This isn't a serious remark, is it ? You've read some truely bad propaganda if you mean this.
BTW who are the "we" in your statement ?
Re: Re: Re: Pollution.......what pollution????
This really cracks me up. The first link talks about the dangers of ozone (which is what the Kyoto accord is supposed to increase).
The second link is about smog in Hong Kong (I guess you didn't realize that the second and third pictures are from Asian cities (Hong Kong and Malaysia to be precise).
The third link is about how cities local weather effects are creating clouds. The last picture is of Atlanta and the nasty looking stuff is clouds that the article you linked to claim have the effect of reducing smog.
Boy you sure have got some convincing arguments there. Did you actually read any of the articles you linked to or were you just hunting for nasty looking pictures to post? And you wonder why we don't just take your word for it about the dangers of global warming when you put up deliberately misleading posts like that.
By the way, there are a number of well respected scientist who argue that global warming from greenhouse gases released since the industrial revolution started is all that is keeping the world out of an ice age. According to current theories we should be well into the next ice age by now.
Phil
B.VDBOS said:An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
B.VDBOS said:
This really cracks me up. The first link talks about the dangers of ozone (which is what the Kyoto accord is supposed to increase).
The second link is about smog in Hong Kong (I guess you didn't realize that the second and third pictures are from Asian cities (Hong Kong and Malaysia to be precise).
The third link is about how cities local weather effects are creating clouds. The last picture is of Atlanta and the nasty looking stuff is clouds that the article you linked to claim have the effect of reducing smog.
Boy you sure have got some convincing arguments there. Did you actually read any of the articles you linked to or were you just hunting for nasty looking pictures to post? And you wonder why we don't just take your word for it about the dangers of global warming when you put up deliberately misleading posts like that.
By the way, there are a number of well respected scientist who argue that global warming from greenhouse gases released since the industrial revolution started is all that is keeping the world out of an ice age. According to current theories we should be well into the next ice age by now.
Phil
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pollution.......what pollution????
Here is some glue
The only dangerous ozone is ground level ozone. It made from smog
The Kyoto protocol deals with greenhouse gas emissions (mostly Co2), the ozone (layer)
issue is a separate issue all together
Yes it is about smog in Hong Kong, what is you point
What, why would you guess that?
Any one with half a brain can see that, those two big buildings are Malaysia's most
recognisable landmarks around the world
Like Hong Kong harbour
What is your point?
Malaysia and Hong Kong to be even more precise
The picture is a picture of smog
Right click the pic and look at the properties
hxxp://www.mountwashington.org/notebook/images/pollution/city_smog.jpg
Clouds are white or grey not stinky brown
What arguments?
The only argument I had was with dear Mr Mr. Brian, and that was about the relationship
between car emissions and the creation of ground level ozone
And given that school boy chemistry says so, yes I am convinced
I wanted to post some pictures of smog
So I looked for some pictures of smog
Then I posted the pictures of smog
Then my very dear friend millwood (who is in some sort of state of perpetual denial) said
"just some poorly done photoshop jobs"
So I then posted the sites from where the pictures came from to prove to my dear friend
millwood that they are infact pictures of smog and not "just some poorly done
photoshop jobs"
And I wonder?
What words about global warming?
I didn't mislead you, you misled yourself my friend
Rubbish
haldor said:
Here is some glue
haldor said:
The only dangerous ozone is ground level ozone. It made from smog
The Kyoto protocol deals with greenhouse gas emissions (mostly Co2), the ozone (layer)
issue is a separate issue all together
haldor said:
Yes it is about smog in Hong Kong, what is you point
haldor said:
What, why would you guess that?
Any one with half a brain can see that, those two big buildings are Malaysia's most
recognisable landmarks around the world
Like Hong Kong harbour
What is your point?
haldor said:
Malaysia and Hong Kong to be even more precise
haldor said:
The picture is a picture of smog
Right click the pic and look at the properties
hxxp://www.mountwashington.org/notebook/images/pollution/city_smog.jpg
Clouds are white or grey not stinky brown
haldor said:
What arguments?
The only argument I had was with dear Mr Mr. Brian, and that was about the relationship
between car emissions and the creation of ground level ozone
And given that school boy chemistry says so, yes I am convinced
haldor said:
I wanted to post some pictures of smog
So I looked for some pictures of smog
Then I posted the pictures of smog
Then my very dear friend millwood (who is in some sort of state of perpetual denial) said
"just some poorly done photoshop jobs"
So I then posted the sites from where the pictures came from to prove to my dear friend
millwood that they are infact pictures of smog and not "just some poorly done
photoshop jobs"
haldor said:
And I wonder?
What words about global warming?
I didn't mislead you, you misled yourself my friend
haldor said:
Rubbish
Sheep flatulence in New Zealand is a bigger contribution to the greenhouse effect than the CO2 emmisions from all fossil fuel burned globally.
I know someone who could stop 1 sheep for 5 minutes or so. 😱
I know someone who could stop 1 sheep for 5 minutes or so. 😱
With apologies to veggies....
Most systems work best without adding, taking away, or generally tampering. Our emissions must create a difference. The only rational course is to reduce them.
Sheep of course are great. I luv'em..... with mint sauce is best
Indeed it just might be true. But who are we to take that chance? Our children inherit what we leave...
Most systems work best without adding, taking away, or generally tampering. Our emissions must create a difference. The only rational course is to reduce them.
Sheep of course are great. I luv'em..... with mint sauce is best
Brian Donaldson said:
Dear Mr Brian
Do you have any figgers on that one, it sounds realy interesting
Here are a few facts
World sheep population 1743 million
N.Z sheep population 47 million or 2.7%
Here is some fun
Here is some news
Brian Donaldson said:
I bet you do Mr Brian
I b-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-t you do
This should keep you busy for 10 minutes
Where men are men and sheep are scared (sorry Mr Brian, but I still dont get it)
You choose to believe in transparently ignorant bullcrap. If you even knew your own Nazi history, you'd be aware that they easily started creating gasoline from coal reserves when the good guys cut off their access to Ukrainian and other oil fields.
The US has nuclear power technology, bio- and photo- energy sources for fuel, hundreds of years reserves of coal, its own oil reserves. Research on new energy efficient technologies such as fuel cells and hydrogen power (which doesn't depend on oil) is progressing rapidly. The only potential collapse worth discussing relates to your own so-called thought processes on the subject. Post about something you can actually handle intellectually, like maybe basket weaving.
'At lot?' Not at all. Laughed at? No way.
However.....
diesels are worse offenders than gasoline engines at producing (carcinogenic) particulate pollution, a particular cause of respiratory irritation .
That may be as is. The fact is that most Iraqi oil goes straight to Europe, as it always has in the past.
I'd wager I both care more and am more knowledgeable on the subject than you are. The difference between you and me here consists in the fact that I refuse to uncritically accept 'given' knowledge from any source since it usually comes with someone else's ulterior agenda.
Says who? You?thoriated said:
It just so happens I trust more the diesel car owners who experience such behavior.
We may laugh at someone driving a little pansy VW diesel or some other import, but nobody laughs at a 7.3l Powerstroke or 5.9l Cummins. You got to love 700 ftpounds from 800 - 3600 rpm. Their torque curve looks like Abe's top hat.
My partners 2002 Dodge 3/4 ton can spin the tires any time with anything in the back.
My partners 2002 Dodge 3/4 ton can spin the tires any time with anything in the back.
pinkmouse said:
"What is the use of a new-born baby?"- Michael Faraday
Al, if you have to ask that question, you'll never understand Texas. 😀
The main reason is to pi$$ off those who can't. 😀
I like traction being the limit to my possible acceleration. I did once own a S-10 Blazer that didn't have enough torque to back my loaded trailer into my driveway. Worthless little 2.8l POS.
I like traction being the limit to my possible acceleration. I did once own a S-10 Blazer that didn't have enough torque to back my loaded trailer into my driveway. Worthless little 2.8l POS.