Suburban: Beach Kit?

#11

On Sat, 12 May 2007 16:28:01 -0600, George <gvig01 (AT) sbcglobal (DOT) net>
wrote:

Quote:

snip

I think you kinda realy have your head in the sand on this one. What
happens is well known and has been known about since 80's.

OK, lets say that you have your head screwed on right, though I doubt
it, and lets say that this phenomenon has been known since the 80s, then
why did the mandate to get rid of R-12 coincide with the expiration of
DuPonts patent????

YOu are looking for something more than there is here. Dupount has a
lot of influence in US but limited in the world. This was a global
ban, Dupount may have stalled it a bit politically but it was not
banned to make them more profit. WHile dupount has ownership of R134a,
Dupount has quelled its problems and the fact it is quite toxic. THe
main fight against alternative refrigerants is lobbied by Dupont. Down
in Austrailia R12a is very popular as Dupont has no clout there.

Quote:

The R12 is
released into air it can take a few years to work its way up into
ionosphere but being that it was realeased for years there was steady
stream getting there for many years. The clorine in the R12 molecules
reacts with UV light from sum and in the chemical procees that
results, about 100 ozone molecules are destroyed for each R12
molecule.

Every study that I ever saw that was released was less than scientific
and was sponsored by, guess who.... DuPont or one of their subsidiaries.
Anything sound a bit fishy here, or do you suck down whatever the
liberal news media releases???

You really are clueless arent you. The process is well know and it was
a global ban not a US one and the all signed on because of science.
Axtually the US was kinda against it because of political influence
against it but joined anyway.

Quote:

Last year they recorded the first decrease in the average
size of the hole in ozone layer over poles since then have been
monitoring it because the R12 cycle has been broken. The funny part is
that car A/C's played a very small roll in this problem but suffered
for it.

No, wrong again here, WE the consumers suffered for it, not the
inanimate cars. WE the taxpayers did the suffering and continue to do so.

Yes and no, we will have more ozone in future but be cause of
political lobbying, the choosen replacement was not the best solution
and consumers are paying more for it too.

Quote:

Historically, the ozone hole over the poles has increased or decreased
in a multi year cycle, it has nothing to do with what man is doing with
chlorine. That has been documented by the scientific community, it just
isn't politically correct to reveal the truth now days.

Again head in the sand here. Yes there is yearly variations but the
averge size of hole was increasing and density was decreasing untill
last year or so when they were able to establish a begining of the
trend reversal. I'll bet you do not believe in global warming either
and that the 1000's of millions of tons of CO2 and NOx dumped into air
every year has no effect on climate.

Quote:

snip

Not too long ago, before the banning of cfc refrigerants, there was a
"study" released by the US gov't that showed that almost all (the vast
majority) of the ozone damage was done by the pine forests in America,
Germany, and other countries that are still heavily forested. And one of
our pin head legislators tried to get a bill introduced to congress to
have all forests cut down in the USA. Fortunately, cooler heads
prevailed. I wish I had cut out the article and saved it. I would send
it to you, but then that most likely would be a waste of time.

You have got to be a consevative Bushie. One that believe that man is
never the cause for global demise and than profit take front row ver
long term impact. Also I would these day question anothing report
signed US government on environment because many of those are
politically motived and not based on science. And people like you are
taken in hook line and sinker.

Quote:

Think this stuff through for yourself snoman, you seem to be an
intelligent guy, just think for yourself and don't let the media spoon
feed you.

George
-----------------

TheSnoMan.com

#12

<snip>

Ok, snoman, consider the following;

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2..._longrange.htm

and then this;

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/publi...11_science.pdf

They are both good readidng reading, the second is deeper and not a US
government scientist, which you apparently abhor to consider. Check out
his sources, consider the whole argument. Can't get much more scientific
than this.

All the best to you.

George

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Suburban: Beach Kit?

4x4 Chevy/GMC Trucks 4x4 Chevy/GMC Trucks Discussions (alt.autos.4x4.chevy-trucks)

Re: Re: Suburban: Beach Kit? - 05-13-2007 , 01:54 PM

Re: Suburban: Beach Kit? - 05-13-2007 , 02:45 PM