Automotive Air Conditioning Information Forum (Archives)

Provided by www.ACkits.com

We've updated our forums!
Click here to visit the new forum

Archive Home

Search Auto AC Forum Archives

Government must deal with greenhouse gases. Pages: 12

NickD on Wed April 11, 2007 8:58 PM User is offline

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-04-08-emissions_N.htm

Just one of many articles on the net, DOT regulates mileage, EPA has to enforce carbon dioxide emissions, that tosses another compound into the mixture. Reducing HC's and NOx's also decreases fuel economy, but also increases CO2 emissions. Wonder how the EPA is going to deal with this one?

bohica2xo on Thu April 12, 2007 8:33 PM User is offline

Nick:

With the tree-hugging nutjobs that have overrun the EPA, it is anyone's guess, but I have a few choices for you - pick 7 from the list below:

1) Unfairly

2) At great expense to the taxpayer, and the nation as a whole

3) Ineffectively

4) Without any actual scientific input

5) With great bias toward the automobile, while ignoring the aviation industry entirely

6) With the malice, greed, graft & corruption present in every other facet of government today

7 With complete tyranny, offering those affected no appeal or recourse


The broad mandate handed down by the effing supreme court will have the EPA digging into every little corner of our daily lives. Don't think for a minute they intend to leave your fireplace alone...

-------------------------
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
~ Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi, An Autobiography, M. K. Gandhi, page 446.

73Wagoneer on Thu April 12, 2007 9:44 PM User is offline

all I can say, TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT!!!! what are they (govt) going to see if Im using a flouresent bulb Its a friggin joke, the supreme court is suppose to interpret the law, not make it!!!! all this talk about global warming, carbon footprint, and govt monitoring CO2 makes me just want to release R12 into the sky, Just kidding to expensive, but you get the drift.

NickD on Fri April 13, 2007 6:24 AM User is offline

Here we go again with absolute power, as most of us are aware, the selection of the supreme court judges is a highly political process. When our founding fathers introduced this third form of check and balances, a judge at that time was not handing down decisions, that was done by a jury, the judge was simply a monitor of the court room procedures making sure each side had there fair share and turn. That has changed over the years, just like the power of the president.

Why nine guys? In theory, if all procedures are followed, only one judge is needed to interpret the law, and why does the law have to be interpreted? Shouldn't it be written so all can understand it? And what about qualifications, shouldn't we have judges that know their way under the hood of a car, or in the vast circuitry in a microprocessor, plus the sciences, medicine, and even be able to forecast the weather accurately over the next 30 days? Just a bunch of stupid attorneys that know how to play with words and not much good for anything useful.

If a dozen people were lost in the middle of the Burma jungle and one was a supreme court judge, shouldn't that judge be able to guide them out? Ha, most of these people have been chauffeur driven all their lives and can't even find their way around town, they are not gods, they are just people and highly specialized at that in one narrow field, word games.

But putting all that aside, who what the idiot that said the majority of the vote of these nine people should decide an important decision that affects millions of people? It is very possible that only one judge could be over time proven to be right, and the other eight are wrong, the supreme court over history does not have a perfect record and any decision less than batting a 1000 proves that the system does not work. In designing a complex system, you either bat a 1000 or the results are zero, imperfection is not acceptable. You screwed up.

So here we have another Roe versus Wade case, nine judges are given the same set of facts, four vote for it, and four vote against it. Now logic dictates that each judge should be subjected to scrutiny why they voted for or against a case, their interest, what they can gain or lose from their decision, but this is never done. Even in a court of law with a dozen jurors, idiots if you may are taken off the street and the vote has to be unanimous, why a simple majority in even a more important supreme court? It's a stupid way to run a government.

So four voted against this decision and another four voted for it canceling out each others vote, the key decision that affects millions of people was made by one guy, that is incredibly stupid just like giving one guy the power to go to war or not.

In a world where we have vast communications, no need or a group of nine men or one to make important decisions, we should all have a say. What's worse yet, is that key power is given to agencies to make decisions that affect all of us, and again, these decisions are made by one politically appointed guy. Again absolute power, we are not a democracy but a dictatorship run country, I don't like it.

Like that low budget movie, 12 Angry Men, watched it several times, unlike other movies, if you watch them a second or third time, start picking up on credibility gaps, our current political parties are loaded with credibility gaps. If we have to have a supreme court where nine guys or gals are given a the same set of facts, a decision should only be passed if the vote is unanimous, five out of nine is totally unacceptable.

And whoever decides that important issues should be decided by nine guys? Why can't all Americans vote on it? It's crazy.

graeme on Fri April 13, 2007 10:49 AM User is offline

Quote
Originally posted by: NickD
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-04-08-emissions_N.htm


Reducing HC's and NOx's also decreases fuel economy, but also increases CO2 emissions. Wonder how the EPA is going to deal with this one?

Reducing HC's in the exhaust increases fuel consumption? Its not the job of those that set the requirements/laws to find the solutions, leave finding a way to reduce NOx and CO2 to the engineers and designers, the companies sure are not going to invest anything in trying just because its the right thing to do. Dont meet it, go out of business........what more incentive do they need.

NickD on Fri April 13, 2007 12:55 PM User is offline

Quote
Its not the job of those that set the requirements/laws to find the solutions... Dont meet it, go out of business.......

And that is precisely how the EPA has been operating over the last 35 years, make laws, no solutions offered except to shut down businesses, in particular the smaller ones without the legal budget of the larger ones. Most of the businesses have either been exported first to Mexico, then to China. Japan has some of the strictest automotive emission regulations in the world, but practically zero for all those smoke stacks. Exporting may be a local solution, but is certainly not a world solution, believe if all this emissions stuff is true, we need world wide solutions.

Instead of deforming babies in Silicon Valley, deforming babies in the Philippines, is this right?

NickD on Sat April 14, 2007 7:31 AM User is offline

Ha, according to this top scientists that Ira Plato had on yesterday, all we have to do is to reduce our CO2 levels down to where they were in 1990. Don't ask me neither to pronounce his name or type it, would either tango my tongue or fingers beyond repair, but his voice sounded exactly like the one I heard the last time I called MS for help and was told to rebooty my machine.

Ira asked him about planting trees, planting trees is good but very important where you plant them, planting them in the tropical forest is good as they eat up CO2, but don't plant them on top of ice cap mountains. Won't the trees on top of ice cap mountains eat up CO2? Yes they do, but they also shade the snow so it can't reflect sunlight back into space.

Do you think this guy was talking about planting palms tree on top of snow capped mountains? He never stated what kind of tree. And has anyone seen trees on top of snow capped mountains? For one thing, it's too damned cold and the air is too thin for trees to grow up there. But anyway, don't plant trees on top of snow capped mountains, I can go along with that.

The other key target is the automobile, buy a hybrid, ha, wait a minute, they didn't have hybrids in 1990! And looking at the charts for CO2 growth, it was lower in 1980, and even lower in 1970, so let's go back to 1970! First thing would be to eliminate the EPA, we didn't have an EPA in 1970 and let's get rid of all the emission crap that costs a small fortune in today's cars plus all this crap they are putting in gas today that really lowers mileage. Can't argue with history, all this stuff they added are increasing CO2 levels, I didn't say this, the scientists are, and they are saying let's go back. I have no objection to going back.

Let's get rid of all these ships that are hauling our natural resources to Asia and returning with manufactured goods and make our goods here. Again, we can't argue with history, CO2 levels were much lower then. Let's also go back to CFC's with no restrictions, HFC's have drastically increased our rate of global warming. And we should pull our troops out of Iraq, Dessert Storm really shot up global warming, that's when CO2 levels really started increasing, much better to fight in the jungles of Viet Nam, doesn't cause global warming.

Gee, and to think I was against the junk science of today, now I am all for it, will be delighted to have thousands of engineering jobs available to me, to drive my 65 Buick again, but this time with a neoprene rear seal in place of that rope, not have to put up with the EPA, and would much prefer to have Johnson/Nixon over Clinton/Bush, and CO2 levels were very low back then.

Let's all join this fight to stop global warming, no new science is needed, just have to return the way we were back in the 60's, I am all for that.

JJM on Sat April 14, 2007 1:19 PM User is offline

This why elections matter, and the next election is absolutely CRITICAL with respect to judges. Not that I'm all that thrilled with Republicans, but it's the only chance we have for originalist judges. If the Democrats win the White House and retain control of the Senate, the fate of this once great nation will be sealed.

I love Bohica's list... of course it just doesn't have to be one of the seven - pick all that apply!

Well, at least we know where Russell is coming from:

Quote
Its not the job of those that set the requirements/laws to find the solutions

If that isn't a Gestapo NAZI response, I don't know what is. So basically what you're advocating is rule by decree. What if government bureaucrats decide the sun should rise in the west and set in the east? Let the engineers and designers work it out... and if they can't?

Funny though how when the government appears to "rule by decree" on matters of terrorism and national security, folks like you wail and protest. But when they rule by decree on killing babies, killing the infirmed, sparing the lives of murderers, letting child molestors go, destroying private property rights, redefining marriage, conveying rights to terrorists... the list goes on and on... folks like you are all for it, no problem, let's do even more!

Quote
Dont meet it, go out of business........what more incentive do they need.

Then folks like you howl and screech when companies "outsource" or pack up and leave altogether. This type of thinking is precisely why.

Hey Russell... let me ask you a question: If enough of the producers pack-up and leave this country, where is the money for your welfare checks going to come from?

Joe

NickD on Sun April 15, 2007 6:18 AM User is offline

Joe, is Russell and graeme the same person? You are using the Russell name but referring to graeme's post. I was under the impression that Russell is from Texas and graeme is from Australia.

After hearing many of the experts on this subject and the trend for the last 35 years or so, can only conclude that the laws and the EPA are creating more problems then what they are solving and can only conclude whatever new laws are made will not solve the current problem but create new unforeseen problems. Solution is very simple, just bring manufacturing back to the USA with the smokestacks and return our automobiles back to 70's technology, after all, they are saying things were good back then. No need for more new laws and technology, just clean up one mess and make another mess twice as great. That has been the recorded record.

graeme on Tue April 17, 2007 2:03 AM User is offline

JJM: I gather its rather convenient for you to lump people into groups that you despise based on that you dont like their ideas on a few issues.......surely there is another "forum" where personal attacks on people are welcome.........supposedly not here?

Nick D: I think the idea was to return to 60's and 70's levels of CO2 concentrations, supposedly the planet is not going to implode with those levels Unfortunately even in those decades the levels were increasing....perhaps if the rate of increase seen in the 60's was maintained then we wouldnt be at the stage we are at now. So no, a vastly increased world population returning to the inefficient practices of the 60's technology would be ridiculous, perhaps thats what you were really saying.......unless of course we are talking about areas like China returning to the technologies that they had in the 60's. ie most never having seen an electric light globe etc.........that would make a difference.

NickD on Tue April 17, 2007 7:24 AM User is offline

Nobody can accuse the USA of excessive population growth, in the last 40 years with Roe versus Wade, we are killing babies faster than we can make them. The greatest increase in our population growth has been in immigration, both legal and illegal, but mostly illegal.

But what we are really guilty on, is excessive CO2 production, while we represent less than 5% of the worlds population, we are responsible for a third of the CO2 production! So what does this have to do with China?

So we are not talking about the population growth of the rest of the world, everybody is doing their part to protect the environment, that is everybody, except the USA.

I can recall in the 60's that Gary, IN was so bad, was constantly IFR, but didn't want to fly through that black, purple, yellow green smoke anyway, that smoke cloud was blinding, go clear up to 45,000 feet, but yet our CO2 emissions were reported as being low back then. Today, that entire area is a clear as can be, and flying over it, nothing but a huge empty field, all those steel mills are gone. Even in my stinky little town, we had six huge smoke stacks, today we only have one that is loaded with all kinds of scrubber equipment. We were driving filthy cars back then, but out CO2 emissions were low, today we are paying ten times as much for clean cars, but still not enough, we should all be driving hybrids.

Can you or anybody make any sense out of this? I can't. Only relief we had this last week, is this Imus guy, don't even know who in the hell he is, never heard about him, don't care about him, something about he called some African American (use to be colored, can't keep up with that either), womens basketball team a bunch of hos. But that dropped the CO2 discussions for a bit that leads me to the conclusion, if one off colored remark by some idiot takes over the entire news networks, CO2 really can't be that much of a problem.

Edited: Tue April 17, 2007 at 7:25 AM by NickD

TRB on Tue April 17, 2007 11:05 AM User is offlineView users profile

Quote
Originally posted by: graeme
JJM: surely there is another "forum" where personal attacks on people are welcome.........supposedly not here?

No there should not be a direct personal attacks on another member. But if you or anyone thinks that they can post anything they want without a retort. I think that is wishful thinking. I have had to ask two or three people to stop trying to "create" conflict with an individual when it became obvious their goal was not to debate an issue. But to create conflict on the board. Joe is opinionated, I personally like what Joe brings to the table. Heck I think I had even asked him to tone it down once. So I don't select only those that oppose my views when asking to keep things in check.

But what amazes me is all the greenies get so butt hurt anytime someone opposes them. They call everyone names or doubt there intelligence because others don't agree with them. Now I don't think you will see one person here that thinks we should just destroy the earth. But I also notice you were real quite when the Australian fire ball test was posted. Now we could debate the intelligence of the men conducting the test all day. But the bottom line was they unintentionally showed that HC refrigerants are flammable in its current form.

But I don't want to open a old wound with you. You are welcome on our forum! If you feel someone is out of line drop me an email. Sure won't be the first time someone has emailed me about another poster.


-------------------------
When considering your next auto A/C purchase, please consider the site that supports you: ACkits.com
Contact: ACKits.com


Edited: Tue April 17, 2007 at 11:07 AM by TRB

graeme on Tue April 17, 2007 12:12 PM User is offline

Quote
Originally posted by: TRB
Quote

Originally posted by: graeme

JJM: surely there is another "forum" where personal attacks on people are welcome.........supposedly not here?



No there should not be a direct personal attacks on another member. But if you or anyone thinks that they can post anything they want without a retort. I think that is wishful thinking. ......... But to create conflict on the board. Joe is opinionated, I personally like what Joe brings to the table. .....

Now I don't think you will see one person here that thinks we should just destroy the earth. But I also notice you were real quite when the Australian fire ball test was posted. .



If you feel someone is out of line drop me an email. Sure won't be the first time someone has emailed me about another poster.

What you are endorsing TRB is cyberbullying, instead of logical discussion to topics one member simply attacks the other for not agreeing etc.......yes it happens in real life too, just as undesirable.
Australian fireball test?......dont think I visited the forums while that was going on(im guessing its something to do with HC refrigerants)?..........what has that got to do with JJM making personal attacks or anything we are talking about here
People here saying we should destroy the earth?.......I think the right to cheap fuel and to be able to vent r12 has been mentioned just a few times!

TRB on Tue April 17, 2007 12:28 PM User is offlineView users profile

Just a bunch of bullies, now that is funny.

Here is the thread with the fireball HC test.

http://www.autoacforum.com/messageview.cfm?catid=2&threadid=17027

-----------------------------------
Cyber Bully:

Cyberbullying is sending or posting harmful or cruel text or images using the Internet or other digital communication devices.

Cyberbullying is emerging as one of the more challenging issues facing educators and parents as young people embrace the Internet and other mobile communication technologies.

Cyberthreats are a related concern. A cyberthreat is online material that threatens or raises concerns about violence against others, suicide, or other self-harm. There are two kinds: Direct threats are actual threats to hurt someone or commit suicide. Distressing material provides clues that the person is emotionally upset and may be considering hurting someone, hurting him or herself or committing suicide.

-----------------------------------

Don't think anyone here fits into that mold. But you have the right to your opinion.


-------------------------

When considering your next auto A/C purchase, please consider the site that supports you: ACkits.com
Contact: ACKits.com

JJM on Tue April 17, 2007 3:06 PM User is offline

Where was I making personal attacks? I guess if your definition of personal attacks is disagreement, then I suppose I'm guilty. But other than that, your claim is without foundation.

If you view my characterization of your response as totalitarian, how else could it be more "tactfully" described? From the American Heritage Dictionary:

"Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed"

Your comments I previously outlined clearly fall into the above category.

In any event, this is all soap opera stuff anyway. The real issue is the regulation of CO2 with respect to "global warming", which is patently absurd. Anybody with even the slightest education knows that CO2 is an insignificant component in our atmosphere relative to other gases, so with CO2 being so insignificant in our atmosphere, how could it possibly have any significant effect on climate? But perhaps the most absurd part of the who global warming CO2 debate is that CO2 is not a cause of global warming, but rather an effect of global warming, so any attempts to "regulate" it is akin to a cat chasing its tail.

Funny you should talk about the CO2 levels in the 1960s and 1970s. Wasn't "global cooling" and the coming of a new ice age the fear back then? But how could that be, if "unfortunately even in those decades the levels were increasing." If CO2 levels were increasing during that time, then were the "global cooling" alarmists wrong then, or are the "global warming" alarmists wrong now? How could rising CO2 levels lead to both global cooling and global warming?

Is is positively indisputable the biggest source of heat comes from the sun. There is no question about this, and if the sun dies, no amount of SUV's or incandescent lights will keep us warm. So why is the sun never, ever considered in the global warming debate? I personally wouldn't have any problem with anyone trying to regulate the sun; frankly I'd enjoy seeing it.

The bottom line is you want to truly do something about global warming, it would be wise to look at what creates all the warmth this planet has.

Joe

P.S. I erred in mentioning Russell... not that there is very much difference in their ideology.

graeme on Tue April 17, 2007 5:45 PM User is offline

Quote
Originally posted by: JJM
Where was I making personal attacks? I guess if your definition of personal attacks is disagreement, then I suppose I'm guilty. But other than that, your claim is without foundation.
.
Quote

"Funny though how when the government appears to "rule by decree" on matters of terrorism and national security, folks like you wail and protest. But when they rule by decree on killing babies, killing the infirmed, sparing the lives of murderers, letting child molestors go, destroying private property rights, redefining marriage, conveying rights to terrorists... the list goes on and on... folks like you are all for it, no problem, let's do even more!"
Lumping me in a group supporting the above, "folks like you".......thats not a personal attack?.........none of it has got anything to do with CO2 has it? I notice TRB has thrown me in and labelled me as a Greenie too........but thats okay too, Im sure I would see some major actions if the term "red neck" etc was used for those who crucified "greenies".
You may have heard of the expression "playing the man instead of the ball", its used frequently in Aussie rules to describe what happens when one player's focus is to take out his opponent rather than play the ball. That is all you are doing in your responses JJM, most people see it for what it is..........well obviously not all.
There seems to be two sets of rules for this forum......one for those who can slander, attack anyone who voices a view that could change the American way of life and profitability of the AC industry and some stricter interpretations for those who voice a different opinion.

TRB on Tue April 17, 2007 6:06 PM User is offlineView users profile

Where did I directly call you a greenie?

How did you like the firebomb?

-------------------------

When considering your next auto A/C purchase, please consider the site that supports you: ACkits.com
Contact: ACKits.com

graeme on Tue April 17, 2007 11:24 PM User is offline

Firebomb? did a search, perhaps provide a link, couldnt find anything on the search function

graeme on Tue April 17, 2007 11:29 PM User is offline

found the link ^.
I cant view the video? blocked by my employer......is there an account in words?

graeme on Tue April 17, 2007 11:42 PM User is offline

Found a way to open it.......most stupid thing ive ever seen!
ie lets drop a lighted match in a pool of gasoline under the car to simulate a petrol tank punctured in an accident.........I wonder what will happen!

NickD on Wed April 18, 2007 6:03 AM User is offline

Quote
But perhaps the most absurd part of the who global warming CO2 debate is that CO2 is not a cause of global warming, but rather an effect of global warming,

I also adhere to that hypothesis, increased reported sun spot activity with the oceans containing a huge reservoir of carbon dioxide, the warming of the oceans releases CO2 that increases plant life activity that has a self regulating cooling effect of the earth. This may be well part of the earths and solar system cycle we are just becoming aware of. We cannot argue that the levels of CO2 are increasing, but we certainly can argue as to why.

Other subjects that man cannot agree upon, why are we here? Man cannot take credit for inventing the earth or the universe for that matter, but cannot argue the fact that we are here. The word discover is far more predominate than the word invent, we did not invent the elements, but have discovered them and discovered uses for them, some good and some bad. I find it completely amazing that sand on the beach can be used to develop a massive communication system that most of us can afford, it's incredible.

So who or what invented the earth and the elements in it? And is this inventor the key controlling factor? Why is there a finite supply of fossil fuels in the ground? Ha, heard one Sierra club expert slip on this subject in a moment of frustration envious of the fact that Exxon Mobile made a 40 billion profit last year. Well this is where man-made laws can correct that without introducing junk science. However, the technology does exist to remove the carbon from HC's in a refinery technique that would make energy more expensive, and make more money for Exxon and would certainly be an answer for decreasing the CO2 emissions in our automobiles. Our greatest and cheapest source of pure hydrogen is still in fossil fuels.

So Exxon hires Gore with a production company to make an Academy Award winning kindergarten grade movie that appears to go against fossil fuels, play around with corn, solar, and wind power they and we know are not sufficient, but then suddenly, more expensive pure hydrogen from fossil fuels is presented and passed into law. Exxon gets richer, and we get poorer, but the problem, if their ever was one, is solved. This is one scenario where man made laws will work, but how will they explain the CO2 levels are not going down? Well they don't have to, that was the previous administration, new faces, but the background control is still intact. Don't fight it, just buy stock in Exxon.

graeme on Wed April 18, 2007 4:34 PM User is offline

Quote
Originally posted by: NickD
Quote
But perhaps the most absurd part of the who global warming CO2 debate is that CO2 is not a cause of global warming, but rather an effect of global warming,



I also adhere to that hypothesis, increased reported sun spot activity with the oceans containing a huge reservoir of carbon dioxide, the warming of the oceans releases CO2 that increases plant life activity that has a self regulating cooling effect of the earth. This may be well part of the earths and solar system cycle we are just becoming aware of. We cannot argue that the levels of CO2 are increasing, but we certainly can argue as to why.

.
So if there is a self regulating cooling effect, why is the planet gettting hotter?
I think you are claiming that the extra co2 in the atmosphere is not due to man at all, we are so small etc.......what about hfc, is that released by extra sunspot activity warming the oceans too?(its a wonder GeorgeW and Aus prime minister(anyone know who he is?) havent seen fit to use that one yet?)

NickD on Wed April 18, 2007 5:02 PM User is offline

Because we are in a warming cycle now, earth is booming with life with a fantastic population growth, then the earth will go into a cooling cycle and billions will die along with plant and animal life. This cycle has been shown to exist for at least the last million years with core samples and repeats every 80,000 or so years. Some say the warming cycle stopped in 1999, I don't find this hard to believe with near zero degree F temperatures in the first week and a half in April.

You don't hear any arguments from me that water vapor, methane, and HFC's are contributing to global warming. On the other hand a group of scientists are more concerned about global cooling, and really global cooling. In the really mean ice age days, and in core samples, always a layer of volcanic ash with those super cold eras, and with mile high glaciers coming down. In the middle east, many ancient cities have been found 80-100 feet below the water surface that are dated to be about 8,000-10,000 years ago. Adds up to the coming out of the ice age 20,000 years ago. Did passing laws way back then where everyone had to drive a hybrid ox cart save them? Some scientist feel that the huge Yellowstone volcano is about ready to pop it's lid, if that happens, expect billions of people to die.

Sounds like you buy the 17 year history that Gore and others are pushing, I prefer to go back a few more years than that for historical data.

TRB on Wed April 18, 2007 5:12 PM User is offlineView users profile

Cut and paste.

Russian Scientists Forecast Global Cooling in 6-9 Years
Created: 25.08.2006 17:47 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 22:33 MSK


MosNews


Global cooling could develop on Earth in 50 years and have serious consequences before it is replaced by a period of warming in the early 22nd century, a Russian Academy of Sciences’ astronomical observatory’s report says, the RIA Novosti news agency reported Friday.

Environmentalists and scientists warn not about the dangers of global warming provoked by man’s detrimental effect on the planet’s climate, but global cooling. Though never widely supported, it is a theory postulating an overwhelming cooling of the Earth which could involve glaciation.

“On the basis of our [solar emission] research, we developed a scenario of a global cooling of the Earth’s climate by the middle of this century and the beginning of a regular 200-year-long cycle of the climate’s global warming at the start of the 22nd century,” said the head of the space research sector.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov said he and his colleagues had concluded that a period of global cooling similar to one seen in the late 17th century — when canals froze in the Netherlands and people had to leave their dwellings in Greenland — could start in 2012-2015 and reach its peak in 2055-2060.

He said he believed the future climate change would have very serious consequences and that authorities should start preparing for them today because “climate cooling is connected with changing temperatures, especially for northern countries.”

“The Kyoto initiatives to save the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off until better times,” he said, referring to an international treaty on climate change targeting greenhouse gas emissions.

“The global temperature maximum has been reached on Earth, and Earth’s global temperature will decline to a climatic minimum even without the Kyoto protocol,” Abdusamatov said.


-------------------------

When considering your next auto A/C purchase, please consider the site that supports you: ACkits.com
Contact: ACKits.com

NickD on Wed April 18, 2007 5:46 PM User is offline

The Mocha's solution to global warming in around 500 AD with floods was to torture young men by butchering them alive, didn't work for them, their gods weren't pleased and the entire civilization was wiped out. If global cooling or warming occurs, the preachers will bring back the angry God of the Old Testament which actually boiled down to climatic changes experienced back then. Instead of driving hybrid cars, maybe we all better repent.

Can these plus the terrible plagues in around the 15-17th centuries be blamed on industrialization? Wouldn't it be great if some archeologists digs up a transistor or a V-8 engine? Even going back 14,000 years, nothing like that was found, just a bunch of rocks and some pottery.

Back to Off Topic Chat

We've updated our forums!
Click here to visit the new forum

Archive Home

Copyright © 2016 Arizona Mobile Air Inc.