Advice on replacing 94-97 Accord muffler? Dealing with rubberhangers?

jim beam wrote:
> On 12/27/2009 01:29 PM, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> On 12/27/2009 10:43 AM, AZ Nomad wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:44:47 -0600, Grumpy
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> AZ Nomad wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:18:54 -0600, Grumpy
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> Tegger wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At one point in the 1960s there was a heat-wave in the Arctic
>>>>>>>> part of
>>>>>>>> Canada. Temperatures soared into the 60s. The media sent
>>>>>>>> reporters to find
>>>>>>>> out what the Eskimos thought of it all. And what they discovered
>>>>>>>> was that
>>>>>>>> the Eskimos HATED it. WAY too hot for them. They complained up
>>>>>>>> and down how
>>>>>>>> hot it was and how they had to go around half-naked to keep from
>>>>>>>> sweating
>>>>>>>> themselves to death.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Heat wave in the 1960's???? Don't let Al Gore find out!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Moron. Global warming isn't related to seasonal weather.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Really, pray tell, what's your take???
>>>>
>>>> My take is that we generate more auto emissions than ever, that before
>>>> emissions controls, they would cause terrible smog, and that they
>>>> are still currently generating even more non-smog generating,
>>>> culmulative emissions. Global CO2 levels have been rising steadily
>>>> since the invention of the automobile,
>>>
>>> in 150 years? you need a cite for that.
>>
>> Well, CO2 is up but that's to be expected as it is a lagging factor in
>> climate change. (This is good in view of declining world temperatures of
>> late).
>>
>> If he digs up a cite, you can bet that it's based on "cooked" numbers
>> probably from the UEA/Met which is now under siege just doing that.
>>
>> As one who has had training in meteorology, climate is a science largely
>> dependent of the collection of statistics. When the alarmists who have
>> dominated the issue "sift" raw data, credibility comes into question.
>>
>> Might be worth mentioning that people like Gore, Hanson, etc have
>> absolutely no credentials to even be involved while free thinkers like
>> Dr. Henrik Svensmark are ignored. His observations make the most sense
>> to me.
>>
>>
>>>> and there are signs such as
>>>> shrinking glaciers of climate change occuring more in 50 years than
>>>> has every occured in a single 50,000 year period in history.
>>>
>>> again, you need a cite for that. as someone that grew up in the 70's,
>>> we were fed the enviro-doomsday story of the day - the coming ice age.
>>> then it was campaign for nuclear disarmament. then it was save the
>>> whales. now it's global warming. it's amazing how fashions change.
>>
>> See, what they are citing are relatively small areas of glacier loss
>> while never acknowledging glacial rebuilds over most of the world
>> particularly Antarctica. Same goes for polar bears et al.
>>
>> In the 1970's, I was involved in a research/documentary project where
>> one of the issues was the destruction of the tropical corral reefs by
>> the Acanthaster planci. There are still some who are alarmed by its
>> continued existence. A lot of resources were devoted to remedial action
>> but in the end, it just turned out to be a cyclical event. After that
>> experience, I vowed then never to be misled by bad science.
>
> that story would be more believable [and thus more credible] if you
> spelled it "coral", not corral.


That's probably because I go once a week to the Golden Corral for a
pigfest... - Polluted Thinker



>
>>
>> In retrospect, I am not overly concerned that some species may go
>> extinct. Such as been the case for all history and who are we to stop a
>> natural process?
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Pull you head out of your ass.
>>>
>>> alternatively, crack open a google and read something you haven't read
>>> before.
>>> http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...g_ice_age.html
>>>
>