Advice on replacing 94-97 Accord muffler? Dealing with rubber hangers?

Here near Phoenix, it's easy to tell the tourists during the winter.
They're dressed in t-shirt and shorts while the temps are in the 60's
while the natives are wearing sweaters and winter jackets.

 

You are NOT kidding OR exaggerating. I've seen the exact same thing when we
were in So Cal both times. It's 85 and we Northerners are baring as much
flesh as possible, taking utmost advantage of it. The natives are going
around in long pants. The Mexicans are upping the ante with heavy cotton
long-sleeved shirts.

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.

It's all relative, I guess.

 

Heat wave in the 1960's???? Don't let Al Gore find out!

JT

 

Moron. Global warming isn't related to seasonal weather.

 

Well, duh, everybody knows its actually related to hot air emanating from
the mouths of politicians. Lets not do another 500 post thread on this.

 

Really, pray tell, what's your take???

JT

(Who doesn't see much warming these days...)

 

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, 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.

Pull you head out of your ass.

 

We're not actually. The US federal EPA says that pollution levels have
declined absolutely to about 57% of 1970 levels, this in spite of something
like a 153% increase in vehicular traffic since 1970.

That 57% reduction is absolute, not relative. It means that any given
volume of air contains 57% lower concentrations of the measured substances
than the same volume of air did in 1970. Sure sounds to me as though modern
cars are actually /cleaner/ than ambient air. Scrubbing Bubbles in your
exhaust!

And CO2 is not a "pollutant". The more CO2 in the air, the better plants
grow and the more rain falls. Some "pollutant".

 

in 150 years? you need a cite for that.

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.

alternatively, crack open a google and read something you haven't read
before.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/the_coming_ice_age.html

 

I was going to answer the original poster but he seems to be totally
subjugated by the current "sky is falling" alarmists.

Regarding auto emmissions, that total is even higher here in Austin.
It's around 90% IIRC. Cars have gotten so clean that using 'em for
suicide is now a challenge.

Actually, the previous poster's contention is laughable.

CO2 is as much a pollutant as H2O. Too much of either will kill you but
such "hazards" should not be of concern to mere mortals.

OTOH, if wishes to discuss "greenhouse" gases, one may want to take a
closer look at water vapor. Ooops, there's that pesky H2O again.
Further, the CO2 content in the atmosphere that comprises greenhouse
gasses is small indeed and the "human caused" amount is almost
non-calculable.

Now, if one wishes to look further, my contention is that most human
caused increases in CO2 are largely the result of the decimation of the
tropical rain forests. But since attempts to fix that are not real money
makers, we are being bombarded by unproven silly schemes to fix a
nonexistent problem which at the same time will empty our pockets.

Anyone who believes that money and power are not the real villains here
is just simply ducking the issue.

JT

 

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.

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.

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?

 

Those figures don't include CO2.

 

Which isn't a "pollutant".

 

Do you have ADD? We've been discussing climate change.

 

that story would be more believable [and thus more credible] if you
spelled it "coral", not corral.

 

Man is responsible for /maybe/ 5% of the atmosphere's
total CO2 content.

Since the atmosphere's CO2 is about 0.04% of the total
atmospheric volume, that means our 5% product makes up about
0.002% of total atmospheric volume.

Read this for an imaginative illustration of just how
small an amount that is:
<http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=034028d4-8a4a-4103-8012-6445ac5ba715&k=46578>
(a "litre" is about the same as a quart; 50ml is about 2 oz)

Man is having no effect on the global climate with his CO2.
But even if he did, it would be a beneficial one.

Plants absolutely /love/ CO2. The more the better.
You like plants, don't you? Don't you want them to live?

 

If a man who smokes tells you not to smoke because it's bad for your
health, is his message invalid because he himself smokes? Ignore the
(stupidly trivial) spelling mistake and pay attention to Grumpy's point.

And in these days of Google, failure to do your own believability tests is
inexcusably argumentative.

I find it faintly distasteful how many Usenet/Web-board denizens demand
cites and proofs on points that they dislike. That demand can be translated
essentially as, "I hate what you're saying but I can't refute it (or don't
feel like doing so), so I'll put the onus on you by making a ridiculous
demand".
And then there are the attempts at deflection from the core issue, like
pointing out spelling mistakes, or ad hominem attacks.

I did some digging for you. Here,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown-of-Thorns_Starfish>
Grumpy just might be correct.

He is certainly correct to beware of bad science. "Climate change"
activists absolutely depend upon execrably bad science; their contentions
do not hold up under /any/ sort of scrutiny.

 

but dude, if it's been a part of your life for a period, if the story is
to be believed, you have to be able to spell it right don't you? that
would be like you misspelling "integra".

on the subject of climate scientist credibility, some while back,
rec.bicycles.tech was being snowed with articles about the dangers of
mountain bikes with front disk brakes. the prime author, and vigorous
defender, of this danger theory was a climate scientist named dr james
annan. long story short, he'd calculated that the front wheel of a bike
could be ejected if the [disk] brakes were applied. and some of the
usual r.b.t blowhards jumped aboard the ballyhoo looking for trouble as
on the face of it, the math did indeed look sensational. but there were
two problems:

1. the calculated failures were not being observed in the field.

2. examination showed the math to have a fundamental omission!

hence #2 explained the reality check - #1.

but instead of fixing the math, this character just ignored the problem
and started to get more and more hysterical in his desperation to stir
up a fight. when that didn't work, he then started to play the
"credibility" card. sure, he had a phd, sure, he had a science job, and
sure, he apparently was pretty vocal on the subject and had a number of
high profile articles printed in a number of the world's newspapers,
complete with inflammatory statements. but the bottom line was, he'd
still made a fundamental mistake in what is some pretty danged simple
math, and failed the reality check of comparing the math what is
observed to be actually happening - basically because he was trying to
make his theory fit what he wanted to see, not what was actually happening.

a credible individual to be contributing to the climate change debate?
i think not.

 

5000 ppm is considered very unhealthy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148%
respectively since 1750

These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000
years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice
cores.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

 

there is a physical phenomenon called "solid state diffusion". this
means that solute levels change over time, even in solids. i seriously
doubt the credibility of anyone trying to say that gas levels in ice
cores from 1750 are representative of reality 260 years ago.