Are you following this climatologist email scandal?

[Ghoste]

Again I ask you Defiance, what then do you consider a worthwhile debate?  You tell me co2 concentrations of gone up, but that doesn't prove the greenhouse gas theory.  It doesn't prove the man made global climate change theory.  
You tell me the truth is of no interest to those of us who don't believe in it and yet, the whole reason this thread started was based on the inability of the scientists most widely regarded in this hoax to be truthful.  That and their smug boasting of it to one another.
In prior attempts to discuss this topic, you have always been firmly in support of this same group.  Any attempt by anyone here to quote the research of scientists who did not support these theories, you dismissed out of hand.  Typically you brought the integrity of these same groups into question by challenging the source of their funding.  Now when the integrity of the groups who support the theory is openly exposed you imply that we are the ones who need to keep an open mind.
My mind is wide open, when there is some actual evidence to be presented I will be more than willing to examine it.  On that point we are in agreement, I do not feel the theory is not worthy of further investigation, it certainly is.  But they need to actually prove something before telling me it's the end of the world.

[defiance]

Again I ask you Defiance, what then do you consider a worthwhile debate?  You tell me co2 concentrations of gone up, but that doesn't prove the greenhouse gas theory.  It doesn't prove the man made global climate change theory. 

As I've said REPEATEDLY in this thread, I AGREE that extent of the greenhouse effect needs more research, and that gw is not proven.  Over and over and over.  I have issue with those arguing with the fundamental simple facts that are directly measured by multiple sources (ie current co2 concentration).

You tell me the truth is of no interest to those of us who don't believe in it and yet, the whole reason this thread started was based on the inability of the scientists most widely regarded in this hoax to be truthful.  That and their smug boasting of it to one another.

Another statement I've agreed with repeatedly, that group screwed up.

In prior attempts to discuss this topic, you have always been firmly in support of this same group.  Any attempt by anyone here to quote the research of scientists who did not support these theories, you dismissed out of hand.  Typically you brought the integrity of these same groups into question by challenging the source of their funding.  Now when the integrity of the groups who support the theory is openly exposed you imply that we are the ones who need to keep an open mind.

And you'll notice that's no longer the case.  Before, nearly all research had supported GW, and those that denied it were almost always traceable to corporate bias.  And the fact is, we are dramatically changing the atmosphere's chemical makeup pretty dramatically, and it's hard to believe there won't be repurcussions.  We know we're increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.  We know that the greenhouse effect exists (from observing temperatures on Venus, for example, which is dramatically hotter than Mercury despite being around 50% further from the sun - note that Venus' atmosphere is almost entirely CO2).  So with all that, the theory matches with the facts we do know quite well.  The only part they really needed to demonstrate is the extent of CO2's greenhouse effect in quantities so much lower than what is present on Venus - and a supposedly measured trend seemed to demonstrate it clearly.  With that information, had it all been valid, any conclusion other than supporting GW would not have made sense.  Now some of that research has been shown to have terrible data integrity.  That obviously changes the situation.  The Given that, I'm still guessing GW is valid (for reasons above), but because a significant portion of the research behind it is flawed, we're back to a good theory with a relatively untested component.  In that situation, it is certainly not reasonable to spend massive amounts of money on fighting it until every bit of the remaining research is validated and the extent of greenhouse effect is either measured or otherwise proven, preferably by multiple sources.  As for keeping an open mind, I think the fact that I have changed my position pretty clearly shows I do.

My mind is wide open, when there is some actual evidence to be presented I will be more than willing to examine it.  On that point we are in agreement, I do not feel the theory is not worthy of further investigation, it certainly is.  But they need to actually prove something before telling me it's the end of the world.

Good, then again, we agree fully.  The issue I have is the general feeling among the "deniers" that now is the time to "move in for the kill".  And honestly, they're doing a great job of it.  As it stands right now, the general public isn't going to believe research supporting GW, no matter how well supported, no matter how many independent sources reach the same conclusion, no matter how much evidence is behind it.  The discussion above about CO2 concentration is a prime example. 

[Mike DC]

  
"Global Warming" is not the same thing as "Climate Change."  


IMHO the two sides might be better able to reconcile their differences with some civility if we start using the latter term.  GW demands belief in Saint Gore's prophecies but CC doesn't.  CC is much more supported by the data than GW too. 

 

[Ghoste]

They only started calling it climate change when the dire predictions on global warming didn't pan out.  The earth went and threw them a big old curve ball by having some cooling trends occur.  And then presto, change-o, alakazam; a simple name change and its still the fault of man and it was still blamed on carbon use.  Which means that luckily, the only solution remains (say it with me folks)... CAP AND TRADE!!!  aka the carbon tax.  Every corporate and government leader in the world can actually already taste all the yummy money they're going to make from this.



How was that for closed mind denial? 

[Tilar]

Speaking of cap and trade, The EPA has just added CO2 to the list of things that is dangerous to humans. Yes folks, the stuff we breath out and trees breath in and anything that causes CO2 is now regulated by the EPA. All based on the data in these emails.

[RD]

Speaking of cap and trade, The EPA has just added CO2 to the list of things that is dangerous to humans. Yes folks, the stuff we breath out and trees breath in and anything that causes CO2 is now regulated by the EPA. All based on the data in these emails.

hmmm... so if we breathe, we can be prosecuted for attempted assault on ourselves?

defiance, i dont want to make you upset, that is not my intention.  I, too, have been in the minority of many debates on this forum and most likely felt the same way as you are feeling now.  But, we can always agree to disagree.

I do try to look at things holistically.  I am just not willing to put all my eggs in one basket with a great idea / theory, when it is only great from data that is only relevant if we truly understood how the universe interacts.  Everything science has yet to prove (or maybe will not prove) cannot be construed as TRUTH in theory form.  So if I were to do this, I would be foolish without taking everything into consideration.  That means, I must think of the things that science has not thought of, or is not willing to pursue due to ignorance on the association between A and B.

I am not saying I am genius at chemistry, physics, astronomy, or biology, but I do know enough to understand theories and ideas and evaluate their practicality.  One thing I am somewhat of a subject matter expert is human behavior (MS in Counseling).  We often overlook the fixation of human beings upon certain subject matter in order to obtain justification or approval, so we tend to believe in their rhetoric until their ideas have been proven false (which is this case).  I know the drive of human behavior to obtain goals (small and large), as we all do.  I also understand that human's are as fallible as any creature on this planet.  Just because we may have, what we believe to be, irrefutable evidence to show something as being true, doesnt mean we are not full of shit.

I will not accept the Climate Change theory as being man-made due to the reasons that we dont know everything and any attempt to label concepts based upon minimal information will just cause me to turn my head.  I will sit and listen, but if they are stretching, i am leaving.

[bull]

I heard it was caveman farts that caused the end of the ice age 20,000 years ago. No matter what it's always the fault of the intelligent bipedal mammals. Let's all drink the cool aid together so Mommy Earth can live forever in peace.

[mauve66]

Oh, but thanks for providing some insanely clear-cut examples of one of my primary points: that most people are so utterly convinced of their own side's absolute truth they'd be unwilling to accept anything from the alternative viewpoint, regardless of how simply and utterly inarguable the case was.

that would apply to both sides of this debate, you believe the "results" of testing done by these 3 labs, as far as i'm concerned they were trying to perpetuate the same fraud and get some federal funding  due to their "finding" this info.  just like these emails that show the steps people will go to to make money, everyone who wants to tax, legislate, control, outlaw, something has an agenda thats based on money

here's some other "plans" based on the same philosophy

tickets issued by every state out there, IF driving without a seatbelt is so bad then we have 2 choices, make the fine strong enough to prevent the act except by the most evil of drivers, or make money off it, kinda like a parallel to murder, the ultimate punishment of murder is death, so not everyone does it, but if the punishment of murder was $1000.00 fine............... well, honey we're gonna skip Xmas this year 'cause your Mother is really getting on my nerves............. do you know who driving without a seatbelt hurts??  THE PERSON NOT WEARING THE SEATBELT.  Its a simple exercise, the insurance company has a clause that says "if you get into an accident and weren't wearing a seatbelt, your medical bills aren't covered".  rates wouldn't go up due to all the injuries caused by not wearing a seatbelt cause no money would go out for those injuries, but this way they can say costs are up due to medical payments so we have to raise your rates even more, doesn't matter that YOU never had an accident, we're raising the rates of everyone in your "group", my group is no accidents or tickets for over 12 years but my rates go up every year, thats my punishment?

if you don't keep car insurance on your car, they don't take your car and license away, you get a fine, hoping that they'll be able to collect again in the near future, oh yeah, i have to pay to take care of my car when someone doesn't have insurance, now why am i being punished again???

does smoking in a bar cause lung cancer?? no, i know many people who have smoked all their lives and even received 2nd hand smoke from living with smokers and still never got cancer.  so they make a law that states the owner of a business can't even decide what type of customer they want in their own establishment, they don't make the punishment to shut down the business for a violation that they know is going to happen, they make it a fine so someone can collect money. 

we create huge bureaucracies to collect money for things that the government creates problems for in the first place

in the 70's they said a new ice age was coming and then the SAME people who were touting the ice age switched to global warming and now its climate change, you know what, the climate changes 4 times a damn year (well, not here in Vegas but i have lived other places, and heard stories from those Canadians), and i still wonder where all this ice is going to go when it melts, maybe it will grow legs and then walk up the shore to drown all those damn people who now enjoy beach front property right now

what i'm trying to describe here is you can't blindly trust anyone that has a stake in the outcome, when a pharmaceutical company comes out with a new drug, they wouldn't put the warnings on there about the side effects if they weren't worried about the lawsuits, your eyes are itchy but take our pill and all will be better, don't worry about the POSSIBLE severe side effects up to and including death, those occurred on very few people......... 1 out of a million??         1000 out of a million?  100,000 out of a million, 10% is still very few, just ask a small business surviving on 10% profit

when edelbrock makes an intake that claims 100 more hp, somebody without a stake in the company is going to check it out and report that it only makes 83 hp
we need someone that is without interest using un-modified data to evaluate things, smae thing with political commercials, both sides use the same issue to prove that their person is the best, not possible but it must be true, they said so

[Steve P.]

So can we use R-12 again or what??

[RD]

So can we use R-12 again or what??

sure.. aerosol cans, and I WANT MY DAMN STYROFOAM BIG MAC CONTAINERS BACK!!!

[Tilar]

Speaking of cap and trade, The EPA has just added CO2 to the list of things that is dangerous to humans. Yes folks, the stuff we breath out and trees breath in and anything that causes CO2 is now regulated by the EPA. All based on the data in these emails.

hmmm... so if we breathe, we can be prosecuted for attempted assault on ourselves?

Felonious assault with morning breath.  Holy crap, Now they've come up with another reason for people to get a divorce.

I'm going to split a gut when the first 911 call goes in because someone was caught breathing on someone else. 

[defiance]

All three independent measures of CO2 concentration are all part of a government conspiracy to increase taxes.  Right.  I'm done doing this guys.  This isn't arguing, it's throwing logic at a    Thanks for proving my point again.

[chargerboy69]

They only started calling it climate change when the dire predictions on global warming didn't pan out. 

Thats right.  If you are not winning the argument, change the vocabulary.

[John_Kunkel]

Strange that you think of this as dumbing down though. We're actually talking about a serious subject where people are offering intelligent arguments, many of them with info to back them up.

In every debate there will be those who accept info that is supposedly "backed up", the simple fact is that most people accept arguments that supposedly back up the argument that they already accept and the cycle repeats.

The trick is to find somebody that has no pre-conceived notions on the subject and, from what I've read on this forum over the years, those here who currently pooh-bah climate change have voiced there opinions many times on the subject (and other right-wing subjects) and they definitely fall under the "pre-conceived notion" category.

[Ghoste]

Of course, the exact same can be said for those who support the theory (and other left wing subjects).

[mauve66]

Of course, the exact same can be said for those who support the theory (and other left wing subjects).

thats the part "their" not seeing, their own argument applies to them but they don't think so "cause their info is the only info that is correct"

oops, i guess i'm not debating anymore, i'm accusing, here comes the lock......................

[Steve P.]

Ok, I have tried to cool the burn twice now, but the last thing I wrote I was really questioning.... I had heard some time ago that they found R-12 was NOT a bad thing. It was in the air for a while. OK, no pun intended, but I never heard the end result. I ask this question because 134 is much less efficient and very touchy. It also eats compressors much faster due to it's higher pressures. My line of thinking is to use R-12 in 134b's place and start making ice again at a lower fuel expense. 

I just thought that since a bunch of you are watching the 02 news you may have heard...


Now play nice or I'll turn off Spongbob.... 

[Ghoste]

I had "heard" something to that effect as well but nothing I recall as being evidence one way or the other.  The new larger issue has certainly overshadowed it.

[teamroth]

Ok, I have tried to cool the burn twice now, but the last thing I wrote I was really questioning.... I had heard some time ago that they found R-12 was NOT a bad thing. It was in the air for a while. OK, no pun intended, but I never heard the end result. I ask this question because 134 is much less efficient and very touchy. It also eats compressors much faster due to it's higher pressures. My line of thinking is to use R-12 in 134b's place and start making ice again at a lower fuel expense. 

I just thought that since a bunch of you are watching the 02 news you may have heard...


Now play nice or I'll turn off Spongbob.... 

I'm curious as to where you got the info that it kills compressors quicker?

[Steve P.]

Sorry for the topic theft and I promisssssse we'll go back, but I have a few buddy's in the parts business and another with a used car lot. ALL of them agree that they are changing more compressors than ever since R134b has been standard. Also it works on higher pressures with has to translate into more fuel/HP use. I would think more heat as well...

[teamroth]

Sorry for the topic theft and I promisssssse we'll go back, but I have a few buddy's in the parts business and another with a used car lot. ALL of them agree that they are changing more compressors than ever since R134b has been standard. Also it works on higher pressures with has to translate into more fuel/HP use. I would think more heat as well...

Well, I don't want to be argumentative, but I am currently in school for HVAC engineering. You peaked my interest with your statement, so I looked into it a bit.The pressures don't really vary all that much. The main problem is the oils between the two are not compatible. So if you don't get a thorough flush when you evac the R-12, and replace with the 134, you will end up burning the compressor. The main difference is the heat capability. The 134 removes less heat than the r-12, so it will not be as efficient. However with a low pressure and high prssure switch installed, you should not lose a compressor for many years.

Sorry for the hi-jack, I am just a little bit eager to learn, and wnated to hear your thoughts. Thanks Steve!  

[Steve P.]

Sorry again...  The compressors I am talking about are NOT after being converted. I know the rubber hoses and -o-rings are not compatible. That isn't my issue.  I'm being told that the newer cars that came from the factories with 134b systems are NOT holding up as well as the old R-12 systems. Even with today's tech... My thoughts are simple and maybe feeble, but it rings my bell that using R-12 in a 134b system with the correct oil could be more efficient (fuel wise and heat removing wise) and spit out ice cubes.

Maybe we should start a new thread on this..    
http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/board,27.0.html

Now back to our regularly scheduled programing....

[RD]

or, it could be the fact that the manufacturers no longer make the parts last as long to ensure job security.

working the autoparts biz, i find more compressors coming back due to shade tree mechanics not knowing their ass from a hole in the ground.  the compressor isnt the problem, they were.

[teamroth]

or, it could be the fact that the manufacturers no longer make the parts last as long to ensure job security.

working the autoparts biz, i find more compressors coming back due to shade tree mechanics not knowing their ass from a hole in the ground.  the compressor isnt the problem, they were.

Funny you should say that RD. I won't hijack anymore after this, but it used to be 1 in 3 compressor returned were not faulty. Now it's 2 in 4 that have nothing wrong. Lots of hacks out there that make it more expensive for the end user.

[bull]

Ok, I have tried to cool the burn twice now, but the last thing I wrote I was really questioning.... I had heard some time ago that they found R-12 was NOT a bad thing. It was in the air for a while. OK, no pun intended, but I never heard the end result. I ask this question because 134 is much less efficient and very touchy. It also eats compressors much faster due to it's higher pressures. My line of thinking is to use R-12 in 134b's place and start making ice again at a lower fuel expense. 

I just thought that since a bunch of you are watching the 02 news you may have heard...


Now play nice or I'll turn off Spongbob.... 

What I have heard about R12 is that the producers of it helped initiate the ban to make more money, and if you think about it there is some logic to the theory, albeit a conspiracy theory. The following is my paraphrase of the story so don't take it as a verbatim account: first, the producers see the "green" writing on the wall, willingly admit to the dangers of R12 and start producing R134. However, when this talk of an R12 ban started they most likely ramped up its production. Then the govt. initiates the ban on R12 production so not only are these companies now selling the remaining R12 inventory at crazy inflated prices they're also selling R134 at the same price R12 used to sell for. Sound like a good way to boost profits? It does to me too. So now, start looking forward to a ban on R134 and watch how the price on it jumps to crazy heights while yet another refrigerant magically pops up to replace it. Of course none of this can ever be proven...