local vs. organic

[Rudy Canoza]

Good article in Time magazine about buying organic vs.
buying local:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1595245,00.html

The whole issue cracks me up. It isn't as if there's
no point in considering questions like these, but the
darker side of the debate sure helps to demonstrate
there's a real nose-in-the-air snobbery among
eco-weenies. Once Wal-Mart began selling organic
foods, the eco-weenies got pissy and decided there had
to be some new way to demonstrate one's virtue in a
smarmy, sanctimonious way, so suddenly "buying local"
became the new mantra.

And then there's Al Gore and the electricity...

[Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass]

Post by Rudy Canoza
Good article in Time magazine about buying organic vs.
buying local:http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1595245,00.html
The whole issue cracks me up. It isn't as if there's
no point in considering questions like these, but the
darker side of the debate sure helps to demonstrate
there's a real nose-in-the-air snobbery among
eco-weenies. Once Wal-Mart began selling organic
foods, the eco-weenies got pissy and decided there had
to be some new way to demonstrate one's virtue in a
smarmy, sanctimonious way, so suddenly "buying local"
became the new mantra.
And then there's Al Gore and the electricity...

Shut the fuck up!

[The Caretaker]

UK ......

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by The Caretaker
UK ......

Uh...okay. And...?

[The Caretaker]

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by The Caretaker
UK ......

Uh...okay. And...?

WTF do Wal-Mart and Al Gore have to do with UK.transport?

[Doug]

Post by The Caretaker

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by The Caretaker
UK ......

Uh...okay. And...?

WTF do Wal-Mart and Al Gore have to do with UK.transport?

The fact that cars are the biggest contributer to food miles perhaps?
So, someone with a bicycle who buys organic imported food in town may
be contributing less to planetary destruction than, say, a rural 4x4
user, who almost certainly eats imported food in winter anyway. Even
if they don't, food grown in greenhouses here in winter use more
energy than food grown in warmer climes and imported.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".

[Brimstone]

Post by Doug

Post by The Caretaker

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by The Caretaker
UK ......

Uh...okay. And...?

WTF do Wal-Mart and Al Gore have to do with UK.transport?

The fact that cars are the biggest contributer to food miles perhaps?
So, someone with a bicycle who buys organic imported food in town may
be contributing less to planetary destruction than, say, a rural 4x4
user, who almost certainly eats imported food in winter anyway. Even
if they don't, food grown in greenhouses here in winter use more
energy than food grown in warmer climes and imported.

And what about food grown not in greenhouses, how much energy does that use?

[Doug]

Post by Brimstone

Post by Doug

Post by The Caretaker

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by The Caretaker
UK ......

Uh...okay. And...?

WTF do Wal-Mart and Al Gore have to do with UK.transport?

The fact that cars are the biggest contributer to food miles perhaps?
So, someone with a bicycle who buys organic imported food in town may
be contributing less to planetary destruction than, say, a rural 4x4
user, who almost certainly eats imported food in winter anyway. Even
if they don't, food grown in greenhouses here in winter use more
energy than food grown in warmer climes and imported.

And what about food grown not in greenhouses, how much energy does that use?

In winter? Such as? BTW, you have yet to own up to the fact that you
consume imported food, hypocrite. You are always on at me about
responding, why don''t you try taking ing your own advice for a
change, hypocrite?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".

[Brimstone]

Post by Doug

Post by Brimstone

Post by Doug

Post by The Caretaker

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by The Caretaker
UK ......

Uh...okay. And...?

WTF do Wal-Mart and Al Gore have to do with UK.transport?

The fact that cars are the biggest contributer to food miles perhaps?
So, someone with a bicycle who buys organic imported food in town may
be contributing less to planetary destruction than, say, a rural 4x4
user, who almost certainly eats imported food in winter anyway. Even
if they don't, food grown in greenhouses here in winter use more
energy than food grown in warmer climes and imported.

And what about food grown not in greenhouses, how much energy does that use?

In winter?

We're back to seasonal foods and your lack of understanding.

[Brian]

Post by Doug
The fact that cars are the biggest contributer to food miles perhaps?

By my count, that is now the fourth time (at least) that Doug has made
this surprising (and entirely unsupported) assertion. By the Duhg
rules of evidence, does this now make it an incontrovertible fact?

[Doug]

Post by Brian

Post by Doug
The fact that cars are the biggest contributer to food miles perhaps?

By my count, that is now the fourth time (at least) that Doug has made
this surprising (and entirely unsupported) assertion. By the Duhg
rules of evidence, does this now make it an incontrovertible fact?

Check this out, loser.

FOOD MILES
http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/foodmiles/default.asp

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Cars are the main contributer to food miles.

[Adrian]

Post by Doug

Post by Brian

Post by Doug
The fact that cars are the biggest contributer to food miles perhaps?

By my count, that is now the fourth time (at least) that Doug has
made this surprising (and entirely unsupported) assertion. By the
Duhg rules of evidence, does this now make it an incontrovertible
fact?

Check this out, loser.

This should be entertaining.

Post by Doug
FOOD MILES
http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/foodmiles/default.asp

Main report, Chapter 7 - Summary, p88

Food Transport Key Indicators (2002)
Car - 1,828 million vehicle km
HGV - 9,425 million vehicle km
Air - 27 million vehicle km

The air component is listed as only 0.1% of total vehicle km, but 12% of
CO2-equivalent emissions. It's also the most easily avoided.

Annex 3, pA4-2 gives CO2 and fuel use figures per km - Rather
unsurprisingly, each of the HGV vehicle km uses more fuel and emits more
CO2 than each of the car vehicle km.

[Clive.]

Post by Adrian
Food Transport Key Indicators (2002)
Car - 1,828 million vehicle km
HGV - 9,425 million vehicle km
Air - 27 million vehicle km
The air component is listed as only 0.1% of total vehicle km, but 12% of
CO2-equivalent emissions. It's also the most easily avoided.

I notice you leave out bus which is 3% and only 2Kg carried against 11Kg
carried by car, so 550% more efficient.

[Doug]

Post by Adrian

Post by Doug

Post by Brian

Post by Doug
The fact that cars are the biggest contributer to food miles perhaps?

By my count, that is now the fourth time (at least) that Doug has
made this surprising (and entirely unsupported) assertion. By the
Duhg rules of evidence, does this now make it an incontrovertible
fact?

Check this out, loser.

This should be entertaining.

Post by Doug
FOOD MILES
http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/foodmiles/default.asp

Main report, Chapter 7 - Summary, p88
Food Transport Key Indicators (2002)
Car - 1,828 million vehicle km
HGV - 9,425 million vehicle km
Air - 27 million vehicle km
The air component is listed as only 0.1% of total vehicle km, but 12% of
CO2-equivalent emissions. It's also the most easily avoided.
Annex 3, pA4-2 gives CO2 and fuel use figures per km - Rather
unsurprisingly, each of the HGV vehicle km uses more fuel and emits more
CO2 than each of the car vehicle km.

But the point you are choosing to ignore that cars represent 48% of
all food miles and as such are the largest contributer. It is food
miles that is being discussed here not the diversions you try to
introduce by way of a motorist's excuse. Oh yes I nearly forgot, you
do use food transported by HGVs don't you, hypocrite?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Cars are the main contributer to food miles.

[Brian]

Post by Doug
But the point you are choosing to ignore that cars represent 48% of
all food miles and as such are the largest contributer. It is food
miles that is being discussed here not the diversions you try to
introduce by way of a motorist's excuse. Oh yes I nearly forgot, you
do use food transported by HGVs don't you, hypocrite?

... and you don't?

Can I let you in on a couple of little secrets, Doug? First, a mile
travelled by car is not the same, in environmental terms, as a mile
travelled by HGV or by jumbo jet. So the term "food mile" is
meaningless of itself - the fact that cars apparently account for 48%
of food miles, whilst no doubt fascinating, is irrelevant - it is the
amount of energy used (and hence CO2 emitted) which is important, and
cars are responible for 13% of that so far as food transport goes.

Secondly, and this will evidently come as a big surprise to you, the
food you buy from Tescos in Catford is not grown and/or produced in
Catford. The Catford prairies, the green fields of Catford, whatever
you would like to call them, are not quite big enough to produce all
the food required in that area. Therefore, the food you buy has
already been transported in a big truck (at least). Fresh fruit/veg
imported from overseas gets here in a big white bird in the sky.

So you may well sit there being smug about the fact that you don't
drive your food anywhere. But the vast majority of the environmental
damage is done long before the food even hits the supermarket shelves.

[Fod]

Post by Brian
Secondly, and this will evidently come as a big surprise to you, the
food you buy from Tescos in Catford is not grown and/or produced in
Catford.

I think Doug prefers food from around the world, he likes variety in
his vegan fair...

He still thinks one really big tower block holding everyone int he uk
with a big tesco at the bottom would be the solution to everything...

Fod

[Brian]

Post by Fod

Post by Brian
Secondly, and this will evidently come as a big surprise to you, the
food you buy from Tescos in Catford is not grown and/or produced in
Catford.

I think Doug prefers food from around the world, he likes variety in
his vegan fair...
He still thinks one really big tower block holding everyone int he uk
with a big tesco at the bottom would be the solution to everything...

Yes, so long as the food is brought to that Tescos by the carbon-
neutral fairies.

[Fod]

Post by Brian

Post by Fod

Post by Brian
Secondly, and this will evidently come as a big surprise to you, the
food you buy from Tescos in Catford is not grown and/or produced in
Catford.

I think Doug prefers food from around the world, he likes variety in
his vegan fair...
He still thinks one really big tower block holding everyone int he uk
with a big tesco at the bottom would be the solution to everything...

Yes, so long as the food is brought to that Tescos by the carbon-
neutral fairies.

have you not heard? anything thats in the common ( cough doug likes
it) good is exempt from any criticism...

Fod

[Elmo]

There is an interesting story in todays NY Times about a family who lives in NY and doesn't buy any food grown more than 250 miles away. (Something about that being as far as they estimate a farmer could travel in one day and still get home by nightfall). They also don't use toilet paper.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/garden/22impact.html?pagewanted=all

[FarmI]

Post by Elmo
There is an interesting story in todays NY Times about a family who lives
in NY and doesn't buy any food grown more than 250 miles away. (Something
about that being as far as they estimate a farmer could travel in one day
and still get home by nightfall). They also don't use toilet paper.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/garden/22impact.html?pagewanted=all

Interesting article. Thanks for that Elmo.

Post by Elmo
Everything should be made as simple as possible,
but not one bit simpler.

Hmmmmm. Given this, are you thinking of trying the new Walden a la the New
York couple?

[Doug]

There is an interesting story in todays NY Times about a family who lives in NY and doesn't buy any food grown more than 250 miles away. (Something about that being as far as they estimate a farmer could travel in one day and still get home by nightfall). They also don't use toilet paper.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/garden/22impact.html?pagewanted=all

But I bet they use a car.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Cars are the main contributer to food miles.

[Fod]

Post by Doug
But I bet they use a car.

If they live in manhatten i'd be amazed if they used a car.

Fod

[Adrian]

Post by Doug

Post by Adrian
Main report, Chapter 7 - Summary, p88
Food Transport Key Indicators (2002)
Car - 1,828 million vehicle km
HGV - 9,425 million vehicle km

But the point you are choosing to ignore that cars represent 48% of
all food miles

I am, am I?

[Albert Ross]

Post by Adrian
Main report, Chapter 7 - Summary, p88
Food Transport Key Indicators (2002)
Car - 1,828 million vehicle km
HGV - 9,425 million vehicle km
Air - 27 million vehicle km
The air component is listed as only 0.1% of total vehicle km, but 12% of
CO2-equivalent emissions. It's also the most easily avoided.
Annex 3, pA4-2 gives CO2 and fuel use figures per km - Rather
unsurprisingly, each of the HGV vehicle km uses more fuel and emits more
CO2 than each of the car vehicle km.

Non sequiter.

An HGV may do 8 mpg but carries 30 tonnes, compare with a car doing 30
mpg (or even an economical car like mine doing 60 mpg) carrying less
than a hundredweight of shopping . . .

[Clive.]

Post by Albert Ross
An HGV may do 8 mpg but carries 30 tonnes, compare with a car doing 30
mpg (or even an economical car like mine doing 60 mpg) carrying less
than a hundredweight of shopping . . .

If it's the same report that I read, it's about kilometre/tonnes.

[Adrian]

Post by Clive.

Post by Albert Ross
An HGV may do 8 mpg but carries 30 tonnes, compare with a car doing 30
mpg (or even an economical car like mine doing 60 mpg) carrying less
than a hundredweight of shopping . . .

If it's the same report that I read, it's about kilometre/tonnes.

No, the figures I gave are definitely Vehicle/KM.

I can't see how tonne/km is a relevant figure, though - does it *matter*
how much is in a vehicle? A tonne of CO2 is a tonne of CO2, no matter how
much has been shifted to emit that tonne of CO2.

[Oz]

Post by Adrian
I can't see how tonne/km is a relevant figure, though - does it *matter*
how much is in a vehicle? A tonne of CO2 is a tonne of CO2, no matter how
much has been shifted to emit that tonne of CO2.

Because moving stuff about works on a per ton moved scale.

For example moving tomatoes from field to packer in 10T trailerloads
uses X/ton, from packer to supermarket takes Y/ton and from supermarket
to house takes Z/ton.

In the example given, 32T at 8mpg for 32 miles costs (1/8)gall/ton or
(1/160)gall per hundredweight (50kg). Taking home 1cwt (50kg) of
shopping for a 10mile round trip at 30mpg costs 1/3 gall. The shopping
costs more galls to ship than getting it to store.

[Adrian]

Post by Oz

Post by Adrian
I can't see how tonne/km is a relevant figure, though - does it
*matter* how much is in a vehicle? A tonne of CO2 is a tonne of CO2,
no matter how much has been shifted to emit that tonne of CO2.

Because moving stuff about works on a per ton moved scale.

Correct, but what we're concerned about with the alleged environmental
impact is the emissions, not the logistics.

Post by Oz
In the example given, 32T at 8mpg for 32 miles costs (1/8)gall/ton or
(1/160)gall per hundredweight (50kg). Taking home 1cwt (50kg) of
shopping for a 10mile round trip at 30mpg costs 1/3 gall. The shopping
costs more galls to ship than getting it to store.

But the country's _total_ shopping transportion involves 9.4bn km by HGV at
8mpg, and 1.8bn km by car at 30mpg. Either stores are getting More Than A
Little Bit overstocked, or the total weights transported balance out fairly
evenly...

Which also ignores the fact that few HGV loads of shopping are "dropped in
whilst I'm in the area", yet much shopping by car is.

[Brian]

Post by Doug

Post by Brian

Post by Doug
The fact that cars are the biggest contributer to food miles perhaps?

By my count, that is now the fourth time (at least) that Doug has made
this surprising (and entirely unsupported) assertion. �By the Duhg
rules of evidence, does this now make it an incontrovertible fact?

Check this out, loser.
FOOD MILEShttp://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/foodmiles/default.asp

Which shows that cars contribute only 13% of the total CO2. So by
missing this out, you are still leaving the other 87% of the damage.
Nice one, Duhg.

[unknown]

Post by Doug
So, someone with a bicycle who buys organic imported food in town may
be contributing less to planetary destruction than, say, a rural 4x4
user

In your dreams City Boy.

[The Caretaker]

Post by Doug

Post by The Caretaker

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by The Caretaker
UK ......

Uh...okay. And...?

WTF do Wal-Mart and Al Gore have to do with UK.transport?

The fact that cars are the biggest contributer to food miles perhaps?
So, someone with a bicycle who buys organic imported food in town may
be contributing less to planetary destruction than, say, a rural 4x4
user, who almost certainly eats imported food in winter anyway. Even
if they don't, food grown in greenhouses here in winter use more
energy than food grown in warmer climes and imported.

Which has fuck all to do with the article the fuckwit merkin posted.

[John Wright]

Post by Doug

Post by The Caretaker

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by The Caretaker
UK ......

Uh...okay. And...?

WTF do Wal-Mart and Al Gore have to do with UK.transport?

The fact that cars are the biggest contributer to food miles perhaps?
So, someone with a bicycle who buys organic imported food in town may
be contributing less to planetary destruction than, say, a rural 4x4
user, who almost certainly eats imported food in winter anyway. Even
if they don't, food grown in greenhouses here in winter use more
energy than food grown in warmer climes and imported.

I imagine a lot of the people who buy organic food might drive your
beloved urban 4x4's and use them to participate in the school run.

[Fata Morgana]

Post by John Wright
I imagine a lot of the people who buy organic food might drive your
beloved urban 4x4's and use them to participate in the school run.

I am not in favour of this blind opposition to a class of vehicle.

CO2 production per mile is the issue, 4x4s are not nessesarily the
highest on the list.

[Brimstone]

Post by Fata Morgana

Post by John Wright
I imagine a lot of the people who buy organic food might drive your
beloved urban 4x4's and use them to participate in the school run.

I am not in favour of this blind opposition to a class of vehicle.
CO2 production per mile is the issue, 4x4s are not nessesarily the
highest on the list.

Exactly, but can you convince Doug and the other pillocks who can't see
further than the drive train to chnage their attitude?

On second thoughts, maybe they should be getting a closer look.

[Clive.]

Post by Fata Morgana
I am not in favour of this blind opposition to a class of vehicle.
CO2 production per mile is the issue, 4x4s are not nessesarily the
highest on the list.

No, but they have a very serious down side. They are dangerous in
traffic, and in there way , are as bad as cycles.

[Elaine Jones]

Quoting from message <2hbQdVAajTBGFw+***@yewbank.demon.co.uk>
posted on 24 Mar 2007 by Clive.

Post by Clive.

Post by Fata Morgana
I am not in favour of this blind opposition to a class of vehicle.
CO2 production per mile is the issue, 4x4s are not nessesarily the
highest on the list.

No, but they have a very serious down side. They are dangerous in
traffic, and in there way , are as bad as cycles.

That's the drivers - not the vehicles!!

[Clive.]

Post by Elaine Jones

Post by Clive.
No, but they have a very serious down side. They are dangerous in
traffic, and in there way , are as bad as cycles.

That's the drivers - not the vehicles!!

No, it's the vehicles.

[Jim Webster]

Post by Clive.

Post by Elaine Jones

Post by Clive.
No, but they have a very serious down side. They are dangerous in
traffic, and in there way , are as bad as cycles.

That's the drivers - not the vehicles!!

No, it's the vehicles.

so a 4 x 4 parked by the side of the road is more dangerous than a family
saloon of the same length and width

Jim Webster

[unknown]

Post by Clive.

Post by Fata Morgana
I am not in favour of this blind opposition to a class of vehicle.
CO2 production per mile is the issue, 4x4s are not nessesarily the
highest on the list.

No, but they have a very serious down side. They are dangerous in
traffic,

What utter bollocks. In what way do you imagine that 4x4s are dangerous
in traffic?

Post by Clive.
and in there way , are as bad as cycles.

The only thing wrong with cycles in traffic are:

1. The almost complete absence of rider training which means that few
cyclists understand the Highway Code, particularly that aspect that
refers to observance of red lights.

2. The pig ignorant attitude of many drivers, which also affects horse
riders and other road users.

[Fata Morgana]

Post by unknown
1. The almost complete absence of rider training which means that few
cyclists understand the Highway Code, particularly that aspect that
refers to observance of red lights.

Most adult cyclists also have a car, but I agree that cyclists do not
always follow best practice.

I would have no objection to a written test for cyclists, a cycling
proficiency test should be part of school training.

Post by unknown
2. The pig ignorant attitude of many drivers, which also affects horse
riders and other road users.

Indeed :) If car drivers realised that if the man on the cycle was not
there, he would probably be in a car blocking the way.

I wish drivers would understand 4 thngs,

a, the gutter is to drain water, it is not a mandatory cycle way.
b, cycles travel at similar speeds to cars in urban roads, do not treat
then as though stationary.
c, cyclists are just as entitled to use the road, not just when not needed
by a car.
d, many cycles cost upto £2000, damage one and bye bye no claims bonus.
(many cyclists earn more than you and can afford a better solicitor)

[Jim Webster]

Post by Fata Morgana

Post by unknown
1. The almost complete absence of rider training which means that few
cyclists understand the Highway Code, particularly that aspect that
refers to observance of red lights.

Most adult cyclists also have a car, but I agree that cyclists do not
always follow best practice.
I would have no objection to a written test for cyclists, a cycling
proficiency test should be part of school training.

at one time there was a big push on it up here, a high proportion of
Children did it, but it sort of faded, funding issues I think.

Post by Fata Morgana

Post by unknown
2. The pig ignorant attitude of many drivers, which also affects horse
riders and other road users.

Indeed :) If car drivers realised that if the man on the cycle was not
there, he would probably be in a car blocking the way.
I wish drivers would understand 4 thngs,
a, the gutter is to drain water, it is not a mandatory cycle way.

It would be awfully nice if highway authorities ensured that the slats in
the rain cover were at right angles to the direction of travel as well ;-(

Post by Fata Morgana
b, cycles travel at similar speeds to cars in urban roads, do not treat
then as though stationary.
c, cyclists are just as entitled to use the road, not just when not
needed by a car.
d, many cycles cost upto £2000, damage one and bye bye no claims bonus.
(many cyclists earn more than you and can afford a better solicitor)

and the CTC does legal cover and from what I know isn't afraid to use it
;-)))

Jim Webster

[Fata Morgana]

"Jim Webster" <***@websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> wrote in message news:***@mid.individual.net...
)

Post by Jim Webster
and the CTC does legal cover and from what I know isn't afraid to use it
;-)))

Indeed, they seem to be taking on the Police who seem to be applying
obstruction laws against cyclists legitamately using the highway and
strangely laws which as yet are only in the civil service "thinking about
it" i.e. failing to use a cycle track.

The later makes me wonder about the CPS who manage to get before a judge
before the question is asked as to where it actually states that cyclists
must chose a route that minimises impact on other road users.

[Clive.]

Post by unknown
What utter bollocks. In what way do you imagine that 4x4s are dangerous
in traffic?

Whilst I agree it is lack of skill that is the fault of the riders of
cycles that make them dangerous, with SUVs it is the vehicles. If you
are in a normal car and you want to pull out of a T junction into
traffic and an SUV is to your right or left you are blind to the road on
that side because the bonnet line is too high to see over. Further,
when in a Supermarket car park you are forced to park nose in to be able
to get to the boot to put whatever you've bought in, so you need to
reverse out blind if you've an SUV either side of you.

[Fata Morgana]

"Clive." <***@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:***@yewbank.demon.co.uk...
, so you need to

Post by Clive.
reverse out blind if you've an SUV either side of you.
--

Reversing into danger is bad driving, the fact that you illistrate a
situation where it is more dangerous does not
put blaim or third parties.

[Jim Webster]

Post by Clive.

Post by unknown
What utter bollocks. In what way do you imagine that 4x4s are dangerous
in traffic?

Whilst I agree it is lack of skill that is the fault of the riders of
cycles that make them dangerous, with SUVs it is the vehicles.

not all 4x4s are SUVs

Jim Webster

[John Wright]

Post by Jim Webster

Post by Clive.

Post by unknown
What utter bollocks. In what way do you imagine that 4x4s are dangerous
in traffic?

Whilst I agree it is lack of skill that is the fault of the riders of
cycles that make them dangerous, with SUVs it is the vehicles.

not all 4x4s are SUVs

And not all SUVs are 4x4s either.

[unknown]

Post by Clive.
Whilst I agree it is lack of skill that is the fault of the riders of
cycles that make them dangerous, with SUVs it is the vehicles. If you
are in a normal car and you want to pull out of a T junction into
traffic and an SUV is to your right or left you are blind to the road on
that side because the bonnet line is too high to see over.

So do you panic when confronted with a van or an HGV in a similar
situation? And in what way does the situation that you describe make the
"SUV" dangerous? Surely it's the driver that pulls out regardless of the
view that is the idiot?

Post by Clive.
Further, when in a Supermarket car park you are forced to park nose in to
be able to get to the boot to put whatever you've bought in, so you need
to reverse out blind if you've an SUV either side of you.

Supermarket car park != traffic.

And again if you can't drive your car such that you can safely
manouever, it's you that's the problem, not the SUV.

[Fata Morgana]

Post by Clive.
No, but they have a very serious down side. They are dangerous in
traffic, and in there way , are as bad as cycles.
--

As a cyclist I would point out that the majority of accidents involving
adult cyclists are due to other road users failing to give way where they
are legally obliged to do so. Often from interpreting a cycle doing uptp
20mph as a 'stationary object' and cutting across its path. Cars with a
footprint in excess of 45 sq feet resenting the 3 sq ft of cycle occupancy
of the road.

Certainly in the urban environment a cycle maintains a higher average
speed and zero CO2 from the cycle and uses far less road space per
passenger.

[Brimstone]

Post by Fata Morgana

Post by Clive.
No, but they have a very serious down side. They are dangerous in
traffic, and in there way , are as bad as cycles.
--

As a cyclist I would point out that the majority of accidents involving
adult cyclists are due to other road users failing to give way where they
are legally obliged to do so. Often from interpreting a cycle doing uptp
20mph as a 'stationary object' and cutting across its path. Cars with a
footprint in excess of 45 sq feet resenting the 3 sq ft of cycle occupancy
of the road.
Certainly in the urban environment a cycle maintains a higher average
speed and zero CO2 from the cycle and uses far less road space per
passenger.

But how much CH4 does the cyclist produce as a result of the exertions?

[Brian]

Post by Brimstone

�Certainly in the urban environment a cycle maintains a higher average
speed and zero CO2 from the cycle and uses far less road space per
passenger.

But how much CH4 does the cyclist produce as a result of the exertions?

Farting? That provides extra jet propulsion up the hills - don't
knock it.

[Clive.]

Post by Fata Morgana

Post by Clive.
No, but they have a very serious down side. They are dangerous in
traffic, and in there way , are as bad as cycles.

3 sq ft of cycle occupancy
of the road.

Show me a person on a bike taking up only 3 sq. Ft. of road space and
I'll give you a fiver.

Post by Fata Morgana
zero CO2 from the cycle

This is a myth. Less CO2 yes, no CO2 is rubbish, do you think that
cycles are perpetual motion machines? Cycles have to be pedaled and in
doing so the respiration of the rider increases with effort. If cycles
are void of CO2 so are cars by exactly the same reasoning.

[Fata Morgana]

Post by Fata Morgana
3 sq ft of cycle occupancy
of the road.

Show me a person on a bike taking up only 3 sq. Ft. of road space and I'll
give you a fiver.

I was compareing the physical footprint of the veicles, a car is about 6
foot by 15 foot so 90 sq foot
a cycle is about 5 foot by 1 foot so around 5 sq foot.

Not the figures I gave earlier:)

Of course there is the dynamic foot print , which includes the space in
front of the vehicle which the vehicle is commited to use.

A cyclist going 50 miles will use an amount of energy supplied by a mars
bar, a car will use around a gallon of fuel.
A fit cyclist on the flat cycling at a steady pace will produce no more CO2
than at any other activity and being alive needs to produce CO2.

Actually I am yet to be convinced that motoring is a good area to tackle
gloal warming, however downgrading the benifit of cycling
is not helpful. In inner london I see no need for private motoring and even
Taxis should be restricted to the disabled and polititions too proud to mix
with the public.

Post by Fata Morgana
zero CO2 from the cycle

This is a myth. Less CO2 yes, no CO2 is rubbish, do you think that
cycles are perpetual motion machines? Cycles have to be pedaled and in
doing so the respiration of the rider increases with effort. If cycles
are void of CO2 so are cars by exactly the same reasoning.
--
Clive.

[Oz]

Post by Fata Morgana
A cyclist going 50 miles will use an amount of energy supplied by a mars
bar, a car will use around a gallon of fuel.
A fit cyclist on the flat cycling at a steady pace will produce no more CO2
than at any other activity and being alive needs to produce CO2.

Frankly I rather doubt this. Humans are not very efficient and someone
cycling 50 miles will need a lot more than the resting food intake.

IIRC manual workers need to eat about double that of sedentary workers.
That is manual as in hoeing, carrying sacks and so on.

[Fata Morgana]

Post by Oz

Post by Fata Morgana
A cyclist going 50 miles will use an amount of energy supplied by a mars
bar, a car will use around a gallon of fuel.
A fit cyclist on the flat cycling at a steady pace will produce no more CO2
than at any other activity and being alive needs to produce CO2.

Frankly I rather doubt this. Humans are not very efficient and someone
cycling 50 miles will need a lot more than the resting food intake.

People who cycle 50 miles a day tend to be more efficient and likely to
produce similar CO2 to the unfit resting :)
However double is still insignificant compared with a car doing 50 miles.

[Clive.]

Post by Fata Morgana
People who cycle 50 miles a day tend to be more efficient and likely to
produce similar CO2 to the unfit resting :)

In your dreams.

Post by Fata Morgana
However double is still insignificant compared with a car doing 50 miles.

This is called back pedaling, a lot of cyclists are good at it.

[Jim Webster]

Post by Clive.

Post by Fata Morgana
People who cycle 50 miles a day tend to be more efficient and likely to
produce similar CO2 to the unfit resting :)

In your dreams.

except that it happens to be true.

Jim Webster

[Oz]

Post by Fata Morgana
People who cycle 50 miles a day tend to be more efficient and likely to
produce similar CO2 to the unfit resting :)
However double is still insignificant compared with a car doing 50 miles.

Probably not weight for weight.

[Fata Morgana]

"Oz" <***@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message news:***@farmeroz.port995.com...
.

Post by Oz
Probably not weight for weight.

One must consider payload. So for CO2/lb passenger a cycle wins,
particularly as you must include passenger CO2 as well as engine CO2 for the
car. In any case a person, unlike a car, has to go through periods of
heightened CO2 production for health.
So a cyclist combines transport and exercise, a car driver at the end of his
journey then spends an hour in the gym or taking the dogs for a walk. Also
one should consider like for like, I have a friend who likes 30 miles runs
across the North Yorkshire moors,
a mixture of cycling and running carrying the cycle. You would need a
helicopter to beat him in speed and I hate to think what the CO2 production
would be :) The reason of course is that there are no direct roads and no
vehicle could traverse the land.

[Andy Lord]

Post by Clive.

Post by Fata Morgana

Post by Clive.
No, but they have a very serious down side. They are dangerous in
traffic, and in there way , are as bad as cycles.

3 sq ft of cycle occupancy
of the road.

Show me a person on a bike taking up only 3 sq. Ft. of road space and
I'll give you a fiver.>zero CO2 from the cycle
This is a myth. Less CO2 yes, no CO2 is rubbish, do you think that
cycles are perpetual motion machines? Cycles have to be pedaled and in
doing so the respiration of the rider increases with effort. If cycles
are void of CO2 so are cars by exactly the same reasoning.

I'm not an expert, but don't cyclists generally operate mainly on
renewable energy sources?

--

Andy

[Nick Finnigan]

Post by Andy Lord
I'm not an expert, but don't cyclists generally operate mainly on
renewable energy sources?

No, for the same reasons that bio-diesel etc. is not renewable.
The exceptional one may operate on locally grown carrots eaten raw.

[Oz]

Post by Nick Finnigan

Post by Andy Lord
I'm not an expert, but don't cyclists generally operate mainly on
renewable energy sources?

No, for the same reasons that bio-diesel etc. is not renewable.
The exceptional one may operate on locally grown carrots eaten raw.

They are all interchangeable to some extent.
The only way to reduce consumption is to consume less.

[Jim Webster]

Post by Andy Lord
I'm not an expert, but don't cyclists generally operate mainly on
renewable energy sources?

carbohydrates rather than hydrocarbons ;-))



Jim Webster

[Jim Webster]

Post by Clive.

Post by Fata Morgana
I am not in favour of this blind opposition to a class of vehicle.
CO2 production per mile is the issue, 4x4s are not nessesarily the
highest on the list.

No, but they have a very serious down side. They are dangerous in
traffic,

no,
drivers are dangerous in traffic

Jim Webster

[Malcolm]

Post by Clive.

Post by Fata Morgana
I am not in favour of this blind opposition to a class of vehicle.
CO2 production per mile is the issue, 4x4s are not nessesarily the
highest on the list.

No, but they have a very serious down side. They are dangerous in
traffic, and in there way , are as bad as cycles.

Evidence please.

[Clive.]

Post by Malcolm

Post by Clive.
No, but they have a very serious down side. They are dangerous in
traffic, and in there way , are as bad as cycles.

Evidence please.

See other post in thread, engage brain before replying.

[Oz]

Post by Fata Morgana
I am not in favour of this blind opposition to a class of vehicle.
CO2 production per mile is the issue, 4x4s are not nessesarily the
highest on the list.

No, but they have a very serious down side. They are dangerous in traffic, and
in there way , are as bad as cycles.

Please to note that many 4x4 are indistinguishable from regular cars.

[Doug]

Post by Oz

Post by Fata Morgana
I am not in favour of this blind opposition to a class of vehicle.
CO2 production per mile is the issue, 4x4s are not nessesarily the
highest on the list.

No, but they have a very serious down side. They are dangerous in traffic, and
in there way , are as bad as cycles.

Please to note that many 4x4 are indistinguishable from regular cars.

If so then they would not display the same bad image.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".

[Brimstone]

Post by Doug

Post by Oz

Post by Fata Morgana
I am not in favour of this blind opposition to a class of vehicle.
CO2 production per mile is the issue, 4x4s are not nessesarily the
highest on the list.

No, but they have a very serious down side. They are dangerous in traffic, and
in there way , are as bad as cycles.

Please to note that many 4x4 are indistinguishable from regular cars.

If so then they would not display the same bad image.

Why should a particular body shape attract a bad image?

[Doug]

Post by Brimstone

Post by Doug

Post by Oz

Post by Fata Morgana
I am not in favour of this blind opposition to a class of vehicle.
CO2 production per mile is the issue, 4x4s are not nessesarily the
highest on the list.

No, but they have a very serious down side. They are dangerous in traffic, and
in there way , are as bad as cycles.

Please to note that many 4x4 are indistinguishable from regular cars.

If so then they would not display the same bad image.

Why should a particular body shape attract a bad image?

Because it has become associated with particularly ostentatious waste
and pollution.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".

[Brimstone]

Post by Doug

Post by Brimstone

Post by Doug

Post by Oz

Post by Fata Morgana
I am not in favour of this blind opposition to a class of vehicle.
CO2 production per mile is the issue, 4x4s are not nessesarily the
highest on the list.

No, but they have a very serious down side. They are dangerous in traffic, and
in there way , are as bad as cycles.

Please to note that many 4x4 are indistinguishable from regular cars.

If so then they would not display the same bad image.

Why should a particular body shape attract a bad image?

Because it has become associated with particularly ostentatious waste
and pollution.

So just because some stupid people attach certain behaviours (rightly or
wrongly) to the owners and users of a vehicle with a particular type of
drivetrain that makes all such vehicles with that type of drivetrain and
their use wrong?

[Clive.]

Post by Oz
Please to note that many 4x4 are indistinguishable from regular cars.

I am aware of this and indeed have nothing against them apart from as
stated. I know they have a place just like buses and HGVs, don't
include me with Doug and his fanatics.

[Elaine Jones]

Quoting from message <***@yewbank.demon.co.uk>
posted on 25 Mar 2007 by Clive.

Post by Clive.

Post by Oz
Please to note that many 4x4 are indistinguishable from regular cars.

I am aware of this and indeed have nothing against them apart from as
stated. I know they have a place just like buses and HGVs, don't
include me with Doug and his fanatics.

Then why did you lump them altogether in the first place?

[Clive.]

Post by Elaine Jones
posted on 25 Mar 2007 by Clive.

Post by Clive.

Post by Oz
Please to note that many 4x4 are indistinguishable from regular cars.

I am aware of this and indeed have nothing against them apart from as
stated. I know they have a place just like buses and HGVs, don't
include me with Doug and his fanatics.

Then why did you lump them altogether in the first place?

You have either misread or missed my post. I mentioned SUVs and I
accepted the point that some 4X4s can be the same as cars, Fiat Panda
and Audi Quattro come to mind.

[Jim Webster]

Post by Clive.

Post by Elaine Jones
posted on 25 Mar 2007 by Clive.

Post by Clive.

Post by Oz
Please to note that many 4x4 are indistinguishable from regular cars.

I am aware of this and indeed have nothing against them apart from as
stated. I know they have a place just like buses and HGVs, don't
include me with Doug and his fanatics.

Then why did you lump them altogether in the first place?

You have either misread or missed my post. I mentioned SUVs

A sport utility vehicle, often defined as a passenger vehicle which combines
the towing capacity of a pickup truck with the passenger-carrying space of a
minivan

Just how many of these are there on British Roads

Jim Webster

[Oz]

Post by Jim Webster
A sport utility vehicle, often defined as a passenger vehicle which combines
the towing capacity of a pickup truck with the passenger-carrying space of a
minivan
Just how many of these are there on British Roads

Quite a few in the southeast.

They congregate round schools.

All primary schools and fee-paying secondary ones.

[Fata Morgana]

Post by Oz
They congregate round schools.
All primary schools and fee-paying secondary ones.

The fact that so many cars do the school run is the primary problem. If
walking, cycling and public transport cannot meet the needs of school
transport there is little hope for the more random needs of the population
as a whole.

[Oz]

Post by Fata Morgana

Post by Oz
They congregate round schools.
All primary schools and fee-paying secondary ones.

The fact that so many cars do the school run is the primary problem. If
walking, cycling and public transport cannot meet the needs of school
transport there is little hope for the more random needs of the population
as a whole.

astonishingly the local primary school is supported by busses from local
villages.

none the less most parents drive their kids in (like 1 mile) and even
some from the same village (ie 1/4 mile) drive them.

I was a kid in central london and walked several miles to primary
school, the latter part (aged six) often on my own. This was so because
aged seven I went to another school so I can date this rather well.

[Conor]

Post by Oz
I was a kid in central london and walked several miles to primary
school, the latter part (aged six) often on my own. This was so because
aged seven I went to another school so I can date this rather well.

I think virtually everyone over the age of 30 walked to school.
Amazingly we didn't get run over or kidnapped and rain/snow was seen as
a minor inconvenience merely requiring a coat with a hood and
occassionally the use of Wellies.

[Clive.]

Post by Conor
I think virtually everyone over the age of 30 walked to school.

You must have been a late developer.

[Clive.]

Post by Jim Webster
A sport utility vehicle, often defined as a passenger vehicle which combines
the towing capacity of a pickup truck with the passenger-carrying space of a
minivan

For the terminally blind, I pointed out, the problem with SUVs are that
they obstruct vision especially at T junctions and trying to reverse out
of spaces at car parks. Now a little thought would show that I mean a
vehicle that cannot be seen over or through. Whilst I said SUVs it
would encompass any vehicle with a side high enough to block vision, be
it SUVs, most 4X4s, panel vans, buses and lorries. Professional
drivers know what hazard they are causing, but when you read on a news
group of someone saying that a vehicle packed to the roof impairs rear
vision, it makes you wonder about the competence or common sense of the
drivers. Since when has van, bus or lorry drivers been able to use a
rear view mirror centrally mounted? But it does it affect their
observation or driving? No, because they're trained to drive properly.
Cyclists also are incompetent in many ways, though a lot claim to be
motorists, If I say they should be segregated, cyclists want to tell me
they have a right, I don't mind, if they want to kill themselves. Good
for them if their solicitor can get them a new bike for £2000, but how
they'll be able to ride it from six foot down is beyond my
comprehension. I don't take to many risks (maybe because of my age),
but I don't want a cyclist under my wheels, the cycle I don't care
about, but like all humans I don't like to see injuries and death.
As for me, I just pick up points where others need to think about
assertions they have made, some would say this makes me a troll, I don't
mind. Enjoy the roads and keep out of everyone's way, remember the
poem
"Here lies the body of Albert Jay,
who died maintaining his right of way,
He was right, dead right as he drove along,
but just as dead as if he'd been wrong"
.

[Jim Webster]

Post by Clive.

Post by Jim Webster
A sport utility vehicle, often defined as a passenger vehicle which combines
the towing capacity of a pickup truck with the passenger-carrying space of a
minivan

For the terminally blind, I pointed out, the problem with SUVs are that
they obstruct vision especially at T junctions and trying to reverse out
of spaces at car parks. Now a little thought would show that I mean a
vehicle that cannot be seen over or through. Whilst I said SUVs it
would encompass any vehicle with a side high enough to block vision, be it
SUVs, most 4X4s, panel vans, buses and lorries. Professional drivers
know what hazard they are causing, but when you read on a news group of
someone saying that a vehicle packed to the roof impairs rear vision, it
makes you wonder about the competence or common sense of the drivers.
Since when has van, bus or lorry drivers been able to use a rear view
mirror centrally mounted? But it does it affect their observation or
driving? No, because they're trained to drive properly.
Cyclists also are incompetent in many ways, though a lot claim to be
motorists, If I say they should be segregated, cyclists want to tell me
they have a right, I don't mind, if they want to kill themselves. Good
for them if their solicitor can get them a new bike for £2000, but how
they'll be able to ride it from six foot down is beyond my comprehension.
I don't take to many risks (maybe because of my age), but I don't want a
cyclist under my wheels, the cycle I don't care about, but like all humans
I don't like to see injuries and death.
As for me, I just pick up points where others need to think about
assertions they have made, some would say this makes me a troll, I don't
mind.

one sad puppy
never mind

Jim Webster

[Fata Morgana]

Post by Clive.
"Here lies the body of Albert Jay,
who died maintaining his right of way,
He was right, dead right as he drove along,
but just as dead as if he'd been wrong"
.

So basically your driving style is "make way pratt coming through"

[Clive.]

Post by Fata Morgana

Post by Clive.
"Here lies the body of Albert Jay,
who died maintaining his right of way,
He was right, dead right as he drove along,
but just as dead as if he'd been wrong"
.

So basically your driving style is "make way pratt coming through"

You're entitled to your beliefs.

[Conor]

Post by Clive.

Post by Jim Webster
A sport utility vehicle, often defined as a passenger vehicle which combines
the towing capacity of a pickup truck with the passenger-carrying space of a
minivan

For the terminally blind, I pointed out, the problem with SUVs are that
they obstruct vision especially at T junctions and trying to reverse out
of spaces at car parks.

So do vans and lorries. In fact in my Capri, a great many normal cars
do.

[Clive.]

Post by Conor
So do vans and lorries. In fact in my Capri, a great many normal cars
do.

I don't know that I would class your Capri as a car. I had a friend
with one, a 1300, you could get a bed in the space under the bonnet.

[Huge]

Post by Clive.

Post by Conor
So do vans and lorries. In fact in my Capri, a great many normal cars
do.

I don't know that I would class your Capri as a car. I had a friend
with one, a 1300, you could get a bed in the space under the bonnet.

That's so there's room for the V8 which should be there.

[John Wright]

Post by Jim Webster

Post by Clive.

Post by Elaine Jones
posted on 25 Mar 2007 by Clive.

Post by Clive.

Post by Oz
Please to note that many 4x4 are indistinguishable from regular cars.

I am aware of this and indeed have nothing against them apart from as
stated. I know they have a place just like buses and HGVs, don't
include me with Doug and his fanatics.

Then why did you lump them altogether in the first place?

You have either misread or missed my post. I mentioned SUVs

A sport utility vehicle, often defined as a passenger vehicle which combines
the towing capacity of a pickup truck with the passenger-carrying space of a
minivan
Just how many of these are there on British Roads

Range Rovers, Discoveries, Freelanders - that's just one manufacturer,
the list goes on. The Range Rover has been said to be the daddy of all SUVs

[Elaine Jones]

Quoting from message <***@yewbank.demon.co.uk>
posted on 25 Mar 2007 by Clive.

Post by Clive.

Post by Elaine Jones
posted on 25 Mar 2007 by Clive.

Post by Clive.

Post by Oz
Please to note that many 4x4 are indistinguishable from regular cars.

I am aware of this and indeed have nothing against them apart from as
stated. I know they have a place just like buses and HGVs, don't
include me with Doug and his fanatics.

Then why did you lump them altogether in the first place?

You have either misread or missed my post. I mentioned SUVs and I
accepted the point that some 4X4s can be the same as cars, Fiat Panda
and Audi Quattro come to mind.

Initially you did not differentiate

In message <eu39dh$bvj$1$***@news.demon.co.uk>, Fata
Morgana

Post by Clive.
I am not in favour of this blind opposition to a class of vehicle.
CO2 production per mile is the issue, 4x4s are not nessesarily the
highest on the list.

No, but they have a very serious down side. They are dangerous in
traffic, and in there way , are as bad as cycles.
--
Clive.

You responded to the mention of "4x4s" in the first instance.

[Huge]

Post by Clive.

Post by Fata Morgana
I am not in favour of this blind opposition to a class of vehicle.
CO2 production per mile is the issue, 4x4s are not nessesarily the
highest on the list.

No, but they have a very serious down side. They are dangerous in
traffic,

In what way?

[Mike Connally]

Post by Huge

Post by Clive.

Post by Fata Morgana
CO2 production per mile is the issue, 4x4s are not nessesarily the
highest on the list.

No, but they have a very serious down side. They are dangerous in
traffic,

In what way?

Indeed. I'd have thought, all other factors being
equal (size, weight & balance, power, chassis setup, etc)
that four driven wheels would be inherently better that
two. Is a Panda 4x4 more dangerous than an ordinary Panda?
No, didn't think so.

[Clive.]

Post by Huge

Post by Clive.
No, but they have a very serious down side. They are dangerous in
traffic,

In what way?

Reread previous posts.

[unknown]

Post by The Caretaker

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by The Caretaker
UK ......

Uh...okay. And...?

WTF do Wal-Mart and Al Gore have to do with UK.transport?

Well... Wal-Mart is one of the larger supermarket chains in the UK. Look
up, see that "Asda" logo? That's Wal-Mart, that is.

[The Caretaker]

Post by unknown

Post by The Caretaker

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by The Caretaker
UK ......

Uh...okay. And...?

WTF do Wal-Mart and Al Gore have to do with UK.transport?

Well... Wal-Mart is one of the larger supermarket chains in the UK. Look
up, see that "Asda" logo? That's Wal-Mart, that is.

Which has fuck all to do with the article the fuckwit merkin posted.

And Al Gore?

[unknown]

Post by The Caretaker

Post by unknown

Post by The Caretaker

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by The Caretaker
UK ......

Uh...okay. And...?

WTF do Wal-Mart and Al Gore have to do with UK.transport?

Well... Wal-Mart is one of the larger supermarket chains in the UK. Look
up, see that "Asda" logo? That's Wal-Mart, that is.

Which has fuck all to do with the article the fuckwit merkin posted.

No but it has everything to do with the question you asked.

Post by The Caretaker
And Al Gore?

DILLIGAF?

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by The Caretaker

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by The Caretaker
UK ......

Uh...okay. And...?

WTF do Wal-Mart and Al Gore have to do with UK.transport?

The local vs. organic issue is applicable to all market
economies.

[The Caretaker]

Post by The Caretaker

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by The Caretaker
UK ......

Uh...okay. And...?

WTF do Wal-Mart and Al Gore have to do with UK.transport?

The local vs. organic issue is applicable to all market economies.

Al Gore?

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by The Caretaker

Post by The Caretaker

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by The Caretaker
UK ......

Uh...okay. And...?

WTF do Wal-Mart and Al Gore have to do with UK.transport?

The local vs. organic issue is applicable to all market economies.

Al Gore?

Bringing the global warming message to the world.

[Lord Gow333, Conservative Fullback!]

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by The Caretaker

Post by The Caretaker

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by The Caretaker
UK ......

Uh...okay. And...?

WTF do Wal-Mart and Al Gore have to do with UK.transport?

The local vs. organic issue is applicable to all market economies.

Al Gore?

Bringing the global warming message to the world.

Hopefully the world will be smart enough not to buy it.

LG

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Lord Gow333, Conservative Fullback!

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by The Caretaker

Post by The Caretaker

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by The Caretaker
UK ......

Uh...okay. And...?

WTF do Wal-Mart and Al Gore have to do with UK.transport?

The local vs. organic issue is applicable to all market economies.

Al Gore?

Bringing the global warming message to the world.

Hopefully the world will be smart enough not to buy it.

The message is accurate. The messenger leaves a lot to
be desired; sanctimonious finger-wagging hypocrites
usually do.

["nightjar" .uk.com>]

"Rudy Canoza" <rudy-***@excite.com> wrote in message news:rTJMh.16866$***@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
...

Post by Lord Gow333, Conservative Fullback!

Post by Rudy Canoza
Bringing the global warming message to the world.

Hopefully the world will be smart enough not to buy it.

The message is accurate. ..

The IPCC report concluded that for many phenomena e.g. 'Warm spells / heat
waves frequency increases over most land areas' it was 'likely' that the
trend occurred in the late 20th century and that it was 'more likely than
not' that there was a human contribution to that trend, although the
magnitude of the contribution was not assessed. That is about as accurate as
the message can get and it is hardly conclusive.

Colin Bignell