|
It's called the trilateral system, two parties run by the same hidden hands that say the opposite of each other, and an unelectable third party who try to legalise drugs, paedophilia and ban petrol. It gives the illusion of democracy and diverse political choice where there is in fact very little.
|
2040 - 33 years, that is a very long time away. Think back 33 years ago, and think about what the cars were like then (I wasn't even born).
In the 70's I had an old MGB. Funny thing is I've got one now as well. Things don't always change that much ;)
|
"In the 70's I had an old MGB. Funny thing is I've got one now as well. Things don't always change that much ;)"
My immediate reaction was 'doesn't he wish he'd kept the first one' - but on second thoughts I wonder what inflation would convert the price of the first one into, and how that compares with the cost of the second one.
Or perhaps this is the first one, Martin - you may be leaving us guessing.
|
"In the 70's I had an old MGB. Funny thing is I've got one now as well. Things don't always change that much ;)"
SNIPQUOTE!
The first one was rotten even then. Bought 1970 for £250 and sold 1973 for £60.
Second was an inheritance, so don't know cost. Just as rotten as the first one, but chassis spares are easier to get hold of!
|
|
|
|
It's called the trilateral system two parties run by the same hidden hands that say the opposite of each other and an unelectable third party who try to legalise drugs paedophilia and ban petrol. It gives the illusion of democracy and diverse political choice where there is in fact very little.
I love it, Hamsafar. With your permission I am going to keep that gem and bring it out on appropriate accasions in conversation.
|
trilateral system two parties run by the same hidden hands and an unelectable third party who try to legalise drugs >> paedophilia and
Hidden hands eh? Sounds too organised to be real. It isn't a conspiracy, it's an ongoing shambles containing many overlapping rival unsuccessful conspiracies.
However a late Hungarian friend of mine who had lived under both systems did come up with a good comment on British democracy:
'The two-party system is the perfect one-party system.'
|
|
|
|
|
And to make a real impact maybe we should all stop heating our homes as well.
For most of us, is much easier to cut down heating in our homes, than to cut down the amount of fuel we use in driving. (Room temperature as I type is 16!)
It is also much easier for government to do something about it - simply drop the temperature in schools and offices and other premises used by central and local government. It is, of course, not going to happen.
|
>>An old 2CV still produces less CO2 than, say, an Audi RS4
I remember seeing an Aston Martin engine that had an air pump pushing air into the exhaust to dilute the exhaust gases to meet emission levels, I wasn't told how much energy it consumed. I'm sure it wasn't the only such case, so this isn't a dig at AM.
The legislators can set targets, and the innovators will find a way, but not necessarily in the manner that was intended.
|
|
So all the Lib Dem MPs and party members are going to give up their cars immediately as an example are they ? ? ? ? ? ?
|
Quote
"Not that I'm agreeing to it - as Professor Philip Stott points out:
"Even if we grounded every 'plane, crushed every car, closed down every power plant, and put 4 billion people out of work (and into abject poverty, I might add - very Left wing), climate would still change, and often dramatically. The earth doesn't need saving - it is a tough old boot that has survived asteroids, earthquakes, fires, floods, and moving continents from the beginning of its existence."
End quote
yes, I'm sure a planet once called Earth will continue to orbit the Sun... but will it support 6 billion humans in the manor they've become accustomed to, or in the case of the developing world - want to be accustomed to?
If the old trigger point theory actually happens, and the Greenland ice sheet thing melts, then swathes of low lying countries could well be quite literally sunk, and suddenly the 6 bn people are going to have to get a lot more friendly (or most likely the opposite).
Now, can getting rid of my humble 2.0 petrol car stop that? No.
Could a collective effort of the millions of owners stop it? Probably not, if the prof. is to be believed.
Unfortunately it seems that Humans' drive to improve their lifesyle/comfort/security and the associated energy use cannot be stopped by mere theories or warnings. I suspect that we will wait until we see the actual consequence on the environment until we act - by which time it will be too late. The odd hurricane or flood has been happenin for eons - I'm talking about East Anglia under water for at least 6 months of the year.
I can see only 3 alternatives:
- either we carry on now, and just take whatever happens "on the chin", and hope our luck or resourcefulness will get us through
- either we agree collectively to go back to the stone/iron age - at least some time before industrilisation and abandon convenient energy sources. Maybe the medieval agercultural system, and just accept the associated loss of life through malnutrition and poor medical care
- or we admit we do need energy to maintain our lifestyles, and divert serious resources into coming up with a viable alternative to carbon fuels. Someone mentioned cold fusion? Solar power is not exaclty "new"? nor is wind power. We can send satellites to photo the back of the sun (why? it's the same as the front) or look at the newest planet in the solar system. These rockets must have a larger carbon footprint than the averaeg petrol car.
So I think a change in thinking is needed, but pointing the finger at a petrol car as a scapegoat is just a cop out of the worst kind. it actually diercts attention away from the action that is needed.
right, time to do some work in my nice warm public sector office!
Ian
|
AIR = 78.084%Nitrogen ,20.946% Oxygen ,0.0934% Argon ,Carbon Dioxide 0.038%.Other 0.002%.
If we were to treble the amount of co2 it would make absolutely no difference.
One volcano average size Etna for example puts out more co2 per year than all the man made co2 emitted in 10,000 years,the oceans emitt more co2 by a factor of millions than man can produce.
The wheels fell of Al Gores wagon when the temp data he used from NASA was found to be flawed and instead of any global warming over the last 100 years it was found to have stayed pretty much the same,deforrestation will change weather patterns so will concreting wet lands and other man made items. The oceans are exactly at the same level as they were a thousand years ago and at the end of it all we will have run out of useable gas and oil reserves in around 50 years and unless there is a medical breakthrough I will not be around.
|
|
What on earth have you been reading, Andy? References, please!
|
|
|
> The oceans are exactly at the same level as they were a thousand years ago
BUZZZZZZZZZZZZ - WRONG
>in around 50 years and unless there is a medical breakthrough I will not be around.
DING - CORECT
------------------------------
< Ex RF, Ex TVM >
|
|
Small but powerful petrol engines fueled by lean-burn is the future.
|
|
I thought the futures was oranges?
|
|
geo-nsdi.er.usgs.gov/metadata/open-file/94-212/met...l
Mount St Helens emitted a maximum of 25,000 tonnes per DAY. At 250g/km, that's 100 million miles. Average car does 10,000 miles per annum, that's 10,000 car-years per DAY.
volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
suggests that man-made emissions are 150 times that of volcanoes. See
www.springerlink.com/content/631t022372116213/
Al Gore was using completely incorrect data... as announced in the news earlier this month. tinyurl.com/2rxp2u The 1930s was a warmer decade than the 1990s... but only in America.
There is no conclusive evidence that changing the CO2 in the atmosphere from 0.0% to 0.0% will make any difference at all. There is strong evidence that CO2 in the atmosphere has increased AS A RESULT OF global warming.
environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate...9
It is all surmise, and we have benefitted this year from the gloriously warmed earth, haven't we. The Romans made wine in Scotland, and we are 2000 years overdue an iceage. (just google next ice age overdue for 38,300 hits...)
So who knows.
|
|
|
|
"and the Greenland ice sheet thing melts"
Well, it has before, which is why it was called Greenland...
I don't disagree with most of what you say, but it seems to me that the change is going to happen anyway, whether or not we caused it. After all, even if we did, there is over a century's inertia built-in, so whatever we do now (even the stone-age option) will have no immediate effect. Resources would be better placed, IMO, in making provision for the inevitable. Not building on any more flood plains would be a good start.
There is also the uncomfortable fact that a new coal-fired power station is going up every week in China. Or is it two?
|
>>Well, it has before, which is why it was called Greenland...
Not necessarily; it was called Green by Eric the Red in an attempt to make it sound nicer to potential settlers.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland#Etymology
|
..which says: "and was likely even greener in Erik's time because of the Medieval Warm Period"
Which also allowed grapes to be grown in Yorkshire. Ecky thump!
|
>>..which says: "and was likely even greener in Erik's time because of the Medieval Warm Period"
Which actually says that the southern portion of Greenland not covered by glacier was likely even greener in Erik's time because of the Medieval Warm Period.
There is a little corner of Greenland that is green. The rest of it is and was white. Calling it green was (by repute) to encourage settlers.
|
|
|
Fear not. Can't see the Lib Dems getting into power. UK would need a different electoral system for that.
|
They are also advocating to make "illegal" immigrants as "legal".
|
|
Plenty of room in Greenland for everybody once they've cleared the ice out of the way.
|
Plenty of room in Greenland for everybody once they've cleared the ice out of the way.
Not when the population of a submerged Bangladesh has moved there.
|
The Greenland glaciers vary in depth -- some are up to 1 mile deep. IIRC if they all melted London would be under 3 metres of water. That may or may not be a good thing:-).. but to suggest Greenland had no ice in Viking times and London was above water shows a dramatic ignorance .
madf
|
|
|
|
|
I remember seeing an Aston Martin engine that had an air pump pushing air into the exhaust to dilute the exhaust gases to meet emission levels I wasn't told how much energy it consumed.
I think you've got this slightly wrong (although i could myself be wrong). There are AM models with a pump, but this isn't intended to dilute the exhaust gases, what it actually does is move a set of valves in the exhaust system when you reach a certain rpm, making it more free-flowing.
This isn't to do with emissions laws, it is to do with noise laws. The valves are designed to make the car more quiet at idle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
