Safe Speed Forums

<<Volcanoes, methane release from the ocean floor, organic matter breakdown etc. have no effect either I suppose. >>

So the evidence for emissions harming the environment is??

As not a single scientist has proved it to date, all must be a Legend in your own right.

We have Lots of theory's, none backed up by any evidence.

The evidence is the reverse.

They have found high CO2 with low climate changes.

They have found Low CO2 with High climate change.

There has been no trend found with emission levels and Climate changes.

So if you have the facts, lets have them.

_________________
Steve

....and people who announce "here's the lecture" without first checking their facts. What's pedantic about pointing out incorrect information and false assumptions?

I'm under the impression that most scientists think global warming is a myth, and is simply perpetuated by the greens (and the daily mail).

_________________
--
uzz

The earth has always undergone climatic changes whereby global temperatures varied by a few degrees over a century. The Romans grew grapes in North England, for example, as they were prosperous at a time when the world was very warm. In fact, many historians think that their decline was a direct result of decreasing global temperatures. (Amongst other things.)

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

Papamau

Tell me - why do you have a computer? It is made of plastic and vinyls - the sort of materials which pollute! It consumes electricity - and even if it laptop - you still have to charge up battery! And as hornet posted - you may well have updated your PC with a more powerful one as your old one may not have been able to cope with latest software developments.

You very probably have a TV, a fridge, the eco-friendly car you burble on about has been put together by use of all the polluting methodology you apparently abhor. You have lighting in your home - where does that come from? Your cooker runs off gas or electicity, as does your central heating. You will have all manner of appliances in your home - all manufactured by some means - and all by means which will pollute.


If you are so "eco-friendly, muesli munching, Friend of the Earth Greenpeace CND" Greeny - why do you possess these items? Why not live as hermit in a bothy in the Highlands instead? Bit hypocritical of you?

So you tell my Mad cousin that pollution is pollution whether it comes from ruminants or not. Does that mean we make ruminants extinct as they damage the Earth?

Given the amount of posts this family has seen from you on other fora (and not just bogbrush's site - though the rest of my family did join bogbrush's general rantings and did manage to upset you a bit on there) - you do seem to burn up a lot of fossil fule spouting greeny propaganda. I've read all their outpourings and ramblings, - read Maths and Physics at Uni as intended to teach it initially - but ended up as BiB instead. Still cannot think why I chose this - must have been lure of driving fast cars - and being allowed to drive in fashion which would annoy my mates!

Still Papamau - you are entitled to your opinion.

But if I were you - I would put my money here my mouth is and get rid of everything electrical, made from synthetics etc. You can always clothe yourself in drapes of leather from the cattle you had slaughtered. Let you hair grow as - scissors are out - they will have polluted the earth by just being manufactured.

In the meantime - human beings will continue to explore ways of maintaining economic growth, human welfare and pleasures of motoring without compromising Mother Nature too much!

Firstly, that thing has 2 wheels too many... i'm surprised you greenists are still plugging 4 wheeled vehicles, be it petrol, diesel or whatever new "concept" that's thought of... get a bike

I don't want to sound uncaring though, but my wallet comes before the enviroment, currently it costs me £5 to do over 100 miles on my bike, i rarely need to wait in traffic queues and i don't suffer from road rage as a result... so i have no reason to pay some inflated price for an over-grown, under powered vehicle with too many wheels

I mean, how much are the manufacturers going to inflate the prices by? the only time i'd start considering getting one is if it ran on water (i mean we all pay enough for that so why not make the most of it)

How much is it going to cost to re-charge your car with hydrogen gas? or more to the point, how much is the goverment going to hike taxes on it if it's becomes popular?

And finally, there's the potential of exploding hydrogen tanks...

personally, i'll stick to my polluting, but cheaply run motorcycle

I didn't say it was, I said it was a greenhouse gas. There is a distinction between the two. Nor did I say it would poison the atmosphere - warming is not poisoning, it is merely changing the temperature. You have distorted what I actually said. Still, if a greenhouse gas is not a pollutant then presumably the same must apply to CO2, unless we're going to have different rules depending on what the public has been conditioned to worry about currently.
I'm pretty sure even the IPCC recognise that atmospheric water vapour has a warming effect - I'll see if I can find links for you.
In the meantime please can you explain the following:

How do you account for the known variablity in climate prior to the industrial age? How come the Vikings could settle in Greenland due to the much smaller ice sheet 800 odd years ago? What about the historical records that show Europe 800 years ago being warmer than today? And also the ones recording the so called Little Ice Age around the C17th?

What about the various studies around the world that provide evidence that both were indicative of global climate?

Why do both satellite MSU and radiosonde measurements fail to show the same warming as the surface record?

Why do the majority of ground stations in North America, arguably among the best maintained and therefore most reliable, also fail to show the same warming as the surface record?

Why has the significant warming in polar regions that GCMs predict should already be occuring not yet been observed?

How can we be sure that the Urban Heat Island effect has been correctly accounted for when calculating the surface record?

Why did the climate cool during the first part of the C20th in spite of all the emissions at the time?

Why is the role of the sun, which I believe has been fairly active in recent years, largely ignored?

And the all time biggie for me is: why the hell is the industrialised world pissing away vast sums of money into this big empty pot when they could be using it more constructively to combat habitat destruction? Sorry to be so blunt, but it's hit a nerve. When a hectare of rainforest is cut down, there's no argument. You can go take pictures, count tree stumps, buy cheap furniture made with the timber, whatever. Habitat destruction is everything that global warming is not. It is directly measurable and beyond debate. Unlike global warming it gets relatively little press and doesn't offer as much in the way of comfy research positions. And unlike the speculative papers about species loss due to global warming you can go out and actually count orang-utans (or whatever the study involves) after the loggers move in.
Mad Moggie would probably describe me as a muesli muncher. I supported Greenpeace for years. I thought they did a great job about whaling among other things. Now things are very different, and even their founder has left and says they've lost the plot. Until they and their kind stop wasting time, effort and money on a 'maybe' and start directing all their efforts at real problems they'll not see another penny from me.
Don't get me wrong Papaumau. I don't like breathing in exhaust fumes any more than anyone else. Some days the air quality in the London area is pretty grim, and little bits of pseudo-coal come out of your nose when you sneeze. If fuel cell cars help clean that up a bit I'd be happy just from a quality of life perspective. Also we have to recognise that the oil won't last forever, and have something ready to take it's place when the supply runs low enough that we have to pay for our fuel in bullion. But since I believe the warming we're going through is natural, I don't think we're going to change the climate as a result.

PS One last question. What the hell has all this got to with road safety?

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

<<PS One last question. What the hell has all this got to with road safety?>>

I made this point earlier in the thread.

However we are as motorist taxed for speed, as we are also taxed for this myth of pollution.

So they are the same point both incorrect assumtions, that cost the motorist hard earned cash.

Next time you put out that recyling bin of news papers or plastic bottles which are supposed to reduce the impact of environment. Stay around a little bit longer and watch the Truck come and collect it which in the eyes of the "Greens" does far more damage as it only attains less than 7 MPG.

Burning more diesal with a higher impact, than a few pots of plastic and paper that it collects.

_________________
Steve

You Muesli Muncher you!!

(Well you did suggest it! )


Actually - Wildy Woman - being of Swiss upbringing has recycling bags for this , that and the other and my life is not worth living if I (or the kids) place our rubbish in the wrong one! We then have the epic trek (and where we live - it is epic - to the not very local supermarket where we proceed to put the tins in the tin dump, plastics in the plastic bin, bottles in whichever coloured bin ..... Clothing -- she sends to the charity shops and usually replaces her clothes there at the same time! Anything unwearable - goes in the bin for recycled material! Also - she shops for a month whilst we at at the supermarket. Perishables? She nips into bakers, butchers and greengrocer on way to and from work.

We would not dream of purchasing anything made from Amazonian origin - as denuding planet of rainforests is very significant contributor to global warming and as you rightly say - very, very destructive - more so than my car - of course!. In fact - we like trees. Have little gladed area on our land. Like you, Gatsobait - we fell out with Greenpeace over the "what if" as opposed to "what actually is" (bit like our argument with Brake )

We do not chuck anything out - and only replace when necessary (ie when item has completely worn out and ceases to function! ) Then we send it to recycling yard or arrange for as "clean" funeral as possible!

Whaling? The vet in the family did set sail on one of the protest ships in her student days. The teachers did support Greenpeace in their student days, and the Deputy Head one will still introduce German Greeny stuff into her advanced language classes for discussion purposes. (And she will play Devil's Advocate whatever (As Papamau knows - as I believe she gave him a mauling once )

Papamau - I tend to believe the actual scientific data from more reliable sources than the Green Party's emotive propaganda. Some of which has already been presented here and I only need to state my concurrence with the points raised so far. There is some substance within the party's doctrine, but they do tend to twist to emotional lines, don't they! I am not going to add to In Gear's comments - as you do in fact survive from the current use of technology and energy resources the same as we all do.

We keep our vehicles well maintained and as clean as possible at all times.

So we are also muesli munchers to certain extent!

<< to the not very local supermarket where we proceed to put the tins in the tin dump, plastics in the plastic bin, bottles in whichever coloured bin .....>>


So you burn fuel to take your unwanted goods to the recycling points, then the bins are emptied by Diesal trucks capable 7 MPG.

I fail to see the saving.

What is a clean funeral

_________________
Steve

I just follow orders from she who must be obeyed - mate

Anyway - we go once a month with the recyclable garbage, and gather large truck comes to collect once a month to keep it viable and "cleanish". We combine the garbage trek with the need to shop trek Of course - we use the cars every day on the "need to go to work" trek as well! So we guzzle resources to earn money to foot all the bills! But - if the truck is going to come and collect the recyclable material anyway - may as well have something to collect! Just doing our bit! To keep planet well on way to "clean self- destruction!"

(Clean funeral - means give to expert to get rid of properly!)

I also send my kids to school by bus - only this is going to cost me £400 for my own 4 plus two foster kids - total of £2400 pa. Presumably I will be paying pollution surcharge for use of the bus!

Two pages and counting for "bumper-cars" and four and counting for "speed"......?

Not bad for my first two postings eh ?

Anyway....Lets look at some of your latest barbs shall we:

Strewth....where do I start ?

All fossil fuels are made from trees and the clearcutting of trees in modern days exacerbates the problems associated with burning fossil fuels.

When I said "exhausts" I was including the exhaust from our own human factories. We breath in oxygen and breath out CO2 and Nitrogen which the trees and the plants metabolise to keep the cycle going. ( The "balance of nature" ! )

To the one who indicts that I contribute to this unbalance of nature by my consumption of plastics and electronics.....Yes I do - for my sins - but I do not intend to live like a hippy or a hermit just to fulfill my promise to nature. I consume like any other modern human does but I am conscious of the damage that consumption does and I recycle as much of my waste as I possibly can. I do NOT feel guilty as I do whatever is within my power to be as "green" as I can.....DO YOU ?

"What has this got to do with road-safety" ?

Using a little writers licence I swung the "road-safety" theme around to the safety - or lack of it - when one walks along the road on a morning where the rush-hour traffic is making my life less safe than it should be because of the fumes from all of those fossil-fuel burning vehicles.

That's road-safety too !

"Atmospheric water-vapour"..

While I do NOT contribute to all of the scaremongering about global warming I do listen to as many of the experts as I can in this respect.

As I have already said that most of the surface of the world is covered in water and the skys are full of it and the animals are made from it we should have no reason to fear such an inert substance if it is exhausted in tiny amounts by fuel-cell engines.

Global warming is a very inexact science and like the chaos theory of the weather we are only now just beginning to understand the complexities of the warming and cooling cycles of the earth.

Hydrocarbon exhaust is a different thing ALLTOGETHER !

Hornet....

"Here's a lecture".....Don't be so serious. I was just being humerous ! Try to see more deeply into my writings please.

"Natural warming gasses"....Of course these gasses from volcanoes and methane from cow's backsides and from the natural breakdown of matter MUST be considered, but we cannot worry about these outputs as they ARE natural and as so they contribute to the balance of nature. What we do by our rabid consumption of natural resources is NOT natural as we are very capable of doing stuff that was never intended to be done naturally.

We can also recognise this and do something about it if we really care.

"The laws of thermodynamics"...( what a great word that is "thermodynamics" ! ).

What you are talking about here is really perpetual motion !

I am not suggesting that the breakdown of water into Oxygen and Hydrogen by the electricity generated by the fuel-cell reaction is a perpetual motion flaw. I am only reporting what the carmakers say they can do. YOU find out why they say that as I just believe them. In fact I would be more inclined to accept that a tank of Hydrogen as a fuel would be more efficient in running a fuel-cell engine. ( Taking the oxygen needed from the outside air of course ! ).

Just out of interest....The Arabs with the help of General Motors and BMW are at the moment building plants on the Persian Gulf coast that make cheap Hydrogen by using the sun and photovoltaic cells to do the water split. They will bottle the Hydrogen and Oxygen and flog it along with the sea-salt that comes as a by-product.

Finally....Cats versus lean-burn....

Yep, you are right that even although Cats do work at optimum efficiency, lean-burn engines are in the main better for the environment. No argument here ! ( they are STILL polluters ! ).

Unlike many here I am willing to listen to ANYTHING that will improve the quality of the air that me and my children and my grandchildren breath.

The rest of you fuel-burning petrol-heads can go on and on in your in-bred vroom-vroom existence here and you can plunge your heads into the sand whenever you see something that puzzles you, but remember.....watch out for Greenpeace warriors looking for somewhere to park their bicycles.

_________________
Regards

Papaumau

http://www.rip-off.co.uk/index1.htm
http://www.network54.com/hide/forum/100558

I'll refrain from commenting. Suffice to say my comments would not be positive.



We breathe in air and breathe out air. The air which we breathe out has a higher concentration of carbon dioxide and water vapour and a lower concetration of oxygen than the air we breathe in. Nitrogen levels remain largely unchanged. Plants use carbon dioxide for photosynthesis - as far as I'm aware, metabolism refers to respiration which uses glucose and oxygen.



Surely to see more deeply into them would require taking them seriously?



The first law of thermodynamics concerns itself with the conservation of energy (energy can be neither created nor destroyed, etc), and is thus directly relevant to perpetual motion.



'Fuel-burning petrol-heads'. Heh. I'll say no more.

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

And so on. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but slagging us all off does not make your argument any more valid. If anything resorting to this just makes it look as if your counter arguments are weak.
From Websters dictionary (sorry it's not OED, but they want you to register and I wanted to save time):If you want a debate, fine - just leave out the name calling. I had much more respect for you from your earlier posts before you began slinging mud. Hopefully you're not just here to start a flame war, but if you are then I have some drying paint I could be watching.
By the way, my earlier questions stand.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Hmm! Think of all the pollution emitted into atmosphere by the forges manufacturing the frame of your bicycle Not to mention the rubber, oiling the chain, plus the safety knick-knacks (OH forgot - you don't use or need those! Lights? Protective head gear (made of naughty sinful hardened plastic ) - Knew I had a good reason to "loathe" cyclists )


Not to mention the hot air emitted into atmosphere each time you open your mouth! (which is becoming apparent! )


Well, I am proud of being bit of a petrolhead who does at least try to make sure the planet's destruction is kept as clean as possible! Am blood and virus specialist after all!

Good post Mike - by the way!

Met this chap before - elsewhere! He is not a muesli muncher - more a mucous mouth! (As the Germans (and my 6 year old) call them - my wife and kids read your thread and I am following orders ! )

See Papamouth - we can hurl insults as well!

By the way Papamouth - have you ever been near a volcano - cos I have - and believe me - you reall understand the meaning of pollutant and not being able to breathe when you have been in close proximity to one. Same with geysers - they can take your breath away. And the vet has passed out before now after treating cattle Does not really compare with walking on Oxford Road near Manchester Royal Infirmary or even Manchester Childrens' during rush hour. (Been there and go the proverbial T-shirt as work has taken me to these sites!)

I'm not going to sit back and let this descend into a slanging match.

Please, everyone, let's try to debate the issues and avoid personal attacks.

We have a minimalist set of forum rules as follows:

1) Don't swear

2) Don't insult people

3) Don't issue threats

4) Don't incite crime

5) Don't libel anyone

6) Do remember that the public can read these forums, including children, the press and the police.

7) If you are concerned about a post by someone else breaching these rules contact the moderator - don't get drawn into a flame war.

8) Messages that contravene any of these rules may be deleted by a moderator.

9) Posters who ignore the rules may have priviledges or forum membership withdrawn.

10) Safe Speed is not responsible for information or opinions posted in these forums by visitors.
===================

Please consider this to be a moderator's warning. (not directed at CrazyCats or any other individual)

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I was always led to understand that caps and "bold" is meant to be shouting on the internet !

I do NOT shout or use caps to get my opinion forcibly across, I use them to emphasise a word or phrase !

Can that be said for "Mad Moggie" ?

NOW.... back to the subject.....

The term "Petrol-Heads" is not meant as an insult as it is a well known and accepted description of those that are car and speed mad in the media ! I referred to it but I did not coin it !

If anyone REALLY reads my stuff they will see that in the main EVEN AFTER direct insult I do not return these words in kind.

I ALWAYS try hard to be polite in any situation !

This is becasue I am the editor and moderator of a VERY important forum of my own. ( I will not mention it unless I am asked ! ).

Anyway...I think that we have squeezed as much out of this subject as we can expect to get agreement from so I will just go and write another threadstarter for you all to get your knives into if you wish.

Please refer to....."Those bloody roundabouts"

( I hope that THAT swearing is not too severe for your oh-so sensitive sensibilities ? ).

_________________
Regards

Papaumau

http://www.rip-off.co.uk/index1.htm
http://www.network54.com/hide/forum/100558

Fair enough, no offense taken here. Does the same apply to your use of the term "in-bred"?
In any case, the main problem I have with this is that someone's personal beliefs don't enter into it. If I went to an environmentalist forum and said that the opinions of the regulars were wrong simply because they were all tree-huggers, I'd clearly be talking out of my backside. I didn't coin the term tree-hugger, but labels don't really matter. What matters is that I can't use their motivations, point of view, call it what you will, to invalidate their arguments.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Oi! Mad One! Mucous mouth? You've been at your virus manual again! Or been treating one recently? Know what's bugging you - you lost at golf again!


Papamau mate - your name just asks for them to play with you a bit! Think we have seen "mouth" ," maus" and "mauschen" added on in the past! And the WildCat just calls everyone "Liebchen" anyway - colloquialism of Appenzell. (Though suspect she read your thread and probably said it as he was typing! )


They really are quite tame cats really! Mad One had never come across the term "twazak", "pretzel" or any such like until he married into my family. She brings the children up as bi-linguals. He had to learn German sharpish so that he could keep track of her parenting skills He now plays with words - the same as they all do!

In case you are wondering - I am 100% UK born and bred - but can just about join in conversation when they start off in their L1.

Apart from 3 bolds and probably over-teasing you with his "m/mouth" comment - nothing for you to get overly bothered about Papamau. The guy's a virus/blood man anyway and we know he calls his patients by that term in jokey fashion when taking swabs. Puts them really at ease! So he says!

But I would say that some of your comments - calling people "fuel burning petrolheads" and accusing anyone who dares to disagree with you with a disparaging "in-bred vroom-vroom existence" are a little inflammatory, and that you should not be overly surprised when someone calls you by a slightly naughty turn of phrase. You are the one spouting green Party and Greenpeace dogma - as if it is gospel.. There is more to ecological solutions than this.

Anyway Papamau, you and your Green Party really pay lip-service to the whole "save the planet" thing. The Mad Cat family do not waste, and do recycle as much as possible. As does my clan! But it is still lip-service as there is, as we both tried to point out to you in our postings, an opportunity cost attached - and the net overall impact of our recycling and salvaging activities is just one small drop in the ocean.

Just remember one thing: Mad Mog and his wife actually achieve far more in life and planet saving than you do. If, heaven forbid, the terrorists manage to release biological terror on us - it will be Mad Mog and his wife who will called upon to save your skins! (He identifies the virus and she researches the remedies! And they will be responsible for ensuring we have enough vaccines! to cope - and this unfortunately will also have environmental cost attached as well)


(Why the Maori thing anyway?) Geysers? (Steam? Vapour? Using geysers to power industry? )

....if my nick is bastardised for fun as I have seen just about every insulting version that is possible of the word "Papaumau". I am NOT that thin skinned, believe me !

When I used the term "in-bred", ( I often use the term "incestuous" too BTW ), in order to be pointed when I refer to a single-issue forum like this one.

I do not mean anything by this, I just mean to point out that on single-issue forums it is often the case that the regulars form into a cabal - or a bit of a clique - when someone comes along that disagrees with their cosy opinions.

I find that the more intelligent ones will accept criticism of the general view and will almost always bring forward statistics to support their stance. This is fine if at times a bit predictable. The others who are not so well self-controlled can often get a bit flamey but I have found that if I either just dismiss them or ignore them and their personal attacks I can get into some great debate and discussion with the rest.

_________________
Regards

Papaumau

http://www.rip-off.co.uk/index1.htm
http://www.network54.com/hide/forum/100558