|
|
|
|
|
Did anyone else see the program on C4 about the fact that climate change is NOT driven by CO2 and the climate changes anyway, due to the sun, very interesting indeed. Apartly the thing that produces the most CO2 is the sea by like 1000 time more than, all cars, industary and people! So the amount we produce is f**k all. Even the co-founded of greenpeace admitted that blaming CO2 for climate change is wrong. If its true letting newer cars that have better CO2 emmision have lower road tax is a load of plums! Anyway I feel completely vindicated buying "un-ecofriendly" older cars, LETS GO BURN FOSSIL FUELS!!!!!!!!!!!!  |
| |
Sierra - here we go again! He has an illness, it's not his fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many older cars aren't un eco friendly anyway. I didn't quite buy their reasoning last night since I was taught environmentalism at university by academics who have actually done the studies themselves. It's only very recently that new cars have actually become more efficient than their older relatives because weight has been increasing significantly over the years. At the end of the day global CO2 emissions from transport is only about 10% of the total CO2 output so it doesn't matter how efficient you make cars/planes/boats etc you simply aren't going to make much of a difference. If we stopped using transport completely it would have a 10% difference overall which really isn't much if you think about it. That's where the sham is.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My chemistry teacher has been saying this since yr9 and I could understand it tbh. Nothing today is as it seems, especially things given by the government.
|
| |
1997 TVR Chimaera
2009 Westfield Megabusa
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and if you believe practical classics, 30k in a new vectrondeo = 2000 carb-fed miles
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know people who actually have qualifications and such in this area. What I actually suspect is that nobody kows what is actually going on to any degree of certainty. What is happening is much whipping up of polar oposite views as this makes good telly, rather than trying to get behind the politics and industrial interests to find what it really going on and what we can do about it.
|
| |
1937 Austin Street Rod - 1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1976 Rover V8 - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I saw it, and it was interesting stuff.
Although I'm very cynical about the whole "global warming" issue, I tried to approach this documentary with caution, even though it seemed to confirm a lot of what I believe. This is after all presented by the same media which reports so enthusiastically upon how we are "destroying the environment". Programmes from either side of the argument are governed by the same parameters: namely, raising revenue from advertising by getting the maximum amount of viewers. Sensationalising a subject will ensure more people watch.
Put a man (or better still a doctor or professor... it doesn't matter which field...) in a suit front of a camera and get him to say something with enough conviction and it will be believed.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's pretty much impossible to get totally neutral, impartial information on this subject because so many parties have vested interests.
I'm leaning towards believing a lot of what was said in the programme, but I think I'd have to find out what the sources of their research and statistics were before fully going with it.
All the "action" we've seen from the other side of the argument is tax hikes and companies wanting you to buy "carbon credits", which compounds my cynicism about the whole CO2 issue.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was a programme on Radio 4 I listened to which explained a lot of the statistical lies and misrepresnetation of figures in the debate. For example you would imagine that when Blair says we cut the rate of co2 emissions it means that the rate of emissions is less than it was before, right? Wrong. What it means is that the rate of incease is slightly reduced, but it is still an increase... Check out this trick used by politicians and the generally pro-Brit/Anti-US media... "British emissions have been cut by 30% since 2003 while in the USA emissions have rissen overall by 15%" makes us look good and the yanks look bad. But what it means is our emissions rose, the yanks emissions rose, but we have chosed to measure change is a misleading fashion so you canmake no meaningful comparison...
In another programme on Radio 4 there was a debate about the damage that man made activity is havign on global warming. Lots of meritous professors and Dr this or that from various university, think tanks, etc. There was a phone in and people were quoting stuff off the internet about how treres make more CO2 or volcanos do or cow farts or whatever and basically these highly educated experts said "sorry, those "facts" are just plain lies" yet then I see the same "facts" being trotted out on some GMTV programme or something and reproduced in a car amagzine recently too. Who selects sources?
And another another one, once again Radio 4 there was a political panel programme with a live audience and they were discussing the enivronment / global warming. Basically the show was oput to make out it was all the fault of the USA and China. They had a representative from the US department of the environment on the programme ut littereally every time he tried to speak to answer a criticism he was shouted down, boo'd and whatever. Nobody even anted to hear that side of the arguement incase he might say something that contradicts the cosy little world view we are building on this subject...
Personally I don't think theres any doubt - when you look at the accepted *real* science that gloabl warming is caused by our activities on this planet. Its taken a long time to convince me of this but I think thats true. We're screwed unless we deal with it. But we won;t we'll fvck about with carbon credits and st!t thats no meaning at all and convince outselves the ship ain't sinking...
|
| |
1937 Austin Street Rod - 1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1976 Rover V8 - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well said Al. For years we've used fossil fuels, think of all the coal burnt from the 1800's through until recently. all those victorian smog cities and then all the power stations, even still.
stupid stuff happening, like trains using electric or diesel where the coal burners used to be offset by the trees along the line (thriving too), the advent of more and more electronic technology, the fact nobody goes outside anymore...
meh, I'm gonna end up ranting and going OT lol
anyhow, cars are not the main problem, but they are a problem. in my eyes there are two views.
do what you want because nobody else especially the main guilty parties do anything;
or
do what you can because at least you'll be right, and cant be made to feel guilty, will be doing something positive and setting an example instead of following along.
i sit in the middle somewhere...
basically, we're screwed either way btw, the ozone is still rapidly disappearing. face it, you will mostly all die of cancer lol.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For some reason this debate seems confined to "cars are the whole problem" or "there is no problem at all".
Thats the thing which does my head in massively.
|
| |
1937 Austin Street Rod - 1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1976 Rover V8 - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Didn't see it and i don't know what to believe anymore TBH. i think they should lay off hassling us and taxing the tits of us and introduce some intelligent user friendly public transport, user friendly cycle lanes, and rail freight. will make the roads and world safer if they do that IMO...
|
| |
 it doesn't matter if it's a Morris Marina or a Toyota Celica - it's what you do with it that counts  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
while we live in a consumer-capitalism driven economic system the environment will suffer for it. Too much concentration on production and mass low-cost transport of goods. Nothing about sustainable local macro economic development. Good for the local economy, good for people, good for the environment, but not good for huge multinational companies...
|
| |
1937 Austin Street Rod - 1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1976 Rover V8 - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
B-8-D
Posted a lot
down to one car!!
Posts: 4,038
|
|
|
|
|
i read somthing about the carbon footprint a car leaves thoughout its entire life and that most modern cars produce more co2 from just being made in the first place than an old car produces if it is used for 40 years!!
so recycling (reusing old cars) is the way to go i think!
si
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed, this is the areguement I use, although I heard 22 years as the timeline.
|
| |
1937 Austin Street Rod - 1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1976 Rover V8 - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes and you support LOCAL businesses often by 'recycling' (old cars)  |
| |
it doesn't matter if it's a Morris Marina or a Toyota Celica - it's what you do with it that counts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
although these days I am losing patience to argue with knowitalls who only have the soundbites or the headlines in the papers as an arguement so my arguement is usually "fvck off and mind your own business"
|
| |
1937 Austin Street Rod - 1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1976 Rover V8 - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not quite 8driver. For a car that has a 100,000 mile life the energy used in production is about 10% the energy used across its whole lifetime burning petrol etc. You can see that unless new cars are significantly more efficient it can't offset that 10%. A mere 5mpg better by having computer controlled fuel injection, valve timing etc can't justify the "old cars kill the environment" argument, it can only justify building a new car if there's a need for it.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did you know that 75% of people make up 3/4 of the world's human population.....fascinating!
Statistics can be made to prove/disprove everything, and will be manipulated by anyone who cares to create a desired effect.
I don't know who to beleive anymore!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I heard that 57% of all statistics are made up |
| |
|
|
MWF
Posted a lot
Posts: 2,945
|
|
|
|
I know people who actually have qualifications and such in this area. What I actually suspect is that nobody kows what is actually going on to any degree of certainty. What is happening is much whipping up of polar oposite views as this makes good telly, rather than trying to get behind the politics and industrial interests to find what it really going on and what we can do about it. Precisely the view shared by a friend of mine who recently did his Geography degree. Seems nobody really knows, it's just too complex and massive a science. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2007 19:11:46 GMT
|
|
So basically we are saying that statistics can be used to prove anything you want them to......... take crime statistics (the worse IMO)
Don't know what to say now, Sorry I guess for posting up a poor thread.
|
| |
Sierra - here we go again! He has an illness, it's not his fault.
|
|
|
|
