Let's Take A Vote...
in [Design]
|
From: Nunya on 1 Aug 2010 14:51 On Aug 1, 11:01 am, Les Cargill <lcargil...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > John Larkin wrote: > > On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 10:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Nunya<jack_sheph...(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... > > > I bet you drive a diesel of some sort. I bet it's ugly. > > > John > > -- > Les Cargill Since when do airplanes operate on diesel engines?
From: Richard Henry on 1 Aug 2010 15:15 On Aug 1, 10:02 am, Nunya <jack_sheph...(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! > > A diesel engine is the least pollutive combustion engine in current > mass use. I did not know that. Do you have a source for that knowledge?
From: krw on 1 Aug 2010 15:24 On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 11:41:16 -0700 (PDT), Nunya <jack_shephard(a)cox.net> wrote: >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. Wrong, AlwaysWrong. You're always wrong. Your bullshit footprint puts the planet to shame, too. > Three of me would use less than one of you asswipes. The homeless don't use much energy, no. ...unless you count the public library where you post from. > 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. Projection.
From: Nunya on 1 Aug 2010 15:27 On Aug 1, 12:15 pm, Richard Henry <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 1, 10:02 am, Nunya <jack_sheph...(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! > > > A diesel engine is the least pollutive combustion engine in current > > mass use. > > I did not know that. Do you have a source for that knowledge? Diesel VW Jetta: 42mpg, low rpm vehicle. Gasoline vehicle: nowhere close to that mileage, lower efficiency drivetrain as well. More pollution per mile. Case closed.
From: Richard Henry on 1 Aug 2010 15:40
On Aug 1, 12:27 pm, Nunya <jack_sheph...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On Aug 1, 12:15 pm, Richard Henry <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 10:02 am, Nunya <jack_sheph...(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! > > > > A diesel engine is the least pollutive combustion engine in current > > > mass use. > > > I did not know that. Do you have a source for that knowledge? > > Diesel VW Jetta: 42mpg, low rpm vehicle. > > Gasoline vehicle: nowhere close to that mileage, lower > efficiency drivetrain as well. More pollution per mile. > > Case closed. Ah. Proof by assertion. |