PDA

View Full Version : I hate Priuses



Wounded Ronin
2nd September 09, 09:07 PM
Just something I feel like I have to get off my chest. I really hate Priuses. My strongest hate is reserved for the 01 Prius.

I'm relatively new to driving, only having driven for around a year, but for my job I drive a Prius a lot. On some days I put 100 miles on the Prius and I drive at least 30 or 40 miles on most weekdays.

The 01 Prius was a nerve-wracking car to learn to drive in. In the first place it's expensive so it's more drama if you were to break it by accident than, say, a used Chevy Cavalier.

It also feels like it's designed to get broken by accident. It accelerates really sluggishly so it's harder to avoid people who barge into your lane, or get into fast moving traffic. When you load it up it (two people, myself, and carry on luggage on the way to the airport) it can barely move and bottoms out going over a speedbump in a parking lot. The clearance is low so you're more likely to get damaged by random garbage in the highway or street. Just today, when I was parking on a dirt shoulder, a piece of metal garbage which had been concealed by dust (we're talking Las Vegas) scraped the bottom of the Prius. I stopped as soon as I felt the scraping, which scared the shit out of me, and dug the garbage out of the dust by hand and took it out from under the car; luckily there was no fluid leakage or signs of damage but it just made me get pissed off at the low clearance.

The 01 Prius is also really not very fuel efficient. Without the air conditioning, and with a lot of coasting, I can get a fuel economy of over 40 MPG. With the air conditioning going (because the temperature outside is like 110 degrees) the fuel economy drops to around 35 MPG. At that point why the hell bother with a Prius when you could just drive a normal cheap economy car like a Chevy Cavalier or a Hyundai Accent and get similar fuel economy and a whole lot less stress?

Once I drove a later model Prius, which did accelerate faster, but which still has really low clearance, a big price tag, worse visibility out the rear windsheild, and an unconventional ignition system. The interior decor looks like it was ripped off from Star Trek: The Next Generation, so it was already like 10 years out of date.

The Prius also brakes really abruptly.

I hate that car and it causes me stress.

Boyd
2nd September 09, 11:01 PM
I own a Prius and have no problems at all with it. Have you considered it might be because you're Asian?

Wounded Ronin
2nd September 09, 11:12 PM
I own a Prius and have no problems at all with it. Have you considered it might be because you're Asian?

Damn, I didn't know I was supposed to insert my wang into the electrical outlet to make it go faster.

ignatzami
3rd September 09, 11:55 AM
Prius suck.

Environmentally a Prius is just as bad as a Hummer, if not worse over the expected life of the vehicle.

The chemical waste created to make one of the batteries that go in those things is sickening. Not to mention REALLY hard to dispose of.

Add to this the fact that Prius are impossible to work on outside of a dealer, and the parts are stupidly expensive I see no reason to buy one.

If you want a great fuel efficient car that is a freaking tank look up the Mid 90's to present VW TDI's. 45+ mpg, with a few low cost mods you can get up to 55mpg. Add to this the fact they can run on used fry oil and you have a car that will go for miles, with little maintenance and weighs over 3000lbs. TDI's are tanks, and embarass every Prius on the road.

Boyd
3rd September 09, 12:57 PM
I absolutely love the people who hate Priuses because every time you ask them to name a more environmentally friendly car they always refer you back to some discontinued Lithuanian 1.5 door sedan from 1987 that runs on things you find in McDonald's dumpsters and requires several visits to Christopher Lloyd's garage to be remotely drivable.

Neildo
3rd September 09, 01:36 PM
dKTOyiKLARk

Tom Kagan
3rd September 09, 03:18 PM
Prius suck.

Environmentally a Prius is just as bad as a Hummer, if not worse over the expected life of the vehicle.


This is only true if you do not count CO2 as a pollutant.


With that said, there is very little to like in a Prius beyond the stretching of technology and people willing to pay to help advance it.

Scrapper
3rd September 09, 05:19 PM
CO2 is not much of a pollutant, and most Prius' never see their advertised fuel economy.

THe batteries use a lot of cobalt, which is mostly mined in central Africa, and is controlled by heinous warlords who have to placated before we can get it.

It's oil all over again.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
3rd September 09, 05:24 PM
I DRIVE A DOLPHIN CAR

Arhetton
3rd September 09, 11:46 PM
generally the two things that impact fuel economy the most are:

1) weight of the vehicle
2) aerodynamic profile of the vehicle

there are many many technological solutions to lightening vehicles, and they are on the way. vehicles could easily be half the weight they are now.

Aerodynamics can be improved somewhat, I think the biggest change consumers will see is car door mirrors disappearing in place of internal cameras.

Fuel isn't really the bad guy in relation to CO2 emissions - its coal. Simple ways coal consumption could be reduced - smarter grids, hybrid energy systems (solar during the day and coal at night etc).

I'm an optimist :)

I can see why priuses aren't that great.

If you want to do the environment a favour, buy a motorcycle! :)

Ajamil
4th September 09, 01:45 AM
If you want to do the environment a favour, buy a motorcycle! :)

I want to help the environment, not actually - you know - be in it and surrounded by all that non-controlled climate. I'll get motorcycle when they roof in the sky. Cept that'll be dark so better build it tall enough to have the sun in there too.

bob
4th September 09, 04:17 AM
If you want to do the environment a favour, buy a motorcycle! :)

Or not -

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/highway1/la-hy-throttle11-2008jun11,0,1076364.story

danno
5th September 09, 08:14 AM
ok, i'm pretty convinced the prius is a shit car now.

Cullion
5th September 09, 09:06 AM
Get a horse.

Ajamil
5th September 09, 11:25 AM
We should all go back to walking. World needs to slow down anyway.

Vieux Normand
5th September 09, 01:15 PM
We should all go back to walking. World needs to slow down anyway.

That way, you can tell people:

"I've got two vehicles. One is my left boot.

I'll give you one guess as to what the other one is.

Ten guesses if you're an American."

Ajamil
5th September 09, 01:19 PM
Everywhere in within walking distance if you have the time.
-Steven Wright

Tonuzaba
5th September 09, 04:17 PM
You guys would hate Prius twice as much as you do over here where I live - they cost exactly twice as in the States...

Also, what about Tesla?

danno
5th September 09, 05:20 PM
from what i understand, the tesla cars are excellent but unreliable. wait a few years for them to stop their stuff from breaking down. i'm hoping to buy one within the decade.

7x73Z6ndtjE

Ajamil
5th September 09, 09:43 PM
Of course they're none of those things. What they are is funny.

Ajamil
5th September 09, 09:44 PM
"I didn't say this."

- Terry Gilliam

Big Dozer
28th June 10, 07:07 PM
This is only true if you do not count CO2 as a pollutant.


With that said, there is very little to like in a Prius beyond the stretching of technology and people willing to pay to help advance it.

If you think CO2 is a pollutant then youre stupid. If you think CO2 is a pollutant then I wonder how you passed your high school science class. Now the BAR (Bureau of Automotive Repair) and the SAE (Society of Automotive Repairs) test for 5 gases. The gases are CO2, HC, CO, NOx and O2. But ONLY HC, CO and NOx are fail gases. Now the two things we WANT coming out of the tail pipe is H2O and CO2. When this happens, this is called PERFECT combustion. Also, smog gases ARE NOT the same thing as green house gases.

Now if you bought a Prius because you want good fuel economy. OK, I wont give you too much crap. It does what you bought it for. But if you bought it for the the environment, then youre a moron. You are acually harming the environment and putting yourself in unnecessary danger.

Now if you want to drive grean, doesnt mean you need to be a dipshit and buy a hybrid. Go diesel. Vegitable oil and biodiesel are pretty fucking awesome. With vegetable oil your you will be spending around 50 cents a gallon and your car will smell like french fries! For biodiesel, hell did you know they can make that our of unused old car parts? Thats a fact. So you are burning cleaner and youre cleaning up landfills.

danno
28th June 10, 08:10 PM
sorry dozer, pretty sure CO2 is classified as air pollution.

the problem with biodiesel is that a very large amount of land would be required to create enough to replace oil as a source of fuel. in the meantime it's a good way to supplement our fuel requirements though.

Big Dozer
28th June 10, 08:44 PM
Not as far as the BAR and SAE are concerned CO2 is not viewed as a pollutant. Biodiesel can be made in many ways. I do not see it as a permanent solution, but its better than a hybrid.

Here is a fun FACT. Upon being bored and fresh off of lunch from Taco Bell I decided to fart on a 5 gas analyzer. COs went through the roof. Burping produces high HCs. A lot more than the average car. So if you are a hippie fag and fart you should kill yourself.

Back to CO2. CO2 is a trace gas. Which means its less than 1% of the air we breath. For those of you who payed attention in high school, the air we breath is 78% NO2, 21% O2 and 1% Traces Gases. Now I may not have this correct, but ifI recall CO2 makes of 0.0035% of Trace Gases. There is CO2 in food, drinks,in the ocean.I do not deny that you can get CO2 Poisoning, but I know of more people who have died due to hybrids(Which are responsible for hundreds of deaths) than I have heard of CO2 poisoning. Also, trees need C)2 to breath, it is a key part of photosynthesis. So in fact if you want all CO2 gone you are killing trees. Just like we do in our metabolism process. We all need CO2 to live and function. So, if you think CO2 is the black death, some man made pollutant you are a MORON.

danno
28th June 10, 08:55 PM
your definition of a pollutant is anything that directly poisons human beings?

as for hybrids, i was excited about them at first, but i've been pretty disappointed with them so far, especially what i hear about the prius.

Big Dozer
28th June 10, 09:05 PM
I see your point and it is a good one. I will admit if at its extreme it can be a pollutant. But at of all the air out there trace gases makes up 1% of that and CO2 is 0.0035% of trace gases. You can get poisoning from it, if you breath nothing else. You can also die from drinking to much water. I myself drink 3 liters a day. Does that make H2O a pollutant? There are chemicals and gases in those Hybrid batteries that are 20 times more dangerous than CO2. So you cant put a hose on your Prius tail pipe and commit suicide(Even though one idiot tried, totally lol) but you can crack that battery and die or take a grip of that pretty orange cable.

danno
28th June 10, 09:57 PM
what i understand is that it depends on the context. water can be a pollutant if you put it into a system which is harmed by it.

i know what you're saying, and you're totally correct that CO2 is truly one of the safest things you can put in the air. we've been putting gigatons of it into the air each year for generations without much change. the carbon cycle is vital to life on earth and has been here since the start. it's always been circulating through the biosphere, atmosphere, oceans.

CO2 becomes a pollutant when this balance is disrupted and climate change happens, causing harm. we've seen a little bit of warming, but little harm has been caused so far. more warming is expected to occur over the next few hundred years though, which might not be good.

if you believe that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, it cannot cause warming, or that the warming will not cause any harm, then from your perspective, CO2 may not be a pollutant.

Big Dozer
29th June 10, 12:33 AM
Scroll up Danno, I said CO2 is not a SMOG pollutant. I also said the fact that smog gases and green house gases are two different things. Lets review the math. NO2=78%, O2=21%, Trace Gases=1%. CO2 makes up 0.0035% of Trace Gases. We have all these natural sources of CO2. We have swamps, the ocean(which is REALLY fucking huge) volcanoes, geysers, animals...etc. Now of that 0.0035% which is just a VERY small part of 1% of what is in the atmosphere, out of all that CO2 being produced out there how much of that itty bitty microscopic percentage is caused by machines? This is significantly saying that you have a $100,000,000,000(One hundred billion dollars) and every year you notice that somebody steals from you 0.001 from you. Then you say "OH MY GOD! I WILL BE BROKE WITH IN A DECADE!" Also, if you want to speak warmth. Then lets talk about how we have had globally some of the coldest winters these past years in history?

As for global warming, I do not believe its real. Global warming to me has just been one big scam to make money. If you dont believe me, watch episode of Bullshit on global warming. Oh and one thing I will post on here is the VIR from my last smog inspection. With the proper tuning and know how, any vehicle can run clean.

danno
29th June 10, 12:48 AM
Scroll up Danno, I said CO2 is not a SMOG pollutant. I also said the fact that smog gases and green house gases are two different things. Lets review the math. NO2=78%, O2=21%, Trace Gases=1%. CO2 makes up 0.0035% of Trace Gases. We have all these natural sources of CO2. We have swamps, the ocean(which is REALLY fucking huge) volcanoes, geysers, animals...etc. Now of that 0.0035% which is just a VERY small part of 1% of what is in the atmosphere, out of all that CO2 being produced out there how much of that itty bitty microscopic percentage is caused by machines? This is significantly saying that you have a $100,000,000,000(One hundred billion dollars) and every year you notice that somebody steals from you 0.001 from you. Then you say "OH MY GOD! I WILL BE BROKE WITH IN A DECADE!" Also, if you want to speak warmth. Then lets talk about how we have had globally some of the coldest winters these past years in history?

you're not telling me anything i don't already know. climate doesn't quite work the way you think it does. it might seem like a drop in the ocean to you, but there's good evidence to suggest that what might seem like a proportionally insignificant change is actually quite significant.

what you've posted is an old, dead argument.

the scientific consensus is that the increase in CO2 over the next century should create about 1 degree Celsius of warming, and positive feedbacks caused by this could possibly create more warming.


As for global warming, I do not believe its real. Global warming to me has just been one big scam to make money. If you dont believe me, watch episode of Bullshit on global warming. Oh and one thing I will post on here is the VIR from my last smog inspection. With the proper tuning and know how, any vehicle can run clean.

i've seen that episode. they didn't really have a good idea of where climate science is at.

there have been other lengthy threads about this stuff, one of which is still in progress. look for "a thread for climate change skepticism"

Big Dozer
29th June 10, 11:09 AM
Google "Climate Gate" the majority of that scientific evidence is false. All about money. If CO2 is the cause for climate change than explain the ice age? Is that all because of dinosaur farts? The earth cools and heats up naturally. I am sorry bro, but you have been had. Conned like millions of others.

You have no counter argument. Yes my side is very old. But I will still continue to state it because you can not prove I am wrong.

Keith
29th June 10, 06:44 PM
You have no counter argument. Yes my side is very old. But I will still continue to state it because you can not prove I am wrong.

Nor can you prove that you are right.

danno
29th June 10, 08:18 PM
Google "Climate Gate" the majority of that scientific evidence is false. All about money.

there have been a couple of independant investigations which found that the CRU people were not misleading anyone in regards to the science, and that their results were honest.

there were other criticisms made in the reports, but nothing to do with the actual science, apart from recommending they consult more statisticians or something.

none of this has undermined the scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming.

cullion has made a big ballyhoo about those emails but i've seen absolutely nothing to suggest that global warming is a big scam.


If CO2 is the cause for climate change than explain the ice age? Is that all because of dinosaur farts? The earth cools and heats up naturally. I am sorry bro, but you have been had. Conned like millions of others.

yep, your understanding of climate science is very poor. you've got your ideas arse about face. that's normal though, most people are like this. it's very, very complicated and there is much misinformation out there.

i've spent the time to do some research, read climate science text books, even contacted quite a few climate scientists and marine biologists from all over the world to ask their opinion. their replies have all been consistent.

the opinions of the deniers, however, are NOT consistent. each one you ask has a different theory. in the science world, they're the outliers, the minority.

you, i'm afraid, are the one being conned.


You have no counter argument. Yes my side is very old. But I will still continue to state it because you can not prove I am wrong.

i won't take this discussion any further. if you like, jump in to the other thread i mentioned above. i haven't posted in there for a while as i began wasting a lot of time in it, but i'll be back there one day.

Tonuzaba
30th June 10, 03:31 AM
...you can not prove I am wrong.
Even if you would be right, your approach is not scientific nor wise - being 100% sure WITHOUT allowing factual information to influence your opinion is... ...let's just say mentally rigid.

Kein Haar
30th June 10, 05:20 AM
Shut up, dirty Slovak.

Tonuzaba
1st July 10, 10:47 AM
Shut up, dirty Slovak.This has surely got something to do with South Africa... Therefore I retaliate with this randomly googled picture, quite accurately representing my view regarding sports in which grown up men chase after things that cannot be eaten nor f*cked... :-)
http://www.whohill.net/images/OMonkeyFuckingFootball.JPG

KO'd N DOA
1st July 10, 12:25 PM
What I don't get, is that the arrogance that if you own a Prius, than that fills your moral contribution to our species and the planet, enough apparently to preclude you from driving with a shred of respect to those who share the road with you.

Big Dozer
1st July 10, 01:54 PM
Nor can you prove that you are right.

And this is what it boils down to. You can not prove or disprove Global warming. So, I will just make one last closing argument.

Of the billions of billions of air molecules out there, 78% of that is NO2, 21% of that is O2 and 1% is Trace Gases. CO2 makes up 0.0035% of Trace Gases. How much of that do think is made by cars? IF CO2 is causing global warming we are not even talking about a drop in the bucket, we are talking a drop in an aquarium at Sea World. Now, you claim this is caused heat to go up, yet we have had some of the coldest years as of late in history. Explain that.

Now Danno, I have studied this. If any of my facts listed are false as you so claim, please tell me which are wrong and provide me with proof of correction. I would love to learn something new.

On the smug hybrid owners(Watch the South Park episode, it pwns) I actually saw a bumper sticker that read "Draft all SUV drivers if they want the oil so bad"... Seriously, go fuck yourself. If you any of you can go to Berkley, Davis, Portland and parts of San Fransisco. You will see Hybrids with the entire back of it covered with stickers that say stuff like: "Bush is a Baby Killer", "Stop Oil Wars", "Voldemort is a Republican"...etc. I remember when bumper stickers were about your kid being an honor student or a funny saying. No its about political douchebaggery.

Ajamil
1st July 10, 04:31 PM
It's like Cullion took over Dozer's account and removed the highbrow type and repeated calling for accurate models.

And LOL at the bumperstickers on hybrids. I remember the first Prius commercial. It showed an old hippie van covered in bumper sticker, and the voiceover said, "You can show your feelings about the environment ON your car..." Then the Prius drove up in front of the VW van, "...or you can show it WITH your car."

Guess the assholes have decided that just having the most pretentious car on the road wasn't enough.

Big Dozer
1st July 10, 05:31 PM
Whats worse is the ones who go around and put those fake tickets on your car for "environment violations" I havent gotten one on my SUV or truck yet, but two of my friends have. Those guys need to get a fucking life. I cant believe somebody has the time to go around putting fake tickets on windshields. The funny thing is that my Explorer has lower emissions than my roommates Accord. lol (Got the VIR's to prove it)

When I saw the "Voldemort is a Republican" I couldnt help but think to myself "This guy's high school bully has let us all down."

danno
1st July 10, 08:21 PM
And this is what it boils down to. You can not prove or disprove Global warming.

it doesn't quite work that way. a lot of things aren't "proven" science, there are various levels of certainty. anyone who tells you there will certainly be catastrophic warming or certainly no warming at all is talking out of their arse.

taking action on climate change is about risk management, not certainties. and i'm personally not sure what action to take, if any, so don't think i'm calling for cars to be banned or something.

but at the end of the day, according to the best science we've done so far, the earth should warm at least a little, continuing the trend it is already following. there's no good reason to think it won't.


Now Danno, I have studied this. If any of my facts listed are false as you so claim, please tell me which are wrong and provide me with proof of correction. I would love to learn something new.

i've replied to those "facts" many times in the past and i couldn't be bothered. you've probably been going over a few denialist websites like cullion does. you should check that stuff against respected work, scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals.

or just go check out realclimate.org. it's written by actual climate scientists. go to the "start here" section.

but if you're anything like cullion, you'll think there's some kind of international conspiracy amongst scientists to manufacture a fake warming story.

Big Dozer
1st July 10, 08:55 PM
Actually these facts straight out of the official CACC books, SAE books and BAR books. I am a mechanic after all. I know a thing or two about gases coming from a car...

danno
1st July 10, 09:06 PM
i'm not saying you're dumb or don't know a lot about cars and the gases they produce, i'm saying you don't know enough about climate science to just decide that there definitely won't be any warming over the next few hundred years.

Big Dozer
1st July 10, 10:07 PM
i'm not saying you're dumb or don't know a lot about cars and the gases they produce, i'm saying you don't know enough about climate science to just decide that there definitely won't be any warming over the next few hundred years.

AH HA! There it is. This is just bad communication. I do believe that this might cause a small increase in warmth over hundreds of years(Lots of hundreds). That was my pretty much my point. It just seems that there is WAY to much hype and hysteria behind global warming. OK internal combustion engine came about major usage in 1836(I know I am somewhere in the ballpark with that year) So we have around 200 years and we are dealing with such a very small amount. But the way people are acting its like they think we will wake up one morning soaking wet, a one eyed ghost of Dennis Hopper is gonna send Jack Black in a plain trying to kill us and our only hope is to help a webfooted Kevin Costner protect the chick Napoleon Dynamite, who has a tattoo that is actually a map that will lead us back to land. (Damn I hope somebody gets that reference)

Scrapper
1st July 10, 10:21 PM
I make an insane amount of money off global warming every year, no joke.

I am an energy auditor, professionally for the largest engineering firm in the world. I promise you, there is more money to be made in the catastrophe of global warming than there is in serious scientific research on the matter.

Grant money is often contingent upon reinforcing the most profitable and alarmist consensus. Real "Climate confusion" for how it works.

Big Dozer
2nd July 10, 12:41 AM
You can actually get a degree in Energy Management. Which is pretty much you are an expert in using solar panels and those special windows and what not. For those who havent watch the BS episode on Global Warming. Although they admit you can not prove or disprove. Global Warming is a cash cow.

I dont know if I profit from it or not. I profit from smog(will once I become licensed as a smog tech) but you dont smog Hybrids. Back on the other hand though, they do keep tightening the reigns on other cars which gives me more work. So, I guess its a win some loose some.

Oh and I think the gas guzzler tax is total bullshit! FUCK YOU IF YOU THINK THAT IS A FAIR TAX! Thats a class separator if I have ever seen one. For one, my activities and life style demand a larger vehicle. Also, I am 6'6. I dont fit in the majority of vehicles(To be honest I cant fit in new GM trucks either, which is an injustice for another time) So youre going to tax me because I need a car that I can fit in comfortably and safely, do well in the snow and I can go camping in.

danno
2nd July 10, 03:12 AM
AH HA! There it is. This is just bad communication. I do believe that this might cause a small increase in warmth over hundreds of years(Lots of hundreds). That was my pretty much my point. It just seems that there is WAY to much hype and hysteria behind global warming. OK internal combustion engine came about major usage in 1836(I know I am somewhere in the ballpark with that year) So we have around 200 years and we are dealing with such a very small amount. But the way people are acting its like they think we will wake up one morning soaking wet, a one eyed ghost of Dennis Hopper is gonna send Jack Black in a plain trying to kill us and our only hope is to help a webfooted Kevin Costner protect the chick Napoleon Dynamite, who has a tattoo that is actually a map that will lead us back to land. (Damn I hope somebody gets that reference)

this is the straw man created by people who don't understand what current research actually suggests. but remember, just because there are people out there spouting ridiculous stories about human extinction and so on, does not mean that global warming isn't happening.

no one is certain exactly what will happen, and that is part of the problem. what appears to be most likely is about 2 or 3 degrees of warming. that should be enough to cause some economic problems for a few countries and make some animals go extinct. it's certainly not the end of the world, and we'll adapt to it.

it could be worse than that. and it could turn out better, with temps remaining roughly the same. so like i said before, what we do from here on is about risk management.

one other thing - 2 or 3 degrees average temp change might not sound like enough to harm anything. but it's estimated that 10 degrees average global temp is the difference between a glaciated earth and an ice free earth. if we were to see upwards of 6 degrees warming we might be in a lot more trouble.

on the other hand, no one can prove that there won't be 6 degrees of warming. it's mostly thought that this is pretty unlikely, but it makes some people freak out a little.

danno
2nd July 10, 03:17 AM
I make an insane amount of money off global warming every year, no joke.

I am an energy auditor, professionally for the largest engineering firm in the world. I promise you, there is more money to be made in the catastrophe of global warming than there is in serious scientific research on the matter.

Grant money is often contingent upon reinforcing the most profitable and alarmist consensus. Real "Climate confusion" for how it works.

believe me, there is a lot of serious research going on right now.

as far as grant money goes, there is actually quite of lot of money to be made in warming denial. i'd think that there are more companies who have something to lose than something to gain from potential warming.

but none of this undermines the scientific consensus on AGW. unless you believe in a global conspiracy amongst scientists, in which case i wouldn't trust any research any scientist does.

Big Dozer
3rd July 10, 01:43 AM
Oil companies.Thats one. But there are thousands of eco-Therapists, eco-credit companies and all these other businesses built ONLY on global warming. If you prove global warming is true. The oil companies will still be in business. You see you can have a zero emissions vehicle that still requires oil. I am not trying to be a dick here, but dude this is my area. Oil is much much more.

Also, I found out that we only make up 3% of CO2. Thats with all the factories, cars and using electricity. So once more here is some math for you:

What we breath=78% NO2 + 21% O2 + 1% Trace Gases
CO2 makes up 0.0035% of trace gases and all of humanity produces 3% of that. If CO2 is this death gas, then we all need to shoot ourselves in the head. It is an ABSOLUTE FACT that farts bring out higher CO2s than the average car. So if you think CO2 is bad and you fart, put your money where your mouth is and go kill yourself. (If you dont believe me, find a smog shop, ask them if you can fart on a 5 gas analyzer or an exhaust probe)

Here is some back up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOoVW60RJCQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb2P3X9xD6c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPvJHn1qBtQ



Also, there have been recent experiments that have shown that cow poop have insanely high amounts of CO2, which would seem plausible because if my farts have high CO2, then cow doody should be even higher.

danno
3rd July 10, 02:40 AM
don't know where the other posts went, but i suppose you read them.


Oil companies.Thats one. But there are thousands of eco-Therapists, eco-credit companies and all these other businesses built ONLY on global warming. If you prove global warming is true. The oil companies will still be in business. You see you can have a zero emissions vehicle that still requires oil. I am not trying to be a dick here, but dude this is my area. Oil is much much more.

are you serious? oil companies are kicking and screaming about this stuff. they've spent millions of dollars in advertising, research and lobbying to convince people it isn't happening.

there is a lot to lose economically by reducing fossil fuel use. it's going to be a painful process.

whilst looking into the scientists who denied warming, i also noticed they were often linked to mining companies, not just oil companies. i'm not sure exactly how and why but i assume they have something to lose too.

do you think that all the concern about AGW is simply due to hippies and companies who want to sell solar panels? the reason governments are taking notice of climate change is because scientists are telling them to, and the evidence is only growing.

besides, none of this flimsy conspiracy stuff undercuts the research which is being published by scientists.


Also, I found out that we only make up 3% of CO2. Thats with all the factories, cars and using electricity. So once more here is some math for you:

What we breath=78% NO2 + 21% O2 + 1% Trace Gases
CO2 makes up 0.0035% of trace gases and all of humanity produces 3% of that. If CO2 is this death gas, then we all need to shoot ourselves in the head. It is an ABSOLUTE FACT that farts bring out higher CO2s than the average car. So if you think CO2 is bad and you fart, put your money where your mouth is and go kill yourself. (If you dont believe me, find a smog shop, ask them if you can fart on a 5 gas analyzer or an exhaust probe)

Here is some back up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOoVW60RJCQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb2P3X9xD6c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPvJHn1qBtQ

Also, there have been recent experiments that have shown that cow poop have insanely high amounts of CO2, which would seem plausible because if my farts have high CO2, then cow doody should be even higher.

this is not new information to me. more than 95% of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is natural.

this is what i mean when i say you have a very poor understanding of climate science. you actually think this means CO2 will have no effect on climate.

please understand that climate scientists already know this stuff too. in fact they're the ones who worked it out. and they say that on it's own, CO2 will cause about 1 degree celcius of warming over the next century. this part is not controversial or hotly debated amongst scientists. apparently it's pretty easy to work out that part. the climate feedbacks are much more troublesome to predict.

also, penn and teller are extremely poor sources to choose in a discussion like this.

danno
3rd July 10, 02:53 AM
you need to do some research. i recommend you start reading the wikipedia articles about carbon dioxide, the greenhouse effect, the carbon cycle and global warming.

EDIT - just thought i'd quickly look up one of the scientists i was talking about.

ian plimer is an australian geologist who denies that AGW exists, and has published around 60 academic papers and 6 books. the more recent being Heaven and Earth — Global Warming: The Missing Science , which has sold pretty well. i walked into a book store the other day and saw a pile of about 20 copies ready for sale.

his work has had direct political influence. the current opposition leader and potential future prime minister of australia believes him to be a credible source on information about climate change.

it also happens that ian plimer is the director of 3 mining companies: Ivanhoe, CBH Resources and Kefi Minerals.

he proposes that taking action on climate change, such as setting in place a carbon trading scheme, would decimate the local mining industry.

so, you can add those 3 companies to the list of those who have something to gain from covering up global warming.

also, i'm annoyed that our other posts have disappeared...

Big Dozer
3rd July 10, 11:02 AM
I have read those and as Penn and Teller say: BULLSHIT! We are talking about a drap in the Sea World aquarium. This is simple math. I admit there is a chance that CO2 will effect the climate, but thst would take millions of years. Cars have only been around a few hundred years and like I said my farts produce more CO2 then my car. So if you are that concerned about CO2, go kill a bunch of people and then yourself. There are more people than cars. Oh and cow poop produces higher CO2.

All I was saying is that those eco companies would loose A LOT more than the oil companies. The Eco companies were made only because of global warming, if it doesnt exist they wont exist. If global warming is proven, oil companies will take a hit, but will still survive.

Posts disapeared all over the place last night.

danno
3rd July 10, 11:34 AM
I have read those and as Penn and Teller say: BULLSHIT! We are talking about a drap in the Sea World aquarium. This is simple math. I admit there is a chance that CO2 will effect the climate, but thst would take millions of years. Cars have only been around a few hundred years and like I said my farts produce more CO2 then my car. So if you are that concerned about CO2, go kill a bunch of people and then yourself. There are more people than cars. Oh and cow poop produces higher CO2.

this is not simple math, this is climate science which is extremely complicated.

all the greenhouse gases combined only make up a small fraction of the atmosphere, yet they cause the surface of the earth to be about 33 degrees celcius warmer than it would be otherwise. this naive idea you have that "small" percentages mean no significance is completely wrong. climate does not work the way you think it does.

and are you actually claiming that human farts add more CO2 to the atmosphere than fossil fuel emissions? are you insane?

you say you have read things... i don't know what you're reading, but it's not been very helpful.


All I was saying is that those eco companies would loose A LOT more than the oil companies. The Eco companies were made only because of global warming, if it doesnt exist they wont exist. If global warming is proven, oil companies will take a hit, but will still survive.

yeah, oil companies are already taking a hit, and they want to minimise that.

"eco companies" are relatively small and few, getting rid of them wouldn't ruin our economies - getting rid of oil companies would. they are much, much more important.

but really, i'm not so interested in this side of things at the moment. what concerns me is the amount of misinformation the public has been fed regarding even the most basic climate science.

Big Dozer
3rd July 10, 12:02 PM
Go to a smog shop, run your car on the machine then fart on it. Tell me which is higher. I have done this personally and I have been able to repeat the results every time. You sir are a gross polluter.

Oh and here is another point of that math. Cars make up such a small amount as proven. There are more animals and humans than cars. We all fart. So, considering the high amounts of CO and CO2(Keep in mind CO is a smog gas and is worse than a Green House gas) then you should nut up and start killing all the animals and humans. Also, why not go after the gran daddy CO2 producer of them all. Go after the ocean.

Also, you can not prove that CO2 is causing the rise in temperature. HC, CO and MANY other trace gases are related to heat. Once again burping causes high HC and farting causes higher CO and high CO2.

Ajamil
3rd July 10, 02:06 PM
This is surprisingly just as interesting as when Cullion was arguing the denial side. Although I'm glad this isn't on the skepticism thread.

Big Dozer
3rd July 10, 05:49 PM
Is cullion actually banned? I kinda wanna talk to the guy now lol

danno
3rd July 10, 06:38 PM
Go to a smog shop, run your car on the machine then fart on it. Tell me which is higher. I have done this personally and I have been able to repeat the results every time. You sir are a gross polluter.

you need to cite scientific research showing that human farts contribute more to global warming than cars do. otherwise you're literally talking out of your arse.


Oh and here is another point of that math. Cars make up such a small amount as proven.

you've proven absolutely nothing.


There are more animals and humans than cars. We all fart. So, considering the high amounts of CO and CO2(Keep in mind CO is a smog gas and is worse than a Green House gas) then you should nut up and start killing all the animals and humans. Also, why not go after the gran daddy CO2 producer of them all. Go after the ocean.

oh FFS...


Also, you can not prove that CO2 is causing the rise in temperature. HC, CO and MANY other trace gases are related to heat. Once again burping causes high HC and farting causes higher CO and high CO2.

there is excellent evidence that CO2 is causing a rise in temperature, and will continue to cause a rise. the warming is due to human greenhouse gas emissions and the positive feedbacks induced by this. this is the scientific consensus and these scientists are doing a lot more than farting into machines.

i'm just going to start posting walls of text here for you, since you don't seem to be learning anything by searching for yourself. please read it all.

but first, here's a pretty picture to show the origins of human GHGs:

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_CKXJVun6-C0/Sjq9SSY67CI/AAAAAAAABUo/Tgot7JpyZqQ/s800/world_greenhouse_gas_emissions_flowchart.png


CO2 climate sensitivity has a component directly due to radiative forcing by CO2 (or any other change in Earth's radiative balance), and a further contribution arising from feedbacks, positive and negative. "Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. The remaining uncertainty is due entirely to feedbacks in the system, namely, the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback" [6]; addition of these feedbacks leads to a value of approximately 3 oC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity


There is a large natural flux of CO2 into and out of the biosphere and oceans. In the pre-industrial era these fluxes were largely in balance. Currently about 57% of human-emitted CO2 is removed by the biosphere and oceans.[14] The ratio of the increase in atmospheric CO2 to emitted CO2 is known as the airborne fraction (Keeling et al., 1995); this varies for short-term averages but is typically about 45% over longer (5 year) periods.

Burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum is the leading cause of increased anthropogenic CO2; deforestation is the second major cause. In 2008, 8.67 gigatonnes of carbon (31.8 gigatonnes of CO2) were released from fossil fuels worldwide, compared to 6.14 gigatonnes in 1990.[15] In addition, land use change contributed 1.20 gigatonnes in 2008, compared to 1.64 gigatonnes in 1990.[15]

This addition, about 3% of annual natural emissions as of 1997[update], is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks.[16] As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, and as of 2008[update], its concentration is 38% above pre-industrial levels.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_CO2


The greenhouse effect is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by gases in the atmosphere are purported to warm a planet's lower atmosphere and surface. It was proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[30] The question in terms of global warming is how the strength of the presumed greenhouse effect changes when human activity increases the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 C (59 F).[31][C] The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent; and ozone (O3), which causes 3–7 percent.[32][33][34] Clouds also affect the radiation balance, but they are composed of liquid water or ice and so have different effects on radiation from water vapor.

Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide. The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since 1750.[35] These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores.[36][37][38] Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values higher than this were last seen about 20 million years ago.[39] Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. Most of the rest is due to land-use change, particularly deforestation.[40]

CO2 emissions are continuing to rise due to the burning of fossil fuels and land-use change.[41][42] Estimates of changes in future emission levels of greenhouse gases have been made, and are called "emissions scenarios." The future level of emissions will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments.[43] In most scenarios, emissions continue to rise over the century, while in a few, emissions are reduced.[44][45] These emission scenarios, combined with carbon cycle modelling, have been used to produce estimates of how atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will change in the future. Using the six IPCC SRES "marker" scenarios, models suggest that by the year 2100, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 could range between 541 and 970 ppm.[46] This is an increase of 90-250% above the concentration in the year 1750. Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach these levels and continue emissions past 2100 if coal, tar sands or methane clathrates are extensively exploited.[47]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming


By volume (rounded), the gas concentration of dry air includes 78% nitrogen (N2) and 21% oxygen (O2) with the remaining made up of gases including argon (1%), water vapor (0-1%), carbon dioxide (.04%), and other trace gases. Nitrogen and oxygen gases are transparent to both incoming solar radiation and outgoing longwave radiation from the earth's surface. Therefore, these gases do not play a role in establishing atmospheric temperature. Atmospheric temperature is influenced by gases that absorb outgoing radiation and these gases are called greenhouse gases. Although greenhouse gas concentrations appear to be small (less than one percent), their effect is certainly not.

Figure 2.1 (IPCC, 2007) shows the role that greenhouse gases play in the atmosphere. Solar radiation is primarily shortwave radiation which is transparent to greenhouse gases. Incoming solar radiation passes through these gases as if they were not present so the concentration of greenhouse gases does not directly influence incoming sunlight. The sunlight is absorbed by the Earth and atmosphere. Heat from the surface radiates up into the atmosphere in the form of infrared energy (longwave radiation). Greenhouse gases do absorb longwave radiation so the concentration of these gases is very important in determining how much energy the atmosphere absorbs. Increasing greenhouse gases causes an increase in atmospheric temperature. The greenhouse effect from natural greenhouse gas concentrations prior to the Industrial Revolution has kept the Earth's surface about 33 oC warmer than with an atmosphere with no greenhouse gases.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/greenhouse_gases.html


What is causing the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases?

Some greenhouse gases, such as CFCs, are synthetic, and so we know that their source is anthropogenic (man made). However, other greenhouse gases, such as CO2 and methane, have natural sources as well as anthropogenic ones. In fact, natural sources of these greenhouse gases are far greater than anthopogenic ones. We know, also, that levels of these natural greenhouse gases have fluctuated in the past entirely naturally. How, then, do we know that anthropogenic sources are the cause of the current increase? There are several reasons for attributing the rise in greenhouse gases to anthropogenic, rather than natural, emissions.

The first clue comes from comparing the current increase with changes that have occurred in the past (see Paleoclimate FAQ). Records from ice cores show that the current increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases is much more rapid than has occurred naturally in the past. In addition, the current concentration of GHG is far greater than at any time over the past 400,000 years, and is still rising rapidly. This strongly suggests that the cause is different to that which has caused greenhouse gases to increase in the past.

The second line of evidence comes from changes in the isotopic concentration of atmospheric carbon. Carbon consists of three main isotopes, C12 (the most common), C13 and C14. Fossil fuel is depleted in both C13 and C14. The main natural sources of carbon in the atmosphere are the ocean and the biosphere (plants and animals). However, carbon from the ocean is depleted in C14 but not C13, whereas carbon from plants and animals is depleted in C13 but not C14. By tracking changes in these isotopes, it can be shown that fossil fuels are the major source of the modern increase. For more information on this, see Robert Grumbine's carbon dioxide FAQ.

The third reason for thinking that anthropogenic sources are the main cause of the increase is to look at the full picture – absorption as well as emission. Greenhouse gases are cycled naturally - they are emitted, and then they are either absorbed or broken down (here are illustrations showing the global carbon cycle and the methane cycle). If the amount of gas emitted is equal to the amount absorbed, then the cycle is balanced, and there will no accumulation in the atmosphere. Taking the carbon cycle as an example, it's possible to add up all the sources of carbon emissions to the, and add up all the sources of absorption from the atmosphere, as follows:

Emission to the atmosphere: 191 GtC/yr natural + 8 GtC/yr manmade
Absorption from the atmosphere: 194 GtC/yr natural +0 Gt/yr manmade.
Resultant imbalance: CO2 currently increasing by ~5 GtC/yr

It can be seen that, if there were no manmade sources, absorption would be greater than emission, and so atmospheric levels of carbon would actually decrease. This is a surprising result, and it is caused by the fact that increasing temperatures have resulted in increased plant growth (see A Greener Greenhouse). The increase absorption, however, is not great enough to offset the increased emissions from human activity, and so CO2 continues to accumulate (see also Will increased plant growth absorb the excess CO2?).

Fossil fuel, however, is not the only source of the increase in CO2 and methane. Changes in land use also have made a significant proportion of the increase in atmospheric CO2 - around a quarter of the total in 1990, for example. Major sources of methane include rice paddies, livestock, and landfill sites (see methane cycle and Robert Grumbine's methane FAQ).

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/causes.htm

Big Dozer
3rd July 10, 07:33 PM
There is scientific proof. Buy a 5 gas analyzer or go to a smog shop. I have farted on these things quite a few times and there is proof that cows do. So shoot yourself and kill some cows. For the last three months I have donw nothing, but study the emissions cars make. 10 hours a day 6 days a week. This is what I do. Now, we are at an impass. We have each presented valid sources proving our sides. I have BS and me and friends farting on smog machines. You have yours. But you still didnt answer why youre going after a very small producer? Grow a pair and go after the ocean. Drain it.

danno
3rd July 10, 07:47 PM
go after the ocean? do you realise that it absorbs more carbon than it releases?

do you consider yourself a climatologist because you fart into machines?

you have no valid sources, you have no proof of anything.

please read what i posted above.

Big Dozer
3rd July 10, 07:55 PM
I did, I posted the episode of Bullshit that contradicts the majority of what you say. So I am calling bullshit on your post :P I am not a climatologist, are you? but I am certified to work such machines and interpret the data properly. What certification do you have on the subject?

danno
3rd July 10, 08:06 PM
no no no, you're posting your own research here as evidence. i'm merely reporting what the scientific consensus appears to be. you're not a scientist, don't act like your farts into a smog machine matter.

what i posted before should show you that penn and teller have no idea on the subject.

but if you find videos on youtube to be compelling evidence, fine. watch a few created by this guy. he's not a scientist, but he's well read on the subject and presents it in a way that non-scientists understand. there is some emotional bias here and there, but he cites his sources and is much, much more informed than penn and teller.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

Ajamil
3rd July 10, 11:04 PM
Is your farting taking into account the amount of time running? Do you actually have data showing a five second fart (that'd be a long fart) emits more gas than an hour's worth of car exhaust?

Big Dozer
4th July 10, 12:27 AM
Well my fart findings were done in a few different tests. 1, a fart. We repeated this 4 times, the next we constructed a jar and farted in it. The car has a special sealed lid for the tail pipe probe. We repeated this 4 times. After the tests the results were clear. 1. We have way to much time on our hands and 2. The human fart carries higher emissions than an average automobile. Why arent you bastards going after Taco Bell? Theyre the real criminals here.

danno
4th July 10, 02:35 AM
Is your farting taking into account the amount of time running? Do you actually have data showing a five second fart (that'd be a long fart) emits more gas than an hour's worth of car exhaust?

there's also the carbon cycle to take into account. we eat food which takes carbon from the air to grow. when we ingest it, we're just putting that carbon through another part of the cycle, and possibly putting even more of it away as solid waste than in flatus released into the air. in the least that should mean a net balance.

carbon taken from the ground and put it into the air means more CO2 than can be put away naturally, which creates a surplus of greenhouse gas.

Tonuzaba
4th July 10, 03:40 AM
Where is the link to Youtube, regarding the fart tests? That could be the next big hit...

Ajamil
4th July 10, 08:35 AM
That's terrible documentation, Dozer. And I'm hoping that the documentation is the reason for the bad write-up.

So you farted on a probe vs....what exactly?

And how many farts in the jar? How long did you run the car?

Look I'm sure you know more than me about this procedure (the car thing, although the farts too). Put it in workspeak and I bet the scientific rigor will be built in.

Big Dozer
4th July 10, 09:46 AM
A TSI only takes a short while to run. It would be shorter if I did it improperly though. Skip visual inspection and what not. But if yourse asking about if it was warmed up then yes. If the car wasnt warmed up there is a chance it would be higher than the fart jar.

OK Danno, since you are so caught up on titles and who is what, my roommate is a scientist. Masters in biology. I will have him come with me and verify the results. Also, you will be blamed because I will now continually be calling him "MISTER SCIENTIST"


Oh and the Ocean eats CO2? Then why the fuck are you trying to take his food away? The ocean is fucking HUGE! He needs a lot to eat. So here I am trying to feed the dude that covers the earth and then you come along and turn him into Paris Hilton...Thought Australians were supposed o like the water?


P.S. Seriously, nobody got the Waterworld reference?:(

danno
4th July 10, 09:52 PM
1. you're not a climate scientist

2. your friend isn't a climate scientist

3. i've explained why your results are meaningless, but i'll explain it again when i get a minute

4. it's easy to find the chemical composition of farts and car exhaust on the internet

5. but do it anyway

6. at least you're keeping a sense of humour

by the way, my girlfriend is just about to complete a medical science degree, and is applying to begin medicine to become a doctor. despite studying molecular biology, chemistry, physics, statistics and so on, she admits that she knows very little about climate science. just being a scientist doesn't make you an expert on every other field.

Big Dozer
5th July 10, 01:39 AM
1. you're not a climate scientist

2. your friend isn't a climate scientist

3. i've explained why your results are meaningless, but i'll explain it again when i get a minute

4. it's easy to find the chemical composition of farts and car exhaust on the internet

5. but do it anyway

6. at least you're keeping a sense of humour

by the way, my girlfriend is just about to complete a medical science degree, and is applying to begin medicine to become a doctor. despite studying molecular biology, chemistry, physics, statistics and so on, she admits that she knows very little about climate science. just being a scientist doesn't make you an expert on every other field.

Listen here mister pister, youre the one who were all about talking to a scientist. You didnt say what kind of scientist. I do have 2 degrees though. One in Business and one in Automotive Technology. My fart findings are not found on the internet. I mainly use them to argue with because it makes me giggle that myself and some friends and I actually took the time to research this. For the past few pages I have pretty much been joking about. I mean everything on my side has been said very well and in a humorous fashion on Bullshit. Oh and kudos on finding a nerdy girl. Everybody wants a skank these days, but I would take a sexy librarian over a cheerleader any day.

But on a serious note. One thing sighted on your chart is use of electricity. If Electrical usage is also a big CO2 contributor then why push electric cars? Arent you just trading one for the other? If we killed gasoline cars, then there would be more electricity which if what you claim is true more CO2. Thus just wasting a bunch of time and money.

danno
5th July 10, 02:36 AM
Listen here mister pister, youre the one who were all about talking to a scientist. You didnt say what kind of scientist. I do have 2 degrees though. One in Business and one in Automotive Technology. My fart findings are not found on the internet. I mainly use them to argue with because it makes me giggle that myself and some friends and I actually took the time to research this. For the past few pages I have pretty much been joking about. I mean everything on my side has been said very well and in a humorous fashion on Bullshit. Oh and kudos on finding a nerdy girl. Everybody wants a skank these days, but I would take a sexy librarian over a cheerleader any day.

i have 2 as well. fine arts and multimedia.


But on a serious note. One thing sighted on your chart is use of electricity. If Electrical usage is also a big CO2 contributor then why push electric cars? Arent you just trading one for the other? If we killed gasoline cars, then there would be more electricity which if what you claim is true more CO2. Thus just wasting a bunch of time and money.

yes, electric cars will cause carbon to be released as long as we're using coal as our main source of electricity. however, they're still more efficient than internal combustion vehicles. an electric car will create less greenhouse gas per mile, so there's still an advantage, regardless of the energy source.

the more immediate problem is the price/scarcity of oil, and the fact that EVs are cheaper to run. they're also mechanically much simpler.

and when we use things like nuclear power, it's even better. we don't have to find as much oil or coal, and there is less CO2 released.

i'd be more worried about pollution from the batteries and whatnot. but i understand that you can recycle most of the batteries, and new methods of reducing pollution are being worked on.

Big Dozer
5th July 10, 11:33 AM
i have 2 as well. fine arts and multimedia.



yes, electric cars will cause carbon to be released as long as we're using coal as our main source of electricity. however, they're still more efficient than internal combustion vehicles. an electric car will create less greenhouse gas per mile, so there's still an advantage, regardless of the energy source.

the more immediate problem is the price/scarcity of oil, and the fact that EVs are cheaper to run. they're also mechanically much simpler.

and when we use things like nuclear power, it's even better. we don't have to find as much oil or coal, and there is less CO2 released.

i'd be more worried about pollution from the batteries and whatnot. but i understand that you can recycle most of the batteries, and new methods of reducing pollution are being worked on.

I have some agreements and disagreements.

As far as nuclear energy, I agree completely. I also agree on the pollution of the batteries(Want to whore biodiesel and vegetable oil one more time BTW)

As far as EV is simpler.That is false. That is false, that is FALSE. I have worked on electric cars, I have worked on one prius. The system in the old 1983 F-150 that I am working on as a pet project is so much much easier. I know you have been talking about titles and who is an expert in what, dude this is my area. Trust me, electric cars are more than just high powered golf carts.

What is your opinion on hydrogen cells and propane? Just curious. Also must say you seem some what level headed about this, first guy I have talked to that isnt an Al Gore drone. Its been quite enjoyable, I still disagree but its been nice.

danno
5th July 10, 08:24 PM
As far as EV is simpler.That is false. That is false, that is FALSE. I have worked on electric cars, I have worked on one prius. The system in the old 1983 F-150 that I am working on as a pet project is so much much easier. I know you have been talking about titles and who is an expert in what, dude this is my area. Trust me, electric cars are more than just high powered golf carts.

well, the prius is a hybrid. i'd expect it to be more complicated than either an EV or an internal combustion vehicle. i was only talking about fully EVs, and there aren't any mass production EVs on the roads yet, but there will be soon.

from what i can understand, the prius is a piece of shit. but my friend was talking to a taxi driver who has used one for a few years, and he said it was ultra reliable and cheap to run, so i suppose these are really the only plus points. would you agree?


What is your opinion on hydrogen cells and propane? Just curious. Also must say you seem some what level headed about this, first guy I have talked to that isnt an Al Gore drone. Its been quite enjoyable, I still disagree but its been nice.

i don't know much about the hydrogen thing, but my first impression is that it looked like a dead end. you need lots of energy to create the hydrogen, right? propane, i dunno anything about it either. depends where we get it from, how much of it there is, how efficient and polluting it is. what do you think?

about the biodiesel, i just don't see how we can grow enough plants for fuel to completely replace oil. it also means less land for growing food.

i don't see why people have to be so polar on these things. you obviously run in to a lot of hippy homos who have zero understanding of anything they preach about. maybe it's more of an american thing, where people are either right wing nazis or left wing nazis.

Big Dozer
5th July 10, 09:16 PM
You need to know more about biodiesel. You can make it MANY ways. Corn is vegetable oil, which isnt biodiesel. I would suggest you watch a series called Future Cars. Its a few hour long documentary, but you will learn some neat stuff about different fuels. Like propane and biodiesel. There is also a car that runs on air, not only does it run on air, but it cleans air as it goes. It cant go very fast, like a max of 45MPH I think. But if you were to replace cabs in smog struct cities with those it would make a big difference.

P.S.They got hippies in Canada too and I know a few British people who are the same dipshit drone way. We probably are the source though... :'(

danno
5th July 10, 09:45 PM
You need to know more about biodiesel. You can make it MANY ways. Corn is vegetable oil, which isnt biodiesel. I would suggest you watch a series called Future Cars. Its a few hour long documentary, but you will learn some neat stuff about different fuels. Like propane and biodiesel. There is also a car that runs on air, not only does it run on air, but it cleans air as it goes. It cant go very fast, like a max of 45MPH I think. But if you were to replace cabs in smog struct cities with those it would make a big difference.

i'll look into it, i haven't done much reading in the area. i've mostly looked at how the climate works and what scientists actually expect to happen.


P.S.They got hippies in Canada too and I know a few British people who are the same dipshit drone way. We probably are the source though... :'(

oh yeah, there are hippes here too. but we don't seem the have the arsehole prius driver thing. we don't have such a politcal thing about socialists vs republicans and so on either. you don't get accused of being a liberal, socialist or crazy leftie, there are different insults and prejudices. the way americans do their political talk is pretty alien to me.

Big Dozer
5th July 10, 10:15 PM
Its also because different vehicle standards. I am truly jealous at the vehicles available in other countries. Like the Ford vehicles availablein the UK.Some of those are kick ass. But I can not has :'(

Ajamil
5th July 10, 11:50 PM
You need to know more about biodiesel. You can make it MANY ways. Corn is vegetable oil, which isnt biodiesel. I would suggest you watch a series called Future Cars. Its a few hour long documentary, but you will learn some neat stuff about different fuels. Like propane and biodiesel. There is also a car that runs on air, not only does it run on air, but it cleans air as it goes. It cant go very fast, like a max of 45MPH I think. But if you were to replace cabs in smog struct cities with those it would make a big difference.
P.S.They got hippies in Canada too and I know a few British people who are the same dipshit drone way. We probably are the source though... :'(45 MPH wouldn't be a problem in a lot of places. City works, but think of global. Indian highway speed limits are 35-45 MPH, it goes much slower in populated areas. And SE Asia is where the population is about to all want cars.

Corn should be reduced in the amount of corn syrup we use for food and moved over toward producing ethanol. It'll piss people off to mess with their food, but if we need fuel, then ethanol can provide a break IF we have enough corn. And getting our fat-asses off corn syrup would be a good thing for the health of the nation and thus the health of the nation's healthcare.

Big Dozer
6th July 10, 10:03 AM
Ethanol is a dead end. Its good for racing, but other than that its worthless. Yeah the air cars coule be a big use. I would love to see all the cabs in LA be replaced with those.

I am against the banning of food by the way. I rarely eat fast food, it normally makes me sick anyways. But I think the banning of trans fats and what not is wrong. I think thats a little bit too much control the government has. I mean its not like I can give somebody second hand fat by eating next to them or become overwhelmed with mustard and become woozy while driving and hit some people. In San Jose McDonalds isnt allowed to put toys in the Happy Meals unless its a meal of apple slices. To me thats the government telling us how to raise our kids, which is just wrong unless there is abuse involved. I wouldnt let my kids eat at McDonalds to be honest but we should have a choice.

Also, I REALLY wish that you guys would get out of your head that corn is the only way. Biodiesel is not ethanol and is not vegetable oil. Oh and I know I said it before, watch Future Cars. There are so many alternative fuels out there. There is also so many ways to make biodiesel.

Ajamil
6th July 10, 10:35 AM
There's a difference between banning and stipulating what a govt. subsidy can be used for. We pay to buy corn.

Big Dozer
6th July 10, 12:46 PM
There's a difference between banning and stipulating what a govt. subsidy can be used for. We pay to buy corn.

Would you please elaborate on what you meant then? Cause there are bans on trans fats in certain places.

Ajamil
6th July 10, 02:39 PM
I meant all the money the govt. puts towards helping farmers grow corn should stipulate that this corn needs to be used for ethanol and not food substitutes like corn syrup. There shouldn't be a ban on the product, just the govt. funding of it.

Big Dozer
6th July 10, 03:49 PM
Ah I see. Thank you for explaining. But ethanol is a dead end. The ethanol plants keep closing because it takes 1.5 barrels of fuel to produce one barrel of ethanol. Also it costs more in the long run to the consumer. Yes it is cheaper at the pump, but you get worse mileage out of it. If you go to fueleconomy.gov it does the math for you. In the end you are paying about 20 cents more per gallon.

Adouglasmhor
7th July 10, 11:46 AM
Not as far as the BAR and SAE are concerned CO2 is not viewed as a pollutant. Biodiesel can be made in many ways. I do not see it as a permanent solution, but its better than a hybrid.

Here is a fun FACT. Upon being bored and fresh off of lunch from Taco Bell I decided to fart on a 5 gas analyzer. COs went through the roof. Burping produces high HCs. A lot more than the average car. So if you are a hippie fag and fart you should kill yourself.

Back to CO2. CO2 is a trace gas. Which means its less than 1% of the air we breath. For those of you who payed attention in high school, the air we breath is 78% NO2, 21% O2 and 1% Traces Gases. Now I may not have this correct, but ifI recall CO2 makes of 0.0035% of Trace Gases. There is CO2 in food, drinks,in the ocean.I do not deny that you can get CO2 Poisoning, but I know of more people who have died due to hybrids(Which are responsible for hundreds of deaths) than I have heard of CO2 poisoning. Also, trees need C)2 to breath, it is a key part of photosynthesis. So in fact if you want all CO2 gone you are killing trees. Just like we do in our metabolism process. We all need CO2 to live and function. So, if you think CO2 is the black death, some man made pollutant you are a MORON.

No it's not that is fucking mistaken. Its N as N2.

NO2 is nitric acid gas and lethal. NO2 is an intermediate in the industrial synthesis of nitric acid, millions of tons of which are produced each year. This reddish-brown toxic gas has a characteristic sharp, biting odour and is a prominent air pollutant. Nitrogen dioxide is a paramagnetic bent molecule with C2v point group symmetry.

Big Dozer
7th July 10, 01:53 PM
No it's not that is fucking retarded. Its N as N2.

NO2 is nitric acid gas and lethal. NO2 is an intermediate in the industrial synthesis of nitric acid, millions of tons of which are produced each year. This reddish-brown toxic gas has a characteristic sharp, biting odour and is a prominent air pollutant. Nitrogen dioxide is a paramagnetic bent molecule with C2v point group symmetry.

Wow, I cant believe I put that. You are right, i was thinking of N2 not NO2. Well atleast I didnt put NOx, that wouldve been a really bad fuck up. Thanks for the correction.

Adouglasmhor
7th July 10, 04:43 PM
Wow, I cant believe I put that. You are right, i was thinking of N2 not NO2. Well atleast I didnt put NOx, that wouldve been a really bad fuck up. Thanks for the correction.

K I hoped it was just a typo like that.