Remember me
▼ Content

How effective are the UK strategies to reduce global warming?(please complete survey)



Page 1 of 4123>>>
How effective are the UK strategies to reduce global warming?(please complete survey)23-01-2018 16:17
kxng-globe
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfcUPQ1RHWKifr__24_m_Aq-bvsPSvrEfFt3w3qwnbrjDTziw/viewform?usp=sf_link
25-01-2018 18:57
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
Perhaps you can explain how any "strategies" to reduce global warming are going to be effective when there isn't any global warming?
26-01-2018 20:38
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
kxng-globe wrote:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfcUPQ1RHWKifr__24_m_Aq-bvsPSvrEfFt3w3qwnbrjDTziw/viewform?usp=sf_link


Although I live in the United.S. I did fill out the questionnaire.
One thing Brits might not have considered is that rising sea levels might increase erosion. Martha's Vineyard might be an example of this.

https://vineyardgazette.com/news/2013/09/05/new-study-examines-effects-sea-level-rise-vineyard
26-01-2018 21:06
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
James_ wrote:
kxng-globe wrote:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfcUPQ1RHWKifr__24_m_Aq-bvsPSvrEfFt3w3qwnbrjDTziw/viewform?usp=sf_link


Although I live in the United.S. I did fill out the questionnaire.
One thing Brits might not have considered is that rising sea levels might increase erosion. Martha's Vineyard might be an example of this.

https://vineyardgazette.com/news/2013/09/05/new-study-examines-effects-sea-level-rise-vineyard


129,000 to 116,000 years ago when the climate was warmer than today by a great deal, sea levels are shown via geological measurements to have been between 5 and 10 meters higher than today.

That is between 16 and 32 feet higher than today.

Let me see - nature was far warmer and with much higher sea levels and much less arctic ice but somehow man is responsible for the planet?
27-01-2018 00:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5138)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
kxng-globe wrote:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfcUPQ1RHWKifr__24_m_Aq-bvsPSvrEfFt3w3qwnbrjDTziw/viewform?usp=sf_link


Although I live in the United.S. I did fill out the questionnaire.
One thing Brits might not have considered is that rising sea levels might increase erosion. Martha's Vineyard might be an example of this.

https://vineyardgazette.com/news/2013/09/05/new-study-examines-effects-sea-level-rise-vineyard


129,000 to 116,000 years ago when the climate was warmer than today by a great deal, sea levels are shown via geological measurements to have been between 5 and 10 meters higher than today.

That is between 16 and 32 feet higher than today.

Let me see - nature was far warmer and with much higher sea levels and much less arctic ice but somehow man is responsible for the planet?


It is not possible to measure sea level. You have no reference point.


The Parrot Killer
27-01-2018 17:01
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
kxng-globe wrote:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfcUPQ1RHWKifr__24_m_Aq-bvsPSvrEfFt3w3qwnbrjDTziw/viewform?usp=sf_link


Although I live in the United.S. I did fill out the questionnaire.
One thing Brits might not have considered is that rising sea levels might increase erosion. Martha's Vineyard might be an example of this.

https://vineyardgazette.com/news/2013/09/05/new-study-examines-effects-sea-level-rise-vineyard


129,000 to 116,000 years ago when the climate was warmer than today by a great deal, sea levels are shown via geological measurements to have been between 5 and 10 meters higher than today.

That is between 16 and 32 feet higher than today.

Let me see - nature was far warmer and with much higher sea levels and much less arctic ice but somehow man is responsible for the planet?


It is not possible to measure sea level. You have no reference point.


More incredible ignorance from nightmare.

Most people would know that we know the diameter of the Earth and that we have satellite based radar that can measure in fractions of a millimeter. But apparently this is something that nightmare can't conceive of.
27-01-2018 17:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5138)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
kxng-globe wrote:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfcUPQ1RHWKifr__24_m_Aq-bvsPSvrEfFt3w3qwnbrjDTziw/viewform?usp=sf_link


Although I live in the United.S. I did fill out the questionnaire.
One thing Brits might not have considered is that rising sea levels might increase erosion. Martha's Vineyard might be an example of this.

https://vineyardgazette.com/news/2013/09/05/new-study-examines-effects-sea-level-rise-vineyard


129,000 to 116,000 years ago when the climate was warmer than today by a great deal, sea levels are shown via geological measurements to have been between 5 and 10 meters higher than today.

That is between 16 and 32 feet higher than today.

Let me see - nature was far warmer and with much higher sea levels and much less arctic ice but somehow man is responsible for the planet?


It is not possible to measure sea level. You have no reference point.


More incredible ignorance from nightmare.

Most people would know that we know the diameter of the Earth and that we have satellite based radar that can measure in fractions of a millimeter. But apparently this is something that nightmare can't conceive of.


The diameter of the Earth is different depending on the direction you measure it. Satellites change their orbits slightly from second to second as the variance of local gravity over the portion of the Earth they are traveling over affects them. Measuring how far the ocean water is from a particular satellite does not give you sea level. There is no reference.

The satellites reference their positions according to land based stations.

Land moves.


The Parrot Killer
27-01-2018 21:50
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
kxng-globe wrote:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfcUPQ1RHWKifr__24_m_Aq-bvsPSvrEfFt3w3qwnbrjDTziw/viewform?usp=sf_link


Although I live in the United.S. I did fill out the questionnaire.
One thing Brits might not have considered is that rising sea levels might increase erosion. Martha's Vineyard might be an example of this.

https://vineyardgazette.com/news/2013/09/05/new-study-examines-effects-sea-level-rise-vineyard


129,000 to 116,000 years ago when the climate was warmer than today by a great deal, sea levels are shown via geological measurements to have been between 5 and 10 meters higher than today.

That is between 16 and 32 feet higher than today.

Let me see - nature was far warmer and with much higher sea levels and much less arctic ice but somehow man is responsible for the planet?


It is not possible to measure sea level. You have no reference point.


More incredible ignorance from nightmare.

Most people would know that we know the diameter of the Earth and that we have satellite based radar that can measure in fractions of a millimeter. But apparently this is something that nightmare can't conceive of.


The diameter of the Earth is different depending on the direction you measure it. Satellites change their orbits slightly from second to second as the variance of local gravity over the portion of the Earth they are traveling over affects them. Measuring how far the ocean water is from a particular satellite does not give you sea level. There is no reference.

The satellites reference their positions according to land based stations.

Land moves.


Time and again you show what a mindless ass you are. You really are laughable.
28-01-2018 00:21
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39053678

The EU's and England's policy to be carbon neutral.
28-01-2018 12:28
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1091)
kxng-globe wrote:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfcUPQ1RHWKifr__24_m_Aq-bvsPSvrEfFt3w3qwnbrjDTziw/viewform?usp=sf_link


If you can find any expected problem from the slight increase in temperatures expected by the IPCC that will cost any local council that has traffic lights more than the traffic light budget I will give you £10.

Also PMed this.
28-01-2018 13:24
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' reprobate rooting AGW denier liar whiner tipped the leaky plunger" plugged:...slight increase in temperatures.....that will cost any local council that has traffic lights more than the traffic light budget ...

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/jan/04/bangladesh-climate-refugees-john-vidal-photo-essay
From the article:
The monsoon floods were severe in 2017, but it was steady, incremental sea-level rise, which sent brackish water further into Saladas's village than ever before, that finally forced the family to move. With water ankle deep in the family home – their well contaminated, their rice crop failing and no other land to go to – they bowed to the inevitable and left their village, possibly for ever.
"God knows what will happen. We know the end is coming," says Saladas, in a makeshift shelter on the side of a road near Cox's Bazar.
Three hundred and fifty miles away, on the other side of the Bay of Bengal at the edge of the Sunderbans mangrove forests, Gopal Munda from Kara Mura district, is preparing to move as his crops fail.
"Once, this village was green with paddy fields. But now the water is salty and the trees have died. We can only farm shrimp. I am devastated when I think that I will have to move," he says to researchers from the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF).
////////
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article183336291.html
/////////
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' reprobate rooting AGW denier liar whiner tipped the leaky plunger" dipped its leakin' mouth INTO the dirty flood waters of cities. But, the AGW denier liar whiner spillage spewed OUT of its mouth is even dirtier.
Edited on 28-01-2018 13:32
28-01-2018 16:08
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Tim the plumber wrote:
kxng-globe wrote:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfcUPQ1RHWKifr__24_m_Aq-bvsPSvrEfFt3w3qwnbrjDTziw/viewform?usp=sf_link


If you can find any expected problem from the slight increase in temperatures expected by the IPCC that will cost any local council that has traffic lights more than the traffic light budget I will give you £10.

Also PMed this.



What the IPCC might come up with is that with is extra traffic lights will actually slow the flow of traffic. And this would cause traffic to emit more emissions such as CO2, a primary GHG.
Basic reason, vehicles in stop and traffic have a lower fuel efficiency rating.
@All, please remember he asked me what expected problem the IPCC might come up with.
28-01-2018 17:10
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
Tim the plumber wrote:
kxng-globe wrote:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfcUPQ1RHWKifr__24_m_Aq-bvsPSvrEfFt3w3qwnbrjDTziw/viewform?usp=sf_link


If you can find any expected problem from the slight increase in temperatures expected by the IPCC that will cost any local council that has traffic lights more than the traffic light budget I will give you £10.

Also PMed this.


As these lunatics are being shown for what they are they are growing more and more frantic. The lies and impossible events are spouting from them like water from a fountain. Gee, where did that 97% of all climate scientists bunk go?

Nightmare has shown himself to be one of them with his "science" so far out in left field that a high school general education student would know better. Playing into the hand by erupting with noise that the warmies could easily disprove can't simply be his own ego.
28-01-2018 17:15
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1091)
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
kxng-globe wrote:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfcUPQ1RHWKifr__24_m_Aq-bvsPSvrEfFt3w3qwnbrjDTziw/viewform?usp=sf_link


If you can find any expected problem from the slight increase in temperatures expected by the IPCC that will cost any local council that has traffic lights more than the traffic light budget I will give you £10.

Also PMed this.



What the IPCC might come up with is that with is extra traffic lights will actually slow the flow of traffic. And this would cause traffic to emit more emissions such as CO2, a primary GHG.
Basic reason, vehicles in stop and traffic have a lower fuel efficiency rating.
@All, please remember he asked me what expected problem the IPCC might come up with.


The task, if you can read slowly enough to comprehend it, is to find any problem which will cost any local council more money to sort out than the money it spends/will spend on traffic lights.

That is; if the sea level rise happens and causes the council to spend x amount of additional money on sea defences over the course of the century is that amount of money more than the amount it will be expecting to spend on traffic lights.

And I will add a little caviat; I am assuming we will still need traffic light like we do now. Driverless cars etc excluded from the sums.
28-01-2018 17:43
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
kxng-globe wrote:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfcUPQ1RHWKifr__24_m_Aq-bvsPSvrEfFt3w3qwnbrjDTziw/viewform?usp=sf_link


If you can find any expected problem from the slight increase in temperatures expected by the IPCC that will cost any local council that has traffic lights more than the traffic light budget I will give you £10.

Also PMed this.



What the IPCC might come up with is that with is extra traffic lights will actually slow the flow of traffic. And this would cause traffic to emit more emissions such as CO2, a primary GHG.
Basic reason, vehicles in stop and traffic have a lower fuel efficiency rating.
@All, please remember he asked me what expected problem the IPCC might come up with.


The task, if you can read slowly enough to comprehend it, is to find any problem which will cost any local council more money to sort out than the money it spends/will spend on traffic lights.

That is; if the sea level rise happens and causes the council to spend x amount of additional money on sea defences over the course of the century is that amount of money more than the amount it will be expecting to spend on traffic lights.

And I will add a little caviat; I am assuming we will still need traffic light like we do now. Driverless cars etc excluded from the sums.


I am estimating that since when I'm working I can expect to be paid in the upper 30% of workers and that I couldn't afford to buy a new car in 3 years of saving that it isn't going to be too long before the auto industry falls apart and everyone is going to be getting around by bicycles. While not like Holland, presently the San Francisco bay area is switching over. In all of the tourist areas there are rent-a-bikes and this tends to prove to people that they can do it. Cars are not very effective in bad weather conditions.

And as I've pointed out before, it isn't clear that there HAS been any sea level rise of that the rise there has been isn't slowing to a stop as all the lower latitude and altitude glaciers melt.
28-01-2018 19:32
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
kxng-globe wrote:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfcUPQ1RHWKifr__24_m_Aq-bvsPSvrEfFt3w3qwnbrjDTziw/viewform?usp=sf_link


If you can find any expected problem from the slight increase in temperatures expected by the IPCC that will cost any local council that has traffic lights more than the traffic light budget I will give you £10.

Also PMed this.



What the IPCC might come up with is that with is extra traffic lights will actually slow the flow of traffic. And this would cause traffic to emit more emissions such as CO2, a primary GHG.
Basic reason, vehicles in stop and traffic have a lower fuel efficiency rating.
@All, please remember he asked me what expected problem the IPCC might come up with.


The task, if you can read slowly enough to comprehend it, is to find any problem which will cost any local council more money to sort out than the money it spends/will spend on traffic lights.

That is; if the sea level rise happens and causes the council to spend x amount of additional money on sea defences over the course of the century is that amount of money more than the amount it will be expecting to spend on traffic lights.

And I will add a little caviat; I am assuming we will still need traffic light like we do now. Driverless cars etc excluded from the sums.


Tim,
If they have to provide an environmental impact statement. The cost of the impact statement alone would easily surpass the cost of many traffic lights.
28-01-2018 23:44
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
Wake wrote: I am estimating that since when I'm working I can expect to be paid in the upper 30% of workers and that I couldn't afford to buy a new car in 3 years of saving that it isn't going to be too long before the auto industry falls apart and everyone is going to be getting around by bicycles. While not like Holland, presently the San Francisco bay area is switching over. In all of the tourist areas there are rent-a-bikes and this tends to prove to people that they can do it. Cars are not very effective in bad weather conditions.

And as I've pointed out before, it isn't clear that there HAS been any sea level rise of that the rise there has been isn't slowing to a stop as all the lower latitude and altitude glaciers melt.


Today the weather wasn't too cold so I went for a quick ride. I did about 32 miles and in that time I saw 42 or so riders. Only three of them were on roads that you would expect bicyclists and only 5 more were families out for rides on bicycle paths.

The rest were in rather peculiar places - climbing on roads they had to work on. Not that the climbing was steep but they were roads that I wouldn't recommend to my worst enemy. Fast traffic with no bike lane or shoulder and drivers who think that they own the roads.

The bikes were mostly good bikes - no department store trinkets.

So I think that the rapidly increasing price of cars is going to rapidly decrease their sales.
29-01-2018 00:45
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' stuttering filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener(plus 1) wake-me-up" wiffed:...the rapidly increasing price of cars is going to rapidly decrease their sales.
Before the depression of 2007-?, good cars were selling for $10,000 to $11,000. Near the depression's beginning, truck sales collapsed 20% AND were not made-up for, by sales of cheaper high mpg cars. Later, I saw offerings of two new good cars with 100,000 mile warranties selling for $14,000. Out of the depression we got a higher level car for under $13,000. Bring on another depression & they'll be selling two cars for $14,000, again.
Edited on 29-01-2018 00:53
29-01-2018 09:56
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1091)
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
kxng-globe wrote:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfcUPQ1RHWKifr__24_m_Aq-bvsPSvrEfFt3w3qwnbrjDTziw/viewform?usp=sf_link


If you can find any expected problem from the slight increase in temperatures expected by the IPCC that will cost any local council that has traffic lights more than the traffic light budget I will give you £10.

Also PMed this.



What the IPCC might come up with is that with is extra traffic lights will actually slow the flow of traffic. And this would cause traffic to emit more emissions such as CO2, a primary GHG.
Basic reason, vehicles in stop and traffic have a lower fuel efficiency rating.
@All, please remember he asked me what expected problem the IPCC might come up with.


The task, if you can read slowly enough to comprehend it, is to find any problem which will cost any local council more money to sort out than the money it spends/will spend on traffic lights.

That is; if the sea level rise happens and causes the council to spend x amount of additional money on sea defences over the course of the century is that amount of money more than the amount it will be expecting to spend on traffic lights.

And I will add a little caviat; I am assuming we will still need traffic light like we do now. Driverless cars etc excluded from the sums.


Tim,
If they have to provide an environmental impact statement. The cost of the impact statement alone would easily surpass the cost of many traffic lights.


Ah, yes, I had not thought of that.

I will have to add another caviat; That the cost has to be the actual extra work not any silly drivel required to talk about CO2.
29-01-2018 12:53
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
kxng-globe wrote:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfcUPQ1RHWKifr__24_m_Aq-bvsPSvrEfFt3w3qwnbrjDTziw/viewform?usp=sf_link


If you can find any expected problem from the slight increase in temperatures expected by the IPCC that will cost any local council that has traffic lights more than the traffic light budget I will give you £10.

Also PMed this.



What the IPCC might come up with is that with is extra traffic lights will actually slow the flow of traffic. And this would cause traffic to emit more emissions such as CO2, a primary GHG.
Basic reason, vehicles in stop and traffic have a lower fuel efficiency rating.
@All, please remember he asked me what expected problem the IPCC might come up with.


The task, if you can read slowly enough to comprehend it, is to find any problem which will cost any local council more money to sort out than the money it spends/will spend on traffic lights.

That is; if the sea level rise happens and causes the council to spend x amount of additional money on sea defences over the course of the century is that amount of money more than the amount it will be expecting to spend on traffic lights.

And I will add a little caviat; I am assuming we will still need traffic light like we do now. Driverless cars etc excluded from the sums.


Tim,
If they have to provide an environmental impact statement. The cost of the impact statement alone would easily surpass the cost of many traffic lights.


Ah, yes, I had not thought of that.

I will have to add another caviat; That the cost has to be the actual extra work not any silly drivel required to talk about CO2.


Now you're changing the rules. There's always the possibility that human remains or archeological artifacts will be discovered.
In either case any below ground work would be halted until either a forensic anthropologist or an archeologist can do their jobs.
In the meantime the equipment being used is sitting idle and running up costs.
30-01-2018 10:53
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1091)
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
kxng-globe wrote:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfcUPQ1RHWKifr__24_m_Aq-bvsPSvrEfFt3w3qwnbrjDTziw/viewform?usp=sf_link


If you can find any expected problem from the slight increase in temperatures expected by the IPCC that will cost any local council that has traffic lights more than the traffic light budget I will give you £10.

Also PMed this.



What the IPCC might come up with is that with is extra traffic lights will actually slow the flow of traffic. And this would cause traffic to emit more emissions such as CO2, a primary GHG.
Basic reason, vehicles in stop and traffic have a lower fuel efficiency rating.
@All, please remember he asked me what expected problem the IPCC might come up with.


The task, if you can read slowly enough to comprehend it, is to find any problem which will cost any local council more money to sort out than the money it spends/will spend on traffic lights.

That is; if the sea level rise happens and causes the council to spend x amount of additional money on sea defences over the course of the century is that amount of money more than the amount it will be expecting to spend on traffic lights.

And I will add a little caviat; I am assuming we will still need traffic light like we do now. Driverless cars etc excluded from the sums.


Tim,
If they have to provide an environmental impact statement. The cost of the impact statement alone would easily surpass the cost of many traffic lights.


Ah, yes, I had not thought of that.

I will have to add another caviat; That the cost has to be the actual extra work not any silly drivel required to talk about CO2.


Now you're changing the rules. There's always the possibility that human remains or archeological artifacts will be discovered.
In either case any below ground work would be halted until either a forensic anthropologist or an archeologist can do their jobs.
In the meantime the equipment being used is sitting idle and running up costs.


That is still going to be small overall.

Also the cost has to be the additional cost of building the extra. So generally it will be covered by the stuff they were going to do already.

The lawers can milk any amout of cash out of it though. I can't include that.
30-01-2018 21:36
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
James_ wrote: Basic reason, vehicles in stop and traffic have a lower fuel efficiency rating.
Some hybrids get in-city MPG ratings higher than highway MPG ratings. Of course, full EV vehicles approach & exceed triple digit MPG(e) ratings, whether in-city or highway ratings. Most important of all, full EV engines' pollution ratings in-city approach a thousand(more?) times less than internal combustion engines.
31-01-2018 00:51
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(969)
litesong wrote:
James_ wrote: Basic reason, vehicles in stop and traffic have a lower fuel efficiency rating.
Some hybrids get in-city MPG ratings higher than highway MPG ratings. Of course, full EV vehicles approach & exceed triple digit MPG(e) ratings, whether in-city or highway ratings. Most important of all, full EV engines' pollution ratings in-city approach a thousand(more?) times less than internal combustion engines.


From Edmonds....
"The 2018 Prius sacrifices speed for mileage, so its sluggish acceleration is part of the package. With its excellent noise suppression and initial surge of electric acceleration, the Prius doesn't feel particularly slow around town. It mainly suffers during higher speed situations such as getting on a freeway or attempting to pass slower traffic." -- less
Edmunds (2017)


In other words, it's a nice quiet turd that will get you there by Sunday if you leave early on Friday.
No thanks!
31-01-2018 01:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5138)
GasGuzzler wrote:
litesong wrote:
James_ wrote: Basic reason, vehicles in stop and traffic have a lower fuel efficiency rating.
Some hybrids get in-city MPG ratings higher than highway MPG ratings. Of course, full EV vehicles approach & exceed triple digit MPG(e) ratings, whether in-city or highway ratings. Most important of all, full EV engines' pollution ratings in-city approach a thousand(more?) times less than internal combustion engines.


From Edmonds....
"The 2018 Prius sacrifices speed for mileage, so its sluggish acceleration is part of the package. With its excellent noise suppression and initial surge of electric acceleration, the Prius doesn't feel particularly slow around town. It mainly suffers during higher speed situations such as getting on a freeway or attempting to pass slower traffic." -- less
Edmunds (2017)


In other words, it's a nice quiet turd that will get you there by Sunday if you leave early on Friday.
No thanks!


Didn't you clean one of those out of your wheel wells recently? I believe you asked me a tax question on it.



The Parrot Killer
Edited on 31-01-2018 01:07
31-01-2018 01:06
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
GasGuzzler wrote:
litesong wrote: Most important of all, full EV engines' pollution ratings in-city approach a thousand(more?) times less than internal combustion engines.


From Edmonds....
"The 2018 Prius sacrifices speed for mileage, so its sluggish acceleration is part of the package. With its excellent noise suppression and initial surge of electric acceleration, the Prius doesn't feel particularly slow around town. It mainly suffers during higher speed situations such as getting on a freeway or attempting to pass slower traffic." -- less
Edmunds (2017)


In other words, it's a nice quiet turd that will get you there by Sunday if you leave early on Friday.
No thanks!

Ah.... you have no answer to the kids who develop lung, heart & neurological diseases from the in-city "stop & not go" traffic jams.
31-01-2018 01:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5138)
litesong wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
litesong wrote: Most important of all, full EV engines' pollution ratings in-city approach a thousand(more?) times less than internal combustion engines.


From Edmonds....
"The 2018 Prius sacrifices speed for mileage, so its sluggish acceleration is part of the package. With its excellent noise suppression and initial surge of electric acceleration, the Prius doesn't feel particularly slow around town. It mainly suffers during higher speed situations such as getting on a freeway or attempting to pass slower traffic." -- less
Edmunds (2017)


In other words, it's a nice quiet turd that will get you there by Sunday if you leave early on Friday.
No thanks!

Ah.... you have no answer to the kids who develop lung, heart & neurological diseases from the in-city "stop & not go" traffic jams.


Nah. They'll f** themselves up on drugs long before then!


The Parrot Killer
31-01-2018 01:08
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(969)
litesong wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
litesong wrote: Most important of all, full EV engines' pollution ratings in-city approach a thousand(more?) times less than internal combustion engines.


From Edmonds....
"The 2018 Prius sacrifices speed for mileage, so its sluggish acceleration is part of the package. With its excellent noise suppression and initial surge of electric acceleration, the Prius doesn't feel particularly slow around town. It mainly suffers during higher speed situations such as getting on a freeway or attempting to pass slower traffic." -- less
Edmunds (2017)


In other words, it's a nice quiet turd that will get you there by Sunday if you leave early on Friday.
No thanks!

Ah.... you have no answer to the kids who develop lung, heart & neurological diseases from the in-city "stop & not go" traffic jams.


I have no answer for those of you who don't think and just believe whatever you hear. Kinda make you a dumbass.
31-01-2018 01:16
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(969)
Litebeer wrote:
Ah.... you have no answer to the kids who develop lung, heart & neurological diseases from the in-city "stop & not go" traffic jams.


Did you know that LA county residents have a life expectancy 2-3 years LONGER than the national average?
31-01-2018 01:24
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Litebeer wrote:
Ah.... you have no answer to the kids who develop lung, heart & neurological diseases from the in-city "stop & not go" traffic jams.


Did you know that LA county residents have a life expectancy 2-3 years LONGER than the national average?


Which goes to show you that phony statistics abound. Perhaps 20% of the population are illegals who have had no medical care at all and die very early comparatively. The Hollywood people and the man-on-the-street in LA are druggies and perverts with high concentrations of HIV.

I helped automate Dr. Kary Mullis' Polymerase Chain Reaction chemistry to detect HIV and get it out of the blood banks of the world in the late 80's and early 90's and the statistics that were being published and the real one's were astonishingly different. Even then you couldn't call a queer a queer.
31-01-2018 04:02
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(969)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
litesong wrote:
James_ wrote: Basic reason, vehicles in stop and traffic have a lower fuel efficiency rating.
Some hybrids get in-city MPG ratings higher than highway MPG ratings. Of course, full EV vehicles approach & exceed triple digit MPG(e) ratings, whether in-city or highway ratings. Most important of all, full EV engines' pollution ratings in-city approach a thousand(more?) times less than internal combustion engines.


From Edmonds....
"The 2018 Prius sacrifices speed for mileage, so its sluggish acceleration is part of the package. With its excellent noise suppression and initial surge of electric acceleration, the Prius doesn't feel particularly slow around town. It mainly suffers during higher speed situations such as getting on a freeway or attempting to pass slower traffic." -- less
Edmunds (2017)


In other words, it's a nice quiet turd that will get you there by Sunday if you leave early on Friday.
No thanks!


Didn't you clean one of those out of your wheel wells recently? I believe you asked me a tax question on it.


Yes I did....and when I asked my CPA about the tax credit for squashing a Prius, she looked up at me over her reading glasses....so seasoned and wise. I believe the exact quote was "um,no".
31-01-2018 04:29
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener (plus 1) gazzzed & guzzzling":
Lite(song) wrote:Ah.... you have no answer to the kids who develop lung, heart & neurological diseases from the in-city "stop & not go" traffic jams.
Did you know that LA county residents have a life expectancy 2-3 years LONGER than the national average?
I've highlighted the kids & long-term residences who are in intimate relation to "stop & not go" traffic jams & freeways(what a misnomer). "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener (plus 1) gazzzed & guzzzling" will NOT acknowledge the relationship between pollution & human deaths & it desires to cover up such data(because it annually dumps 95+ tons of CO2, along with many death dealing pollutants emitted by internal combustion engines. That is why "many time threatener (plus 1) gazzzed & guzzzling" dilutes the data of kids near freeways by adding Beverly Hills, Malibu & other lower pollution communities to the Highway polluted districts. Indeed, "many time threatener (plus 1) gazzzed & guzzzling" earns its other names, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting)".
https://www.scpr.org/news/2017/10/04/76316/life-expectancy-varies-by-15-years-between-la-coun/
///////
More pollution death by freeway:
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-freeway-pollution/
Edited on 31-01-2018 04:41
31-01-2018 04:57
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(969)
Fine dumbass, Orange County, with far more shithole neighborhoods
and shitloads of cars has an 81.9 year life expectancy. Still above the national average. Is there somewhere with more roads and cars?
Still want to hang on to your ridiculous claim?
Edited on 31-01-2018 04:57
31-01-2018 05:08
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(969)
Oh, and some quick research finds that Seattle has the highest per capita car ownership in the US. Even with their high depression rate due to the constant clouds/fog, they still sport a life expectancy 1 year above the national average.
Still clinging to your ridiculous claim?
Edited on 31-01-2018 05:10
31-01-2018 05:29
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]GasGuzzler wrote: Still above the national average. Is there somewhere with more roads and cars?
Still want to hang on to your ridiculous claim?
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener (plus 1) gazzzed & guzzzling" tries to make tailpipe pollution, the perfect pure proposition.
http://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-air/outdoor/air-pollution/highways.html
31-01-2018 05:36
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener (plus 1) gazzzed & guzzzling" gushed:......Seattle has the highest per capita car ownership in the US. Even with their high depression rate due to the constant clouds/fog, they still sport a life expectancy 1 year above the national average.
Seattle was top of the list for free mass transit federal funds back in the early 70's. Seattle citizens turned it down & their commuter traffic has been a nightmare ever since. What a zoo. "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener (plus 1) gazzzed & guzzzling" would love Seattle. Instead of 95tons of CO2 & pollution particles emitted yearly, it could emit 115 tons & lots more particles.
31-01-2018 06:06
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(969)
So if living by the freeway is killing people early, why does the national life expectancy map look like this? Shouldn't it be slightly lower in highly populated areas?
Attached image:


Edited on 31-01-2018 06:17
31-01-2018 07:14
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener (plus 1) gazzzed & guzzzling" gushed: So if living by the freeway is killing people early, why does the national life expectancy map look like this?
Ah..... ya show how transplanted euros have many ways of killin' people, specially the Native Tribes. Instead of 67 years of age, the average death on the Pine Ridge Res is ~ 50 years of age.
Oh.... "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener (plus 1) gazzzed & guzzzling", ya knew dat already. Ya jes' wanted to show dat da transplanted euros could still kill Native Tribes with impunity.
Edited on 31-01-2018 07:16
31-01-2018 15:58
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Fine dumbass, Orange County, with far more shithole neighborhoods
and shitloads of cars has an 81.9 year life expectancy. Still above the national average. Is there somewhere with more roads and cars?
Still want to hang on to your ridiculous claim?


Are you still talking to that rediculous clown? Global warming is dead and buried. The science is in and the Senators and Representatives have been shown the real science. They are about to clean out the NASA projects which were founded to purposely give Obama his AGW.
31-01-2018 17:43
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(969)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Fine dumbass, Orange County, with far more shithole neighborhoods
and shitloads of cars has an 81.9 year life expectancy. Still above the national average. Is there somewhere with more roads and cars?
Still want to hang on to your ridiculous claim?


Are you still talking to that rediculous clown? Global warming is dead and buried. The science is in and the Senators and Representatives have been shown the real science. They are about to clean out the NASA projects which were founded to purposely give Obama his AGW.


Yup, I was drinking a few last night. You might say I was throwin' down some litebeer.


Anyway, final point on this...
Life expectancy is tied very tightly with income. It's no secret. Low income populations tend have unhealthy lifestyles compared to higher income neighborhoods. It has nothing to do with access to health care, it has everything to do with healthy habits. Bottom line, if you want to live a longer healthier life, change your habits. Litebeer would like to cite the short life expectancy living on the reservation, after blaming the freeway for poor health. WTF?!! Healthy living is not up to the government, it's on you!
31-01-2018 18:07
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Fine dumbass, Orange County, with far more shithole neighborhoods
and shitloads of cars has an 81.9 year life expectancy. Still above the national average. Is there somewhere with more roads and cars?
Still want to hang on to your ridiculous claim?


Are you still talking to that rediculous clown? Global warming is dead and buried. The science is in and the Senators and Representatives have been shown the real science. They are about to clean out the NASA projects which were founded to purposely give Obama his AGW.


Yup, I was drinking a few last night. You might say I was throwin' down some litebeer.


Anyway, final point on this...
Life expectancy is tied very tightly with income. It's no secret. Low income populations tend have unhealthy lifestyles compared to higher income neighborhoods. It has nothing to do with access to health care, it has everything to do with healthy habits. Bottom line, if you want to live a longer healthier life, change your habits. Litebeer would like to cite the short life expectancy living on the reservation, after blaming the freeway for poor health. WTF?!! Healthy living is not up to the government, it's on you!


Liberals HATE any good news. So much so that they will lie about it in a continuous stream of hatred.

For instance. We have lately heard that socialized medicine in England has their lifespan at about 81.6 years (the bastards will use male lifespan in the US and female lifespan in England in order to magnify the difference. Men as a rule have 3 or 4 years shorter lifespan than women.) and that AWFUL US medical system has US lifespan at 78 years.

They do not mention that the US with it's HUGE drug problem and the very large number of illegal aliens (30% of the prison population in the US are illegals) greatly reduce these statistical averages. Combine this with a staggering amount of murders in the black and Hispanic communities and the white population and lawful blacks and Hispanics have probably the highest lifespan in the world.

But if you can lie about it you can be a good little liberal Democrat. That's what they do.
Page 1 of 4123>>>





Join the debate How effective are the UK strategies to reduce global warming?(please complete survey):

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
how to reduce climate change1811-05-2018 15:43
Participate climate change survey127-02-2018 18:09
Strategies for Building More Environmentally Friendly Cities222-02-2018 00:03
Market trends now favor renewable energy as a cost-effective alternative to fossil fuels - Nov 20171902-12-2017 03:19
CLIMATE CHANGE SURVEY!!!1419-05-2017 11:46
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact