Printable View
Well what do ya know?
"Manipulation of evidence"
"Suppression of evidence"
etc...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...lobal-cooling/
And for the LOL moment...
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...2e126&Issue_id
I have not posted on here for months... too busy worrying about what Obama is going to CHANGE next and how bad it will be for all of us when it happens. Blue seems to be the only one who has a clue about this 'global warming hoax'. What is the matter with all the rest of you? It is junk science! The REAL scientists have been disputing the whole thing for years now, but the mainstream media will NOT print their results for us to read. Same old same old.....
The silence from some is interesting....
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/0...nd-its-issues/
Key points...
The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia had profited to the tune of at least $20 million in “research” grants from the Team’s activities.
The Team had tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, so as to exclude inconvenient scientific results from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence the panel’s conclusions for political rather than scientific reasons.
The Team had conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked wanted the UN’s climate panel to report.
They had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.
They had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures in the paleoclimate.
They had expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling for nine years. They had admitted that their inability to explain it was “a travesty”. This internal doubt was in contrast to their public statements that the present decade is the warmest ever, and that “global warming” science is settled.
They had interfered with the process of peer-review itself by leaning on journals to get their friends rather than independent scientists to review their papers.
They had successfully leaned on friendly journal editors to reject papers reporting results inconsistent with their political viewpoint.
They had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and corrupt science for political purposes.
They had mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had expensively created.
Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team had committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then to destroy computer codes and data that had been legitimately requested by an external researcher who had very good reason to doubt that their “research” was either honest or competent
Hello?
No comments?
"The question is not whether we believe in global warming or not, it is happening right now! The question is, how fast will it destroy the life on Earth we know, and can we do something about it, or is it too late."
"Global warming isn't a theory, it is a sad fact. It exists whether you believe in it or not. And while the Earth has warmed up and cooled down several times over its history, from what we can tell, this one is the "fault" of humanity. I am, however, hopeful that humanity can act to slow its progress before life become unsustainable."
"It's not a matter of believing it or not, it is a theory based on lots and lots of hard data and research. It would be like choosing not to believe in Gravitational Theory."
Maybe that big ball of fire in the sky had something to do with it afterall... Who knew?
Dude, you scaring me.....You mean the sun is made of FIRE?:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckstop31
Even Jon Stewart gets it, Link.
Oh boy does that comfort me. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by blue
Anyway, I don't see why this thread has turned to politics yet again. But anywho, I don't see why people choose to ignore scientific evidence. It's pretty laughable in that aspect. I have not studied Global Warming to an extreme degree but I do believe it is happening.
Who else is up for a move to the moon? :D
Politics has nothing to do with scientists falsifying data, its about getting research funding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alysser
Gore may have to return his Oscar over this.
The up coming Global Warming summit, hundreds, maybe thousands of people flying in on private jets to cry crocodile tears over the rape of the environment while their bank accounts grow.
Did anyone read about all the carbon footprint/gases all the traveling to the conference will produce.
Those people have no fricking shame.:confused:
Whether global warming, climate change or whateveryouwanttocallit is real, doesn't it make sense not to mess up the only planet we have?
Just as there continue to be Holocaust deniers - I suppose it is inevitable there are those who refuse to accept the results of our behavior on the planet.
This is just one example of the results of our behavior...
I agree with Smokey...how can anyone not want to stop?? And how can it possibly be a political issue?Quote:
For the last 50-odd years, every piece of plastic that has made it from our shores to the Pacific Ocean has been breaking down and accumulating in the central Pacific gyre. Oceanographers like Curtis Ebbesmeyer, the world's leading flotsam expert, refer to it as the great Pacific Garbage Patch.
The problem is that it is not a patch, it's the size of a continent, and it's filling up with floating plastic waste.
I agree 100% with the first part. We should absolutley do our SENSIBLE part to be good stewards of Creation. Priceless gifts should be taken lightly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
But it IS being made into a political issue. How? By wanting to spend TRILLIONS of dollars that nobody can afford... All based on what now is shown to be at best very erroneous science... And at worst, criminally negligent "science"...
Does it not mean anything to you that governments around the world continue to push forward with the economically disasterous plans to "save" us? From something that has finally been show to be a ruse?
That they are simply IGNORING what has come to light? That does not bother you?
There is a reason some dont follow the Global Warming Religion.
Milly Vanilly had to give back their award, Al Gore and Obama have awards they need to give back for similar reasons.Quote:
A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2009
We've Been Had
Last year, my column "Global Warming Rope-A-Dope" (12/24/08) started out: "Americans have been rope-a-doped into believing that global warming is going to destroy the planet. Scientists who have been skeptical about manmade global warming have been called traitors or handmaidens of big oil." New evidence proves that climatologists and environmental policy advocates have not only fed us lies, engaged in scientific and academic fraud but committed criminal acts as well.
Last month, Russian computer hackers obtained thousands of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. CRU has the world's largest temperature data set. In collaboration with scientists around the world, including the U.S., its research and mathematical models form the basis of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2007 global warming report.
The e-mails involved communication among climate researchers and policy advocates around the world who brazenly discuss both the destruction and hiding of data that does not support their global-warming claims. They discuss criminally deleting data rather than comply with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. There's also discussion of faking data for journals such as Nature, conspiring to keep opposing science out of peer-reviewed journals (which they controlled the editorial boards), and using statistical "tricks" to hide the cooling period of the last 10 years. One e-mail said, "The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." Another said, "it would be nice to try to 'contain' the putative 'MWP,' even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back." MWP refers to the Medieval Warm Period (800 A.D. to 1300 A.D.) when the Earth was much warmer than it is now. This bothers the global warmers because they can't blame the temperature increase a thousand years ago on SUVs, coal-burning power plants, incandescent bulbs and 60-inch TV screens.
Editors of professional journals, who were willing to publish articles that disagreed with the warmers, were forced to resign -- as was in the cases of editors at Climate Research and Geophysical Research Letters. A flagrant example of suppression is found in CRU director Phil Jones', letter to Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann that questions whether the work of academics who question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the IPCC report, which represents the environmental extremist's view on climate science. Jones writes, "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
The fact of the matter is an increasing amount of climate research suggests a possibility of global cooling. Geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University, says, "Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely." Geologist Dr. David Gee, chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress, currently at Uppsala University in Sweden asks, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"
Last year's column closed with my speculation that if ever "the permafrost returns to northern U.S., as far south as New Jersey as it once did, it's not inconceivable that Congress, caught in the grip of global warming zealots, would keep all the laws on the books they wrote in the name of fighting global warming. Personally, I would not put it past them to write more." This is confirmed by the Obama administration's climate czar, Carol Browner, who, despite dishonesty, fraud and criminality, says she considers the science on global warming settled.
LOL, I was looking at HLN and the story about all the protestors who were jailed for protesting in Copenhagen.
If the globe is warming, why are people dresssed in giant down jackets?
:confused:
With global warming the ocean currents that have a major effect on our climate are/'and will' be altered. Places in northern Europe and the British islands that are now still fairly warm will become colder because the course of the Gulf stream will be altered. Rather than warming these places will become colder.Quote:
Richard
If the globe is warming, why are people dressed in giant down jackets?
Warming in the arctic will cause other places in the world to become colder
and the weather everywhere will become more unpredictable because of
ocean currents and jet streams being altered..
All of the naysayers need to read all of the evidence not just that written by
oil company lobbyist.
I HAVE.Quote:
Originally Posted by kokopup
Is the climate changing? Yes. Is it mainly because of human activity? NO.
So, the daming nature of the recent discoveries of the PURPOSELY faulty pro-man made warming evidence does not move you?
And see... It IS being made a political issue. "Oil Company Lobbyist..."
Why don't you complain about Microsoft? KRAFT? They make a bigger profit margin than the oil companies.
Like it or not... Abundant and cheap energy is why we can live the way we do. Want to live in the 17th century? I can.... Did you ever stop to wonder why a gallon of gas costs LESS than a gallon of Lipton Iced Tea?
"Oil Company Lobbyist..." Please....
It is hard to believe that anyone can deny that man is not having a major role in creating Global warming. You can call it global trashing if you would like to. Man in concert with the Sun is wreaking havoc on this planet. You don't have to be a IPCC scientist to see the evidence, it is everywhere. I can not believe any recent discoveries brought forth by either side because both sides have been guilty of playing with the numbers to satisfy their agenda. It has been going on since the 70's when the Fed came up with emission standards. All Detroit did was stroke all their engines to improve volumetric efficiency but they were now polluting more than ever but on paper it looked better.Quote:
Puckstop31 quote
I HAVE.
Is the climate changing? Yes. Is it mainly because of human activity? NO.
So, the daming nature of the recent discoveries of the PURPOSELY faulty pro-man made warming evidence does not move you?
And see... It IS being made a political issue. "Oil Company Lobbyist..."
Why don't you complain about Microsoft? KRAFT? They make a bigger profit margin than the oil companies.
Like it or not... Abundant and cheap energy is why we can live the way we do. Want to live in the 17th century? I can.... Did you ever stop to wonder why a gallon of gas costs LESS than a gallon of Lipton Iced Tea?
"Oil Company Lobbyist..." Please....
If there has been some big conspiracy to make money off of global warming as Blue contends then I guess there was an “OJ conspiracy” too.
Political issue? It has always been a political issue.
Why not complain about Kraft or MS? I haven't seen either polluting our planet. I am not against business making a good profit , I'm opposed to them making it at the expense of our planet. I realize the enormous price we all pay to have cheap everything. There is a cost to our environment when we get cheap gas or cheap electricity. I know that to correct the problem of trashing our planet we ALL have to pay a price, and I am on board with any move that will do that. I know that any action we take today may take even centuries to have an effect. That is no excuse for not doing anything. It seems the US is the only hold out toward make meaningful changes.
The Bush administration acknowledged early on that warming was a real problem but chose to take an adaptive approach rather than any proactive steps that would have cost to big business. It is easier and cheaper to stomp out the fires than to prevent them.
I am one who feels most of Washington's ills could be corrected by making all lobbying a crime. I retired from GE the company with more lobbyist than anyone. They were there looking out for GE and their interest. It is a well documented fact that during the Bush era he did have lobbyist writing bills for him so why would you doubt that oil company lobbyist had any influence on global warming propaganda, be it discrediting scientific data or any other tactic that can be conceived.
I have posted very little on this thread and it seems that all of the positions have been stated and restated and I have yet to see anyone change sides. It would seem that the original question of this thread has been addressed, let it die.
Kokopup... I hear ya.
As I see it, the big focus right now is CO2 emissions are the big evil in the eyes of governments.
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138
Why? Why when there are so many other things, things that are MUCH more damaging to the environment?
I am still a believer in global warming. Whether co2 is the cause I am not in a position to say for sure. I do Know that our green house gases, which co2 is one of, are out of control. All of the gases carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride are now at an unprecedented levels.
I can't put to much stock in all the 100 rebuttals presented by the link you gave me since the European foundation has it'd on agenda. Any unified approval of ANY Proposal by the EC/EU will go against their agenda to reform the EC/EU into a community of free-trading, sovereign states.
The increase in co2 emissions can be blamed on the almost 7 billion inhabitant of our planet since we are the largest single source, we need to make the changes that will help balance this known increase. Clear cutting of forest is destroying just one of the co2 equilizers, and there are many more that man controls. If every one would only breath when their face starter turning blue, this would help also.
Whether they blame our current world conditions on co2 or methane is of little importance. The facts remain we are polluting our planet and MAN is the cause, so we have got to be the solution. If we make our planet unlivable by man, then the problem will work itself out in a million or so years while the cockroaches have free run.
Solving our current crisis is going to cost every one, since the problems have been ignored to long it may be very costly.
I appreciate your candor. Your willingness to say it how you see it.
One way or the other, the only way to save ourselves is for there to be less of ourselves? Is that what you are saying? I ask this not out of spite... I am genuinely curious.
If less consumption is the way to saving ourselves... OK. But I grew up on a farm. I know it takes a LOT of fossil fuel and other rather nasty things to pull 150-190 bushells of corn/acre.
What happens when a excessive cost of energy makes food impossibly expensive for a large part of the world? Is this the cost you speak of?
Fear and hunger have been the weapons of despots since the dawn of man... I hope we are better than that. We did put a man on the moon after all.
I do believe that we all will have to make sacrifices if we are to emerge from this crisis. I'm not advocating going back to horse and buggy or tilling our crops by mule and plow, but there are ways to improve how our resources are being used. If you want to drive a gas hog , ok, we can have a gas guzzeler tax but lower the mpg that qualifies for gas guzzler. With the bailout that our government gave the US auto industry you would think they would change their tactics, but it is just business as usual so we are damned to repeat. Unfortunately the average American just doesn't get it. If they can afford to drive a big car it's their right. Right?
We did put men on the moon , and i can say I was among those that made it possible. I am a believer that given the right incentives our men of science can find better ways of utilizing our resources, and finding sources that are today not known.
I guarantee you if we were faced with fossil fuel being depleted in 10 years there would be a break through in alternative energy before that happened.
When it comes to having enough food to feed the world because of the cost of producing enough, nature has always had a remedy for such eventualities. Rather than say "survival of the fittest" you can say survival will depend on your ability to adapt. Today we have thousands of people dieing of starvation all over the world purely because they are unable to adapt through no fault of their own. We have people dieing because of the despot or Warlord and we are helpless to assist. If new methods and energy are not found man is going to out grow this planet. Soon! We are destined to repeat history.
Something we all can agree on.Quote:
Originally Posted by kokopup
My 12mph gas guzzler is paid for. I cannot now or in the near future afford to buy outright or even afford payments on an econo-box that can get me around when the weather turns bad around here. I do wish I still had my Samurai for when the winter roads are good and for during the summer, I just cant afford to buy another Sammy in good reliable shape at the moment. So I should pay more in taxes because I cant afford a econ-box?Quote:
If you want to drive a gas hog , ok, we can have a gas guzzeler tax but lower the mpg that qualifies for gas guzzler. With the bailout that our government gave the US auto industry you would think they would change their tactics, but it is just business as usual so we are damned to repeat. Unfortunately the average American just doesn't get it. If they can afford to drive a big car it's their right. Right?
One of my uncles worked with NASA on some project or other, when we talk over Christmas Ill ask which one. I do find it funny that a jet and rocket propulsion scientist cant work a VCR and the internet is still a mystery to him.Quote:
We did put men on the moon , and i can say I was among those that made it possible. I am a believer that given the right incentives our men of science can find better ways of utilizing our resources, and finding sources that are today not known.
Why not work towards cleaner energy with the existing resources, while simultaneously working towards alternative and renewable energies? Or is the agenda to damn all fossil fuels regardless of the costs? 1st world countries could ween themselves of fossil fuels and could afford to help 2nd and third world countries clean up their fossil fuel emissions. Or does that go against the Global Warming Agenda agenda?Quote:
I guarantee you if we were faced with fossil fuel being depleted in 10 years there would be a break through in alternative energy before that happened.
The USA has had a habit for many years, even decades, of paying farmers and Big Corps, not to grow various crops. By past estimates we should already have mass starvations do to worldwide population growth, yet that hasent happened yet. One of Obama's appointee's even suggested that forced sterilization was the answer for the "over population" problem.Quote:
When it comes to having enough food to feed the world because of the cost of producing enough, nature has always had a remedy for such eventualities. Rather than say "survival of the fittest" you can say survival will depend on your ability to adapt. Today we have thousands of people dieing of starvation all over the world purely because they are unable to adapt through no fault of their own. We have people dieing because of the despot or Warlord and we are helpless to assist. If new methods and energy are not found man is going to out grow this planet. Soon! We are destined to repeat history.
Despite dire past predictions we have adapted and we continue to adapt, when government has allowed us to.
Ill start worrying about Globull Warming when Gore lives up to the example ShrubCo has set in his own residence.
Go Copenhagen PD!!!!!!:D
I can understand how you can have a vehicle that you can’t afford to replace, I have been there myself. In Europe and the US where a gas guzzler tax is imposed it is usually done when you buy the vehicle new. You can change how this guzzler is driven to obtain the most MPG, drive with an easy pedal and keep you tires well inflatedQuote:
By Blue
My 12mph gas guzzler is paid for. I cannot now or in the near future afford to buy outright or even afford payments on an econo-box that can get me around when the weather turns bad around here. I do wish I still had my Samurai for when the winter roads are good and for during the summer, I just cant afford to buy another Sammy in good reliable shape at the moment. So I should pay more in taxes because I cant afford a econ-box?
This has supposedly been the plan for sometime. The big 3 in Detroit have always been able to find holes in the plan so no progress has really come from them to speak of. The Hybrid technology has been used for some time in the commercial market but Detroit had no incentive until $4 gasoline hit. We can do better than rehashed 80’s technology. GE developed Fords system back in the 80’s but was only used in the commercial Bus market. Natural gas and now even Diesel is cleaner than a hybrid gas engines. If the Government wants to give out incentives it should be to anyone developing good alternatives. They need to develop a true Battery that doesn’t weigh a ton and will hold a charge more than 2 hours. The solution is out there we just need the right minds working on the problem rather than how to get around a definition.Quote:
Why not work towards cleaner energy with the existing resources, while simultaneously working towards alternative and renewable energies? Or is the agenda to damn all fossil fuels regardless of the costs? 1st world countries could ween themselves of fossil fuels and could afford to help 2nd and third world countries clean up their fossil fuel emissions. Or does that go against the Global Warming Agenda agenda?
I have spent enough time in India, Africa, Pakistan, and America to tell youQuote:
The USA has had a habit for many years, even decades, of paying farmers and Big Corps, not to grow various crops. By past estimates we should already have mass starvations do to worldwide population growth, yet that hasent happened yet. One of Obama's appointee's even suggested that forced sterilization was the answer for the "over population" problem
Despite dire past predictions we have adapted and we continue to adapt, when government has allowed us to.
there are people starving. The World Health Organization estimates that one-third of the world is well-fed, one-third is under-fed one-third is starving- Since you started readiing this post at least 200 people have died of starvation, and Over 4 million will die this year. Most of these starving people
can be attributed to failed crops because of severe drought. Yes we do have people starving while the US government pays farmer not to grow crops.
This is a portion of an article on Al Gores Manson.Quote:
Ill start worrying about Globull warming when Gore lives up to the example ShrubCo has set in his in his own residence.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Al Gore, who was criticized for high electric bills at his Tennessee mansion, has completed a host of improvements to make the home more energy efficient, and a building-industry group has praised the house as one of the nation's most environmentally friendly.
The former vice president has installed solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal heating. He also replaced all incandescent lights with compact fluorescent or light-emitting diode bulbs.
"Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don't know how it could have been rated any higher," said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design.
Im not so trusting in our current leaders to tax gas guzzlers that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by kokopup
What long time plan, and how has the Big 3 dug holes in it? Maybe Big .gov limiting diesel engines in the US? I would love a VW or BMW diesel swap into my ZJ, actually where I live I can do it I just cant afford it.Quote:
This has supposedly been the plan for sometime. The big 3 in Detroit have always been able to find holes in the plan so no progress has really come from them to speak of. The Hybrid technology has been used for some time in the commercial market but Detroit had no incentive until $4 gasoline hit. We can do better than rehashed 80’s technology. GE developed Fords system back in the 80’s but was only used in the commercial Bus market. Natural gas and now even Diesel is cleaner than a hybrid gas engines. If the Government wants to give out incentives it should be to anyone developing good alternatives. They need to develop a true Battery that doesn’t weigh a ton and will hold a charge more than 2 hours. The solution is out there we just need the right minds working on the problem rather than how to get around a definition.
Hybrid and electric car technology is more destructive then the traditional gasoline engine. Until all the metal in those cars come from completely recycled sources and not from mines, and arent getting the electricity from fossil fuels, hybrids and electrics are placebos. LNG, and propane wont work well here for most of the year because of the temps, diesel would be better but still is impeded by the cold. Even if the right minds can develop a battery that dosent weigh a ton, it would still require metal, metals need to be mined. Every hybrid vehicle should have a "I :love: Strip Mining" bumper sticker on it from the factory.
2 of my uncles spent many years in the Peace Corps, one is still active just not directly, Im well aware people are starving though out the world. Less people would starve to death if our .gov would stop paying farmers not to farm and pay them to farm to export as gifts to areas of the world suffering from droughts. But wait there is a problem with that idea isnt there? Many of the areas of the worlds suffering from droughts also suffer the rule of tyrants that would horde the foods and goods for themselves and their countries elites. You will have to forgive me for not trusting the WHO numbers.Quote:
I have spent enough time in India, Africa, Pakistan, and America to tell you
there are people starving. The World Health Organization estimates that one-third of the world is well-fed, one-third is under-fed one-third is starving- Since you started readiing this post at least 200 people have died of starvation, and Over 4 million will die this year. Most of these starving people
can be attributed to failed crops because of severe drought. Yes we do have people starving while the US government pays farmer not to grow crops.
So maybe Gore did learn a lesson from GWshruBco's Texas ranch, it still dosent give him a pass on his hypocrisy.Quote:
This is a portion of an article on Al Gores Manson.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Al Gore, who was criticized for high electric bills at his Tennessee mansion, has completed a host of improvements to make the home more energy efficient, and a building-industry group has praised the house as one of the nation's most environmentally friendly.
The former vice president has installed solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal heating. He also replaced all incandescent lights with compact fluorescent or light-emitting diode bulbs.
"Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don't know how it could have been rated any higher," said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design.
The mention of CFLs makes me mention another problem. CFLs have mercury in them. Burned out or defective CFLs will wind up in our land fills leading to more mercury leaking into our ground water. Banning incandescent light bulbs to save on electricity, is that a good payoff to have more mercury in our soils and waters? That worries me more than Co2.
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
I got a flyer from the city of Lost Angeles about sorting out the trash, food, recyclables, etc.
I cannot recycle any bulbs, of any type. Either I take them to a 'roundup' or toss them into the trash. So, now? I get the goofy "I am polluting the planet" guilty trip when I toss one into the trash..
Aside from getting ANOTHER bin to put out on trash day? How many light bulbs does the average home toss out a month?:o:confused:
I remember 'back in the day' when you either tossed your motor oil into the street drain or dug a hole in the backyard and dumped it there.:eek: How many jillion gallons of water does one quart, let alone the 4-5 in an engine crankcase, pollute when turned loose on the planet.:mad:
TANSTAAFL. Everything we do has an environmental impact. All we can do is to try to minimize it as much as possible.
Amen Smokey!Quote:
Smokey the Elder
TANSTAAFL. Everything we do has an environmental impact. All we can do is to try to minimize it as much as possible.
That says it all. EVERYTHING we do has an environmental impact. All we can do is to try to minimize it as much as possible.