Car adverts to carry cigarette style CO2 warmings

Hahaha, quality posts from Scottly, those moronic posts have really lightened up the afternoon. Thanks everyone! :D Keep on digging Scottly.

Out of interest Jez and furthering the OT chat... Are there (negative) consequences of mass amount of water vapour being released into the atmosphere? *googles?*
 
Emlyn_Dewar said:
Hahaha, quality posts from Scottly, those moronic posts have really lightened up the afternoon. Thanks everyone! :D Keep on digging Scottly.

Out of interest Jez and furthering the OT chat... Are there (negative) consequences of mass amount of water vapour being released into the atmosphere? *googles?*
Click to expand...


Water vapour and clouds

Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and accounts for about 60% * of the total greenhouse effect. Until recently, Scientists assumed that the water vapour content of the atmosphere was more or less constant and that water vapour didn't contribute to the enhanced, human induced, greenhouse effect. However, as the Earth continues to warm, the amount of water vapour in the air will rise and water may cause greater warming in the future.
* some references suggest that tropospheric water (including the long wave absorption by clouds) is responsible for 80% of the greenhouse effect.
Click to expand...

Random extract from a google hit, indeed there are very negative consequences :)
 
rating_5.gif
- Another text book example of ecowarriors not actually knowing what they are talking about.

Keep going, please.


So how do you feel about Hybrids?
 
Fantastic arguments Scottly. They reminded me of a couple of quotes I saw on PH earlier today, that someone had lifted from the Friends of the Earth forums:

Unfortunately speed for optimum fuel economy varies considerably from car to car. For older cars I think it is in the 55-60 mph region, but for many modern cars the optimum speed is actually over 80 mph, or so I have read. Also it is not the same for petrol and diesel.

So the only logical answer is to allocate a maximum speed limit to each car, the number to be displayed prominently on front and back. Then anyone doing his person maximum of 60 would be required to move over if a car rated at say 95 appeared.
Click to expand...

I think FOE should be going for physically limiting the top speed and acceleration of cars, along with the standard thing of taxing inefficient cars heavily.
I believe most modern cars have some sort of limiting on them to prevent the engine being destroyed by poor driving.
It would be simple for all new cars and motorbikes to be limited to 70.

In environmental terms it's achieveing nothing setting a speed limit to 60 if people are still going 80 plus.

The fun needs to be taken out of driving.
Click to expand...

I wonder how much road design is looked at in reducing fuel usage, eg. a nice flat straight road from A to B rather than a up and down hill bendy road.
Click to expand...

Perfectly well reasoned discussion. ;)
 
What next, farmers go to buy some livestock some estate agent looking bloke in a suit is selling low emissions cows?

Don't feed your car, feed starving african children then ride them around. Everyones a winner.
 
Scottly said:
That's a good plan, but you're still a disgusting racist for suggesting that small black children are for riding around like animals. Animals.
Click to expand...

Disgusting environmentalist, you're the one suggesting rubbish about the environment ''but your choice of car indirectly affects me and everyone else because of the emissions that come out of the tailpipe'' ...
Where did you get animals from anyway?
Africans need to get moved too like everyone...
 
What he's done is becuase he's made an idiot of himself when his arguement fell down around his ears, he has now resorted to posting deliberately stupid things perhaps as a diversionary tactic.
 
Scottly said:
I get more MPG out of Africans. However the Holy Grail for people fuel are the Vietnamese, a bowl of rice and they go for miles, but the oil companies are trying to keep them hushed up.
Click to expand...

WTF, riding them as in a car, not riding the people itself :confused:.



ps. voted this thread at 2 stars, because peeps like you and others just **** me ***.
 
Scottly, nobody is laughing. Your idiotic comments are just making you look like a retarded troll, although it could be argued that your flawed 'serious' coments earlier in the thread had already done that........
 
Jez said:
He's probably just bored at work, and realising that he is unable to contribute intelligently he has started posting crap.
Click to expand...

It's bizzare though. I have to wonder what the hell is going through someones mind when they think 'I appear to be losing this argument, I know, I'll just be an attention whore and make a complete tit of myself instead!!'

I mean, W T F? :confused:
 
[TW]Fox;11827215 said:
When can we stop calling CO2 a 'pollutant' given it isn't?
Click to expand...

Depends where you set your definition of 'pollutant', It's a greenhouse gas - that's for sure.
Water vapour is also a greenhouse gas, but that's a different story.
 
[TW]Fox;11827215 said:
When can we stop calling CO2 a 'pollutant' given it isn't?
Click to expand...

I would say a pollutant is an unnatural excess. Carbon Dioxide has been locked up in fossils as Carbon for 100's millions of years for a reason and us releasing it at a rate of a few years cant be a good idea. Do I think its a good idea? Not really if you want a performance car you're not going to give a flying **** what the CO2 emissions are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom