AirSpeed VW Community Forums
General Forums => Air Speed Lounge => Topic started by: James Buchan on January 18, 2007, 09:19:56 AM
-
If you haven't seen it yet you must rent the DVD!
http://www.climatecrisis.net/ (http://www.climatecrisis.net/)
Cindy and I watched it last night and all I can say is WOW!
-
he has some pretty compelling arguments.
it was an eye opener for sure
-
What's the just of it?
-
Global warming; basically Al Gore went around and collected information and visuals of various world glaciers and such and has compiled a documentary outlining where we were as a civilization 100+ years ago and the degree that we have changes world climates over that period. It's shocking how much mankind has affected weather and global temperatures since 1970. It seriously sent a shiver down my back thinking that within our lifetime we could very well see world ocean levels raise 20 feet...
It's a shame that Bush got in instead of Gore - the world would be a much different place with him in charge of the country that produces 30+% of the global pollution in the atmosphere.
-
I would not worry too much about what Al Gore has to say. He's a politician, not a scientist. His credibilty is about the same as a used car salesman.
Global warming is happening, the average temperature on this planet has increased by half a degree C. I don't believe all the doom and gloom predictions that some people are preaching. For every scientist you find, that says the planet is in doom, I can find one that says the world will not end.
Here's a start, an article from Tuesday's National Post. Written by a Canadian professor.
-------------------------------------------
Climatic hubris: The Ellesmere Island ice shelves have been disappearing since they were first mapped in 1906
Fred Michel, National Post
Published: Tuesday, January 16, 2007
On Saturday evening, the science director of the David Suzuki Foundation told CBC Newsworld that world scientists agree, we must act now \"to stabilize the Earth's climate.\" We have heard a similar refrain for years. We are told over and over that the rise in temperatures during the 1990s is accelerating the rate of melt of our polar ice caps as never before and worldwide flooding will wash away coastal settlements. Droughts, hurricanes, pestilence and all forms of calamity will be upon us and future generations if we do not reduce our carbon dioxide emissions that, so they say, is causing global warming.
A couple of nights earlier on CBC News, Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria asserted with respect to recent events, \"[This] is nothing -- wait 'til 2050. This is scary. I mean the kind of climate change in store in the next 50 to 100 years is equivalent to the climate change that existed between when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth in the Cretaceous and today. That's 60 million years of climate change happening in a hundred years!\"
Besides the fact that the mass extinction that wiped out most of the dinosaurs was actually 66 million years ago, Weaver apparently also does not realize that in those millions of years the climate has been extremely variable, ranging from nearly tropical in polar regions to ice sheets covering much of North America and Europe. This period also saw changes from some of the highest sea levels ever to some of the lowest.
In late December, the media expressed shock as a large piece of ice shelf on the north end of Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic broke off and created seismic waves. It was reported that 90% of the northern ice shelves had now been lost. Not mentioned was the fact that this is an ongoing, albeit intermittent event. Since the ice shelves were first mapped in 1906, they have been gradually disappearing. In fact, research papers on this ice shelf, published in 1986 and 2001 by Dr. Martin Jeffries of the University of Alaska, show that by 1962 roughly 60% of the ice shelf had already disappeared. Since then, an additional 30% has broken away with a larger loss than the most recent one occurring about 30 years ago. In other words, 60% of the ice shelf was lost in the first 56 years of this period (over 1% per year) versus 30% in the last 44 years (or 0.67% per year). Is that acceleration? Before today's global warming hype, Jeffries reported that \"the coincidence of tidal and seismic events in 1962 created a critical condition that caused the ice shelf calving.\" He concluded that further losses were to be expected.
In the work I have been involved with on Bylot Island in the eastern Canadian Arctic, we have found a fairly continuous glacier retreat of 40 to 50 meters per year since the late 1940s when air photos were first taken. Clearly, this retreat is nothing new -- it is a long-term response to natural variations in climate. The Little Ice Age from the 1400s to the mid-1800s was the coldest period in the past millennium, cold enough to allow skating on the canals and rivers of England and mainland Europe. Before that it was much warmer - 6,000 years ago during the 'climatic optimum' the Canadian Arctic was perhaps as much as 3C to 5C warmer than today. Then, the depth of thaw of the upper permafrost was much more than we see today.
Last year, when a conference was held at Tuktoyaktuk on the shores of the Beaufort Sea, news reports blamed global warming for the massive coastal erosion that is endangering the community. However, research has documented that such erosion has been occurring along this part of the Mackenzie Delta at a rate of tens of meters per year for centuries, if not millennia. At one time the community would have been kilometers from the coast. The shores of this region are ice-rich and susceptible to erosion by waves and warm temperatures. What we are witnessing is natural, ongoing change and certainly nothing new.
The success of the human species has been largely due to its ability to adapt to environmental changes. With the evolution of megacities, we now seem to feel that we are powerful enough to change the environment at our whim. Hurricane Katrina's devastating impact on New Orleans should have been a wake-up call to the fact that we must still be ready to adapt to environmental change, including climate variations. Instead, it has been used by alarmists to promote their impossible goal of \"stopping climate change.\" In reality, climate is constantly changing and will continue to change no matter what we do.
We need to put our energies and resources into solving real environmental problems -- air, water and land pollution, the loss in biodiversity, and urban sprawl, to name just a few. \"Stabilizing the Earth's climate\" as suggested by Suzuki's science director, is sheer fantasy. Its time to chill out on climate change hysteria.
Dr. Fred Michel, an advisor to the
Natural Resources Stewardship Project (nrsp.com), is the director of the Institute of Environmental
Science and Associate Professor in the Department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa.
-
I would not worry too much about what Al Gore has to say. He's a politician, not a scientist. His credibilty is about the same as a used car salesman.
Global warming is happening, the average temperature on this planet has increased by half a degree C. I don't believe all the doom and gloom predictions that some people are preaching. For every scientist you find, that says the planet is in doom, I can find one that says the world will not end.
Here's a start, an article from Tuesday's National Post. Written by a Canadian professor.
-------------------------------------------
Climatic hubris: The Ellesmere Island ice shelves have been disappearing since they were first mapped in 1906
Fred Michel, National Post
Published: Tuesday, January 16, 2007
On Saturday evening, the science director of the David Suzuki Foundation told CBC Newsworld that world scientists agree, we must act now "to stabilize the Earth's climate." We have heard a similar refrain for years. We are told over and over that the rise in temperatures during the 1990s is accelerating the rate of melt of our polar ice caps as never before and worldwide flooding will wash away coastal settlements. Droughts, hurricanes, pestilence and all forms of calamity will be upon us and future generations if we do not reduce our carbon dioxide emissions that, so they say, is causing global warming.
A couple of nights earlier on CBC News, Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria asserted with respect to recent events, "[This] is nothing -- wait 'til 2050. This is scary. I mean the kind of climate change in store in the next 50 to 100 years is equivalent to the climate change that existed between when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth in the Cretaceous and today. That's 60 million years of climate change happening in a hundred years!"
Besides the fact that the mass extinction that wiped out most of the dinosaurs was actually 66 million years ago, Weaver apparently also does not realize that in those millions of years the climate has been extremely variable, ranging from nearly tropical in polar regions to ice sheets covering much of North America and Europe. This period also saw changes from some of the highest sea levels ever to some of the lowest.
In late December, the media expressed shock as a large piece of ice shelf on the north end of Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic broke off and created seismic waves. It was reported that 90% of the northern ice shelves had now been lost. Not mentioned was the fact that this is an ongoing, albeit intermittent event. Since the ice shelves were first mapped in 1906, they have been gradually disappearing. In fact, research papers on this ice shelf, published in 1986 and 2001 by Dr. Martin Jeffries of the University of Alaska, show that by 1962 roughly 60% of the ice shelf had already disappeared. Since then, an additional 30% has broken away with a larger loss than the most recent one occurring about 30 years ago. In other words, 60% of the ice shelf was lost in the first 56 years of this period (over 1% per year) versus 30% in the last 44 years (or 0.67% per year). Is that acceleration? Before today's global warming hype, Jeffries reported that "the coincidence of tidal and seismic events in 1962 created a critical condition that caused the ice shelf calving." He concluded that further losses were to be expected.
In the work I have been involved with on Bylot Island in the eastern Canadian Arctic, we have found a fairly continuous glacier retreat of 40 to 50 meters per year since the late 1940s when air photos were first taken. Clearly, this retreat is nothing new -- it is a long-term response to natural variations in climate. The Little Ice Age from the 1400s to the mid-1800s was the coldest period in the past millennium, cold enough to allow skating on the canals and rivers of England and mainland Europe. Before that it was much warmer - 6,000 years ago during the 'climatic optimum' the Canadian Arctic was perhaps as much as 3C to 5C warmer than today. Then, the depth of thaw of the upper permafrost was much more than we see today.
Last year, when a conference was held at Tuktoyaktuk on the shores of the Beaufort Sea, news reports blamed global warming for the massive coastal erosion that is endangering the community. However, research has documented that such erosion has been occurring along this part of the Mackenzie Delta at a rate of tens of meters per year for centuries, if not millennia. At one time the community would have been kilometers from the coast. The shores of this region are ice-rich and susceptible to erosion by waves and warm temperatures. What we are witnessing is natural, ongoing change and certainly nothing new.
The success of the human species has been largely due to its ability to adapt to environmental changes. With the evolution of megacities, we now seem to feel that we are powerful enough to change the environment at our whim. Hurricane Katrina's devastating impact on New Orleans should have been a wake-up call to the fact that we must still be ready to adapt to environmental change, including climate variations. Instead, it has been used by alarmists to promote their impossible goal of "stopping climate change." In reality, climate is constantly changing and will continue to change no matter what we do.
We need to put our energies and resources into solving real environmental problems -- air, water and land pollution, the loss in biodiversity, and urban sprawl, to name just a few. "Stabilizing the Earth's climate" as suggested by Suzuki's science director, is sheer fantasy. Its time to chill out on climate change hysteria.
Dr. Fred Michel, an advisor to the
Natural Resources Stewardship Project (nrsp.com), is the director of the Institute of Environmental
Science and Associate Professor in the Department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa.
-
i saw it , it's pretty interesting.
-
on a lighter note i noticed there was a beetle in a scene with the traffic in the beginning of the trailer haha
-
Don't you remember the Al invented the internet?
-
-- it is a long-term response to natural variations in climate. The Little Ice Age from the 1400s to the mid-1800s was the coldest period in the past millennium, cold enough to allow skating on the canals and rivers of England and mainland Europe.
The mini-ice age that happened 500 years ago is always omitted by the global warming alarmists. By watching for this detail, you can tell if you are being manipulated.
-
Free to good home 4 feet of snow and all the ice you want can also send -14 weather :lol: :lol:
-
we could very well see world ocean levels raise 20 feet...
there goes richmond.
-
I see water rising is an issue for some forum members.
In December, there was a press release from the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club was showing how much of Victoria would be under water, if the polar ice caps melted. Here is something I found in the Victoria Times Colonist.
--------------------------------------------
Published: Friday, December 08, 2006
I was saddened to see the silly and counter-productive Sierra Club of B.C. story showing Victoria at risk of being under 25 metres of water.
Climate change is a serious issue and it is alarming that an organization such as the Sierra Club would so overstate the case as to make it ridiculous.
It was even a greater concern from a professional perspective to see my name in the story as I work hard to try and give the public an accurate picture of this pressing problem.
The science suggests serious societal consequences of global warming in the short term, while the changes in sea level that the Sierra Club tout happen over thousands of years. This clumsy story just makes it easy for the deniers to claim there is no problem.
Andrew Weaver,
Professor and Canada research chairman, climate modelling and analysis,
University of Victoria.
-
the changes in sea level that the Sierra Club tout happen over thousands of years.
My point exactly. It's not going to happen overnight.
-
We have a smart guy like David Suzuki telling us for years about how we are effecting our environment. Now Gore comes a long and makes a big movie about it, and all of a sudden people start to listen! Just goes to show how the attention span of todays society works.
Either way I feel pretty safe where I am....as long as they keep those F'n tornados in Kansas where they belong! ;) :lol:
-
While surfing the net, I found these videos, on a Canadian website.
For those of you the have seen an \"Inconvenient Truth\", I suggest you watch these videos.
Includes some comments from scientists of the IPCC.
Best to right click, and save as...
http://www.friendsofscience.org/FOS/FOS_INTRO.wmv (http://www.friendsofscience.org/FOS/FOS_INTRO.wmv) 4.76Mb
http://www.friendsofscience.org/FOS/climate_2.wmv (http://www.friendsofscience.org/FOS/climate_2.wmv) 16.3Mb
http://www.friendsofscience.org/FOS/climate_3.wmv (http://www.friendsofscience.org/FOS/climate_3.wmv) 7.82Mb
http://www.friendsofscience.org/FOS/climate_4.wmv (http://www.friendsofscience.org/FOS/climate_4.wmv) 12.4Mb
http://www.friendsofscience.org/FOS/climate_5b.wmv (http://www.friendsofscience.org/FOS/climate_5b.wmv) 5.45Mb
-
Global warming is such a vast subject that brings in so many other subjects, air polution,car emissions, etc etc.
I think that the huge companies are the ones that need to be targeted!! As for Gore who cares whether it's for political gain, at least he is doing something rather than sitting on his fat ass doing nothing, how many people say they are concerned about the enviroment then drive there big fat 4x4 to drop the kids off at school???
I tend to think of my kids in these type of debates, what will they miss out on and what hope for there kids.
-
When I was in high school in the '70's, David Suzuki was telling us that another ice age was coming :huh:
-
we could very well see world ocean levels raise 20 feet...
Someone just built a five story condo building at Birch Bay just across the street from the beach. Maybe I should buy one of the top units and a Gondola. It would be just like Vienna :lol:
-
When I was in high school in the '70's, David Suzuki was telling us that another ice age was coming :huh:
Yep, I remember that too, although I don't recall who was pushing it.
-
Someone just built a five story condo building at Birch Bay just across the street from the beach. Maybe I should buy one of the top units and a Gondola. It would be just like Vienna :lol:
Don't you mean Venice?
-
:blush: Oops! :lol: I guess I was having a senior moment :P
-
whats sad is I knew exactly what you were saying!! hey they both start with V's
-
Why did Canada sign Koyoto if we had no intention of ever following through? It's the first time the US comes out looking brilliant (shocking) because at least they had the balls to just say 'NO.'
-
China and the USA produce over half of the world's atmospheric pollutants and neither is cutting back. China is building a new coal-powered station every 5 days to meet their growing energy needs, but Kyoto does not require them to do anything significant to curb emissions...
-
Why did Canada sign Koyoto if we had no intention of ever following through?
federal Liberal government signed Kyoto and then started a few programs aimed at curbing GHG emissions (remember Rick Mercer's infomercial on the 'One Tonne Challenge'?). it's the federal Conservative government that never had any intention of following through with Kyoto, scrapping existing programs like One Tonne, etc. so Kyoto became a political pawn between two parties warring over power.
the beauty about politics? because of mounting public pressure, the Tories are now bringing back the very same programs initiated by the Grits that they themselves scrapped upon forming government because now, TA-DA, they recognize that global warming is an issue.
and of course this newfound love of environment programs/policy has NOTHING at all to do with the impending election...
nope. couldn't be that at all. ;)
-
It's all about getting voted in for the Fed's - but so be it, at least it's a big item on their agenda.
Where I work we create ALOT of waste and pollution. We have worked at curbing our impact for over a year now and I can see a big difference. We are even looking at Bio-D for our fleet. I hope other big employers out there are doing the same.
-
federal Liberal government signed Kyoto and then started a few programs aimed at curbing GHG emissions (remember Rick Mercer's infomercial on the 'One Tonne Challenge'?). it's the federal Conservative government that never had any intention of following through with Kyoto, scrapping existing programs like One Tonne, etc. so Kyoto became a political pawn between two parties warring over power.
the beauty about politics? because of mounting public pressure, the Tories are now bringing back the very same programs initiated by the Grits that they themselves scrapped upon forming government because now, TA-DA, they recognize that global warming is an issue.
and of course this newfound love of environment programs/policy has NOTHING at all to do with the impending election...
nope. couldn't be that at all.
-
we could very well see world ocean levels raise 20 feet...
Someone just built a five story condo building at Birch Bay just across the street from the beach. Maybe I should buy one of the top units and a Gondola. It would be just like Vienna :lol:
Blarneyman, by the time those places in Birch Bay are finished global warming should be in full effect. We have a place in behind them, must be union workers building them. :lol:
-
It's all about getting voted in for the Fed's - but so be it, at least it's a big item on their agenda.
Where I work we create ALOT of waste and pollution. We have worked at curbing our impact for over a year now and I can see a big difference. We are even looking at Bio-D for our fleet. I hope other big employers out there are doing the same.
James, while it's nice that you are burning a cleaner fuel, perhaps you can explain to us, how converting your fleet to bio-diesel, will lower your green house gas emissions.
-
This is taken from http://www.biodiesel.org/ (http://www.biodiesel.org/) Have a read of the website there is some interesting stuff.
Biodiesel is the only alternative fuel to have fully completed the health effects testing
requirements of the US Clean Air Act. The use of biodiesel in a conventional diesel engine
results in a substantial reduction of unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and
particulate matter compared to emissions from diesel fuel. In addition, the exhaust
emissions of sulfur oxides and sulfates (major components of acid rain) from biodiesel
are essentially eliminated compared to diesel.
Of the major exhaust pollutants, both unburned hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides are
ozone or smog forming precursors. The use of biodiesel results in a substantial reduction
of unburned hydrocarbons. Emissions of nitrogen oxides are either slightly reduced or
slightly increased depending on the duty cycle of the engine and testing methods
used. Based on engine testing, using the most stringent emissions testing protocols
required by EPA for certification of fuels or fuel additives in the U.S., the overall ozone
(smog) forming potential of the hydrocarbon exhaust emissions from biodiesel is nearly
50 percent less than that measured for diesel fuel.
-
James, you are confusing polutants with greenhouse gasses. Two totally different animals. When you burn fossil fuels (and Biodiesel), the natural byproducts of combustion are CO2 and H2O. The H2O eventually condenses out as rain, typically harmless. The CO2 is called a greenhouse gas. The only way to reduce CO2 emissions is to reduce the mass of fuel being burned. Converting a vehicle to use biodiesel does NOTHING to reduce CO2.
If you truely want to reduce CO2, you have to reduce the amount of fuel you burn. A small 4 cyl car (like a Beetle!) will emit less CO2 than a big-ass SUV.
I find it very odd that back in the 60s, a Beetle was considered a great car for a mom and kids to run around in. However, today, if you suggest any small car to all the SUV driving soccor-moms, they think you're nuts. I have a buddy who's mom's car back in the 60s was a Nash Metropolitin. He remembers it was fine for him, his 2 siblings and mom to drive around in.
-
I think the whole Global Warming thing has become a political football. Parties are latching on to it, because it's the popular topic of the moment.
I wonder if the whole global warming thing will become the second largest non-event of the century. Remember the largest non-event of the century, Y2K?
-
Good point Bruce, but considering our business and the amount of fuel we burn any reduction of any toxin is a good thing. Not to mention that bio-d is made from a renewable resource.... granted for some apps it may need to be cut with the current diesel we use...
-
IIRC diesel is already B-5 which means that %5 of diesel is bio-diesel, and they are asking to go to B-20, and I think VW is the only manufacturer that has completed testing of B-20 diesel at this point.
-
It is easy for any lay-person to make the mistake of not understanding the distinction between greenhouse gasses and the polutants emitted by cars.
Did anyone see the thing on the news a couple nights ago where Gordon Campbell announced that BC will get California type emissions standards. What a moron he is. For someone in power making the decisions, he should know what he's talking about.
First, Cali emissions do nothing to reduce greenhouse gasses. Only smaller cars that burn less fuel will. Secondly, Cali emissions are not lower than BC emissions. In fact, they allow more deadly CO gas than our emissions allow, as a tradeoff for lower HC emissions. The reason they do that for Cali is that HC reacts with UV light to form SMOG. HELLO!!!, we don't have any UV light for MOST of the year. Here's what his stupid decision will do for us, higher prices for new cars with no reduction in pollution.
Moe Sihota announced this back in the 90s. Thankfully he was voted out before it came into effect. When's the next provincial election?
-
We'll have a federal one soon I am sure...
-
Your awesome Bruce! Every time I read one of your posts I'm sure to learn something...Thanks :rockon:
-
James,
I think it's great that you a trying to reduce your fleet's output of toxic gases. But as Bruce pointed out, burning bio-D will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Bruce,
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. And water vapour is also a greenhouse gas. In fact, water vapour is a more prominent greenhouse gas, than carbon dioxide.
We can't control how much water evaporates into the atmosphere. But the government thinks it can control how much carbon dioxide we produce. Other greenhouse gases that are toxic, and controlled by pollution laws.
Canada has one of the highest per capita uses of carbon based fuels. What Canadians fail to realize is;
1) We live in a really large country. It is not uncommon to travel great distances to carry people and products, to their destinations.
2) We live in a really cold country. At winter time, when the temperatures get down to -30 and -40, it is not uncommon for people to heat their homes.
People don't want to commute to work, especially in a Winnipeg winter, on their bicycles.
Canadians want something done about Global Warming, and governments love to cater to the masses. With all these new \"green\" laws coming, no matter which political party is in power, I predict very high taxes on hydrocarbon fuels. One thing Europeans have discovered about keeping fuel prices artificially high, is that it is good for the environment. Heating your home, or filling your car, get ready to pay more!
-
If you truely want to reduce CO2, you have to reduce the amount of fuel you burn. A small 4 cyl car (like a Beetle!) will emit less CO2 than a big-ass SUV.
Only if the Beetle is well tuned up. Some of the ones I've seen are much worse than any SUV on the road. EFI and modern technology ] carbs any day of the week.
You have some sort of testing in BC, but here in Alberta you should see the horrible state of tune of some of these cars.
If you really want to help the enviroment, ride a motorbike (better yet, a bike!). Take into consideration all the materials that go into making these monsters, and all the non-recyclable junk that's left over. If I lived in BC, I'd be on a bike 99% of the time.
-
Wow!
This is a lot of information. I am still digesting it all.
Does anyone know anything about the ice age or whatever else scientific evidence is there about the cycles of that stuff?
-
Does anyone know anything about the ice age or whatever else scientific evidence is there about the cycles of that stuff?
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carbonif...us_climate.html (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html)
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm (http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm)
Here are web addresses of two geological sites, that cover prehistoric climate.
It's important that we learn as much as possible about these subjects, before our governments subject us to any \"knee jerk\" reactions.
Anybody remember the gun registry, and how it stopped gun related crimes and violence? How much did that cost tax payers? How effective was it?
-
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. And water vapour is also a greenhouse gas. In fact, water vapour is a more prominent greenhouse gas, than carbon dioxide.
True, but eventually it falls to the earth and is not a greenhouse gas anymore. CO2 requires lots of plants to get rid of it.
-
If you truely want to reduce CO2, you have to reduce the amount of fuel you burn. A small 4 cyl car (like a Beetle!) will emit less CO2 than a big-ass SUV.
Only if the Beetle is well tuned up. Some of the ones I've seen are much worse than any SUV on the road. EFI and modern technology > carbs any day of the week.
Even if badly tuned, a stock Beetle usually gets at least 20-25mpg. I don't know of any of the giant SUVs that get mileage that good.
If our PM really wants to reduce GH gasses by making the fleet of public cars more fuel efficient, he has to do something to encourage people to buy smaller cars. The only way they can do that is high taxes on the big gas consumers. Get ready for that.
-
If I lived in BC, I'd be on a bike 99% of the time.
you obviously havent spent alot of time in a rainforest. B)
i heard on the news that they are considering charging $5/hour to park downtown in an effort to make people drive less.
do you think it'll work, or do you think that it'll just be a whole lot more money that the city makes that mysteriously vanishes into the pockets of the politicians?
i'm going for the latter.
-
In London they charge people around $10 for the pleasure of driving through the city, it works too, as soon as it was introduced the traffic was reduced by a 1/3rd or more. Interesting debate though.
-
One of my goals for this year is to start riding to work, luckily im only 10km from my work and have suitable storage for a bike and related gear at work, im quite looking forward to it. With the right clothing and gear riding in Vancouver and areas is fine even in the rain.
On another note I still say transit fares should be lower, and routes to out lying areas such as Surrey/Langley need to improve, and the Skytrain should have come right down hwy 1, its the route travelled by so many people in rush hour, how could you miss the logic of taking the train when it is passing you every 4 minutes?
Maybe Bug Maniac could give more detail but I do believe that transit in the UK is much cheaper for the user and they have routes that work, Courteney has been a couple times and chooses public tranist to get around every where she went.
-
you obviously havent spent alot of time in a rainforest. B)
I would be 2 wheel drifting Rossi style around every corner! Riding in the rain is the absolute best (really!). You hardly ever get wet, the water goes around you as long as you're moving. The only bad part about rain is that no one can see you (er, see you less).
Hell, I might even try it in the snow!
(https://airspeedparts.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.running-woodstock.de%2Fmediac%2F400_0%2Fmedia%2FDIR_29368%2FICE_1000c_jpg.jpg&hash=43bd1d4fcff87128adfca5a845e6f06b42f9f149)
Back on topic...
North Americans aren't Europeans (duh), we won't stand higher gas tax or higher tax on fat cars (which is a shame). We should tax the shit out of SUV's (which, legally aren't even road worthy vehicles! they get so many exemptions it's not even funny or safe).
-
Transit as a whole in europe is a helluva lot better. They have been working on it for decades and grew it as cities grew. None of this catch up stuff like the north americans are trying to do...
-
Transit as a whole in europe is a helluva lot better. They have been working on it for decades and grew it as cities grew. None of this catch up stuff like the north americans are trying to do...
Not hard to achieve when you have 25 times as many people as in Canada.
-
That may very well be true. But tell me this... Do you know what the automakers did in the 30's/40's to cause LA to be what it is today?
-
they all smoked.
-
they all smoked.
wrong thread, chris.
they all believed in god.
-
wrong thread, chris.
they all believed in god.
you guys crack me up. :lol:
-
Moni is my hero. :rockon:
Hey Matt, I'm sorry to inform you as i know you've already checked once, but I just checked again and could find no evidence of this being a Volkswagen forum. :huh:
-
You know what this is all James' fault.
-
Hey Matt, I'm sorry to inform you as i know you've already checked once, but I just checked again and could find no evidence of this being a Volkswagen forum. :huh:
I just figured that out. It's a shame, this USED to be a decent VW forum. now it's just another crying post for the bleeding heart and the fanatically religious. I'm driving my gas guzzling SUV straight to hell!!!
-
HA B)
-
Global warming needs A KICK IN THE JUNK!! :lol:
-
Global warming needs A KICK IN THE JUNK!! :lol:
Amen Brother! :rockon:
If you truely want to reduce CO2, you have to reduce the amount of fuel you burn. A small 4 cyl car (like a Beetle!) will emit less CO2 than a big-ass SUV.
Just out of curiosity, what kind of car did you drive to work today?
-
If you truely want to reduce CO2, you have to reduce the amount of fuel you burn.
-
Like I said, just curious.
-
I work from home. But I have a few cars, the one I usually drive is a 3 cylinder (beat that) Sprint Turbo. In the summer it's the crotch rocket.
(Uh, all that goes out the window when I drive my FD (RX7 TT), which gets about 3 Gallons to the Mile.)
-
doesnt that RX-7 have 4 cats?
I dont keep up with politics and i would loose any debate on the subject if we were to talk specifics, but i dont see how lowering emissions or producing less pollution could hurt, whether global warming is our fault or not.
ive seen the movie aswell, and i think Al Gore genuinly cares, based on the fact that he has been studing the effects for longer then he has had any kind of political power.