Air Con - is it worth it? - Paul Robinson
I have read with interest the various threads over the last few months about air con. When I choose my next car, it likely to be 3 to 4 years old ex fleet and not more than £5K. I intend running the car for another 3 years (30K). For the first time many of the cars falling into this category have air con.

I can?t help wondering if air con may be more trouble and expense than it?s worth in these circumstances. What do people think?
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - David W
Paul,

A "sort of" answer might be in the behaviour of the customers I know who have air-con faults.

Each one has elected to leave the system failed rather than spend any money at all on it.

All cars are over three years old and worth less than £7000.

It is brilliant when it works but.....

Same goes for air bag and ABS failure warning lamps. In many cases folks want to know how to get the lamp out, not repair the fault.

I suppose there is some conclusion to be drawn from this.

David
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - richard turpin
D reg XJ6 110,000 miles. Air con works perfectly. Leave on all the time. Does cost more in fuel. Well worth it.
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - David W
Interesting Richard, the one car of note I look after with air-con lasting against the odds is a 1984 MK.II Granada Ghia X.

System perfect after all these years. Is that old type fluid better I wonder?

David
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - richard turpin
David, I'm afraid I don't know about the older type fluid, but I think leaving it on is the trick.
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - David W
I think the older systems are "gassed" with something that is illegal now. Dave N would tell us.

David
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - ladas are cool
i dont think its worth it, just put the heater on if its cold, or open the window if its warm, easy. what happened to the days where people had something to get from A-B, but these days its like the car must be this, that, and everything else. some cars these days have more gadgets then your home.
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - Penport
It depends ..... is my answer.

I've just had major grief with my A4 but finally the dealer (independent) who sold it to me has put the fault right at his cost. I think I was lucky.
If I had bought the car privately, or the fault emerged some time after purchase I would DEFINITELY had just said "I'll live without it"

BUT most cars with a/c have no sunroof to aid ventilation

Apparently cars in the States have no major problems with A/C, presumably because they're left on all the time. Perhaps we should all do the same. Damn British weather!
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - Andrew Barnes
I run my aircon all the time, whether I want cool or warm air. I know some people who turn off the aircon when they want warm air, always wondered why?

Andrew
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - Dan J
What did it turn out was wrong in the end?
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - Stu
Exactly, my air con is on 365, whether I need cool or warm air.
Has run with no problems since new. (M reg Audi).
S
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - Phil Goodacre
My one regret with my Z3 is that I didn't take up the air-con option as I thought that with a soft top it would be wasted. Big mistake. I have had several BMWs with air-con and never had a problem with any of them. There is a price to pay in the increased fuel consumtion but, unless you are stuck in a jam this is negligible.
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - David Millar
Have had aircon on two cars in the last three years. One was a 1.25 Zetec Fiesta which I had for just over a year and used the aircon in summer but also in winter for demisting. No problems as you would expect with a new car. I never checked fuel consumption but the engine certainly didn't stutter when the aircon was switched on as used to be the case with small engines and aircon in the States.

Second car is more interesting. It was a 1992 Ford Taunus 3.2 V6 with over 100K miles which I ran in Syria for 18 months until last year. Aircon was used virtually every day and probably had been since it was delivered new to Syria in '92. It worked perfectly--so good I froze up my shoulder very painfully one day on a long trip to visit Crusader castles. It had been serviced in company workshops where they were pretty good but I don't think they would ever have recharged the system on this or any of the other cars in the fleet. All of these were generally over 2 litre Volvos, Peugeots and the Taunus'. Only last year when the V40s started to appear did anyone appear to have any problems with aircon.

Consumption on the Taunus worked out at an amazing (to me) 32mpg on leaded 92 octane petrol. I doubt that the aircon made much difference with this big lazy engine.

I would go for the aircon but use it daily and probably in the UK have it checked over by a specialist at the beginning.

Enjoy.

David
Re: Air Con - of course it is - Andrew Smith
If it works great if it doesn't you haven't lost anything.
I leave the air con switched on all the time an it has never given any probs. No detectable change in economy but the car does tick over a little more smoothly without it. Wouldn't be without it in even the british summer. I was in florida this summer and after leaving my hire car parked out in the sun I got back in it and drove away. The car was so hot inside that I felt physically sick by the time we had made our way out of the car park but within a mile or so the air con had got the tempreture down to nice and chilly. In places that hot air con is essential.

(btw my confession is that in the summer I open the sunroof and turn the air con up to compensate for the hot air getting in. Probably buggers up the fuel economy but it is nice to have some wind in my hair whilst I've still got some)
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - Richard Blackburn
For years I didn't have aircon. I still remember a drive from London to Lyme Regis a few years back in the old Metro. It was very hot, heavy traffic and some long jams. It was truly appalling. No problems from the car - no overheating - it behaved just fine. But both of us were suffering considerably, even though all windows and sunroof were open.

My most recent car, though, does have aircon. And even after only a few months, I'm sure that any future vehicle I get will just have to have this. Definitely worth it.

Richard
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - Darcy Kitchin
Definitely worth it. The Synergie has climate control and has been set to 21deg more or less since I got it. The comfort factor is excellent especially if one needs to wear e.g. business gear and leather shoes during a summer day. Having the windows down is no answer 'cos it makes conversation/listening to The Archers difficult. I've just spent £100 on a recharge and a blower fan problem at about 81K miles and consider it money well spent.
In winter, one button blows dry warm air at the windscreen for quick demisting. I'm a convert.
Sunroofs should be abolished; they rattle and leak and need maintenance to keep them working and the drain holes unblocked, AND they take vital space out of the roof where my head should be.
Re: Air Con - is it worth it?- Further details - Paul Robinson
Thanks for the comments so far. I do understand the advantages of air con, I think my concern is, if I acquire a 3 - 4 year old car where the air con may not have been used properly (ie all the time), will it be more trouble than it's worth???
Re: Air Con - is it worth it?- Further details - Mark (Brazil)
Only you can decide what its worth.

Aircon doesn't make the car run better, it doesn't make it get to B from A any faster, it just *may* make it more comfortable.

How often are you sat in a car, perhaps wearing a suit, trying not to get windswept, but the weather is hot enough that you either need aircon or the window open.

Here, I need it every day of my life, but I cannot believe it is equally necc. in the UK.

Perhaps a better question, where I cannot help with the answer, is what does it cost to maintain AC in a car already three years old which you will retain for a further n years ?

You can then balance this against your own perceived beneift.
Re: Air Con - Yes it is worth it! - John Slaughter
Paul

Aircon is great. Comfort in summer that simply can't be equalled by opening windows or sun roof, and the demisting effect in winter. More headroom because you can delete the sunroof. My last car (Vectra) did nearly 80k in 4 years with no aircon problems at all. It was a must for its replacement.

Regards

john
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - John Poller
I am convert to aircon. It makes long journeys pleasant, trips to the local shops with kids on board less aggrivating in summer etc. My view is that in anything less than 3 or 4 years old ex-fleet expect aircon it much more use than a sun roof. Maintenance wise as long as it is working it may need a re-charge at some point cost approx £100.00 but so what it is still worth having.
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - john woollard
Re Paul's second email - if you are not bothered whether it works you won't have any secondary problems if it packs up.
Just forget it!
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - afm
Older systems used R12, a CFC which eats ozone. R12 is now difficult/inpossible to obtain. It is smuggled from Asia. Replacement refrigerants for R12 are, I believe, not 100% reliable.

Modern systems use an HCFC, more ozone friendly.
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - afm
Sorry, Robin and Alwyn, but it doesn't work like that. Nitrogen, like R12, is heavier than air but there's obviously not a nitrogen layer at ground level. Air is 76% nitrogen 'cause it's all mixed up together.

R12 is freon and it's a volatile liquid which evaporates.

The simple and unpleasant fact is that there are big holes in the ozone above the poles and they weren't there before. The daft sods that go on modern 'expeditions' to the poles (Templeman- Adams or something) got badly sunburnt very quickly. Scott's, Amudsen's, Shackleton's, etc., earlier expeditions didn't.

I'm in favour of healthy scepticism, but ignoring hard, unpleasant facts to justify driving your motor or running your AC is plain daft.

Similarly, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have gone up due to the combustion of fossil fuels. You might not like to admit it, but it's fact.
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - afm
And by the way. Water is also heavier than air. It is often seen lying around on the ground in puddles, seas and rivers.

Go outside and look up. See them white fluffy things? They're called clouds. They are water vapour. Sorry, it's true.
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - Alwyn
Water and water vapur clearly do not possess the same mass. Otherwise, each time we boiled a kettle, our kitchen floor would be covered in steam.

Change it's state, change it's mass. Eureka!

And CO2 is not the main greenhouse gas, 95% is water vapour . Nature puts out 200 billion tonnes of CO2 annually whilst fossil fuels add 6 billion tonnes.
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - afm
Ok I'll read it. This may take some time. The author's qualifications (BE? Political Analyst?) make it sound as if I'm in for a rivetting read.

If you spill water, it evaporates. It goes up in the sky. It comes down again.

If you spill R12, it evaporates. It goes up in the sky. Some may come down again. Some reacts with the ozone.

We know the holes weren't there because the first polar explorers didn't suffer sunburn like you can now and because lots more people in Australia are now getting nasty melanomas.
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - Alwyn
It does not work like that? How do we know the holes were not there before?

As you will know the holes grow and shrink on a regular basis. Please comment on this article if you have time to read it.

Cheers

Holes in the Ozone Scare
By Jeremy Beck, BE, (Hons)
Political Analyst

23rd August 1999

As with Greenhouse Effect, the Ozone Hole scare has been a victim of political and corporate interests, media bias and pseudoscience. Again, the media has left many of us in the dark, recycling lies and half-truths while giving rise to unwarranted alarm.

No doubt, many readers will be familiar with the theory of CFCs obliterating the ozone layer. However, as we will see later, this theory rapidly crumbles when we separate science from political deception. The ozone depletion theory originated from Mario Molina in December 1973 despite that Molina knew nothing about the stratosphere or stratospheric chemistry; his expertise was in chemical lasers[1]. Molina came to Sherwood Rowland, another scientist with no expertise in stratospheric chemistry and they worked together producing what scientists commonly know as Rowland and Molina's Theory[2]. The theory assumed CFCs are so inert that there are no sinks[3]. They assumed ultraviolet radiation breaks up CFCs in the stratosphere whereby freeing a chlorine atom. The theory goes on to assume this chlorine reacts with ozone producing diatomic oxygen and a highly reactive compound, chlorine monoxide. Molina predicted the chlorine monoxide would break up, thus setting up a catalytic chain reaction destroying between 20 and 40 percent of the ozone layer[4]. The chemical reactions as hypothesised by Molina can be seen below for the common refrigerant CFC-12.

CCl2F2 + ultraviolet radiation ----> Cl + CClF2
Cl + O3 ----> ClO + O2
ClO + O ----> Cl + O2

Unfortunately, many environmentalists conveniently omit scientific evidence that does not fit their perceived vision of environmental cataclysm. Firstly, the chance of many CFCs finding their way up to the stratosphere is very remote considering CFCs, depending on which compound is being measured, are four to eight times heavier than air[5]. Secondly, it is only natural for ozone levels to oscillate in the stratosphere; they are simply a function of the solar sunspot cycle[6]. Another rarely publicised point is that global ozone data exists back as far as the 1930s[7]. However, the Ozone Trends Panel's starting date was chosen at 1969 when ozone levels were at a peak[8]. This deceptive graphical plot hides the fact that back in 1962 there was also an "ozone hole."[9] It is also a curiosity that the ozone hole forms over Antarctica, when in fact most CFCs are emitted from the Northern Hemisphere.

Norwegian scientists Søren Larsen and Thormod Henriksen have analysed the Arctic ozone layer back to the year 1935 and conclude:[10]

"The data from long-term ozone measurements reveal periods of several years with a negative trend [decrease] and other periods with a positive trend [increase]. The combined results up to 1989 give no evidence for a long-term negative trend of the Arctic ozone layer...."[11]

On 22nd October 1991, Robert Watson, cochairman of a panel of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), gave a press conference orchestrated by a paid media consultant. Watson issued dire warnings in relation to the thinning of the ozone layer, claiming the executive summary he presented were the findings contained in a 300-page report to be released by the UNEP. However, that report does not exist, according to UNEP spokesmen.[12]

As scientist Dr. Fred Singer aptly comments: "Environmental policy seems once again to be driven by press release rather than by proven scientific data."[13]

The irony of the alleged evils of CFCs is that natural sources of chlorine far outweigh industry's contribution. Remember, Rowland and Molina's Theory asserts that chlorine, not CFCs, destroy ozone. Evaporating oceans emit 600 million tons of chlorine into the atmosphere per year. Although precipitation washes out most chlorine, large amounts still reach the stratosphere.[14] Even high school science students would be aware that seawater salt is comprised of sodium chloride. Once the sodium chloride reaches high altitudes, it can ionise, freeing the chlorine atom from the sodium.[15]

Erupting volcanoes can emit hundreds of millions of tons of chlorine. These eruptions directly inject chlorine into the stratosphere[16]. Mt. Erebus in Antarctica began an active cycle of volcanic eruptions in 1972 that has been continuous to this day.[17] Mt. Erebus pumps 50 times more chlorine into the atmosphere annually than does an entire year's production of CFCs. [18] This is not to say that Mt. Erebus' emissions created the Antarctic ozone hole. Admittedly, the science is still uncertain as to all the factors influencing the fluctuating Antarctic ozone hole. However, concealed by the media, the so-called Antarctic ozone hole was not a new discovery. Its existence had been known for more than 30 years. Scientists had discovered the anomaly in the years 1956-57 when ozone spectrophotometers were placed in Antarctica for the first time.[19]

Incidentally, other natural sources of atmospheric chlorine originate from burning biomass, ocean biota, meteorite showers and cosmic dust burning up as they enter the atmosphere.[20] In fact, nature produces about 8,000 times more chlorine than man does with CFCs.[21] Of course, the large amounts of chlorine in the atmosphere should not be of a concern. The ozone layer has coexisted with this atmospheric chlorine long before industrial civilisations came into being and in fact; the sun's ultraviolet radiation is continually creating ozone. Ultraviolet radiation in the band of 190-230 nm creates single atoms of oxygen that form ozone molecules.[22]

Although CFCs are heavy molecules, a minuscule proportion does manage to be drawn up to the lower stratosphere. However, CFCs do not rise above 40 kilometres. This is a critical point, as the intensity of ultraviolet light in the lower stratosphere is not sufficient to break up CFCs. Moreover, despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent in research, no one has observed a single instance of ultraviolet radiation splitting CFCs in the stratosphere.[23]

Rowland and Molina's Theory assumes there are no sinks for CFCs. This is a false assumption. Sinks for CFCs include:

Soils (deposition)
Soil bacteria (destruction)
Biomass (captured by plant lipoproteins)
Oceans (deposition)
Ocean biota (destruction)
Desert sands (destruction)[24]
Back in 1988, two Australian scientists, Aslam Khalil and R. A. Rasmussen, used Freon to calibrate the gas exchange on termites in the soil. They ran into problems when the Freon kept disappearing and eventually found the soil microbes were using Freon as a food source. Freon was being decomposed in a matter of days or weeks.[25] Now, it does not take a Ph.D. to figure out that if CFCs are four to eight times heavier than air, many will ultimately meet their demise in the soil by microorganisms. In addition, it is interesting to note that the greatest concentration of CFC-destroying organisms may be present at the surface of the world's oceans.[26]

The costs of the CFC ban are enormous. Leaving aside costs of hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars, much loss of life is expected from inadequate refrigeration and food spoilage. Even Robert Watson, the head of the Ozone Trends Panel admitted, "probably more people would die from food poisoning as a consequence of inadequate refrigeration than would die from depleting ozone."[27] The replacement refrigerant, R-134a is not nearly as efficient in cooling.[28] It is far more expensive, extremely corrosive, toxic and less energy efficient. There are concerns that it may be a carcinogen, but there has not been enough testing to determine this.[29] By contrast, CFCs are nontoxic, nonflammable, cheap, simple to produce, and extremely stable and unreactive.[30] Far from saving the Earth, the ban on CFCs is an environmental tragedy when considering the toxicity and energy inefficiency of the alternatives, not to mention the reduced product life of compressors induced by corrosive CFC replacements.

Many people may be unaware of both Du Pont and ICI's vested financial interest in the banning of CFCs. These two corporations have worked together for decades, maintaining their dominance in the world chemical market.[31] The Du Pont Corporation's monopoly patent on CFCs was about to expire and become public domain. It was therefore in Du Pont's interest to sponsor the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit conference, and surprise, surprise; Du Pont secured the patent on the replacement HFC 134a gas.[32] The Montreal Protocol to limit CFCs was revised and on 11th February, 1992, President Bush announced a ban on CFCs by 1995.[33]

Under the ownership of the Bronfman family, Du Pont's earnings from CFC replacements have amounted to many billions of dollars. Edgar Bronfman personally may have made more than $10 billion during the early 1990s alone.[34] Interestingly, the Bronfmans have made considerable contributions to the environmental movement. In fact, Du Pont and ICI (along with many other multinational corporations) have a close working relationship with the green movement. One of the heirs of the ICI family fortune, Lord Peter Melchett, is the executive director of Greenpeace in Great Britain. Greenpeace, with an annual income of more than $100 million worldwide has been actively campaigning against the use of CFCs.[35]

The data available from public sources show that the total revenues of the environmental movement are more than 8.5 billion US dollars per year.[36] Foundation grants to environmental groups in the range of 20 to 50 million US dollars are no longer a novelty. In July 1990, the Rockefeller Foundation announced a 50 million-dollar global environmental program.[37] It may seem rather ironic to most of us that the world's first billionaire[38] and oil industrialist, namely John D. Rockefeller, endowed the Rockefeller Foundation.[39] The irony certainly does not stop here. Many multinational corporations donate huge sums of money to environmental groups. The Nature Conservancy's 1990 report reflects contributions of over $1,000,000 from Amoco, over $135,000 from Arco, over $100,000 from BP Exploration and BP Oil, more than $3,700,000 (in real estate) from Chevron, over $10,000 from Conoco and Phillips Petroleum and over $260,000 from Exxon.[40] IBM is contributing grant money for the introduction of school children on five continents to the "theory and practice of Gaia." [41]Gaia is the brainchild of Dr. James Lovelock, and known by many scientists as junk-science or pseudoscience.[42] Lovelock proclaims:

"Gaia is Mother Earth. Gaia is immortal. She is the eternal source of life. She does not need to reproduce herself as she is immortal. She is certainly the mother of us all, including Jesus... Gaia is not a tolerant mother. She is rigid and inflexible, ruthless in the destruction of whoever transgresses. Her unconscious objective is that of maintaining a world adapted to life. If we men hinder this objective we will be eliminated without pity."[43]

Corporations are not required by law to report on grants to environmental groups. However, from the scant information publicly available, one can conservatively estimate that corporations contribute more than $200 million a year to the environmental movement.[44] This may appear as bizarre behaviour at first glance. However, big business has learnt that they are able to bankrupt competition from small and medium sized business through cumbersome environmental regulations.[45] The tragedy of this is Mum and Dad battlers and pensioners donate their scarce dollars to green groups believing they are saving the Earth from the "evils of industrialisation." Nothing could be further from the truth.

Sadly, although many of the hypothesised environmental disasters turn out to be fraudulent, multinational corporations continue to perpetrate environmental damage. Moreover, the media treats these multinational corporations with kid gloves when they do indeed commit environmental negligence. This should not really come as a surprise, as the same elite powers governing multinational corporations drive the media's political bias. The mainstream media simply avoids many critical issues, although they dish up a variety of articles and programs in the attempt to give the perception of endorsing free speech while providing fairness for all parties.

Unethical behaviour from scientists such as Stephen H. Schneider compounds the environmental bias that already exists within our media. In an interview in October 1989, Schneider came out with this alarming admission: "We need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. . . . Each of us has to decide what is the right balance between being effective and being honest."

In the early 1970s, Schneider was an adamant supporter of the theory of a coming Ice Age that would wipe mankind from the face of the Earth. Now articles regularly feature Schneider supporting impending doom due to global warming. In 1992, this admitted deceiver received the "Scientist of the Year Award."[46] Now, would this be a political appointment?

Many scientists are enraged over the CFC ban. Sadly, their voice is suppressed in this game of politics. Doomsday scientists have received a bonanza of research grants, titles, perks, positions and much more. However, scientists having the courage to oppose these theories in public have had their papers rejected for publication, their grant money discontinued and in some cases, have even lost their research and teaching positions.[47]

Many people are starting to sense something is wrong with contemporary world politics. Even some members within Greenpeace note the profits chemical corporations have made on the ozone hole. This extract from the Greenpeace website identifies their concern: "Chemical companies have dictated the progress of the Montreal Protocol and measures to protect the ozone layer. In doing so, they have been able to switch from making money from CFCs to making money from CFC replacements. For these companies, the ozone hole has been a gold mine."[48] Obviously many members of Greenpeace are oblivious of the financial forces driving this process. Likewise, conservative free marketeers such as Gerard Jackson from The New Australian, fail to identify the financial forces driving contemporary world politics. Jackson raises concern over Shell and BP Amoco's embrace of "green" fascism.[49] However, he fails to see as Daniel Pouzzner from MIT identifies, that the same forces driving eco-fascism, also promotes laissez-faire free market ideology.[50] As Physical Economist, Lyndon LaRouche and Professor of Economics, Michel Chossudovsky identify, "free trade" is a recipe for the globalisation of poverty. Chossudovsky rightly notes, economic reforms such as "free trade", "endorses the development of a worldwide cheap-labour export economy".[51] Only once people recognise the big political picture, will they understand the existence of the eco-fascist ideology.

Fortunately, some people have seen the green movement's ugly face and have been active in exposing environmentalists' eco-fascism. Patrick Moore, founding member and former director of Greenpeace for 15 years, testified before a congressional subcommittee saying: "much of the environmental movement has been hijacked by extremist activists who use the language of the environment for a movement that has more to do with class struggle and anti-corporatism."[52] Moore obviously sees the link between the environmental movement and Communism. The link certainly exists and in fact, the same foundations funding the environmental movement also support The Gorbachev Foundation.[53] We are talking watermelon politics here: green on the outside and red in the middle. However, Communists paying lip-service to the environmental movement is a long story in itself.

Lewis du Pont Smith, an heir to the du Pont family legacy, has been active in exposing the Bronfman's and his own family's corporate fraud.[54] Such a courageous and principled stance must be commended. Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, former governor of Washington State, USA has also been active in exposing such environmental fraud.[55]

Now that you have discovered the CFC fraud, do not expect the corporately financed media to cover this story. Only you, the reader will have the power to spread the word.

Sources:

Maduro, Rogelio A., & Schauerhammer, Ralf, The Holes in the Ozone Scare, (21st Century Science Associates, 1992), pp, 6, 59
Ibid.
Ibid., p., 6
Ibid., p., 60
Ibid., p., 99
Ibid., p., 78
Ibid., p., 77
Ibid.
Ibid., pp, 77-78
Coffman, Michael S., Saviors of the Earth? (Northfield Publishing, Chicago, 1994), p., 54
Maduro & Schauerhammer, The Holes in the Ozone Scare, p., 79
Ibid., pp, 80-81
Ibid., p., 81
Ibid., pp, 11-12
Coffman, Saviors of the Earth?, p., 53
Maduro & Schauerhammer, The Holes in the Ozone Scare, p., 12
Coffman, Saviors of the Earth?, p., 54
Maduro & Schauerhammer, The Holes in the Ozone Scare, p., 14
Ibid., p., 120
Ibid., p., 12
Coffman, Saviors of the Earth?, p., 53
Maduro & Schauerhammer, The Holes in the Ozone Scare, p., 102
Ibid., pp, 99-102
Ibid., p., 105
Coffman, Saviors of the Earth?, pp, 52-53
Maduro & Schauerhammer, The Holes in the Ozone Scare, p., 116
Coffman, Saviors of the Earth?, p., 52
Ibid., p., 51
Maduro & Schauerhammer, The Holes in the Ozone Scare, pp, 193, 195
Ibid., p., 5
Ibid., p., 228
www.webaxs.net/~noel/ozone.htm
Maduro & Schauerhammer, The Holes in the Ozone Scare, p., 191
Ibid., p., 234
Ibid., p., 228
Ibid., p., 245
Ibid., p., 247
www.lockstockandbarrel.org/LSBMag%20Articles/nwo29...t
"Rockefeller Foundation," Microsoft® Encarta® 98 Encyclopedia. © 1993-1997 Microsoft Corporation.
Maduro & Schauerhammer, The Holes in the Ozone Scare, p., 250
Ibid., p., 278
Coffman, Saviors of the Earth?, p., 142
Ibid., p., 145
Maduro & Schauerhammer, The Holes in the Ozone Scare, pp, 249-50
Ibid., p., 250
Ibid., pp, 95-96
Ibid., p., 68
www.greenpeace.org/~ozone/chlorine/1chlor.html
www.newaus.com.au/news118bp.html
www-douzzer.ai.mit.edu:8080/conspiracy.html
Chossudovsky, Michel, THE GLOBALISATION OF POVERTY, Impacts of IMF and World Bank Reforms, (Pluto Press, Sydney, Australia, 1997), p., 76
Swanson, Holly, Set up & Sold Out, (C.I.N Publishing, White City, OR., 1998), p., 296
Ibid., p., 259
Maduro & Schauerhammer, The Holes in the Ozone Scare, pp, 235-40
Ibid., pp, 185-6
Discuss this issue with Jeremy Beck on the Greenhouse Hoax Bulletin Board

Return to the Greenhouse Hoax
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - David W
Interesting post Alwyn, I read it all! Do you think Jeremy Beck has any axe to grind?

David
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - Brian
Our dogs love it
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - Tomo
SWMBO bought a Celica (TA40?) years ago. It just happened to come with a/c, almost unknown then, and we thought, "grand, not much use in UK, though".

We never had another car without it, and never had a bit of bother. Mind you, apart from recent diversions to Korea and Malaysia which probably amount to much the same thing, we only ever had Japanese.
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - THe Growler
R12 still widely used here in the Philippines. Aircon fixer shops on your street corner. Get anything to work. Cost peanuts. Who would ever think of driving with the windows open? all that muck and noise.....
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - ROBIN
I cant beleive some of these answers.
Some of you obviously drive only at night in the summer.
If you drove at any other time you would never,in any circumstances,buy another car wihout aircon.
Only a little effort will discover local aircon experts who can repair systems cheaply.Certain german systems can be a bit pricey if the compressor goes.
CFC's?
This is a huge joke.They are heavier than air,they thus fall to the ground,which is several thousand feet below the ozone layer.
Aircon allows you to demist your car very speedily,this saves many an accident.
Aircon allows you to delete the stupid sunroof that robs cars of usable headroom,thus rendering them drivable only by Quasimodo lookalikes.
Aircon keeps all car occupants cool and composed in Summer traffic jams.This could save your marriage(thats its one disadvantage).
If manufacturers had the brains of newts they would have twigged that a car with aircon only needs a small opening portion to the drivers window,the rest do not need to open.The benefits of this are nearly revolutionary.
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - John Davis
I,m a bit puzzled so, hopefully, somone would be kind enough to explain. I have a/c in my vehicle and find it fabulous in the summer. But, there are comments that the a/c is an advantage when de-misting etc. Is the recommendation that it is best to have the a/c operating in winter, ie, blowing chilled air through the heating system, to then be heated before use as a de-mister or for interior heating ? Does this make the de-misting more efficient ?
Or, is the recommendation (for de-misting), air conditioned or chilled air, onto the screen, even in winter ?
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - simon
It doesn't matter if you use hot or cold air to de mist - the air con sucks the moisture out of the car and clears it in seconds. Its brillient.
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - David W
John,

The advantage in the winter is that the de-humidifier removes much of the potential condensation.

David
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - John Davis
Thanks David & Simon, for your helpful advice. I can't wait for a nice muggy day to try it out
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - Alwyn
You shot my fox! I was just going to say the same thing about CFC's being heavier than air. They actually break down in soils.

It is alleged that when the patent on the previous gas used for refrigerants
(freon?) was due to run out, the large chemical companies spent millions of pounds telling the "greens" that CFC's were damaging the ozone layer and a different gas was needed.

Surprisingly, (!) the chems had developed such a gas but it was 5 times the cost!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - John Slaughter
Robin

Totally agree about the benefits of aircon. Can't agree about a small opening drivers window only though. That would be a real bugger at French motorway tolls!

Regards

John
Re: Air Con - is it worth it? - Derek
My 406 has aircon and I wouldn't be without it now. It also has a sunroof and it's nice to use that occasionally too - and I swear I'm nothing like Quasimodo! Since reading the various threads and advice, I'll leave the aircon on most or all of the time in future. I'll reconsider my views if and when it goes wrong and somebody asks for oddles of money to fix it!
 

Ask Honest John Right column

Value my car