Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 09:41

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2004 23:47 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 22:34
Posts: 603
Location: West Scotland
Hi all,

found this and was quietly amused but a bit worried about what was getting said, it's the loony lentil munchers not content with catalysers and a saturation of diesel fume spuing buses.

http://www.evuk.co.uk/hotwires/rawstuff/art13.html

Andrew


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 19:33 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 15:43
Posts: 2416
Notice their concern for emissions and their simultaneous failure to say where the electricity is going to come from. Either it's generated by burning fossil fuels (which is bad) or it's from nuclear power (which is bad) or renewables (which are still laughably unreliable and need back up in the form of nuclear or fossil fuel burning power stations, which are bad). The bottom line is that the eco friendly electric car gang still have huge drawbacks to overcome by their own standards, and for the rest of us electric cars are simply not attractive enough yet.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: they're nuts
PostPosted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 20:30 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 22:34
Posts: 603
Location: West Scotland
Hi gb,

i just wish these people would get off there high horse and stop being so hypocritical, they seem more content in scaring us all in to "the end is nigh" syndrome every other day yet greenpeace's ship runs on fresh air right??? that has got to be the most mind blowing hypocrisy. they are complete loonies !!

Andrew


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 02:32 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 15:43
Posts: 2416
In the interests of fairness Andy, I feel it's not always hypocrisy that's the driving force (okay, hands up, bad pun very much intended) but also misguided attempts to seek simple solutions to complex problems. The eco debate is not unlike the speed and road safety debate. The camera proponents (the ones who really want safer roads rather than fatter wallets) think that reducing vehicle speeds is always the answer, while Safe Speed, the ABD and many drivers think that such a simple solution is going to fail and is probably failing already. In much the same way the eco-lobby think that burning fossil fuels, especially in cars, is going to destroy the world and alternatives must be found. One tiny problem that gets virtually no media coverage is that if the Kyoto accord is implemented in full, which looks unlikely, it'll change the climate by about 1/20th of a degree. That's so small that many thermometers won't even notice any difference (mine is in 2 degree increments, so I'm stuffed). Frankly that seems like a huge waste of money that could have been better spent on preventing habitat destruction. I mean, if someone cuts down 100 square miles of rain forest you can see it, measure it, take before and after photos, and so on. If on the other hand we go for temperature reduction that will go largely unnoticed and is less than natural variablity we can't actually tell if we've got any real benefit from it.
The mindset is the same as that of the people who blindly trot out the speed kills mantra, and the result is much the same - good money spent on inadequate solutions. There's probably a large element of the road to hell being paved with good intentions on the part of both groups.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Equal and opposite
PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 17:38 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 22:34
Posts: 603
Location: West Scotland
Hi Gb,

yeah, there is the ones pissing in to the wind with good intentions like some of the camera proponents but then there is the others who should know better, Brunstrom springs to mind. When you think about what he has said it is obvious he has seen the aftermath of a few crashes in his time and the "speed kills" has been branded on his mind, he thinks he is being stern but fair though maybe abusing his powers, on the other hand we think he is nuts + he is in a position of power, which helps his cause so much more, in time the facts will emerge about this policy and minds will change and knee jerk reactions about speed won't emerge.

regads

Andrew


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 22:37 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 00:08
Posts: 748
Location: Grimsby
On the subject of pollution, a cartoon that got me today, sorry can't reproduce the cartoon itself, but the words should do.

Man; Nuclear power is such an issue, but where would we be without it?

Woman; No good asking me, where I live, everyone still uses electricity.


Now, to me, this is what the muesli crunchers and the like think like, they don't care where the pollution is, as long as it isn't here.
Another point, there is more radioactivity given off by a coal fired power station, than a Nuclear powered one.
Nuclear power is the way forward, I don't believe there is a viable alternative, certainly not windpower, that is just pie in the sky, nice idea, but not reliable enough.
Sure, we can buy power from France, until they need it all, then where are we.

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 01:08 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 15:43
Posts: 2416
Dratsabasti wrote:
... there is more radioactivity given off by a coal fired power station, than a Nuclear powered one.
Presumably that doesn't count Homer Simpson style disasters :) I had no idea that coal was radioactive, but it seems reasonable. Lots of radioactive stuff in the ground and the air that's all perfectly natural after all.
Dratsabasti wrote:
...windpower, that is just pie in the sky, nice idea...
Nice idea providing you're not a bird that's just been chopped in half by a turbine some bright spark put on a seasonal migration route.
Whoosh whoosh whoosh squelch whoosh.
Dratsabasti wrote:
...but not reliable enough
That too, of course. I read that the Danes had given them up as a bad idea as the government had to subsidise the damn things just to make them economical. How bright.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 11:33 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 20:01
Posts: 73
As I understand it, they have done more research, and global warming isn't all it's cracked up to be. Apparently, we have just been through a bit of a "cold snap" and if you look back further in time, the planet is actually just going back to it's "normal" temperature range.

What the lentilists seem to forget is evolution, it's no coincidence that we happen to be perfectly suited to the planet that we live on!!!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 27, 2004 01:23 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 15:43
Posts: 2416
I'd better 'fess up, Tony. I'm a reformed lentilist :oops:, well, not actual lentils but I did once buy into a lot of the cr@p we've been fed in the last couple of decades until I got out argued on the issue a few years ago. I ended up having to hold my hands up, admit I'd been suckered and try to indulge in a little independant thought for a change. What got me was someone pointing out the blindingly obvious - the climate has never been constant in the 3 or 4 billion years the earth has been around so why should we assume it ought to be now? That and what looked like some iffy statistics from the greenhouse mob and I found myself having to totally change my position. Like I said before, it's just like the road safety debate. There are real problems that don't get much in the way of money or press because all the effort is being spent chasing ghosts. Sound arguments will eventually win people over, at least the ones who aren't treating a weak case as holy writ, but what a waste of time and money in the meantime.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2004 17:41 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 20:01
Posts: 73
Blimey...... An ex lintilist agreeing with me..... I never thought I would see the day 8)

It just semed kinda obvious to me when I read it. And as a confirmed petrosexual, I will buy into it. It's a damn good "pub" arguement too... lol.

Now it's my time to fess up. I did eat lentils once, but in my defence, it was served up by a mates mum and they were poor... Couldn't really offend them :P

And another fess, the name's not Tony, it's a political statement :twisted:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 01, 2004 21:01 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 20:50
Posts: 2
Location: uk
the tree huggers(enviromentalists) seem to forget that europe was once covered in ice` approx 10000 years ago!...so who was the stone age gits that were responsible for driving about in their high fossilised fuel consuming speed carts?.

enviromental terrorists!...nuke em all...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.020s | 15 Queries | GZIP : Off ]