From: Adrian on
Tom Crispin <kije.remove(a)> gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

> [Snip - much twaddle]

Sorry, was it all a little inconvenient for your belief system?

OK, so if what we're emitting NOW will affect the environment for
decades, why is what we're experiencing NOW unrelated to what we emitted
decades ago, rather than now?

You can't have it both ways.

>>We KNOW that we're much "cleaner" now than we were then.

> No we are not. We are spewing ever increasing amounts of Greenhouse
> gasses into the atmosphere.

Right. We're no "cleaner" than we were in the '50s, when we used to get
thick polluted fogs in London regularly, largely caused by the widespread
burning of fossil fuels for power, heating, public transport...

Of course we're not.
From: Ian Dalziel on
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 00:03:51 +0000, (Steve Firth)

>DavidR <curedham(a)> wrote:
>> "Steve Firth" <> wrote
>> > DavidR <curedham(a)> wrote:
>> >> "Steve Firth" <> wrote
>> >> > MasonS(a) <MasonS(a)> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Look at the advert at the bottom right of this page.
>> >> >> How much would the driver of this car pay?
>> >> >> Should he be allowed on the roads having paid no VED?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > That's the car that emits less CO2 than the equivalent number of
>> >> > cyclists you mean?
>> >>
>> >> Yep, all these cars carrying 5 people all in suspended animation are
>> >> common
>> >> as muck round these parts.
>> >
>> > I see that logic still escapes the average cyclist.
>> and reality escapes Steve Firth.
>What's "real" about sticking your head in the sand as you have been?
>Still good to see you hypocritically resorting to ad hominem. Makes a
>change from tu quoque, I suppose.

Erm... Tu quoque *is* ad hominem...

Ian D
From: Keitht on
dan(a) wrote:
> Conor <conor(a)> writes:
>> In article <cb415707-1c7a-4a8d-83db-688283f71829@
>>>, MasonS(a) says...
>>> That's as dumb as saying that the molten iron in the Earth's core is
>>> the same old iron from when the Earth was formed 5 billion years ago
>>> (that's 5,000 million years) and we can therefore tap into it and pour
>>> it over the planet's surface with no harm done.
>> What do you think volcanos do?
> Quite a lot of damage, if Vesuvius is at all typical. "No harm done"
> is certainly not a claim I would have made
> -dan

Volcanoes are just frequently a side product of tectonic movement which
tends to have a bigger effect.

Apart from that volcanoes don't do much but hang about like social
security scroungers and stink like old tramps.


Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle
From: Keitht on
The Medway Handyman wrote:

> Come the day when cyclists have to pass a test, have to have a yearly safety
> check, have to display number plates, have to have insurance & obey traffic
> laws they will have the right to use the roads.

Re-test for all road users once every three years.

Think of all those jobs created, driving instructors, examiners, admin
staff etc.

But are you ready for it?

Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle
From: Keitht on
Steve Firth wrote:
> DavidR <curedham(a)> wrote:
>> The fascinating thing about the Top Gear race across London when Hammond
>> cycled and Clarkson went by boat. Clarkson turned up hot & bothered just
>> from climbing a few steps whereas Hammond still looked as fresh as a daisy.
> Youmust have seen a different version of the programme to me. Because I
> recall the version where Hammond f'ed and blinded his way aross London
> getting extremely stressed and angry. While he did this other cyclists
> in shot were seen breaking almost every traffic law going. When they got
> to Docklands Hammond was sweating like a pig, a pig being roasted in an
> oven.

You seem to take Top Gear seriously - it's not a documentary series,
it's light entertainment and heavily scripted.

Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle