Woohoo! Veyron isn't 'just' the fastest production car!!

[qube]

They've started building a fusion reactor in France. IIRC it's going to be about 10 years before it's finished.

Also I know the difference between AR, GW and CC I was just illustrating a point that cars were blamed for the first one, but no-one mentions that anymore, then we had GW, but mesurements proved that the temp isn't any higher than it has been so now they bang on about CC. It's all politically motivated, there seems to be very little actual science involved.

The point I've been trying to make all along is that the environment has always changed; The planet used to be tropical when there were dinosaurs, we've had several ice ages (most of our landscape has been carved by ice), all long before we came along. The sun gets bigger and hotter as it goes through its' life too so how come we're cooler now than we were millions of years ago?

I just don't believe that cars are causing a problem or are going to cause a problem long term especially when you consider that the fuel they use is running out and when you look at the evil exhaust emissions, 97% of those greenhouse gasses come from nature anyway and less than 1% comes from cars. If we ran out of oil tomorrow and every car stopped it wouldn't make any real difference to the percentage of the different gasses in the atmosphere. I don't believe that if we stop driving cars Africa will get more rain, or the US less storms. I'm sure the British summer will still suck and people who build houses on low level ground will still get wet.

You see articles in the press where we're supposed to be cutting CO2 emissions by 10% over 10 years or something to stop GW; but that's 10% of the 3% man is responsible for. You really think it's going to change anything other than make our lives more expensive?

 

[AutoMX]

i really cant complain about the veyron. if anyone does, they need to come to the southern states in the US. i can tell you theres alot of things that do 10mpg and cant do 100mph, much less over 200. hell my friends 87 RX7 did 11mpg when it wasnt running right.
but the goddamn SUVs and trucks here are just horrid. they do 10mpg on purpose. if you're going to guzzle it, have the decency to go fast on a track or go over big rocks or dunes...

i really am looking forward to when gas will be $15 a gallon, just to see their reaction. seems to be the only way to kill their egos.

i heard the most blunt cadillac commercial on the radio a couple days ago. "when you drive an escalade, you really feel like you own the road. people will get out of your way. this is the biggest escalade ever.." etc..

 

[fbc]

if you're going to guzzle it, have the decency to go fast on a track or go over big rocks or dunes...

:lol:

 

[watto]

if you're going to guzzle it, have the decency to go fast on a track or go over big rocks or dunes...

R.E.S.P.E.C.T

 

[ezrollers]

They've started building a fusion reactor in France. IIRC it's going to be about 10 years before it's finished.

Also I know the difference between AR, GW and CC I was just illustrating a point that cars were blamed for the first one, but no-one mentions that anymore, then we had GW, but mesurements proved that the temp isn't any higher than it has been so now they bang on about CC. It's all politically motivated, there seems to be very little actual science involved.

The point I've been trying to make all along is that the environment has always changed; The planet used to be tropical when there were dinosaurs, we've had several ice ages (most of our landscape has been carved by ice), all long before we came along. The sun gets bigger and hotter as it goes through its' life too so how come we're cooler now than we were millions of years ago?

I just don't believe that cars are causing a problem or are going to cause a problem long term especially when you consider that the fuel they use is running out and when you look at the evil exhaust emissions, 97% of those greenhouse gasses come from nature anyway and less than 1% comes from cars. If we ran out of oil tomorrow and every car stopped it wouldn't make any real difference to the percentage of the different gasses in the atmosphere. I don't believe that if we stop driving cars Africa will get more rain, or the US less storms. I'm sure the British summer will still suck and people who build houses on low level ground will still get wet.

You see articles in the press where we're supposed to be cutting CO2 emissions by 10% over 10 years or something to stop GW; but that's 10% of the 3% man is responsible for. You really think it's going to change anything other than make our lives more expensive?

The caradache fusion reactor is an experimental reactor. At the moment fusion reactors do not have a net energy output.

1% changes can lead to catastrophic consequences in chaotic systems, as is Earth's climate.

Are you a calvinist?

 

[qube]

Calvinist?? as in:

Calvinism, also known as Reformed theology, is a system of biblical interpretation that focuses on the supreme sovereignty of God, His majesty, His holiness, etc. It relates this to man's fallen, sinful nature. Because of the great chasm between God and man and because of man's sinfulness, God must predestine people into salvation...or none would be saved. Therefore, salvation is the work of God and we are the recipients of His gracious election.
To God be the glory.

No I'm an atheist.

The 1% thing is conjecture, it's far from proven. If man kind has broken the environment we'd see weather that has never happened before, as it is there hasn't been.

 

[ezrollers]

yeah smth like that, i.e. there is sod all we can do about anything.

The 1% is not a conjecture, that's the nature of chaotic systems.
In fact, a 1% change in the right or wrong place can be catastrophic. Let me illustrate it with an example.

You park your car on the edge of a very edge of a cliff. The car park is 400 m long to the edge of the cliff. The cliff is unstable and partly collapses, taking away just 1% of the car park on the direction of the cliff. That's 4 m, your car parked at the very edge of the cliff before the cliff collapsed, has now gone down with the collapsed cliff.

 

[qube]

yeah smth like that, i.e. there is sod all we can do about anything.

The 1% is not a conjecture, that's the nature of chaotic systems.
In fact, a 1% change in the right or wrong place can be catastrophic. Let me illustrate it with an example.

You park your car on the edge of a very edge of a cliff. The car park is 400 m long to the edge of the cliff. The cliff is unstable and partly collapses, taking away just 1% of the car park on the direction of the cliff. That's 4 m, your car parked at the very edge of the cliff before the cliff collapsed, has now gone down with the collapsed cliff.

LOL well I'm convinced!!!

:lol:

The point is know one knows how it works, no-one knows what is correct and what isn't. When we discovered the ozone layer it had a hole in it, we assumed that it shouldn't have one, might have always been there for all we know. Which is why IMO until we have data that illustrates what's what we shouldn't panic. Talking about chaos theory is nonsense, it's something to bore people with over dinner not fact.

97% of greenhouse gasses are produced by nature, less than 1% is produced by cars. There is absolutely no demonstratable evidence to illustrate that the environment is out of whack. Or that cars are fucking up the planet.

Also even if there is global warming, and the ice caps melt I can't see why that would be the end of the world anyway.

 

[asthenia]

Also even if there is global warming, and the ice caps melt I can't see why that would be the end of the world anyway.

Easy for you to say, Leeds is 300 feet above sea level.

 

[ezrollers]

maybe not the end of the world, but the uk might suffer a tiny bit.
are you familiar with the gulf stream???

Not to mention the millions of ppl living in very low lying area, as asthenia has mentioned.

As for lack of evidence, you are entitled to believe what you want, I have neither the time nor the inclination to educate you on the evidence of climate change, which most scientist admit is occuring, despite not being sure what is exactly causing it. I mean, even that bastion of tree hugging, sandal wearing, marijuana smoking hippie types, named the pentagon, thinks that climate change is a major source of insecurity for the future.

 

[Volvo_S70]

maybe not the end of the world, but the uk might suffer a tiny bit.
are you familiar with the gulf stream???

Not to mention the millions of ppl living in very low lying area, as asthenia has mentioned.

I agree with you ezrollers.

despite not being sure what is exactly causing it

Ahem...pollution?

 

[sandor_]

They've started building a fusion reactor in France. IIRC it's going to be about 10 years before it's finished....

another great decision... plan to build a nuclear power plant on a known fault line.. :?

10 years and $10 billion euro to build... hmmmm. how big of an off-shore wind farm could we get for that? not to mention the fact that after construction is complete, they will still need to hope it can get up to 100.000,000 degree Celsius temps needed for fusion. If it happens and can produce energy to provide millions, good, but otherwise it is all moot. like hydrogen.

 

[BlaRo]

They've started building a fusion reactor in France. IIRC it's going to be about 10 years before it's finished....

another great decision... plan to build a nuclear power plant on a known fault line.. :?

10 years and $10 billion euro to build... hmmmm. how big of an off-shore wind farm could we get for that? not to mention the fact that after construction is complete, they will still need to hope it can get up to 100.000,000 degree Celsius temps needed for fusion. If it happens and can produce energy to provide millions, good, but otherwise it is all moot. like hydrogen.

The problem with wind farms are that they are incredibly unsightly. Plans to build a massive wind farm off the coast of Cape Cod were met with ferocious opposition because it would spoil the scenery and probably disturb the migrations of a few species of birds or fish.

 

[sandor_]

They've started building a fusion reactor in France. IIRC it's going to be about 10 years before it's finished....

another great decision... plan to build a nuclear power plant on a known fault line.. :?

10 years and $10 billion euro to build... hmmmm. how big of an off-shore wind farm could we get for that? not to mention the fact that after construction is complete, they will still need to hope it can get up to 100.000,000 degree Celsius temps needed for fusion. If it happens and can produce energy to provide millions, good, but otherwise it is all moot. like hydrogen.

The problem with wind farms are that they are incredibly unsightly. Plans to build a massive wind farm off the coast of Cape Cod were met with ferocious opposition because it would spoil the scenery and probably disturb the migrations of a few species of birds or fish.

worse than oil rigs?

NIMBY is always a problem, and nuclear power will have similar questions-dispossal of nuclear waste (even the small amount from fusion) is something i bet they wouldnt want in cape cod either.

in turn, there are probably many willing participants in wind power in some of the 10,000+ acre farms in the Great Plains. when your nearest neighbor is 30 miles away, it makes no difference if your field is fallow, filled with soybeans or filled with turbines.

 

[BlaRo]

Oil rigs aren't placed next to each other in the hundreds, mere feet off the coastline.

I'm all for wind power; it's the cleanest source of energy avaliable today. I just don't want to look at it in one of the most beautiful places in New England.

 

[jayjaya29]

They have plans to build a wind farm off the coast of Jones Beach on Long Island, but I doubt it will get anywhere.

 

[Lurch0001]

...
There is absolutely no demonstratable evidence to illustrate that the environment is out of whack.
...

There's a few people from New Orleans who might beg to differ on that point.

 

[sandor_]

Oil rigs aren't placed next to each other in the hundreds, mere feet off the coastline.

I'm all for wind power; it's the cleanest source of energy avaliable today. I just don't want to look at it in one of the most beautiful places in New England.

i guess it depends on what you think.

cell phone towers annoy me (especially the faux tree ones) but 3 or 4 dozen (that would be a huge farm) turbines rising out of the ocean has a bit of a mystique about it.


<sarcasm>though i will agree a wind farm off cape cod would ruin the view, especially from nantucket. </sarcasm>

 

[sandor_]

...
There is absolutely no demonstratable evidence to illustrate that the environment is out of whack.
...

There's a few people from New Orleans who might beg to differ on that point.

i dont think NO/Katrina is a good illustration... NO, statistically, gets directly hit by a storm every 13 years, the first recorded being in the 1770s. and being that the majority of the city is under sea level, its no surprise they flood. and even less of a surprise that a 25+ foot storm surge was able to crash over the levees into the 9th district... they have been digging out those wetlands for years, breaking down all the natural barriers.

 

[Dr. Woo]

...
There is absolutely no demonstratable evidence to illustrate that the environment is out of whack.
...

There's a few people from New Orleans who might beg to differ on that point.

Because Category 5 hurricanes certainly haven't been happening for hundreds of years...