Let's Take A Vote...
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 1 Aug 2010 13:12 On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 10:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Nunya <jack_shephard(a)cox.net> wrote: >On Aug 1, 8:20�am, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 01:10:49 -0700, > >> What's interesting is how little attention the climate alarmists give >> to particulates. The reason is obvious: they want to use CO2 limits to >> strangle the world's capitalist economies, and just adding some >> filters can't accomplish that, so they don't care about particulates. >> >> John > > A diesel engine pollutes the air LESS than a gasoline engine does, >idiot. AlwaysWrong keeps his perfect record intact. > The particulates enitted are heavy, and they do NOT remain suspended >in our atmosphere, idiot! No, they end up in your lungs, idiot! > A diesel engine is the least pollutive combustion engine in current >mass use. AlwaysWrong reasserts his *wrong* statements.
From: John Larkin on 1 Aug 2010 13:22 On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 10:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Nunya <jack_shephard(a)cox.net> wrote: >On Aug 1, 8:20�am, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 01:10:49 -0700, > >> What's interesting is how little attention the climate alarmists give >> to particulates. The reason is obvious: they want to use CO2 limits to >> strangle the world's capitalist economies, and just adding some >> filters can't accomplish that, so they don't care about particulates. >> >> John > > A diesel engine pollutes the air LESS than a gasoline engine does, >idiot. > > The particulates enitted are heavy, and they do NOT remain suspended >in our atmosphere, idiot! Settling times are probably in weeks, with the smaller (and more dangerous) particles staying suspended longer. So, unlike CO2, we could dramatically reduce the effects of particulates fairly soon, and at small relative expense. > > A diesel engine is the least pollutive combustion engine in current >mass use. Hey, you never let facts, or even real-life experience, or your own eyeballs, interfere with your opinions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates#Health_effects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_particulate_matter http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/diesel/diesel_health_effects_summary_7-5-05-1.pdf I bet you drive a diesel of some sort. I bet it's ugly. John
From: John Larkin on 1 Aug 2010 13:32 On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:12:38 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 10:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Nunya <jack_shephard(a)cox.net> wrote: > >>On Aug 1, 8:20�am, John Larkin >><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 01:10:49 -0700, >> >>> What's interesting is how little attention the climate alarmists give >>> to particulates. The reason is obvious: they want to use CO2 limits to >>> strangle the world's capitalist economies, and just adding some >>> filters can't accomplish that, so they don't care about particulates. >>> >>> John >> >> A diesel engine pollutes the air LESS than a gasoline engine does, >>idiot. > >AlwaysWrong keeps his perfect record intact. > >> The particulates enitted are heavy, and they do NOT remain suspended >>in our atmosphere, idiot! > >No, they end up in your lungs, idiot! > >> A diesel engine is the least pollutive combustion engine in current >>mass use. > >AlwaysWrong reasserts his *wrong* statements. You've got to admire that sort of consistency. John
From: Les Cargill on 1 Aug 2010 14:01 John Larkin wrote: > On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 10:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Nunya<jack_shephard(a)cox.net> > wrote: > >> On Aug 1, 8:20 am, John Larkin >> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 01:10:49 -0700, >> >>> What's interesting is how little attention the climate alarmists give >>> to particulates. The reason is obvious: they want to use CO2 limits to >>> strangle the world's capitalist economies, and just adding some >>> filters can't accomplish that, so they don't care about particulates. >>> >>> John >> >> A diesel engine pollutes the air LESS than a gasoline engine does, >> idiot. >> >> The particulates enitted are heavy, and they do NOT remain suspended >> in our atmosphere, idiot! > > Settling times are probably in weeks, with the smaller (and more > dangerous) particles staying suspended longer. So, unlike CO2, we > could dramatically reduce the effects of particulates fairly soon, and > at small relative expense. > It's entirely possible that particulates increase the albedo of the atmosphere. A measurable increase in solar load was... measured when all air travel was suspended after 9/11 . >> >> A diesel engine is the least pollutive combustion engine in current >> mass use. > > Hey, you never let facts, or even real-life experience, or your own > eyeballs, interfere with your opinions. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates#Health_effects > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_particulate_matter > > http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/diesel/diesel_health_effects_summary_7-5-05-1.pdf > > > I bet you drive a diesel of some sort. I bet it's ugly. > > John > > > -- Les Cargill
From: Nunya on 1 Aug 2010 14:41
On Aug 1, 10:22 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > I bet you drive a diesel of some sort. I bet it's ugly. > > John Wrong again, Johnny. My carbon footprint puts all of you to shame. Three of me would use less than one of you asswipes. You probably have an ugly portrait of yourself up in the attic, with dripping, oozing pustules allover your face. At least... that's what a little punk like you deserves. |