Greens and environmentalists...
The 21st century version of the flat earth society
Wrecked a catalytic converter on a 77 Trans Am cos we didn't have unleaded petrol back then, just 2,3 and 4 star
As for pumping out less carcinogens, not really. Popularity of diesels (they're better for the environment, honest) means lots of cancer factories on wheels
Wonder what the next con will be
The last ice age ended without any help from Hummer
|
Green = envy.
Green Party - watermelons, green outside, red inside.
A dead idea repackaged.
|
Petrol `ead` s - not an eco-scrote
his engine stinks like an old U boat
surfacing now into a pristine sky
start that diesel - let them die
fumes rise up from down below
his oil soaked socks are not for show
he`s on his drive now putting on wax
wash and clean now - to the max
Standing on his block paved `garden`
his underpants begin to harden
perhaps chemicals from the wax
on the snake oil spill - down his slacks
a squirt of this and a spray of that
engine running at full chat
he`s on the road now emitting smoke
the planets eco-system to choke
fast forward thirty years or more
total silence at every dawn
no more sweet birdsong ever to sing
dead from fumes - the motor`s king
oilrag
|
CC, get real, petrols are just as "bad" as diesels...
Back to the OP and without the unnecessary digs at diesel, I suspect that the early 70s is the answer - when those who lived in San Francisco found they couldn't beath properly due to the smog and started to blame the "automobile" and introduced laws... over here, perhaps the introduction of unleaded and cat?
|
In the 80's it was an impending ice age, in the 90's global warming. Global warming has conveniently been changed to 'climate change' as all the prophecies of the doom merchants have proved to be utter crock!
Put out a film full of blatant inaccuracies and downright lies, put 'truth' in the title and win an oscar.
'Climate change' is a multi-billion pound industry these days. For the Government, it's a very nice earner, as they can tax and tax and tax.
The motorist has only just started to feel the pain. I think we've got lots more to come.
|
|
If you think about it, GW and CC are the same thing... just one sounds "cosy" for us living in cooler climates whereas the other hints at something worse... I tend to feel that is the reason for the change in name...
Edited by b308 on 12/06/2009 at 10:09
|
Don't worry everyone - I'll rev higher than I need to, drive faster than I need to and take the long way back today and then normal service will be resumed.
|
|
|
|
The reason that GW became CC, is that there has been no increase in the Global Average Temp. in the last nine or so years. No more GW, let's just call it CC, and try to carry on worrying people about it. Of course the climate has always changed, and always will change - perfectly natural and normal phenomenon.
|
Environ-Mentalism: A New Religion for a New Age, a New World Order -- A glimpse at the shape of things to come - "This video highlights the connection between the environmental movement and those who are striving to bring about a new system of control to the world."
peswiki.com/index.php/Video:Environ-Mentalism:_A_N...e
Edited by Hamsafar on 12/06/2009 at 10:19
|
|
|
>>> Of course the climate has always changed, and always will change - perfectly natural and normal phenomenon. <<<
True. We've had ice ages and dark ages where crops have failed, sea levels have risen / frozen etc, all without the help of man.
But no matter how climate change is caused, we will still need to do something about it if we're going to avoid big problems in the future.
But I agree the motorist is being persecuted, because governments can get away with it. We are an easier target than say, shipping or airlines.
I've posted here before about how emissions from shipping is more or less unregulated.
A recent report of confidential data from maritime industry insiders (reported in most national papers of all shades earlier in April) based on engine size and the quality of fuel typically used by ships and cars showed that just 15 (yes, FIFTEEN) of the world's biggest ships emit as much pollution (SOx, NOx and particulates) as ALL of the world's 760m cars.
Low-grade ship bunker fuel (or fuel oil) has up to 2,000 times the sulphur content of diesel fuel used in US and European automobiles. And the majority of pollution happens within 250 miles of major land masses (Europe, Americas etc).
|
A recent report of confidential data from maritime industry insiders (reported in most national papers of all shades earlier in April) based on engine size and the quality of fuel typically used by ships and cars showed that just 15 (yes FIFTEEN) of
>>the world's biggest ships emit as much pollution (SOx NOx and particulates) as ALL
>>of the world's 760m cars.
On that basis...i wonder what one Indian/Chinese chemical factory chucks out in comparison to the Wests' motor cars?
Still, if i gave up all my motoring pleasures to drive around in something utterly soulless and purely functional, i'm sure it would please the average sandal wearer. The problem is i'm not prepared to do it.
|
'Orwellian societies seek an intellectual justification for their actions. They do this by coercing or bribing academics to produce biased science, whilst suppressing dissenting expertise.
Whenever the Government introduces a policy that is likely to generate public disquiet, a plethora of "independent" scientific papers are produced to give intellectual credence to the party line, with the intention of marginalizing opposition from the start.
Often, the science in these papers is very poor and the authors are anything but independent - they are frequently directly or indirectly funded by the government or by a pressure group which supports the policy direction. In some cases, there is clear suppression of contradictory scientific evidence through the threat of withdrawal of research funds.
The most obvious example of this deplorable practice is in the area of Climate Change, but the ABD has regularly exposed similar issues in road safety and transport policy.
A clear line needs to be drawn whereby all authors of scientific papers must sign a "declaration of interest" whereby they state any political affiliation or source of funds. An independent scientific standards committee should publicly examine allegations of bias by authors and act as a tribunal for allegations of political suppression of scientific viewpoints."
www.abd.org.uk/
Couldn't agree more with that statement.
|
Not sure if the original post was meant literally - when did it start - but a not very scientific but still informative way of answering that type of question is to use the Google News Archive service, which will present you with many wonderful scanned newspapers going back into the depths of time (over 100 years).
It does mean you then get distracted by adverts and other articles and the saucepans burn, but it's a small price to pay, as I told Mrs D only last night.
A quick look for "Global Warming" there took me to the 1980s.
Only yesterday I used it to discover that the word "hot" as in "hot chick" as opposed to "a female who is over warm after running" was first surfacing in the mid eighties, as indeed is "and I'm like whatever", whereas the opposite "cool chick" goes back to 1949.
Anyway, have a look at news.google.com/archivesearch
Some items you would have to pay for but lots are free.
|
A quick look for "Global Warming" there took me to the 1980s.
I was surprised to see, when looking through some old ("Look & Learn") magazines, to see references to increasing global temperatures, due to man's activities, going back to the mid 1960s.
|
|
I'd have thought that its beyond doubt that Man's activities have and are changing the World's climate, and there's plenty of "local" proof of how car emmissions can change the local climate as well... what is more relevent is how much of the climate changes are down to the motor vehicle, or industry/power generation/other forms of transport... at the moment I feel that the politicians/scientists have over exagerated the effect of car emmissions, probably, as others have said, because we are an easy target...
|
how much of the climate changes are down to the motor vehicle or industry/power generation/other forms of transport... at the moment
There's some interesting stuff in:
www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/c...f
Ch. 20 is well worth a look, but the whole lot is rather intersting.
|
|
|
|
The motorist has only just started to feel the pain. I think we've got lots more to come.
In some ways, I'm sure you're right - the Gov't. has committed to major CO2 reductions, which will inevitably affect motoring. However, the need for change always results in technological advances, and/or use of alternatives. In this case, it's quite clear that in the medium term, electricity from renewable sources and alternatives to burning fossil fuels (such as nuclear) will be far more widely used - this will almost certainly result in the death of the car engine as we know it now, since, even with big increases in efficiency, CO2 is still being generated from non-renewable sources. I think this change is a very good thing for all sorts of reasons (although the interim period may be mildly painful) - not just because of climate change - I'll have a car without the complication and intrinsic dirtiness of an internal combustion engine, and at least as much power, from efficient, reliable, clean, lightweight electric motors. This is all basically available now - it's the cost that's the problem. When the cost is reduced, it'll be fantastic!
|
can't wait for a nuclear car
"i've got a 6 reactor, 24 rod....." blah,blah,blah
|
Have thousands of scientists got it wrong about global warming? Only time will tell. Maybe in 50 years, maybe in 500. I believe our emissions are changing the environment, although how that will impact on us is hard to tell. Just the CFC's from aerosol cans and fridges was enough to create a hole in the ozone layer - maybe its arrogant to think we can continue as we are without impacting on our environment.
My hope for global warming is that the changes will be gradual enough for us to adapt. E.g if sea levels rise then people will be able to migrate from coastal areas given enough time.
My bigger concern at the moment is that of peak oil. Our whole way of life is completely dependant on oil. Peak oil is likely to start effecting us on a much shorter timescale, some believe we have already passed peak oil. One thing is for sure, the last year has given us volitile oil prices and who knows what is ahead of us - oil is now back at $70 and if prices rise further threaten to stall any recovery in the economy.
|
|
|
can't wait for a nuclear car
Goes like a bomb!
|
|
Would do. It'd be a hot rod.
|
|
|
|
|
CC get real petrols are just as "bad" as diesels...
No they aren't. While all vehicle exhaust fumes are harmful, Diesels are far more because they are highly carcinogenic. In years to come we will pay the price.
I am not anti-diesel in any way, one of my cars is a diesel and I prefer it to the petrol version. Doesn't smell as nice as the petrol when I'm stood at the back of it though... :-)
|
While all vehicle exhaust fumes are harmful Diesels are far more because they are highly carcinogenic.
No, CC, I don't agree... what is open to debate is whether the large particulates seen mainly in diesel exhausts are more dangerous than the smaller ones in petrol exhausts, recent research has shown that the smaller ones get into the lungs easier and therefore could cause problems more easily than the larger ones from diesels.
At least diesel cars with DPFs are doing sometyhing to counter theirs, petrol cars aren't and continue to churn out their particlates unrestricted...
|
|
|
|
|
|
