'Greenies' .. The "Prius Polluter" truths

[yo_chuci]

Pick up the ted's .. climb back in,

pure genius...

not having any real knowledge in this area the 1st post of the prius was an eye opener... is it true? I personally don't know. is it a lie? again I do not know...
it wouldn't surprise me 1 bit if to make a green car they polluted more than to make a hummer and then told us how economical the car is etc and that we should all be driving one...
trouble is our gov (at least) don't want us driving them cos
a) they make alot less from car tax.
b) we (should) be using less fuel so again they lose money.
c) we aint going quick enough for speeding tickets lol

i had a discussion with the chekout girl at asda (other shops are available) about why i hadn't brought my 'Bag for life' (she was at home putting the tea on).
i tried to explain to her that until the US or China slow down on killing the planet that me using plastic bags aint really gonna make a difference. she argued her point about if everyone did a little bit etc. i agree'd with her basic idea was sound and then asked if she drove to work today? and how far was the journey? and how much in asda was wrapped in plastic?
i think she got the point.

is the words of harry hill...

i like hummers... and i like prius'... but which is better. there's only 1 way to find out.....


FIGHT!!!

 

[Jenx]

Yo, Yo !

Well there is a whole pile of info available to read that says thats the case with the prius, yes.

Loads.

 

[yo_chuci]

when it comes to our govt its common sense... tell the public its better for their pockets/the environment/their health and slowly the people buy into it...
only for govt to realise they are losing out so up goes the cost of something...
just look and diesel in the last 20yrs and lpg in the last 10...
diesel has double in price (roughly) and so has lpg (nearly) and with lpg they put up grants for people to get it fitted and promise not to put the cost of lpg up for 5 years... wow 5years...
i have noticed this and i've only been driving for 15 odd years.
and it'll be the same with tax, change all the banding so people either pay a fortune or get a smaller more eco car and pay very little tax. when we all have smaller cars it'll just get bumped back up again cos of the enviroment...
or you'll be charged to sell or part ex or scrap your car after 10yrs cos it won't be friendly enough

 

[yo_chuci]

oh and a quick thought....

when they start making the body panels for cars out of more plastics will that eat into our plastic bag allowance?

when are they gonna start making them OUT OF WOOD?

 

[Jenx]

They won't. It's more rewarding to pontificate about how there is no evidence, how science is rubbish and scientists are worse, and its allmade up.

Not sure that that claim would be entirely representative or accurate, Jake ..
We'd all be in a bit of schtook without the fantastic work of the research scientists over the years, would we not ?

Looks like a good site StevieB ... I initially thought that the 'hit numbers' were relatively low, given the high profile of the subject discussed, but then on looking at the site - its predominantly 'Medical' based, and that would explain why the perceived low number (relatively speaking) of hits for those searches .
Looks good. I would like to explore that further. 8)


Yo Chui ----> remember ? !

:wink: :lol:

 

[Gill]

Thanks for the link, Steve. Let's see what light it casts... .

For Gill and other interested parties, try the link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez

This is a scientific database of peer reviewed published scientific papers. It is primarily science based rather than humanities based but has over 7800 hits for a search of 'climate change' and 5000 for 'global warming'. Search until your eyeballs bleed :lol:

The database is mainly used by academia who subscribe to the vast majority of the titles. Without this subscription ability you will get an abstract of each manuscript if there is one but you are unlikely to get the full article unless the journal in question has a free access policy (usually on older content). It is not exhaustive by any means, but is the primary source literature to which Mike referred and Gill requested further details on. Enjoy!

Steve.

They won't. It's more rewarding to pontificate about how there is no evidence, how science is rubbish and scientists are worse, and its allmade up.

It's all a peculiar emotional reaction to not understanding, but then we are a strange species - as believing in gods proves beyond doubt.

What a bizarre thing to write. Please refer me to any post I've made where I "pontificate about how there is no evidence, how science is rubbish and scientists are worse, and its allmade up." All I've ever done is ask that the scientific evidence should be produced, and I don't think that's an unreasonable question. Indeed, earlier in this thread I stated that in support of global warming "there is some evidence out there, primarily relating to acidification of the seas, which cannot be denied." I fail to understand how your assertion can be valid.

I cannot fathom how you see this as a "peculiar emotional reaction to not understanding". Surely it is completely reasonable that anyone who wishes to be better informed on a subject should seek clarification of issues that they find to be obfuscating? The reference to "believing in gods" is totally baffling because it implies a knowledge of either my views on religion or a knowledge of the views on religion of everyone else who is asking similar questions to those I have asked. This is knowledge which you either do not or cannot have.

 

[yo_chuci]

yup... didn't it have a sand down and revarnish as part of a main service lol...
granddad had a triumph dolomite sprint (yellow)
that was good on fuel... it was so heavy he just let it roll everywhere...
which was to the pub and back at the bottom of the village.
he could drive from pub up the gentle hill, the moment it went flat it could roll 2miles to the base of the next gentle hill and same again up to the peak and then all the way home and into the garage on tickover...
he was ahead of his time lol... i think it was 24years ago...

 

[Jake]

Thanks for the link, Steve. Let's see what light it casts... .

For Gill and other interested parties, try the link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez

This is a scientific database of peer reviewed published scientific papers. It is primarily science based rather than humanities based but has over 7800 hits for a search of 'climate change' and 5000 for 'global warming'. Search until your eyeballs bleed :lol:

The database is mainly used by academia who subscribe to the vast majority of the titles. Without this subscription ability you will get an abstract of each manuscript if there is one but you are unlikely to get the full article unless the journal in question has a free access policy (usually on older content). It is not exhaustive by any means, but is the primary source literature to which Mike referred and Gill requested further details on. Enjoy!

Steve.

They won't. It's more rewarding to pontificate about how there is no evidence, how science is rubbish and scientists are worse, and its allmade up.

It's all a peculiar emotional reaction to not understanding, but then we are a strange species - as believing in gods proves beyond doubt.

What a bizarre thing to write. Please refer me to any post I've made where I "pontificate about how there is no evidence, how science is rubbish and scientists are worse, and its allmade up." All I've ever done is ask that the scientific evidence should be produced, and I don't think that's an unreasonable question. Indeed, earlier in this thread I stated that in support of global warming "there is some evidence out there, primarily relating to acidification of the seas, which cannot be denied." I fail to understand how your assertion can be valid.

I cannot fathom how you see this as a "peculiar emotional reaction to not understanding". Surely it is completely reasonable that anyone who wishes to be better informed on a subject should seek clarification of issues that they find to be obfuscating? The reference to "believing in gods" is totally baffling because it implies a knowledge of either my views on religion or a knowledge of the views on religion of everyone else who is asking similar questions to those I have asked. This is knowledge which you either do not or cannot have.

Erm, why is it all about you, Gill?

 

[Jenx]

It may be a wild stab in the dark, but I'd guess where it says

"For Gill and other interested parties "

Possibly :wink:

 

[Digit]

Desalinating sea water RAISES the temp at which it will freeze jl, not lowers it.
The last ice age, according to researchers, ended in as little as fifty years.
This would have dumped far more fresh water into the oceans than is currently the case. From your scenario this would have resulted in more ice forming, so logically the melting would have ceased.
In addition the temp must have risen first to melt the ice, which would seem to have been impossible if the ice reflecting the sunlight was the primary cause of the ice in the first place!
Science stands on the premise that effect follows cause. For the ice to have melted the temp MUST have risen.

Roy.

 

[Jenx]

For anyone who may be thus inclined ....

To read very well informed writings of a very well educated man, may I perhaps suggest having a read of the theories of

Professor Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus of Biogeography.

He appeared on the Channel 4 documentary entitled
" The Great Global Warming Swindle "

( For initial info - see here ~~~> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_ ... ng_Swindle )
Wikipedia isn't THE most reliable source of info in the world, granted .. but the link would suffice in getting you started, if you were interested in the subject.

Here is Professor Stott's Weblog -->

http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Global_War ... _Blog.html

( takes a second or two to load.. :wink: )


and here... a Podcast from the Prof
http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Music_%26_ ... ews_6.html

You may be quite surprised how compelling the case is.
:wink: :lol:

 

[Digit]

I am reminded of this Jenx...

Goebells adopted the phrase: Tell a Lie That is Big Enough, and Repeat it Often Enough, and the Whole World Will Believe It.

seems to work as well now as then I fear.
Al Bore's Nobel prize should have been for literature!

Roy.

 

[Jenx]

:lol: :lol: :lol: Exactly, Roy ....
very similar to what I've been shot down for, on this very forum, a few times previously ....

"Invent a scenario / convince the popultion it exists / offer a solution and sit back & take the plaudits "

Its not in my nature to 'blindly accept' ....
I'm not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, thats for sure.... but I know when to "question" hopefully :wink: 8)

However, not to embark on another conspiracy rant ...
the initial subject of the topic just astounded me... that car, which has clearly been irrefutably promoted to us as the 'environmentally friendly option' ( ask anyone in the UK .. " Whats the 'green' car ? , and without question, they will answer PRIUS.. so the earlier attempt to refute that the thing had been promoted in this way, was little short of astonishing ..) would appear to be anything but what its promoted as being.
These things have an 'inverse duty' to be brought to the wider attention.
:lol: 8) :lol:

 

[Doctor]

Global warming my arse, what next "the world is round"
Its flat and always will be.

 

[bugbear]

So it looks as if I'll have to pay a visit to the library and scour back copies of the New Scientist ](*,) . Thanks anyway, Mike .

These scientists who espouse global warming are rotten communicators. If they made their data more readily accessible to the public, this debate might not be taking place.

Gill

Inconveniently, the data is absolutely incomprehensible without rather a lot of background scientific training.

What exactly is "the public" meant to do with (e.g.) gigabytes of ocean temperature data?

The answer to this conundrum is "peer reviewed journals".

It sort of like a court jury, only for science.

BugBear

 

[studders]

Global warming my ****, what next "the world is round"
Its flat and always will be.

I scientificly tested your assertion that the world is flat.
I placed a Ball on my lawn,
It did not move.
I conclude you are right. :wink:

 

[jlawrence]

Digit, I believe the ice melted last time due to increases in deep water temperatures - ie the sea under the ice started the melting process.
Yes, you're right it raises the temperature - ie desalinated water freezes quicker. Don't know why I put lowers.

Obviously I'm only having wild stabs in the dark as to what might of happen / might happen. Who knows - we might be right.

 

[Jenx]

Global warming my ****, what next "the world is round"
Its flat and always will be.

I scientificly tested your assertion that the world is flat.
I placed a Ball on my lawn,
It did not move.
I conclude you are right. :wink:

Not too shabby, lads... not too shabby at all :lol: :lol: :lol: :wink:

 

[Jenx]

So it looks as if I'll have to pay a visit to the library and scour back copies of the New Scientist ](*,) . Thanks anyway, Mike .

These scientists who espouse global warming are rotten communicators. If they made their data more readily accessible to the public, this debate might not be taking place.

Gill

Inconveniently, the data is absolutely incomprehensible without rather a lot of background scientific training.

What exactly is "the public" meant to do with (e.g.) gigabytes of ocean temperature data?

The answer to this conundrum is "peer reviewed journals".

It sort of like a court jury, only for science.

BugBear

Professor Stott's stuff is very 'plain english', and much easier for the layman to understand.
He doesn't 'cloak' anything in incomprehensible babble,
which definately adds to the appeal
8)

 

[Digit]

deep water temperatures

Which simply shifts the matter one place to the left. What caused the sea temp to rise?

Roy.