A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Jeep
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

134a Refrigerant



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #401  
Old June 29th 05, 12:14 AM
Earle Horton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Nathan W. Collier" > wrote in message
...
> "L.W. ("ßill") Hughes III" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Earle, once showed us his W-2 for over three quarters
> > of a million dollars, I don't think he worries about your
> > opinion of him.

>
> lol how true. wasnt it 2 million?
>

Yeah. Bill was thinking of Uncle Sam's cut. (

Earle


Ads
  #402  
Old June 29th 05, 12:33 AM
Billy Ray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Everything that the environmental movement has proclaimed since its coming
of age in the 1960s and 1970s has turned out to be wrong. The air and water
are getting cleaner, not dirtier. Nature kills more species than mankind. A
mere three volcanos during the past one hundred years have spewed more
pollutants into the air than all of mankind throughout history. Ultraviolet
radiation reaching the earth's surface has decreased during the past 50
years. There are now nearly twice as many trees in the United States as
there were in 1900. Pollution has not poisoned America, nor has it caused an
ice age to occur as environmentalists predicted in the 1970s. Nor have the
oceans been poisoned with mercury, lead, or any other substance; nor has a
deadly overpopulation occurred. In contrast to all of the doomsday
predictions asserted by environmentalists, overall pollution levels continue
to decrease while the health and life span of humans continues to increase.

Environmentalism is merely the latest manipulation tool of that age-old
mentality that attacks success and progress. In the late 1980s, as communism
finally collapsed (communism had been the darling of anti-success,
anti-achievement movements for the past one-hundred years), former
socialists and communists flocked into the budding green movement.
Environmentalism became the new vehicle to attack success and progress.

The anti-success, anti-progress philosophy underlying the environmental
movement needs little elaboration. The constant quotes and statements made
by its leaders make it abundantly clear that the environmental movement
considers mankind a scar on nature, that man's progress must be stopped,
even reversed, and that man's success and achievements act as a cancer upon
the environment. In other words, stop progress, stop success, subordinate
humans to owls, fish, plants. But this anti-success, anti-progress
philosophy, just like all the previous anti-success, anti-progress
philosophies throughout history, will lead straight to suffering and death.

Man is the only animal born without any natural survival tools. To survive,
man must learn how to transform nature. Everything required for human
survival must be acquired by using the mind to think and to devise tools for
satisfying needs. To survive and prosper, man must follow a philosophy that
holds his life and his welfare as the supreme value and guiding standard.
Any standard that holds the welfare of plants or animals or the party
ideology or any other cause above man can only lead to ruined potential,
lost happiness, destruction, and eventually mass death. All the countless
anti-success, anti-progress movements throughout history have demonstrated
this.

No rational person today can argue about the benefits of technology. Before
the industrial revolution, man's life was short, nasty, and brutish. The
average life span was under 30 years. Humans spent their days performing
back-breaking physical toil. They were constantly menaced by disease and
painful ailments. Experiencing a happy, successful, and fulfilling life was
out of the question for all but a handful of aristocrats. The average person
was nothing more than a poor, ignorant, suffering serf.

But it was the industrial revolution, with its flowering of business and
technology, that lifted the average man out of a miserable, suffering state
and into today's world of abundant opportunity, health, and a decent
standard of living. Yet, it is exactly that technological progress and
development that the environmental movement attacks. In fact, leaders of the
environmental movement openly advocate that mankind be forced to return to
the anti-life state of the miserable pre-industrial days. Of course, to do
this would mean mass death and destruction for everyone. That has always
been the end result of movements that attack success and progress. Reason,
compassion, common sense will not stop anti-success, anti-progress
ideologues. If the result is mass unemployment, destroyed living standards,
even death, "So be it!" is their response.


* * *

After all of the doomsday predictions proclaimed in the 1960s and 1970s by
the environmental movement turned out to be false, the movement fell
relatively dormant. Then, it was revived in the late 1980s primarily because
environmentalists came up with two new doomsday scenarios: Global Warming
and Ozone Depletion. But, as before, these doomsday scenarios prove false
when looked at in an objective, in-context manner. This is because the
environmental movement is concerned not with fact and science, but with
stopping progress and development. Let's take a closer look at both the
global warming assertion and the ozone depletion assertion.

Global Warming: In the late 1980s several heat waves and droughts hit
America. Environmentalists jumped on this occurrence to scare the public
with doomsday scenarios about global warming. Environmentalists asserted
that the gasses emitted by our autos, power plants, and other activities
were thickening the atmosphere, causing more solar heat to be absorbed by
the atmosphere. But this is merely inner-logic speculation. No clear trend
exists showing that temperature increases have occurred over the past 100
years. A few analyses of temperature data over the past century taken in
major cities has shown, debatably, a fraction of a degree increase in
average temperatures. But these measurements are from urban areas. Other
studies done with temperatures measured on the ocean by sailing vessels show
no increase in average temperatures over the past 100 years. Cities and
large urban areas are naturally going to be hotter because they have less
vegetation, which absorbs heat, and have more concrete, steel, and other
finished surfaces which reflect heat. Everyone has experienced the
difference in temperature on a hot summer day when walking onto a paved
street versus a cool grassy lawn.

To demonstrate the ridiculousness of the global warming assertion, consider
how in the late 1970s, when America experienced several years of record
cold, environmentalists claimed that pollution in the air was reflecting
sunlight back into space, causing temperatures to fall. They predicted a
global ice age was about to result. Newspapers and magazines all over the
world ran headlines proclaiming that earth was heading into a man-made ice
age.

Now, let's look at the facts -- plant decay, volcanic seepage, and other
natural processes release about 200 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere each year. Human activity, on the other hand, releases only an
estimated 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year. Obviously, this is not
a threat to the ecosystem. If it were, we would see undeniable proof that
temperatures were rising, not inconclusive and contradictory data depending
on where measurements were taken over a 100-year period.

The ultimate factor in exposing the irrationality behind the global warming
doomsday scenario is the fact that the eruptions of a mere three volcanos
during the past 100 years (Krakatoa in Java, Katmai in Alaska, and Hekla in
Iceland) emitted more gasses into the air than the entire history of mankind
combined. That's not even including the more recent eruptions of Mount St.
Helens in Washington and Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines. These facts
alone destroy the credibility of any global warming doomsday prediction. No
permanent catastrophic changes occurred in the global atmosphere as a result
of those volcanos. Yet, those volcanos released more pollution into the air
than the entire history of mankind combined.

Ozone Depletion: Two university academes theorized that because CFCs, the
main cooling ingredient in refrigerators, can mix with certain gasses in the
atmosphere to produce chlorine gas, which does destroy ozone molecules, such
chlorine gas may rise several miles into the atmosphere and destroy ozone in
the ozone layer high above earth's surface. Yet, no direct evidence has ever
been produced that shows the relatively minuscule amount of CFCs released at
the earth's surface by human activities results in the ozone layer being
destroyed.

The significance of the ozone layer is that it screens out harmful
ultraviolet radiation from the sun and prevents it from reaching the earth's
surface. For natural, yet currently unknown reasons, an ozone hole forms
over the poles each year. This has been known by scientists for decades.
When this naturally occurring ozone hole over the South Pole increased in
the 1980s, environmentalists used this as a rallying cry to arbitrarily
assert that the ozone layer was being eaten away by man-made CFCs. They then
issued doomsday warnings that dramatic increases in skin cancer and birth
defects would result. But, to link the naturally occurring ozone holes at
the poles with man-made CFCs is a non sequitur.

First of all, if man-made CFCs were destroying the ozone layer, ozone holes
would appear over populated areas, not at the poles where no humans live.
More significant is the fact that chlorine, the by-product of CFCs that
destroys ozone, is released in nature each year, especially from volcanic
seepage, in quantities that far exceed human release. And finally, the
ultimate factor exposing the irrationality behind the ozone doomsday
scenario is the fact that the amount of ultraviolet radiation reaching the
earth's surface each year has been measurably decreasing since the 1940s.
That's right, ultraviolet radiation reaching the earth's surface has been
decreasing since the 1940s, not increasing. Yet, it is cancer-causing
ultraviolet radiation that is at the crux of the ozone doomsday scenario.

Despite these in-context facts, governments went ahead and banned CFC
production after 1995. What are the implications of this? Well, CFC's main
use is to cool refrigerators. Now, consider that a major cause of
malnutrition in the underfed third world is food spoilage due to a lack of
refrigeration. The reason why mass starvations are no longer common in the
third world is because even the poorest countries now have an extensive,
though far from sufficient, refrigeration chain. This refrigeration chain
allows food to move from farms to urban areas and to be stored for future
consumption. By banning CFCs, the price of refrigeration is going to
increase dramatically, the efficiency of refrigeration is going to decrease,
and refrigerators now in use will become obsolete. Industrialized nations
can afford this. Poor, hand-to-mouth third-world nations cannot.

The end result of the unnecessary and irrational act of banning CFCs is
going to translate into thousands of deaths in the third world as the
already delicate refrigeration chain breaks down and becomes less efficient
and more costly. Food spoilage is going to increase in the third world,
deaths related to malnutrition and starvation are also going to increase.

Scientists and CFC manufacturers know this. They have issued warnings to
environmental groups and the government. But, that didn't stop the
environmentalists nor the politicians. The production of CFCs was banned
anyway. Death and destruction have never stopped anti-success, anti-progress
movements.


* * *

Out-of-context, false assertions of the environmental movement can and will
kill. Consider the case of DDT: In 1874, German chemists developed a
chemical compound called dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane, subsequently
named DDT. DDT was found to be extremely effective at killing
disease-carrying and crop-eating insects, while it was essentially harmless,
even in concentrated doses, to humans and animals. Thus, it was considered
as almost a "miracle" pesticide. DDT wiped out many deadly diseases in the
third world, such as malaria, typhoid, sleeping sickness, and others. It
also made famine due to plagues of crop-eating insects a thing of the past.

Unfortunately, in the late 1950s, Rachel Carson, a nature writer employed by
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, jumped on environmental rumors
that pesticides were supposed to be building up in livestock and humans and
were leading to a mass poisoning of America. Of course, none of these
unsubstantiated doomsday rumors ever proved to be true. But that didn't stop
Ms. Carson. Instead of conducting objective, scientific studies to see if
pesticides were indeed harming humans and animals, she promptly wrote a
doomsday book called Silent Spring. In her book, she simply made up a story
about a town in the heart of America. Ms. Carson described the residents of
this fictional town as suffering from all kinds of maladies as a result of
DDT being sprayed on the town's crops.

Upon publication of Silent Spring in 1962, it was immediately acclaimed by
reviewers as a great work. Several reviewers stated that Silent Spring would
be the salvation of mankind. The book was hailed in the media. It sold
several million copies. Ms. Carson received numerous awards.

As a result of Silent Spring's unscientific, inner-logic attacks against
pesticides, an enormous public clamor arose to ban DDT. DDT was subsequently
banned in the United States and other western countries. Next, international
pressure was put on third-world countries to discontinue the use of DDT as
well. What were the results of this anti-pesticide movement founded on
untrue assertions and an anti-technology, anti-progress ideology? Consider,
as just one example, the third-world country of Ceylon (subsequently named
Sri Lanka). In 1961, before the publication of Silent Spring, there were
just 100 cases of malaria in Ceylon, and for the first time on record, no
recorded deaths occurred from malaria in Ceylon. This was the result of mass
insect eradication programs using DDT. But, after the publication of Silent
Spring and the subsequent international outcry against DDT, Ceylon
discontinued using DDT. By 1968, just seven years later, there were two and
a half million cases of malaria in Ceylon and over 10,000 deaths. Ceylon
officials attributed this directly to discontinuing the use of DDT. Ten
thousand deaths in a single year occurred in just one third-world country
because of the irrational, anti-technology assertions of the environmental
movement.

Ms. Carson, who was proclaimed a hero and given the Albert Schweitzer award
for her book, had issued a death warrant for tens of thousands of people.
Ideas based on anti-technology, anti-progress platforms are deadly. Even
when those ideas emanate from a small, soft-spoken woman.

Any movement that results in the deaths of thousands of people cannot be
excused. That, in itself, warrants its immediate discrediting and the
public's complete withdrawal of support. Whenever a movement is based on
anti-success, anti-progress ideas, whenever a movement depends upon
obscuring reality and deceiving people, whether that movement is called
communism, fascism, fundamentalism, or environmentalism, the end result has
to culminate in mass destruction and death. And don't count on the leaders
of such movements to be compassionate or to act with common sense. They
won't. They will simply ignore facts that contradict their ideology and will
instead increasingly blame productive working people for the problems that
their policies cause.

Let's now examine business and technology at a more basic, philosophic
level. You see, business is the creation of values. To survive, business
must produce tangible values for which others willingly pay for. Thus, by
its nature, business must be a net producer of values to society. Otherwise,
a business can not survive.

The production of values can sometimes have negative side effects. But those
side effects, in turn, get solved by business itself if they are significant
enough to pose a real problem. For, it then becomes a commercial value to
society to solve such problems. Business will then rush in to provide that
value.

For example, today there are almost twice as many trees growing in America
as there were in 1900. This is because of the logging industry. The side
effect of large-scale development in this country resulted in cutting down
more and more trees. Thus, it became a significant value to the logging
industry to counteract this side effect of development by planting enormous
numbers of trees.

Consider how a century ago, when coal was the prime heating element, major
cities became so polluted that the sun sometimes could not be seen for days.
Thus, it became a major value to eliminate such pollution. As a result,
smokeless coal was developed and eventually coal fireplaces were replaced
with much cleaner gas furnaces and electric heaters. Today, major American
cities are far less polluted than they were a century ago.

Consider the threatened extinction of elephants and other exotic animals in
Africa. In every African country where wild elephants and other exotic
animals live, their numbers continue to dwindle each year. The exception is
in South Africa. There, the number of wild elephants and other exotic
animals increases each year. This is because game reserves are run by
private, for-profit companies. It has become a value for business to
preserve and breed rare animals on those game reserves. And that is exactly
what is being done.

The bottom line is that business is a gigantic net producer of values.
Whenever and wherever pollution or other side effects truly become a
problem, business will move in and solve it. This has been proven time and
again throughout history.

This brings us to the following point: There is no need for environmental
policy, environmental protection agencies, or environmental legislation.
Whatever real pollution problems do exist, they can factually, objectively
be resolved in a court of law. If somebody is emitting pollution that is
harming another person, then the victim can go to court and, using objective
law, have that polluter halt his activities and compensate victims for any
provable damages inflicted upon them. Any other means of forcibly stopping
pollution is immoral by its very nature. An objective court system is the
only moral system for determining if one person is harming another and then
enforcing an end to that harm plus reimbursement for damages.

In an objective court, only hard, provable evidence will do. Circumstantial
evidence, arbitrary assertions, future predictability models will not do.
For, in science, if a phenomenon really exists, an abundance of undeniable,
hard evidence will also exist. If such evidence does not exist, an assertion
is just so much home-spun inner logic.

This takes us to a major deception employed by environmentalists: asserting
the arbitrary. The reason why environmentalism gets away with so many
irrational actions is because it employs an age-old trick of asserting the
arbitrary. For example, the environmental movement makes statements such as
"continuing to emit gasses into the atmosphere could have drastic
consequences 50 or 100 years from now." Or, "releasing CFCs into the
atmosphere may have a drastic effect on the ozone layer in the next
generation." Or, "allowing a plant or an owl to become extinct could
drastically effect the ecosystem and even the food chain somewhere down the
line." But all of that is merely asserting the arbitrary. Asserting the
arbitrary cannot be accepted by any rational being, for then any fantasy
goes. A person could just as legitimately assert that a hundred years from
now we may discover that we should have stepped up the emission of gasses
into the atmosphere several-fold because it would have prevented the next
ice age or would have improved plant life by thickening the atmosphere.
Likewise, one could assert that mankind should step up the extermination of
a certain owl, or a certain plant, because we may discover that a heretofore
undetected enzyme emitted by that owl or that plant into the food chain was
responsible for triggering cancer in humans.

Asserting the arbitrary has no basis in reality. And, like any action that
does not concur with reality, whether it is implementing communism to "help
the poor" or draining blood to "help the sick", great net losses will
inevitably result. Asserting the arbitrary must never be sanctioned by a
rational person.


* * *

The environmental movement gets much of its support by proclaiming how
delicately balanced the environment is and that mankind had better not upset
nature's balance. Yet, Nature herself provides the ultimate refutation of
the environmental movement. A quick examination of earth's history reveals
that there is no such thing as a natural state of the environment. The
natural environment is constantly changing and evolving. Originally earth
had an atmosphere full of hot, toxic gasses and was completely uninhabitable
by life forms. Since that time, dramatic changes in all parts of the
environment have occurred. As a result, 90 percent of all life forms ever to
evolve on earth have become extinct by nature's own doing. So much for the
frantic cries that every plant and animal species must be preserved at all
costs. Nature herself is the ultimate exterminator of plant and animal
species.

In fact, what becomes clear over time is that eventually every species
becomes extinct. At some point, a species simply becomes unable to cope with
new changes in the environment -- that species then becomes an unadaptable
"dinosaur." Only a species that can master and control nature herself can
survive indefinitely -- i.e., only mankind. Nature herself will eventually
wipe out all other species.

Environmentalists assert that it is heresy for mankind to attempt to alter
or control nature. Catastrophe will result, they exclaim. But that is simply
not rational, for that is exactly what man must do on a massive scale if he
expects to survive. Instead of coiling away from any activity that may
affect the climate, mankind must charge ahead full steam and learn how to
master and control the global climate now, while he still has the chance.
Why? Because over the past several hundred thousand years earth has been
going through a cycle of vast ice ages interspersed with warmer periods.
Scientists believe that earth is merely in between ice ages right now and
that in another ten thousand years or so earth will probably be heading back
into a major ice age.

Talk about climatic catastrophe! Countless species will become extinct then.
And ten thousand years on the time line is not much time at all. Our direct
ancestors were alive during the last ice age, and our future descendants
will be alive during the next. They are not going to like the idea of an ice
age setting in. It is doubtful they are going to stand idly by and watch
nature do its thing.

Environmentalists virulently preach against man-made changes in the forests,
in the oceans, in the arctic, and so on, as if the conditions on earth today
are some kind of intrinsic Garden of Eden that have always existed and
always will exist in their present form. In reality, almost every imaginable
form of environment has existed during earth's five-billion-year history.
And, at some point during earth's next five billion years of existence, the
sun will begin to burn out. Earth's atmosphere will then burn as the sun
swells, and then literally freeze and fall to the ground once the sun has
extinguished itself. So much for the sanctity of nature and its atmosphere.

Earth has already existed for five billion years. Life has existed in
primitive forms for three-fourth's of that time. Thus, there will most
likely be life existing on earth when the sun does begin to burn out during
the next five billion years. Any intelligent beings alive then are not going
to like what nature has in store for them. If they are to survive, they will
have to declare war on nature. In the meantime, mankind has got a lot of
technology to devise and a lot of development to do if we hope to survive
indefinitely.

Looking towards the more immediate future, consider the rest of the planets
in our solar system. They all have barren, inhospitable, lifeless
environments. Instead of fearing change, mankind has to exert integrated
effort and forward movement to venture out beyond earth's comfortable
boundaries. In complete contradiction to the whining, huffy,
anti-technology, anti-progress environmentalists, mankind needs to learn how
to control nature in order to bring the gift of life, with its abundance of
warmth and fullness, to the now barren, inhospitable planets.

If we reject the environmentalists' age-old anti-progress, anti-success
mentality and instead push forward full steam -- learning to master and
control nature -- then mankind can bring the beautiful gift of life beyond
earth to the surrounding planets. That is the pro-development,
pro-technology, pro-human direction mankind needs to strive for -- not the
direction of going backwards and living in small tribes in little huts as
many leaders of the environmental movement openly state mankind should do.
It is now time for the children of earth to grow into adults. We must
embrace the challenges of the future if we are to survive. If we do, then a
glorious universe of exciting achievement and growth awaits us.


* * *

Today's environmentalists are like the fundamentalists of past centuries who
spurned man-made machines declaring that they were the work of Satan and
would corrupt mankind. Today's environmentalists are like the religious
fanatics who protested when doctors first started doing internal surgery,
saying it was toying in God's domain and would bring the wrath of God upon
us. Today's environmentalists are like the anti-change, anti-progress lobby
that protested the opening up of railroads in America proclaiming that such
freedom of travel would lead to a life of decadence. Today's environmental
movement is the same anti-progress, anti-technology cynicism that has always
declared man's success will result in some unforeseen calamity.

In reality, the opposite is true. A constant charging forward of technology
and progress is what brings opportunity, health, increased living standards,
and happiness to mankind. It is also what solves real problems that do
exist. As demonstrated repeatedly throughout history, industry itself
evolves towards ever-cleaner, less-polluting processes. Pollution represents
waste and therefore inefficiency and lost money. Industry evolved from
burning dirty wood and coal to burning much cleaner gas and electricity and
then to nuclear power which emits no pollution at all. Only the interference
of anti-technology, anti-progress environmentalists prevents this natural
advancement to ever-cleaner, less-polluting industrial processes. Witness
the environmentalists' complete hostility toward nuclear energy. This is
because a clean environment is not what its leaders really want. That is
only a mask. Environmentalists are anti-technology, anti-progress.

Observe how the industrialized, first-world countries are much less polluted
and cleaner than the unindustrialized, third-world countries. Development,
prosperity, technology inarguably lead to an increasingly cleaner, safer
environment as well as a stable, even declining population.



* * *

Whenever a movement is driven by envy against success, against technology,
against progress, its leaders will keep going until they destroy
everything -- just like communism destroyed the lives of everyone under its
domain, just like fundamentalists are willing to throttle the lives of
everyone under their domain. That is why an anti-progress, anti-success
movement such as environmentalism must be opposed with all one's might. But,
just how does the man in the street, who is not a scientist and does not
have all kinds of facts and figures at his disposal, handle the constant
onslaught levied against technology and progress through out-of-context
facts and figures? How is one suppose to know what is true or not. And what
about the next anti-success, anti-progress movement that will evolve as soon
as environmentalism begins to wane of its own bankruptcy in the distant
future? That anti-progress, anti-success movement, too, whatever form it
takes, whatever new cause it uses as its mask, will undoubtedly have all
kinds of facts and figures to justify its case. How can the layman defend
against that as well? How can one know when not to sanction movements that
will, by their very nature, result in death and destruction to the human
race and to each individual's personal opportunity and happiness? How does
one know when sanctioning a movement will result in destroyed standards of
living by blocking progress and technology?

The bottom line is to forget all the so-called facts, figures, arguments,
and case examples. Those, as any lawyer or journalist can testify, can be
used out of context to support any untrue assertion or claim. Instead, look
at who is producing values -- businesses, developers, farmers, industry, and
so on. Then, look at who is attacking the value producers -- whether those
attackers are socialists, environmentalists, animal rights groups,
egalitarians, or whatever movement they represent. The deciding factor is to
identify who is producing values for society that others willing pay for
versus who is attacking those values and their producers.

Whatever facts, figures or stories some value-attacking activist gives you,
you can simply state that you do not accept the validity of those facts or
figures or stories. You can rightfully assert that those facts and figures
were compiled with political ends in mind and therefore you do not accept
their validity and that you believe they are being used out of context.
Then, simply identify who is producing objective values that others
willingly pay for versus who is attacking those values. Then, announce that
you are going to side with the value producers, not the value attackers.


Suggested Reading:
The Neotech Discovery, Frank R. Wallace, Neotech Publishing Company, 1992.
The Disaster Lobby, Grayson & Shepards, Fallett Publishing, 1973. Rational
Readings on Environmental Concerns, Jay H. Lehr, Van Nostrand Reinhold
Publishing, 1992. Eco-Scam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse,
Ronald Baily, St. Martins Press, 1993. Everything You Know About the
Environment Is Wrong, Gregg Easterbrock, The New Republic, April 30, 1990,
P.14. Trashing the Planet, Roy & Guzzo, Regnery Gateway Publishing, 1990.
The Heated Debate, Robert C. Malling, Jr., Pacific Research Institute, 1992.
Environmentalism: Sacrificing Mankind to Nature, Peter Schwartz, Second
Renaissance Books, 1991 (Audio). Protecting Mother Earth From the
Environmentalists, Brett Peters, The Neotech Report, July, 1991, P. 26. The
Great Ozone-Hole Hoax, Brett Peters, The Neotech Report, Volume 1, Number 4,
1990, P.l. Climate Convention Follies, James M. Sheehan, Competitive
Enterprise Institute, May 1992, P. 1.



Further references upon request





"jeff" > wrote in message
news:r2jwe.6303$gm6.2995@trnddc05...
> Freon is a *compound*. Bill's pointing out the periodic chart of
> *elements* only exposes his ignorance on the subject. Freon is not an
> "element" and you cannot talk about it's atomic weight because it is not
> an atom, it is a molecule. You can talk about it's molecular weight, or
> the atomic weight of it's constituent atoms, and their fraction by weight,
> which is what you have provided.
>
> F
> |
> Cl--C--F
> |
> Cl
>
>
> --
> jeff
>
>
>
> Billy Ray wrote:
>> Composition of FREON-12:
>> Density (g/cm3) = 1.12000E+00
>> Mean Excitation Energy (eV) = 143.000000
>>
>> COMPOSITION:
>>
>> Atomic number Fraction by weight
>> 6 0.099335
>> 9 0.314247
>> 17 0.586418
>>
>> Refrigerant R12 (Freon-12-CCl2F2)
>>
>> R-12 is a very popular refrigerant. It is a colorless, almost odorless
>> liquid with a boiling
>> The composition of Freon R-12 is Carbon, Chlorine, and Fluorine
>>



  #403  
Old June 29th 05, 02:27 AM
Nathan W. Collier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"jeff" > wrote in message
news:mkfwe.2711$dz6.2664@trnddc02...
> BTW, O3 (Ozone) has a specific gravity of 1.66. How come there is an ozone
> layer if it is "heavier than air"?


i didnt say specific gravity. i said atomic weight. look on the table of
elements.


> I wish I had a nickel for every time I've heard a technician, too lazy to
> think for himself, whine the tired old litany "But the manual says....."


what are your specific credentials? if you claim to be within the
refrigeration/hvac industry ive gotta question that will tell me if you know
your ass from a hole in the ground.

--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com


  #404  
Old June 29th 05, 02:29 AM
Nathan W. Collier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"jeff" > wrote in message
news:Qygwe.1746$Ku6.1305@trnddc04...
> Well, no **** Sherlock! EXCEPT the conversation was about CFCs which are
> MOLECULES! Come on Google boy, what is the atomic weight of Freon-12, and
> what is it's element number?


dont be stupid. refrigerant (non brand specific which you should know if
youre who you insinuate you are) is made up of those same elements. when
even one of them is heavier than air it will sink below it.

--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com


  #405  
Old June 29th 05, 02:30 AM
Nathan W. Collier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"jeff" > wrote in message
news:r2jwe.6303$gm6.2995@trnddc05...
> Freon is a *compound*.


WRONG! "freon" is a brand.


--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com


  #406  
Old June 29th 05, 07:31 AM
Stephen Cowell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Billy Ray" > wrote in message =
...
> Everything that the environmental movement has proclaimed since its =

coming=20
> of age in the 1960s and 1970s has turned out to be wrong.=20


Oh, boy... another one. So deforestation's good? Jeeping on
the Moon, better than in the forest? It's good to dump crankcase
oil in the gutter, or in your backyard? Rivers that burn are
better than those that don't? Industry should not be regulated
at all? One from the looney bin...
__
Steve
..


  #407  
Old June 29th 05, 07:33 AM
Stephen Cowell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Nathan W. Collier" > wrote in message =
...
> "jeff" > wrote in message=20
> news:Qygwe.1746$Ku6.1305@trnddc04...
> > Well, no **** Sherlock! EXCEPT the conversation was about CFCs which =

are=20
> > MOLECULES! Come on Google boy, what is the atomic weight of =

Freon-12, and=20
> > what is it's element number?

>=20
> dont be stupid. refrigerant (non brand specific which you should know =

if=20
> youre who you insinuate you are) is made up of those same elements. =

when=20
> even one of them is heavier than air it will sink below it.


Just like the argon pool we're drowning in! Help!
__
Steve
..

  #408  
Old June 29th 05, 07:37 AM
Stephen Cowell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Nathan W. Collier" > wrote in message =
...
> "jeff" > wrote in message=20
> news:r2jwe.6303$gm6.2995@trnddc05...
> > Freon is a *compound*.

>=20
> WRONG! "freon" is a brand.


Well, he's obviously got you there... since it's a brand,
it *can't* be a compound... we all know that. Once
you brand it, then the molecules behave differently!
__
Steve
..

  #409  
Old June 29th 05, 07:41 AM
Stephen Cowell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Billy Ray" > wrote in message =
...
> The Stratospheric layer of the atmosphere is from 18 km (59,000 ft) to =

50 km=20
> (164,000 ft)
>=20
> By the use of heavy machinery in the leveling of all mountains to a =

standard=20
> average level the increased atmospheric NOx and VOCs.
> http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/...one.htm#OZO1.2
> should rise to the point where, with the mixing action of high =

altitude=20
> supersonic aircraft, the excess chlorine in the stratosphere, the vast =


> majority of which is release my "Mother Nature", can be converted into =


> protective ozone.
>=20
> Mt Augustine, an Alaskan volcano, release in 1976 an estimated 570 =

times the=20
> total production of CFCs since their introduction in 1930s according =

to the=20
> governments own figures provided by a former chairman of the Atomic =

Energy=20
> Commission in the magazine "Science" in 1980.


Volcanos produce Freon! Film at 11!

You're still a poopie-head, btw...
__
Steve
..

  #410  
Old June 29th 05, 07:56 AM
Stephen Cowell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Billy Ray" > wrote in message =
...
> Perhaps I am showing my age or reflecting on the "knowledge" based =

education=20
> I received in the pre-(wacko) environmentalist days by teachers who =

taught=20
> for the love of teaching and the sacred duty of passing education to =

the=20
> youth of our civilization and not the current generation of =

mal-content,=20
> long haired ,pinko, commie, liberal, tree hugging, volvo driving, =

teddy=20
> kennedy-eugene mccarthy- jimmy carter-clinton voting, perverts who =

went into=20
> teaching because it offered an automatic exemption from national =

service=20
> during the Vietnam war.


You're a *real* poopie-head... talk to your NeoCon buddies
about *exemptions*... cowards all. George Will, Pat Buchannan,
Bill O'Reilly, Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, Rush Limbaugh,
Phil Gramm, Clarence Thomas, Newt Gingrich, Saxby Chambliss,
Bill Bennett, Ken Starr, Judd Gregg, John Ashcroft, Tom Delay...=20
Dick Cheney... deferred. Chickenhawks, we call them.

Let's talk for a minute about your buddy, Dennis Rader...
model citizen, though just like you, voted just like you,
looked just like you... the sickest f*ck out there. He's
your buddy... you deserve him.
__
Steve
..

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Air Conditioning (A/C) Trouble [email protected] Chrysler 5 June 2nd 05 04:24 AM
Maxi-Frig for R12/R134A ? Henry Kolesnik Technology 39 May 26th 05 06:31 AM
Disposal of Refrigerant 12 dichlorodifluoromethane? Wayne Pein Technology 4 April 13th 05 11:26 PM
Climatronic Diagnostic Controls Luís Lourenço Audi 1 November 12th 04 09:22 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.