"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html

It appears that one of the legacies of the Clinton administration is
that global warming stopped in 1998.


Raising hand I have a question! Are you the opinion that there
could never be any information which would convince you that we *are*
contributing to global warming, and might want to change a few living
habits?

There is no information at this time that would convince me that
global warming is a man made phenomena.

You might be right, or you might be wrong. However, here's an analogy.
Your doctor says you have a brain tumor. You tell him won't believe
it's dangerous until he shows you a petri dish on his desk containing a
tumor, from your head, the size of a bran muffin. Of course, by that
time, you'd be so messed up that you won't be able to comment on what
you're seeing.

No, the analogy should be; You have headaches and one doctor says you
have a brain tumor even though it doesn't show up on a CT scan, "it's
too small" says the doctor "to show up on a scan at this time but it
will kill you if left untreated". You go for a second opinion and that
doctor asks about your lifestyle, does and in-depth study and concludes
that it's probably related to your job as an amusement ride inspector
but to be on the safe side you should get a CT scan every 6 months for 2
years to be sure. You can't quit your job ( you have a family to
support) so you follow the second doctors advice.

Doug, you call the second doctor a quack when that IS the reasonable
choice. The first doctor MAY be right but the evidence is not all in.
There may be a tumor caused by insult but it's not going to be
malignant, it's not going to grow or metastasize.


Interesting analogy, Jeff, but doctor #2 hasn't suggested any behavioral
changes. That would complete the picture.

"Behavioral changes?" What behavioral changes can effect the growth of an
existing brain tumor?


You're right. Nothing affects the growth of cells, cancerous or otherwise.
How silly of thousands of researchers to waste time meddling in the
inevitable.

Bert Robbins wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html

It appears that one of the legacies of the Clinton administration is
that global warming stopped in 1998.


Raising hand I have a question! Are you the opinion that there
could never be any information which would convince you that we *are*
contributing to global warming, and might want to change a few living
habits?

There is no information at this time that would convince me that global
warming is a man made phenomena.

You might be right, or you might be wrong. However, here's an analogy.
Your doctor says you have a brain tumor. You tell him won't believe it's
dangerous until he shows you a petri dish on his desk containing a
tumor, from your head, the size of a bran muffin. Of course, by that
time, you'd be so messed up that you won't be able to comment on what
you're seeing.

No, the analogy should be; You have headaches and one doctor says you
have a brain tumor even though it doesn't show up on a CT scan, "it's too
small" says the doctor "to show up on a scan at this time but it will
kill you if left untreated". You go for a second opinion and that doctor
asks about your lifestyle, does and in-depth study and concludes that
it's probably related to your job as an amusement ride inspector but to
be on the safe side you should get a CT scan every 6 months for 2 years
to be sure. You can't quit your job ( you have a family to support) so
you follow the second doctors advice.

Doug, you call the second doctor a quack when that IS the reasonable
choice. The first doctor MAY be right but the evidence is not all in.
There may be a tumor caused by insult but it's not going to be malignant,
it's not going to grow or metastasize.


Interesting analogy, Jeff, but doctor #2 hasn't suggested any behavioral
changes. That would complete the picture.

"Behavioral changes?" What behavioral changes can effect the growth of an
existing brain tumor?

Hmm, I'd think that taking the medication your doctor prescribed, as
opposed to hanging at the corner smoking crack would 1. effect the
growth of the tumor because that's what the doctor prescribed the
medicine for, and 2. would be a behavioral change.

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 08:14:52 -0400, "RCE" wrote:

That's why I am trading in my small 383 ci for a bigger, 440 ci that burns
more fuel and makes more smog.

Which brings up an interesting question, at least in my mind.

When you repower an older vehicle, such as your truck or car, that was
built prior to emissions standards, do you need to bring it into
compliance, or does it have a lifetime exemption?

Curious minds want to know. :-)

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 13:52:05 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 08:14:52 -0400, "RCE" wrote:

That's why I am trading in my small 383 ci for a bigger, 440 ci that
burns
more fuel and makes more smog.

Which brings up an interesting question, at least in my mind.

When you repower an older vehicle, such as your truck or car, that was
built prior to emissions standards, do you need to bring it into
compliance, or does it have a lifetime exemption?

Curious minds want to know. :-)

As long as it's consistent with the period, you don't have to do
anything - at least in CT.

For example, when I rebuilt the SD-220 six in my '50 International
Harvester L-110, everything was original and exactly to the period.
Now if I had swapped the engine for, say, a 564 CUI big block, then it
would have had to be up to standard with a cat converter, PCV, etc.
The only thing I wouldn't have had to do was incorporate computer
control as it was a normally aspirated engine. If it was electronic,
then you have to add the EMM.

In Dick's case (I believe it's the same in MA), as long as it's
strictly held to the period, he doesn't have to do anything as far as
emissions goes.

Curious tidbit: I had my International put through emissions just for
giggles - it tested cleaner than a two year old Subaru in the next
bay.

Emissions testing? It's a joke.

That's because the Subaru customer base is now dominated by disgustingly
mild people who never seem to rev their cars higher than 800 RPM. This is
the same crowd that used to drive K-cars. The crap never gets blown out of
their motors, and a tuneup involves nothing more than taking it out on the
highway and jumping on the pedal hard for 5 minutes.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 08:14:52 -0400, "RCE" wrote:

That's why I am trading in my small 383 ci for a bigger, 440 ci that burns
more fuel and makes more smog.

Which brings up an interesting question, at least in my mind.

When you repower an older vehicle, such as your truck or car, that was
built prior to emissions standards, do you need to bring it into
compliance, or does it have a lifetime exemption?

Curious minds want to know. :-)


Depends on how the vehicle is titled and registered. My new truck is
officially a '55, but the engine is a '98. No emission tests or
requirements apply. But, to put the tree huggers at peace, I probably go
through a tank of gas every 2 months.

RCE

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 15:49:27 -0400, "RCE" wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 08:14:52 -0400, "RCE" wrote:

That's why I am trading in my small 383 ci for a bigger, 440 ci that
burns
more fuel and makes more smog.

Which brings up an interesting question, at least in my mind.

When you repower an older vehicle, such as your truck or car, that was
built prior to emissions standards, do you need to bring it into
compliance, or does it have a lifetime exemption?

Curious minds want to know. :-)


Depends on how the vehicle is titled and registered. My new truck is
officially a '55, but the engine is a '98. No emission tests or
requirements apply. But, to put the tree huggers at peace, I probably go
through a tank of gas every 2 months.

Pansy.

Well, maybe a bit more ...

One thing that cracks me up though ... Florida ... Wayne's new homestate,
does not require emission or safety inspections of any vehicles. That
really blew me away when I registered a little Ford Ranger in Florida when
we wintered there. Must be one of the few or maybe only state left that has
no inspections.

RCE

Global Warming: It Has Stopped

Group: rec.boats Date: Tue, Apr 11, 2006, 3:49pm (PDT+3) From:
(RCE)
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
news On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 08:14:52 -0400, "RCE" wrote:
That's why I am trading in my small 383 ci for a bigger, 440 ci that
burns more fuel and makes more smog.
Which brings up an interesting question, at least in my mind.
When you repower an older vehicle, such as your truck or car, that was
built prior to emissions standards, do you need to bring it into
compliance, or does it have a lifetime exemption?
Curious minds want to know. * :-)
Depends on how the vehicle is titled and registered. My new truck is
officially a '55, but the engine is a '98. No emission tests or
requirements apply. But, to put the tree huggers at peace, I probably go
through a tank of gas every 2 months.
RCE


OK, I know you've got a '55 Ford pickup, but (sniff sniff) what Mopar
are you running a 383 in? Show me yours and I'll show you mine, UD

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 22:21:47 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

OK, I know you've got a '55 Ford pickup, but (sniff sniff) what Mopar
are you running a 383 in? Show me yours and I'll show you mine, UD

I can't wait to see Dan's reaction to this one.

Chuckle.

""UglyDan®©T"" wrote in message
...



OK, I know you've got a '55 Ford pickup, but (sniff sniff) what Mopar
are you running a 383 in? Show me yours and I'll show you mine, UD


Posted a pic for you over at alt.binaries.pictures.sports.ocean

RCE

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 22:21:47 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

OK, I know you've got a '55 Ford pickup, but (sniff sniff) what Mopar
are you running a 383 in? Show me yours and I'll show you mine, UD

I can't wait to see Dan's reaction to this one.

Chuckle.


Dan might surprise us with something with an original hemi. There's a
classified ad for a '69 Dodge Charger Daytona on Hemmings.com. Asking price
is well over $600,000.00.

Even more vanilla mopars of that vintage with a running hemi are priced
anywhere from 150k to 300K.

The economy models, like mine, with the 440 are a lot more reasonable,
price-wise. Mine has a certain value above normal though, because of the
car's history and documentation.

RCE