People shouldn't be allowed to shoplift from liquor stores, break into vending machines, or, your favorite, guzzle directly from the Starbucks cappucino machine. If the Bush administration did not take so much money for the poor to give it to the rich they would not need to steal ;) mike >> In a free society people should be able to drink whatever they want, >> unless [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > liquor stores, break into vending machines, or, your favorite, guzzle > directly from the Starbucks cappucino machine. > If the Bush administration did not take so much money for the poor to give > it to the rich they would not need to steal ;) Yet the rich continue to steal. Jeff > mike > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> liquor stores, break into vending machines, or, your favorite, guzzle >> directly from the Starbucks cappucino machine. Sales figures prove Colas are much better than any of those, but what can we expect from a woman. ;) mike >>> > Any comment can lead to a debate, even if one only said Coke is >>> > better than Pepsi. ;) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Cathy > Sales figures prove Colas are much better than any of those, but what can > we expect from a woman. ;) Someone who has taste, rather than simply following the crowd. Cathy > mike > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> >> Cathy > > Coke IS better than Pepsi! > Nah, Pepsi's better! Then why is it rum & COKE, not rum & PEPSI, hmmmm? >> > Coke IS better than Pepsi! > >> Nah, Pepsi's better! > >Then why is it rum & COKE, not rum & PEPSI, hmmmm? LOL.... SignatureScott in Florida >> > Coke IS better than Pepsi! > >> Nah, Pepsi's better! > > Then why is it rum & COKE, not rum & PEPSI, hmmmm? Search me... I never drink it! Probably because it's easier to say - Coke being one syllable?! ;-) "Rum & Pepsi" is too... wordy. Despite still being only three words. ;-) I know - it's too... *unwieldy* - too much of a mouthful, despite being only 4 syllables. Cathy "Cathy F." ... > "larry moe 'n curly" >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Cathy Actually, the original name of the drink was "rum & Coca-Cola" - like in the song. :-) Natalie > "Cathy F." ... >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Natalie Shhhh.... ;-) Cathy (presently drinking a diet Dr. Pepper) The proper pronunciation is cocola, y'all I guess by now I have proven my point. I said in the beginning, any comment can lead to a debate, even if one only said Coke is better than Pepsi. ;) mike > "Cathy F." ... >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Natalie >> > Coke IS better than Pepsi! > >> Nah, Pepsi's better! > > Then why is it rum & COKE, not rum & PEPSI, hmmmm? Actually I prefer Captain & Coke. If you just ask for rum & Coke, who knows what kind of rum they will give you. >>> > Coke IS better than Pepsi! >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Actually I prefer Captain & Coke. If you just ask for rum & Coke, who knows >what kind of rum they will give you. The Captain is an excellent rum....soooooooooooooooooooooo smooth.... SignatureScott in Florida NOOK! Coke is a copyrighted brand. Don't you ever get anything right you Republican retard? ;) mike >> > Any comment can lead to a debate, even if one only said Coke is >> > better than Pepsi. ;) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Who said it isn't? Besides isn't all soda called Coke anyway? Your source IS? ;) mike >>Any comment can lead to a debate, even if one only said Coke is better >>than [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Coke IS better than Pepsi! >Your source IS? ;) > >mike Growing up in Dry Branch and Doraville Georgia.... >>>Any comment can lead to a debate, even if one only said Coke is better >>>than [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> Coke IS better than Pepsi! > SignatureScott in Florida Me. lol Tomes > Your source IS? ;) > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >> Coke IS better than Pepsi! > Any comment can lead to a debate, even if one only said Coke is better > than Pepsi. ;) ...and Coke in an original type bottle is better than in a can which is infinitely better than that plastic bottle, which is better than out of a tap in a restaurant. Tomes (Coke connoisseur) "Tomes" ... > "Mike Hunter"... >> Any comment can lead to a debate, even if one only said Coke is better [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > tap in a restaurant. > Tomes (Coke connoisseur) "Coke connoisseur"? You know Kate Moss?! :-) Natalie >"Tomes" ... >> "Mike Hunter"... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Natalie He is right in his statements. Those little glass bottles of coke are excellent. All others are not up to the bottles.... SignatureScott in Florida How do you know? Have you actually tried all the "others" or just the fifteen year old stuff you normally drink? ;) mike >>"Tomes" ... >>> "Mike Hunter"... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Those little glass bottles of coke are excellent. All others are not > up to the bottles.... >How do you know? Have you actually tried all the "others" or just the >fifteen year old stuff you normally drink? ;) > >mike When the waitress answers your request for a Coke with 'will Pepsi be ok' The real answer should be Hell No! >>>"Tomes" ... >>>> "Mike Hunter"... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> up to the bottles.... > SignatureScott in Florida >>How do you know? Have you actually tried all the "others" or just the >>fifteen year old stuff you normally drink? ;) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The real answer should be Hell No! That is often my answer, complete with the Hell part. At that point I start asking if they have Dr Pepper. And why is this? Dr Pepper is made (or at least distributed) by Coke, but in many places that are 'Pepsi' places, they also serve up Dr Pepper. Panera Bread is one of them. I have never understood this... Tomes Are you saying "Coke connoisseur" is a reflection on his manhood? That he should try dating a woman? ;) mike > "Tomes" ... >> "Mike Hunter"... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Natalie "Mike Hunter" <wrote ... > "Wickeddoll®" ... >> "Tomes" ... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > he should try dating a woman? ;) > mike OK, "Coca-Cola Connoisseur". This oughta rule out a lot of stuff.... ;-) Tomes "Tomes" ... > "Mike Hunter" <wrote ... >> "Wickeddoll®" ... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> he should try dating a woman? ;) >> mike Now that I see this, *rolling eyes* > OK, "Coca-Cola Connoisseur". This oughta rule out a lot of stuff.... ;-) > Tomes Kate Moss is a coke-addicted supermodel Natalie "Wickeddoll®" <... > "Tomes" ... >> OK, "Coca-Cola Connoisseur". This oughta rule out a lot of stuff.... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Natalie Coca Cola addicted? I had no idea. Then again, I am not really sure about Kate Moss either... Tomes > "Wickeddoll®" <... >> "Tomes" ... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > about Kate Moss either... > Tomes I can't decide of you're typing straight-faced and really haven't seen that infamous photo of her (down & out, hooked on coke), or if you're typing with a smile/smirk. Cathy "Cathy F." .. > "Tomes" ... >> "Wickeddoll®" <... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Cathy I couldn't tell, either, but to be sure, Kate Moss is hooked on COCAINE. Clearer? Natalie "Wickeddoll®" <... > "Cathy F." .. >> "Tomes" ... [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Clearer? > Natalie OK, OK.... I play a lot of poker, but here I will admit that was indeed quite clueless. Thanks for saying it as clear as I needed it. ;-) LOL Tomes > I play a lot of poker Have you ever played 727 ? "badgolferman" <... > Tomes: > >> I play a lot of poker > > Have you ever played 727 ? Yep, and Auction, Hold'em, Omaha, Oklahoma, CrissCross, Dave's funky sh.t, Roll 'em, Anaconda, Draw, 5 or 7 card sh.t and lots more games. We have a game once a month where it is dealer's choice as to what the game is that hand. Tomes "Tomes" < >> "Cathy F." .. >>> "Tomes" ... [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > LOL > Tomes LOL you're welcome. Natalie >> Any comment can lead to a debate, even if one only said Coke is better >> than Pepsi. ;) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > tap in a restaurant. > Tomes (Coke connoisseur) OK, tell me this: have you ever looked at the bottom of the old 10Oz. bottles? What's there? NOW, for Extra Credit, what's on the bottom of a 10 Oz. SPRITE bottle???!!! Glass or plastic depending on the type of container, one would suspect ;) mike >>> Any comment can lead to a debate, even if one only said Coke is better >>> than Pepsi. ;) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > NOW, for Extra Credit, what's on the bottom of a 10 Oz. SPRITE > bottle???!!! >>> Any comment can lead to a debate, even if one only said Coke is >>> better [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > NOW, for Extra Credit, what's on the bottom of a 10 Oz. SPRITE > bottle???!!! Dunno. what is it? Tomes >>>> Any comment can lead to a debate, even if one only said Coke is >>>> better [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Dunno. what is it? > Tomes The Coke bottles have the names of cities in the US. Now, I always thought that was where the bottle was originally filled. Until I flipped over a Sprite bottle.... I seriously doubt that Sprite is bottled in NATIONAL PARKS!!!!! >>>> Any comment can lead to a debate, even if one only said Coke is >>>> better [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Dunno. what is it? > Tomes Check this: http://www.ioffer.com/i/Lot-of-10-old-Glass-Coke-coca-cola-bottles-10-and-6-oz-1 2226373 http://www.goantiques.com/detail,sprite-coke-bottle,792966.html?source=VYZ4474 Sprite #spr30, 1974, embossed "Joshua Tree National Park" on the bottom, 10 oz, $250.00 donation requested Sprite #spr31, 1974, embossed "Hot Springs National Park" on bottom, 10oz, $250.00 donation requested >> Any comment can lead to a debate, even if one only said Coke is better >> than Pepsi. ;) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > tap in a restaurant. > Tomes (Coke connoisseur) That may be your opinion but numerous taste test by CR proves there is no difference in the taste of cola from a bottle or can. ;) mike >> Any comment can lead to a debate, even if one only said Coke is better >> than Pepsi. ;) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > tap in a restaurant. > Tomes (Coke connoisseur) >> "Mike Hunter"wrote ... >>> Any comment can lead to a debate, even if one only said Coke is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > no difference in the taste of cola from a bottle or can. ;) > mike To me it is mostly a matter of the bubbles, which in my mouth influences the whole deal. Flat Coke is just not it for me. One of the reasons I like Coke better than Pepsi (in addition to taste) is that Pepsi does not have the bubble attack that proper Coke has. Love them scrubbing bubbles.... Tomes > That may be your opinion but numerous taste test by CR proves there > is no difference in the taste of cola from a bottle or can. Since when have you cared what Consumer Reports says? Canned soda has a metallic taste when you drink it from the can. Bottled soda is much smoother and doesn't leave that metallic aftertaste. I compare it to the difference between music on a CD and music from a vinyl record, provided you have decent audio equipment and can hear the difference. A CD sounds considerably harsher because all the instruments can be heard separately wherein music on a vinyl record blends together and sounds much more realistic and life-like. >> That may be your opinion but numerous taste test by CR proves there >> is no difference in the taste of cola from a bottle or can. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the instruments can be heard separately wherein music on a vinyl record > blends together and sounds much more realistic and life-like. Do you mean glass bottles of the plastic ones? > > > That may be your opinion but numerous taste test by CR proves > > > there is no difference in the taste of cola from a bottle or can. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Do you mean glass bottles of the plastic ones? In my opinion glass or plastic bottled soda tastes better than canned soda. >> "badgolferman" ... >> > Mike Hunter, : [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > In my opinion glass or plastic bottled soda tastes better than canned > soda. So it is the metal taste instead of a bubble thing. I can see that. I don't think I taste the metal, or at least I am so sensitized to it that I do not taste it. Tomes >>> "badgolferman" ... >>> > Mike Hunter, : [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >do not taste it. >Tomes Open both and taste them... SignatureScott in Florida "Scott in Florida" ... > , "Tomes" : >>>> "badgolferman" ... [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> > Open both and taste them... I think we both have... Do a search and you will discover ALL aluminum and steel cans have a barrier applied that stops any metallic taste from impinging upon the content. ;) mike >>> "badgolferman" ... >>> > Mike Hunter, : [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > do not taste it. > Tomes > Do a search and you will discover ALL aluminum and steel cans have a > barrier applied that stops any metallic taste from impinging upon the > content. ;) > mike This is true. I used to work for a major Chemical company and was the Business Quality Leader for the business that provided the base resin for this purpose to the can companies. However, if you drink it out of the can, your lips are on the outside of the can and can get a taste that way, if your genetic codes are such that you register this taste. Tomes I must be the shape. ;) mike >>> That may be your opinion but numerous taste test by CR proves there >>> is no difference in the taste of cola from a bottle or can. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Do you mean glass bottles of the plastic ones? It's getting goofier LOL mike >> That may be your opinion but numerous taste test by CR proves there >> is no difference in the taste of cola from a bottle or can. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the instruments can be heard separately wherein music on a vinyl record > blends together and sounds much more realistic and life-like. Which part of my argument is goofy to you? > It's getting goofier LOL > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > music on a vinyl record blends together and sounds much more > > realistic and life-like. Signature"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." ~ Thomas Jefferson Go back and read the original post and it will become obvious LOL mike > Which part of my argument is goofy to you? > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> > music on a vinyl record blends together and sounds much more >> > realistic and life-like. >> Just bought me a nice new Toyo so I thought I'd subscribe to this NG to >> pick up some helpful tips and pointers from guys who probably knew what [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Doc Hmmm...I dunno. I've been so busy reading and replying to OT sh!t, did you even ask a Toyota related question? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.