A green mans view of 4x4s
Discussion
I have a RR 4.4 v8 and have had it for just over three and a half years. It is a great all rounder and I realise it is a tad slushy when it comes to bends and takes an age to stop, so I drive it in an appropriate manner (very slowly). It has also saved my license from my previous lead foot antics in sports cars and is great for carting all manner of items about.
Quite simply, I bought it because I'd never had one before, I didn't want an estate but I needed a vehicle that was flexible - load lugger and also offer a very comfortable ride for a group of people.
I'm also happy to say my next vehicle is likely to be another 4x4 which is likely to be far less useful in daily life and use more fuel, but a lot more fun.
A Murcielago.....
Quite simply, I bought it because I'd never had one before, I didn't want an estate but I needed a vehicle that was flexible - load lugger and also offer a very comfortable ride for a group of people.
I'm also happy to say my next vehicle is likely to be another 4x4 which is likely to be far less useful in daily life and use more fuel, but a lot more fun.
A Murcielago.....
Edited by GameOverMan! on Monday 10th December 17:04
Listen up t
ts!
Divide and conquer using the policy of envy.
Once they've convinced you that it'd be a good idea to ban all 4x4's, they'll go for the sports car, then anything over 2L, then you'll be feckin walking or on a bus.
So... if you drive a vehicle, whatever it is, stand up for the other persons right to feckin drive what they want.. otherwise... when it comes the time for them to ban your preferred mode of transport... don't expect any support.
ts!Divide and conquer using the policy of envy.
Once they've convinced you that it'd be a good idea to ban all 4x4's, they'll go for the sports car, then anything over 2L, then you'll be feckin walking or on a bus.
So... if you drive a vehicle, whatever it is, stand up for the other persons right to feckin drive what they want.. otherwise... when it comes the time for them to ban your preferred mode of transport... don't expect any support.
turbobloke said:
RobM77 said:
Also have a look at the graph in New Scientist a few weeks ago. It showed how changing our lifestyles in various ways would cut our CO2 emissions. All is not as it's made out to be.. buying different vegetables and changing your lightbulbs has more effect than stopping driving altogether... 
True but all of those together and the rest won't make any difference to climate change, as they have no effect on solar eruptivity, solar irradiance, the tilt of the earth's axis, precession, the eccentricity of our orbit, or the solar system's motion around the galaxy's centre.
The focus on carbon dioxide is because it is a product of energy generation and capitalism requires energy to make goods and sell services. As a result carbon dioxide would be a limitless source of tax hikes and controls over trade and mobility if somebody could convince enough voters to accept the absolute nonsense that carbon dioxide is doing anything much apart from feeding trees and crops. However, due to the widespread lack of astronomy and geology education even in wealthy nations, and the general glandular guilt and gullibility of wealthy lazy sheeple who can't be bothered to look into anything beyond a soundbite or populist fashion, they have largely succeeded already.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
The basic theory pre-dates any political involvement, so you can be assured that CO2 wasn't 'chosen' as a target for these reasons.
Ironically, an education in astronomy would actually highlight that this effect is what has caused Venus to heat up to such a degree, so is proven. Astronomy would not teach whether it is man-made or not though.
Whether or not the greenhouse effect is happening on earth through man-made causes is indeed a debatable issue. As is always the case in the scientific community, there is disagreement - some scientists don't think man is to blame, and some do.
I should add that, despite being scientifically trained, taking an interest in this issue, and having read every article regarding climate change in the New Scientist and a lot of them in the Scientitic American, my best answer is that I honestly don't know!
I should re-iterate though that cars have a very small impact on CO2 emissions, and other changes in our lifestyle would have bigger differences without us actually noticing the difference.
RobM77 said:
turbobloke said:
RobM77 said:
Also have a look at the graph in New Scientist a few weeks ago. It showed how changing our lifestyles in various ways would cut our CO2 emissions. All is not as it's made out to be.. buying different vegetables and changing your lightbulbs has more effect than stopping driving altogether...
True but all of those together and the rest won't make any difference to climate change, as they have no effect on solar eruptivity, solar irradiance, the tilt of the earth's axis, precession, the eccentricity of our orbit, or the solar system's motion around the galaxy's centre.
The focus on carbon dioxide is because it is a product of energy generation and capitalism requires energy to make goods and sell services. As a result carbon dioxide would be a limitless source of tax hikes and controls over trade and mobility if somebody could convince enough voters to accept the absolute nonsense that carbon dioxide is doing anything much apart from feeding trees and crops. However, due to the widespread lack of astronomy and geology education even in wealthy nations, and the general glandular guilt and gullibility of wealthy lazy sheeple who can't be bothered to look into anything beyond a soundbite or populist fashion, they have largely succeeded already.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
The basic theory pre-dates any political involvement, so you can be assured that CO2 wasn't 'chosen' as a target for these reasons.
Ironically, an education in astronomy would actually highlight that this effect is what has caused Venus to heat up to such a degree, so is proven. Astronomy would not teach whether it is man-made or not though.
Whether or not the greenhouse effect is happening on earth through man-made causes is indeed a debatable issue. As is always the case in the scientific community, there is disagreement - some scientists don't think man is to blame, and some do.
I should add that, despite being scientifically trained, taking an interest in this issue, and having read every article regarding climate change in the New Scientist and a lot of them in the Scientitic American, my best answer is that I honestly don't know!
I should re-iterate though that cars have a very small impact on CO2 emissions, and other changes in our lifestyle would have bigger differences without us actually noticing the difference.
ban thermostats above 20 degrees
sure it will kill of some grannies
but think of the freed up housing
RobM77 said:
The focus on CO2 is because it is a greenhouse gas in the 'greenhouse effect' theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
Oh no, somebody else quoting wikipedia at me. Yes I know what the theory is, I've been studying it for decades, trouble is you and lots of others haven't, not that this is your personal fault.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
Carbon dioxide alone can't do much to the atmosphere temperature. That's obvious from both theory and observation - in the past, carbon dioxide levels have been up to eighteen times the current value, including one era when the level rose to more than ten times higher as the planet entered an ice age. Why didn't the planet melt then? Eighteen times current CO2 levels, still no heat death, and we're still here with a mere 0.039% carbon dioxide to 'worry' about.
What computer climate models do, the ones that politicians pay for and steer and believe, is include a water vapour feedback loop, which requires a modest temperature rise from carbon dioxide to evaporate more water, leading to a wetter troposphere and more warming due to water vapour. At least this takes into account the fact that, unlike the weak greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, water vapour is a more significant greenhouse gas. Unfortunately the troposphere isn't showimg any of this feedback loop in the data, and it refuses to warm up according to the theory and the (inadequate) computer models. So, clearly, we conclude that the atmosphere hasn't read wikipedia and doesn't know what it should be doing.
Or, what we actually conclude by looking at the data, is that an already warm atmosphere has more degrees of freedom than the models and modellers understand or can replicate, and it can still transfer heat energy to space efficiently rather than delay it as per the models.
RobM77 said:
The basic theory pre-dates any political involvement, so you can be assured that CO2 wasn't 'chosen' as a target for these reasons.
Think about that - it could hardly post-date political abuse, could it? There needs to be a theory for politicians to abuse.And yes I can be sure, because I see it happening, and retain the ability to judge and reason. I listen to the former leader and co-founder of Greenpeace, Dr Moore, when he says that the global warming industry and environ mentalism in general have been taken over by what he calls 'ultraleftists' who are also, again in his words, 'anti-human' and 'ecofascists'. I see and hear people like Monbiot advocate carbon credit cards to redistribute wealth and achieve the kind of society (communism) he wants, not save the planet, though he sometimes remembers to mention this. Porritt's global warming book was called Capitalism - why?
What's behind your position on this topic?
Edited by turbobloke on Monday 10th December 17:31
I posted this in another thread, but it's needed here. It shows the gulf between theory (climate models) and observation (data). The emphases are due to me.
International Journal of Climatology
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
David H. Douglass*, John R. Christy , Benjamin D. Pearson , S. Fred Singer
Keywords
climate trend + troposphere + observations
Abstract
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 Climate of the 20th Century model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs.
These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.
Received: 31 May 2007
Accepted: 11 October 2007
Time to decide if plant food gas really is a threat (and to whom) or if you've been lied to, worked over, misled, had your guilt glands tweaked, your coffers plundered, your mobility restricted and your freedoms removed - by politicians and political activists, not by genuine environmentalist.
International Journal of Climatology
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
David H. Douglass*, John R. Christy , Benjamin D. Pearson , S. Fred Singer
Keywords
climate trend + troposphere + observations
Abstract
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 Climate of the 20th Century model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs.
These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.
Received: 31 May 2007
Accepted: 11 October 2007
Time to decide if plant food gas really is a threat (and to whom) or if you've been lied to, worked over, misled, had your guilt glands tweaked, your coffers plundered, your mobility restricted and your freedoms removed - by politicians and political activists, not by genuine environmentalist.
PS
Just in case the 4x4 maths hit home with folk who are now wondering if the libdims - the party that taxes 4x4s when they're parked - have a working braincell between them, think on about new Scientist and all those pleas to switch off TVs and computers and use e-type light bulbs.
Take this to its limit and stop ALL of the UK's carbon dioxide emissions. So that's 75% of domestic and indistrial electricity gone, prepare for cold and dark, period. No mechanised transport to speak of either, so grow it and kill it or die, which you will probably do quicker than you expect anyway as there would be virtually no food transported to the shops and virtualy no medicines transported to pharmacies and hospitals. There would be a return to a localised medieval lifestyle with economic collapse and millions of deaths.
And then, to make it all even more worthwhile, we could sit in our trees and look out of our caves, with ringworm and dysentery, to watch economic growth in China make up our country's entire carbon dioxide output - in 700 days.
Just in case the 4x4 maths hit home with folk who are now wondering if the libdims - the party that taxes 4x4s when they're parked - have a working braincell between them, think on about new Scientist and all those pleas to switch off TVs and computers and use e-type light bulbs.
Take this to its limit and stop ALL of the UK's carbon dioxide emissions. So that's 75% of domestic and indistrial electricity gone, prepare for cold and dark, period. No mechanised transport to speak of either, so grow it and kill it or die, which you will probably do quicker than you expect anyway as there would be virtually no food transported to the shops and virtualy no medicines transported to pharmacies and hospitals. There would be a return to a localised medieval lifestyle with economic collapse and millions of deaths.
And then, to make it all even more worthwhile, we could sit in our trees and look out of our caves, with ringworm and dysentery, to watch economic growth in China make up our country's entire carbon dioxide output - in 700 days.
I live in the jungles of london and had a 4.6 litre range rover which did 15mpg on a good run **gasps from the hippy types**. It was great fun for a short while. In the end i realised a mondeo was infinitely better to drive, easier to park, didn't constantly need a repair, didn't make me feel like a prat, and managed 45mpg.
BUT... i am being drawn back to the free-ads! I find something so appealing about a beat up 10 year old rangie with a huge child chewing bull bar and a 4.6 badge on the boot. On all counts its wrong, even as a petrolhead i should want an XJR or M5 to burn all those gallons of fuel instead.
BUT... i am being drawn back to the free-ads! I find something so appealing about a beat up 10 year old rangie with a huge child chewing bull bar and a 4.6 badge on the boot. On all counts its wrong, even as a petrolhead i should want an XJR or M5 to burn all those gallons of fuel instead.
Edited by GEP on Monday 10th December 18:16
GEP said:
I live in the jungles of london and had a 4.6 litre range rover which did 15mpg on a good run **gasps from the hippy types**. It was great fun for a short while. In the end i realised a mondeo was infinitely better to drive, easier to park, didn't constantly need a repair, didn't make me feel like a prat, and managed 45mpg.
BUT... i am being drawn back to the free-ads! I find something so appealing about a beat up 10 year old rangie with a huge child chewing bull bar and a 4.6 badge on the boot. On all counts its wrong, even as a petrolhead i should want an XJR or M5 to burn all those gallons of fuel instead.
"if they give you lined paper, write the other way"BUT... i am being drawn back to the free-ads! I find something so appealing about a beat up 10 year old rangie with a huge child chewing bull bar and a 4.6 badge on the boot. On all counts its wrong, even as a petrolhead i should want an XJR or M5 to burn all those gallons of fuel instead.
I'm personally against people who say they're "personally against" people who drive 4*4s in situations where they're "not needed". Who the fluck are they to say "what's needed / necessary", the jumped-up little pr1cks? Maybe their car's "not necassary", maybe they drive around with empty seats, maybe the engine's "too powerful" for their "needs". But why should anyone give a cr@p and be so knowing of other's business to be in a position to comment? Drive what you want and mind your own damn business. Get real and study the science of the planet's weather patterns and don't listen to pseudo science of the political left.
Lostusernamedamn said:
I'm personally against people who say they're "personally against" people who drive 4*4s in situations where they're "not needed". Who the fluck are they to say "what's needed / necessary", the jumped-up little pr1cks? Maybe their car's "not necassary", maybe they drive around with empty seats, maybe the engine's "too powerful" for their "needs". But why should anyone give a cr@p and be so knowing of other's business to be in a position to comment? Drive what you want and mind your own damn business. Get real and study the science of the planet's weather patterns and don't listen to pseudo science of the political left.
Lord Benjamin said:
maxrider said:
Lord Benjamin said:
dhutch said:
And you look like a bit of a cock.
Daniel
And the first prize for the most sweeping statement of the day goes to...Daniel
Reading your profile, I assume that you include your Land Rover owning friends in your well informed post?
I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you have intentionally mis-read 'region' in your profile, because no one could be that stupid (or could they?)
WTF is uncal?
Pictures of "your computers" aside, I would suggest that showing a jpeg of Kitchen Block 4, your room (worth double checking, but if I close my left eye one of those posters is definitely out of alignment with the rest
) and your toilet ( "which is cleaned for you once a week" ) perhaps hints that you need to get out more. I am normally more accomodating to my my fellow PH'rs, but I am having a bad day and feel like picking on some one for a change.
Edited by Lord Benjamin on Monday 10th December 15:06
dhutch said:
Im personally am against 4*4 for the school run, for people who dont need them, and should just get a volvo or a audi estate or something.
And who the fk are you to decicde who needs one? What next? Do I need your approval before buying a new TV (I think it's too big for you), or perhaps you think my grocery shopping extravagent?I don't own a 4X4, and I probably never will, but if people want to buy them then f
king good on them I say.RobM77 said:
Gorvid said:
Why do dumb ers keep equating cars with "need"...?
I don't need a car at all. I have two V8's because I WANT to....
ers keep equating cars with "need"...?I don't need a car at all. I have two V8's because I WANT to....
I hope you haven't taken my posts the wrong way. I was merely trying to explain why people have the sort of bizarre reactions such as mentioned by the OP. Whilst I don't agree with these agressive anti-4x4 sentiments, I can understand (but not agree with!) how they've come to that conclusion. 4x4s on the road are completely pointless, but of course that doesn't mean someone shouldn't have the right to buy one for 100% road use if they want to.All Ferraris are completely pointless
Audi R8's are completely pointless
Lamborghini Mercialago's are completely pointless
Etc etc
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff