the Arctic is melting. The Arctic is melting.
Its all physics and scientifically quantifiable, universally acknowledged.
Only petroleum shills and their pocket politicians would say otherwise.
use your head.
Okay, so the Arctic is melting, where's the proof that it is a result of human activity?
December 19 2008, 6:46 PM
It also appears that we are experiencing the coldest winter in years. Uhhh, maybe the earth is going through some natural cycles? What easier way for you lefties to create the victims needed to further your cause, than by blaming everything on civilization.
1954 Ford Customline 2-dr. sedan 390 4-speed
1955 Ford Fairlane Victoria 2-dr. hdtp, 292
1962 Ford Galaxie 500, 4-dr. sedan, 292
1968 Ford LTD 2-dr hdtp, 390 auto. (rough but driveable)
1970 F-100 360 auto (owned since 1985)
Nature pumps more do-do into the atmosphere than does human activity.
December 19 2008, 7:31 PM
Volcanoes, forest fires, ozone, you name it. But thank you, you answered my previous question.
1954 Ford Customline 2-dr. sedan 390 4-speed
1955 Ford Fairlane Victoria 2-dr. hdtp, 292
1962 Ford Galaxie 500, 4-dr. sedan, 292
1968 Ford LTD 2-dr hdtp, 390 auto. (rough but driveable)
1970 F-100 360 auto (owned since 1985)
right on the head. But there'll always be a plethora of fucking idiots that'll cry, "The sky is falling. Run for cover." (A tree puts out more air pollution than a modern car.)
thats a pure cop-out,,, A baby messes 'cause that its job...
December 20 2008, 7:19 AM
Saying that Nature dumps more "whatever" than man in the environment is like trying to blame a victim for resisting a crime. You kick nature in the 'nades long enough, it will fight back.
there are just as many scientists tha think otherwise, you just don't hear from them on network news. It is good news to report things are fine. We must report doom and gloom. If you want to have an educated opinion in this area, do some research bnefore you spoout off again. Read from both sides. Did you know some of the areas that are mentioned as melting have in fact increased in ice thickness over the last 5-10 years? They don't report this, but it is fact. So understand both sides before you believe everything you hear.
If half believe there is ann issue, and half believe there is not, it sounds like a reason to keep investigating. To be sure, both sides have voices, and both voices are being heard. Some folk are only interested in one side, but others like to check out both sides.
After economic sodomy from the energy companies the last several years, people still take their astroturf propaganda to heart.
Not only have we wreaked major havoc on our planet in the last 8 years (despite worldwide recognition and adoption of Kyoto, ..perhaps forcing the installation of GW?)
Just imagine the carbon impact of our little adventure in Iraq.
All for who?
You're right, it's a worldwide conspiracy perpetrated by one man. End of discussion. lol
December 20 2008, 5:46 AM
All of the problems will suddenly be solved come January 20. Yeah right. It's impossible to argue with idiocy without running the risk of looking like one myself.
1954 Ford Customline 2-dr. sedan 390 4-speed
1955 Ford Fairlane Victoria 2-dr. hdtp, 292
1962 Ford Galaxie 500, 4-dr. sedan, 292
1968 Ford LTD 2-dr hdtp, 390 auto. (rough but driveable)
1970 F-100 360 auto (owned since 1985)
Meanwhile Gore's Gulfstream II pollutes 25 times as much as a modern airliner. What a fat pompous ass.
If this were a legitimate issue there would be open debate between the two sides. There isn't, because the so - called "green" business interests would lose the debate against any truthful account of the situation. They have a crew in Washington who plan to quadrupole the cost of electricity in the next four years.
1912 Model T Ford touring Salmon (ugh!)
1913 Model T Ford Touring original Black paint
1915 Model T Ford Roadster Black
1915 Model T Ford touring Black of course!
1967 Cougar GT 390 Cardinal Red / Black
1968 Cougar GTE 427 Augusta Green / Saddle
http://www.supermotors.net/vehicles/registry/15029/50071-2
There is no real proof only an agenda. The Arctic is melting, but what is causing it?
December 20 2008, 1:09 PM
Let's look at some real facts. How about our Sun for starters. Every ham radio operator knows there are no sunspots for over two years now. Sunspots are geo-magnetic storms that are actually cool spots on the sun's surface which are needed for long distance communications on the short wave bands.. With no cool spots on the sun we get more radiation directly from the sun and poor communication situations. More radiation from the sun means warmer temperatures. Duh! The Sun has more affect on our temperature than carbon dioxide ever will.
Now lets have a look at our air quality. The agenda has caused the closing of most of America's heavy industry and tighter regulations on emissions everywhere. The result? We have cleaner air. I remember as a child that from the lookout on top of our mountain you had a normal visibility of maybe ten to fifteen miles on what was considered a clear day. Today it is more like twice that. Don't get me wrong. I like cleaner air. I have to breathe too you know. Unfortunately cleaner air also alows more sunlight to enter our lower atmosphere. More sunlight also means more heat. You cannot have it both ways. Now for the big question. Is there more carbon dioxide in our air today than there was say three thousand years ago? The answer in real tests proves the answer to be no. Air inside ancient sealed tombs and inside such air trapping substances as amber prove otherwise. The agenda also says that the Antarctic is also losing ice and point to what they say was an iceberg the size of Connecticut that broke free from what they say was warming. Facts are very different. The ice is now known to have broken free from a more natural cause. Earthquakes. And it's size was more like the size of Hartford than the state of CT. The agenda loves to point to the loss of a half mile of ice in Eastern Antarctica while turning their back on the eight miles of new ice in Western Antarctica over the last three years.
I pose these questions. Why do they not grow oranges in North Florida and South Georgia anymore? Is it because it is too warm?
Why did they have a snowstorm and freezing cold weather in Mexico City a few years back that killed scores of people that were unprepared for such weather? Is it because it is warming?
Why are we having freezing cold and snowstorms in our deserts? Warming?
If you listen to the media, you would think that most Scientists believe the earth is warming and it is our activity that is causing it. That is simply not true. Most Scientists believe the opposite, but they are silenced because they don't go along with the agenda. You may also find that almost 82 percent of Scientists also believe in Creation according to many surveys, but you will never hear that on the News at eleven. Some have even given up on the idea of "Global warming", because time and time again it has proven them wrong. They now are calling it "Global climatic change". They would argue that with "global" warming some parts of the Earth could be cooler. My response was always "What part of 'global' do you not understand?"
There is an agenda out there that wants us to return to horse and buggy days, but at the same time making horses do that kind of work would be unkind. The Earth goes through normal cycles of warming and cooling. Around the Dark Ages they had a mini ice age. Excuse me, but there were no cars back then. Look it up for yourself. Type into your Browser the words "global warming myth".
Core samples from ice in the arctic have been pulled and its proven that the earth has went through multiple hot/ cold cycles over the last 1000+ years. I wonder if they are smart enough to figure out that the earth, allows this cycling to purge certain unknown whatevers. There was a time that the earth had no rain, ( read about noah ) where the earth pushed moisture to the surface. possible this melting ice is to refresh our supply. ( Like a fuel filter for us fe people)
Bravo! Looks like science will be a part of this upcoming administration.
December 19 2008, 7:32 PM
The present administration is pretty brain dead when it comes to science. I look forward to learning of the technical innovation this upcoming administration seems to embrace. It'll be good for engineering, and will likely create quality jobs in the U.S.
The whole theory of global warming is based on measured CO2 levels and the infamous 'hockey stick' curve that supposes once enough polar cap is melted we reflect less into space and have a runaway condition. CO2 has been accurately measured and recorded for nearly two hundred years. This chart shows historical measurements. The measurements circled are the ones the global warming spinmasters have used to CREATE the hockey stick curve. Take a close look at this chart and tell me how anyone except a fool could think there is a problem.
Another part of Global Warming fear mongering is that we are somehow causing it all with our auto emission. Not True, CO2 is a trace compound in the atmosphere most of which is naturally occuring.
So why is the arctic melting? The fact is solar flares and other natural effects and cycles have a true effect on global warming. This was noted in popular literature such as East of Eden, and in history books noting vineyards in England. The Planet Mars is warming, this is a measured verifiable phenomena that cannot be blamed on western civilization.
At this time in history, more and more scientists are backing away from the global warming THEORY. But thats no reason not to deploy a whole new family of taxes and restrictions.
The current administration has demoted the position of "Science Adviser to the President" to an afterthought. The current administration has called the shots without allowing this adviser a voice. I think science and engineering in the U.S. has suffered as a result.
It looks like the Science Adviser under the next administration may have a real voice, and I expect more spending on science, and more jobs in the scientific and engineering communities will result. Industial growth can be expected to follow. I believe this is the kind of stuff that makes America strong.
Scientists search truth and facts to come up with theorys. Theorys are "temporary" by nature.......until more is learned and new theorys are produced. Any scientist worth a hill of beans will tell you that the more they learn, the more they question.
Holdren on the other hand, has an agenda: to warn the world of the impending doom of global warming. Does that sound like somebody who is objective? Hardly.
And as far as the government spending my money to create jobs, well thats just bullshit and pisses me off. It didnt work in Rosevelts time and it wont work now except to raise taxes on a people who are ALREADY paying over 1/3 of their income to taxes.........and thats BEFORE you get "your" money. Those that believe that Rosevelts "new deal" stopped the depression are hardly aware of the facts, but believe the hype.
True ... No more than Supreme Court Justices can be considered Lawyers
December 20 2008, 8:58 AM
At some point in a career you stop 'doing' stuff and start working on Theory, implimentation and direction, if you have earned any respect in your field.
Might be true or not...but a lot of people had food on the table
December 20 2008, 7:59 PM
that otherwise would not have survived. Maybe the point is is whether people have their heart is in the right place or not. Not to mention, the USA is still using some of he bridges, roads, Dams and building that were constructed during that time.
that people would not have survived the great depression. I think they would've done just fine thru family, churches and much else that was going on in this country.
Do the same thing you do in your house when it is too warm out, hang a curtain.
We can't hang a set of blinds in space? Shut the sun off for a few days, that will cool the planet off.
A side effect is it is the ultimate weapon. Change the shape to focus the sun's rays on a battlefield, and cook the enemy. Or completely block out the sun of an offending country, and freeze them into capitulation.
Anybody know the cost per square mile of mylar? About fifty million square miles will blank out the whole planet.
Considering that the Earth has supposedly been around for many thousands (or millions) of years, I find it odd that some "Experts" claim to know everything that has happened in all this time, based on about 100 years of recorded weather history. Also, it seems that the "Experts" have trouble predicting what the weather will be doing a week from now, yet they can predict what will be happening 100 years from now. Some scientists say that the sky is falling, & we are all doomed, other scientists say it`s just normal climate cycles that have been going on for centuries. I won`t be sending all my FE`s to the scrap yard and buying a hybrid Prius anytime soon. But if you want to, go for it.
428 powered Fairmont drag car, Best ET:10.03@132.11MPH, best 60 ft: 1.29
59 Meteor 2 dr. sedan 332, Ford O Matic
74 F350 ramp truck 390 4speed
If we multiply by 2, Add 100, Subtract 50 for global warming/cold starts on cold days.
We are all in the zone.
I could care less about warming. I have enough crap to deal with clearing snow.
The Big Rock for space is coming. No plan to deal with that.
Global warming - at least until I get a sizable tax rebate to put a couple of banks of solar cells on the roof and a nice solar water heater and maybe a wind turbine. The green I worry about it the stuff I try to keep in my pocket away from the electric company. After the tax rebate, I'll cancel my subscription to Al Gore Monthly.
The part that gets me is they can't even get their numbers straight or use Logic
December 20 2008, 5:18 AM
I've long questioned how minute changes in trace gases could have a noticeable effect in the worlds temp ie melting glaciers. The other question I have is why are all the effects related to Global Warming always negative? Plants trees/grains etc grow faster/better with more CO-2. People seem to prefer warm climates. etc
{{The UK government's chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir David King, said the new data highlighted the importance of taking urgent action to limit carbon emissions.
"Today we're over 380 ppm," he said. "That's higher than we've been for over a million years, possibly 30 million years. Mankind is changing the climate." }}
when it comes to the health of the planet (the only one we have by the way) don't you think it just might be a good idea to err on the side of caution??? There is sound science pointing out that tens of thousands die annually due to the effects of man made pollution, particularly (pun intended) in large urban areas. Just look at Mexico City, L.A., ect.. Would'nt it be nice to be on the right side of the curve for a change? If we move to cut the carbon footprint this cuts overall pollutin in general(a good thing, yes?) and if they are wrong about climate change there is no real downside. If they are right it could affect life as we know it. Some thing worth thinking about rather than falling back on the same old us and them sh*t. JMO. Mike
Nothing wrong with common sense aproaches to cutting polution. That should be something we all do just for common senses sake, as you mentioned, because this is the only planet we have. I dont throw trash in my yard or dump oil on the ground for the same reason. Thats common sense.
Govt. is killing small business with their extremism however. Politicians are buying this hype hook line and SINKER. Media latches onto it because it sells. They dont care if its real or not, IT SELLS!! They have learned.....NEVER underestimate the stupidity of the American public. They will believe whatever the media tells them. Kelly is the perfect example of that. History proves it again and again.......and again.
Ethanol is a good example, they all told us (CERTAIN scientists and politicians) that it was a saving grace. But the FACTS are it makes more pollutants to produce than if you were using straight fossil fuels. Whos the fool here? The politician buying this shit or the idiot that believes it?
Should I run out and sell my daily driver '63 Comet and '68 F-250 because they pollute more? The Comet gets an avg. of 20-24mpg, my truck 14-16mpg. Last time I looked this is comparable to new vehicles. How much polutants and raw materials will it take to produce the new car and truck that I buy?
Yep, nothing wrong with common sense aproaches to cutting polution, but unfortunately common sense is about as far from politics as my marriage to Jessica Alba is.
Rather than banter with the real victims of media burn, I simply have to
correct your basic misconception. I dont watch the "news" or get my outlook from the "media". Im quite hostile to that particular system. I did however
end up in a better than average University studying (occasionally) Environmental courses among other things, from VERY serious people of note, which despite my best efforts, really did teach me a thing or two. Im sure you have a number of knee jerk dismissals at your disposal, but if I were you, I would not want to be so completely incorrect without someone at least taking the time to correct my foolishness.
Its a damn shame seeing people buy the garbage theyre sold, all the while we slide down the toilet, largely because of energy merchant's unfettered greed.
Re- Ethanol. Do you really think the politicians dont understand what theyre doing? Seems like (former CA Sec State) Bill Jones' son here in CA made $30 million off their operation before a drop was brewed.
They know what theyre doing, and what theyre doing is the taxpayer.
This message has been edited by lowriser on Dec 20, 2008 8:56 AM
I dont know why you would be hostile towards media, they think the same as you.
"end up in a better than average University studying (occasionally) Environmental courses among other things, from VERY serious people of note, which despite my best efforts, really did teach me a thing or two. Im sure you have a number of knee jerk dismissals at your disposal, but if I were you, I would not want to be so completely incorrect without someone at least taking the time to correct my foolishness."
Ha Ha, that sounds like a politician speaking. 72 words spoke and not a damn thing said. LOL Your typical of the young "educated" people I see on a daily basis. You are smarter and you know it, and you want everybody else to know it. No offense meant to higher-education, just you.
I work at a premier university FYI. I know these people and am not intimidated in the least by their extremely biased opinions. After all, how many grants do you think they would get by saying that "everything is going through natural cycles"?
I can stop them dead in their tracks with only a couple of BASIC questions like about the CURRENT receding ice-age, which all agree has been going on for the last several thousand years, and world wide evidence that this is not the worst Co2 age the world has seen (in fact, one of many according to un-biased evidence). They will look down thier nose on this "un-educated smart aleck" and walk away. Never a REAL discussion, only one sided views. Blinded by thier own peers and greed for nobility.
I cant even begin to ask them about increased thermal activity and the by-products from it and how it ALWAYS coincides with warmer climate changes, or losing natural "filters" like wetlands as real harmful human activity instead of blaming businesses about emissions. If you truly are educated, then these questions alone should make you want to question the whole human cause/global warming idea. But Im guessing your so brain-washed by your higher,biased-education that you couldnt admit it to yourself if you did question these things.
Im sure you will have a very good educated "slamming" for me.
...Its a damn shame seeing people buy the garbage theyre sold...
And you've obviously swallowed the garbage dumped out by college liberals. Everybody has an agenda, and by yelling gloom and doom, pinko-types make themselves more important. Simple logic is, "Qui bono"? Who is espousing some point of view due to benefiting from pushing it?
And then there are the parrots. Think for yourself. As an example, the Exxon Valdez spilled oil and all the enviro-nazis made a cry heard around the world. But oil under the seabeds of the world is dumping much more than a boatload into the seas on a regular basis. And the German wolfpacks sunk thousands of ships during WW2, dumping all the oil they carried. Ol' Ma Nature has a way of naturally cleaning up such messes. The natural actions of the seawater does the job.
So do your part. In fact, do whatever makes you feel good. But don't cross the line halfway between you and me because you have no mandate to rule my life. By all means, state your opinion. And I'm free to disregard it if I please. JMO
KS
Kelly, I just re-read your last post. Do you have any idea how condescending you sound? I don't know how old you are, but you sound very 'wet-behind-the-ears'. I'm sure I have a few years on you, and I have a whole pocket full of degrees, both in sciences and arts. And Doug is exactly correct. You have a whole lot of learning to do before you earn a seat at the table. KS
This message has been edited by cammerfe on Dec 20, 2008 10:07 AM
True intelect is making a point with as few words as possible not as many as time or space will allow. Al Gore is getting rich off his green hype and lives the oppisite to what he tells everyone else to do.If that dosn't clue you in to his real motives then there is no hope for you.
69 R code Mustang coupe 68 1/2 R code Mustang coupe 70 ram air Drag Pack Cougar 67 505 F.A.S.T legal Fairlane
Then he should practice what he preaches and sell, give away, donate or scrap ALL of his petro burning devices and live "Green" No more cars, no more FE engines, no more electricity, no more natural gas for heat. Come on Kelly, don't be a hypocrite and live what you believe in. BTW....I laughed out loud when I read that, according to Kelly that our problems started 8 years ago because Bush didn't sign the Kyoto Accord....well guess what, Neither did your idol Bill Clinton and he also had the same opportunity to sign on to it too. FYI, Congress rejected Kyoto too.....But its Bush's fault.....RIGHT!!!
60 Starliner 460, 61 Starliner 427, 66 Galaxie 428, 67 Fairlane 427, 66 Fairlane 390, 69 F-250 390, 72 Lincoln 460 and 3 Ford powered Hotboats
post got into this thread, but I doubt the answer will come easily from this location. Excuse us, guys! Cam retainers use unique screws. Measure the exposed threads with the screw in the plate. That'll give you an idea how deep to drill.
KS
I think what he is saying, is "let's get back to talking FEs, rather than this stuff" n/m
December 20 2008, 10:23 AM
/
1954 Ford Customline 2-dr. sedan 390 4-speed
1955 Ford Fairlane Victoria 2-dr. hdtp, 292
1962 Ford Galaxie 500, 4-dr. sedan, 292
1968 Ford LTD 2-dr hdtp, 390 auto. (rough but driveable)
1970 F-100 360 auto (owned since 1985)
...I'm no scientist, hell, I can't even spell it. Just an 'ol grease monkey, street racer, and all-around rabscallion.
As far as man-made climate changes go, I'll add this. In to '80's, the enviro-cry was the hole in the ozone layer. It was proven that in some portions of South America, UV rays from the sun were getting in almost completely unfiltered, and untold amounts of humans were having various health issues. The fix was to eliminate R-12, styrofoam containers, spray can propellents, etc. It appears that we, collectively, solved the problem with little trouble to ourselves or the economy.
The earth is finite in size. To think that you can drill into it, draw out BILLIONS of barrels a liquid substance, and BURN it without consequence is...well...stupid.
I dunno if global warming is real-man made-political or not. I don't know if CO2 is cooling or warming things up. I don't know if greenhouse gasses are good for plants or not. But ignoring a "potential" problem is...well...again...stupid.
My mom, a very conservative christian woman says these are surely the "last days". I tell her to tell God the next time she prays "hurry the Hell up!".
This message has been edited by Tommy-T on Dec 20, 2008 11:43 AM
If it is composted plant matter (best theory out there) than burning it is no different that taking advantage of solar energy. Nothing was added to the planet, nothing taken away except the energy first used to convert the matter into oil now being released. Seems a little hypocritical to say this is our doom and then continue the practice.
I don't agree with trashing the planet by releasing sulpher etc but to tax carbon as is proposed from so many now (who all have a vested interest in the result) will NOT save ten thousand lives in Mexico city. It will simply take more money from hard working American and Canadian families, no different than if they started taxing sunshine or air. Why the heck can any government tax carbon from its citizens while selling coal overseas???? It is a money grab folks, plain and simple, trying to hide under the guise of good consience.
If like Kelly scientific evaluation isn't for you, another clue is the motives of the people promoting this. Same pack of bandits wants to increase government control of everything whether that be modifying automobiles, guns, spraypaint, building permits, etc. etc. The pattern is easily recognizable if you haven't been drinking their coolaid.
If Obama REALLY wants to jumpstart the economy it could be this easy: raise the speed limit by minimum of 10MPH everywhere. The slowest interstate limit would be 80mph, arterials would go from 35mph to 45mph and residential side streets would go to 35mph. That would affect darn near everyone in the country in a positive way, lift the pschological depression (that can be measured in consumer spending). But there is no way they will consider that because 1) cars are evil, and 2) citizens can't be trusted with freedom. 3) it is too obvious and simple for the rulling intelligencia.
(by the way, unlike global warming, this theory can be verified from previous experience)
...to understand anything you said except your first paragraph.
Regarding that, plenty has changed. It took millions of years for the earth to turn biodegradable matter into fossil fuel. The earth had ample time to react to that event. Our industrial revolution is hardly 100 years old, and truth-be-told, our consumption of fossil fuel in copius amounts has really only been since WWII. I do believe that the earth has the capability to heal or counteract this event, but not in the relative short term. We've gotta make adjustments as a society.
That said, I will continue to burn all of the gasoline "big brother" will alow me to. But the day is coming...
This message has been edited by Tommy-T on Dec 21, 2008 9:29 AM
The earth undeniably has a cyclic climate dictated by its position in the universe. There have been desert droughts in the Nile delta, and ice ages that made it almost to Spain. Much of the land north of Missouri has been under a glacier. Where I live, in the St Francois Mountains south of St Louis, was once an ancient volcano, and was a sea coast before a chunk of Africa broke off and collided along what we know today as the Mississippi River. Erosion has taken these mountains down to expose Cambrian and Pre-Cambrian strata. You could grow grapes and make wine in England, and Greenland really was green. Ice has grown and receded by its natural venue since the bginning of time, and creases of molten lava have made it to the surface in places you would look at today and never believe. This itself is undeniable.
But there is a factor that we control. I have two guitars that I play daily. One is a 12 string acoustic, and the other a 6 string electric. Both are tuned to Open D, and I use the same chord structures of I-IV-V and can riff the same scales on either. The strings vibrate at the same rate. But there is a basic difference. I can play the same chords and they sound very different between the two. Lets call the 12 string, the natural musical force. The vibration of the strings has its own time, vibration, and sustain capabilty. You play it percussively, alternately allowing full sustain and muting to harness in sustain to make a piece flow. Now let's take the electric and hook it to an amplifier. The vibration of the strings are the same, the chord structures and scales are the same, but you can amplify and manipulate sustain effects electronically. You can create sonic anomalies and dissonance by overdriving the sound, you can create harmonic "between notes" that the acoustic can't give, and you can really play loud. You can set the amplifier and use muting techniques that can emulate the 12-string, but the option to drive the sonic capability of the instrument further is still there.
Our effect on our world is much like the electric guitar. It can cause hearing damage, but it can also bring forth a greater appreciation for sonic capability of an instrument that is just like its "natural" cousin right across the room. The application of this sonic capability is a two edged sword. You can hedonistically apply sonic orgasmia at a volume that can stun every hearing being in a mile radius given a big enough amplifier, or you can responsibly apply the sonic appreciation to nuances that richen a piece played and at a volume that does not harm you or your audience. You wield that sword with a passion for the music, and creativity along with a respect for the outlet create a balance. A good pissed off blues song, yeah! But a soft arpeggio chorded sequence can be just as facisnating and awe inspiring in its power. The human voice, you can holler, scream, or whisper. It is just as captivating in its range, and is the same principle as any stringed instrument. Vocal cords vibrate and make all kinds of sounds, Lurch? I dunno, I can't answer that one.
We as humans need to find that balance with our planet. It is not one to the exclusion of the other. To limit myself to only to my "natural" 12 string acoustic would be giving into a fear that I can't control my appetite on the electric. We can do both. Accept that sound is sound, nature is nature, and we are the artist with an amplifier and technique in harnessing the natural sonic capability of those simple vibrating strings to make something that moves and did not exist in nature until the string was struck.
This message has been edited by BillBallinger120 on Dec 21, 2008 7:38 AM
I think the pendulum has swung to a lunatic fringe on SOME pollution controls, for example all modern cars (for several years now) would be classified as zero emissions because they cannot be measured by previous standards, they are so clean. Twice the emissions standards for vehicles have been drastically redefined to ensure that the EPA maintains it's purpose. Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against pollution controls, just make it scientific.
Much of what has been foisted in the name of pollution controls is little more than mandatory consumerism.
Now, if I had to draw a picture of a wild-eyed, idiotic, "sky-is-falling, "we're all going to die, enviro whacko, that would be it! LOL
I wonder why nobody ever points out to these enviro lunatics that the earth went through an ice age about 10,000 years ago, and then it warmed up. Were the woolly mammoths driving suvs and the primative men working in polluting factories?
This should be required viewing for all the enviro whackos out there...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljNDbKpusT0
![[linked image]](../../../../../../../www.supermotors.net/getfile/526742/original/mvc-002s.jpg)
![[linked image]](../../../../../../Realm/garyford/globW.jpg)
![[linked image]](../../../../../../../i43.photobucket.com/albums/e363/cjshaker/mymach152-1.jpg)
)
