If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Green viatology: minimise your carbon footprint!
"Carl Rogers" > wrote in message ... | Hi Via <bitch slap> | (3) If you must travel for the sake of viatology alone, consider a | fuel-efficient car that gets more than 30 MPG or 7.75L/100km. This is as opposed to you who took several lousy photographs of central Florida from a ****ing AIRPLANE that spews more carbon in an hour than most cars could hope to spew in a year. And then to show your viatological prowess, you couldn't even get some of the road names/numbers right. **** off, asshole. RC |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Green viatology: minimise your carbon footprint!
On Jun 27, 4:10*pm, "Reality Check" > wrote:
> "Carl Rogers" > wrote in message > > ... > | Hi Via <bitch slap> > > | (3) *If you must travel for the sake of viatology alone, consider a > | fuel-efficient car that gets more than 30 MPG or 7.75L/100km. > > This is as opposed to you who took several lousy photographs of > central Florida from a ****ing AIRPLANE that spews more carbon in an > hour than most cars could hope to spew in a year. And then to show > your viatological prowess, you couldn't even get some of the road > names/numbers right. > > **** off, asshole. > > RC Work on him RC. He could always reduce his carbon footprint by quitting exhaling, but that's not highly likely. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Green viatology: minimise your carbon footprint!
On Jun 27, 5:16*pm, My Land of Misery > wrote:
> On Jun 27, 4:10*pm, "Reality Check" > wrote: > > > > > > > "Carl Rogers" > wrote in message > > .... > > | Hi Via <bitch slap> > > > | (3) *If you must travel for the sake of viatology alone, consider a > > | fuel-efficient car that gets more than 30 MPG or 7.75L/100km. > > > This is as opposed to you who took several lousy photographs of > > central Florida from a ****ing AIRPLANE that spews more carbon in an > > hour than most cars could hope to spew in a year. And then to show > > your viatological prowess, you couldn't even get some of the road > > names/numbers right. > > > **** off, asshole. > > > RC > > Work on him RC. * > He could always reduce his carbon footprint by quitting exhaling, but > that's not highly likely.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Hello gentlemen, and I use that term quite loosely, Do you have any arguments that support the topic of this thread? Just curious. Cheers, Carl Rogers "Environment first, transportology second" ******** Worldwide Transportation Library (WWTL): http://wwtl.info http://m.wwtl.info [Mobile] +1 201.676.0185 [Press] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Complete coverage of international roads and railways. Since 2000, we have offered several photographs, videos and Virtual 360 captures -- to each viatologist & transportologist. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ******** |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Green viatology: minimise your carbon footprint!
On Jun 27, 2:10*pm, "Reality Check" > wrote:
> "Carl Rogers" > wrote in message > > ... > | Hi Via <bitch slap> > > | (3) *If you must travel for the sake of viatology alone, consider a > | fuel-efficient car that gets more than 30 MPG or 7.75L/100km. > > This is as opposed to you who took several lousy photographs of > central Florida from a ****ing AIRPLANE that spews more carbon in an > hour than most cars could hope to spew in a year. And then to show > your viatological prowess, you couldn't even get some of the road > names/numbers right. > > **** off, asshole. > > RC Mister Angry, Lest you forget... an airplane carries more persons per capita than a vehicle. If all travelers on the airplane decided to travel by road, more carbon per capita would be used. Is it your position that an airplane carrying 200 passengers on a 5000km flight would produce more kilograms than 200 cars traveling the same distance? Answer: no. There's your reality check. Secondly, if you wish to say somebody isn't "getting it right", back it up with evidence so a correction can be made. It makes you a much more credible person in the long run. Perhaps I would make corrections you suggest if you objectively point out evidence and not a philosophical statement. When you deal in volume like I do, errors occasionally occur. Your negativity focuses narrowly on errors, which makes you... well... angry. I've had a great day outside. Hope you did too! Cheers, Carl Rogers "Environment first, transportology second" ******** Worldwide Transportation Library (WWTL): http://wwtl.info http://m.wwtl.info [Mobile] +1 201.676.0185 [Press] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Complete coverage of international roads and railways. Since 2000, we have offered several photographs, videos and Virtual 360 captures -- to each viatologist & transportologist. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ******** |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Green viatology: minimise your carbon footprint!
Funny how 'Green "Viatology"' pops up when road meets are mentioned. It's
not *really* about the environment, The Bog just feels really bad about his complete and total social ineptitude. If you were really 'green', Cal, you'd do what I do. Ditch the car entirely and take mass transit and/ or pool rides. -- Otto Yamamoto |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Green viatology: minimise your carbon footprint!
On 2010-06-28 14:07:50 +1000, Carl Rogers > said:
> Lest you forget... an airplane carries more persons per capita than a > vehicle. If all travelers on the airplane decided to travel by road, > more carbon per capita would be used. Is it your position that an > airplane carrying 200 passengers on a 5000km flight would produce more > kilograms than 200 cars traveling the same distance? Answer: no. > There's your reality check. You have failed to take into account the effect of aircraft condensation trails on climate, they do have a significant effect. This effect was physically measured when your airspace was shut down for three days after 9/11. If you are serious about green transportation, why don't you have a section on your site covering horse and ox based propulsion technologies. You could include the GPS coordinates of good watering and pasture locations, the location good blacksmith franchises etc. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Green viatology: minimise your carbon footprint!
On Jun 28, 3:06*am, Dasyurid > wrote:
> On 2010-06-28 14:07:50 +1000, Carl Rogers > said: > > > Lest you forget... an airplane carries more persons per capita than a > > vehicle. *If all travelers on the airplane decided to travel by road, > > more carbon per capita would be used. *Is it your position that an > > airplane carrying 200 passengers on a 5000km flight would produce more > > kilograms than 200 cars traveling the same distance? *Answer: no. > > There's your reality check. > > You have failed to take into account the effect of aircraft > condensation trails on climate, they do have a significant effect. This > effect was physically measured when your airspace was shut down for > three days after 9/11. > > If you are serious about green transportation, why don't you have a > section on your site covering horse and ox based propulsion > technologies. *You could include the GPS coordinates of good watering > and pasture locations, the location good blacksmith franchises etc. This is true. In addition, was Carl even aware that it was a practice of most airliners to dump fuel after takeoff? There is additional 'un- green' issues with air travel....noise pollution around airports, bird strikes, massive amounts of deicers used in the winter etc, etc. Sorry, but for me, i would much prefer to take a road trip, even if by myself, and see America by road. While it WAS nice to see proof that Carl isnt a spam-bot (I suspect troll is more like it), i think the Gore-act-alike act wore thin already.... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Green viatology: minimise your carbon footprint!
"Carl Rogers" > wrote in message ... <bitch slap> |Is it your position that an airplane carrying 200 passengers on a 5000km flight would produce more kilograms than 200 cars traveling the same distance? Answer: no. There's your reality check. That's what you think, dumbass. Just because you are lonely enough to be travelling stag all the time doesn't mean that everyone on that plane is, so there will be far fewer cars making that trip. So even if there is only 2 people per car making that trip, that's 100 cars making the trip, not 200. Since I couldn't find a plane that carries exactly 200 passengers, Let's look at a comparison of an Airbus A330-200 carrying 253 passengers from NYC to LA versus those people driving: Assuming a 2778 mile driving trip from NYC to LA (courtesy of mapquest.com) with cars averaging 30MPG, that's 11,760 gallons of fuel ( (2778Mi / 30Mi/gal)/car * 127 cars.*** ) For a 2475 mile* flight from JFK to LAX in an Airbus A330 that uses 5.44 gallons per flight mile** that's 13,464 gallons of fuel for those 253 people. That ofcourse, does not include the fuel consumed getting to/from the airports. * Source: http://www.travelmath.com/flight-dis...rom/LAX/to/JFK **Source: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo....main/2628781/ *** 127 cars = the 253 passengers that an Airbus A330 carries travelling 2 people per car Let's see, 11,760 gallons for the cars and 13,464 gallons for the airplane. Stick that in your exhaust pipe and smoke it, wiseguy. | Secondly, if you wish to say somebody isn't "getting it right", back it up with evidence so a correction can be made. It makes you a much more credible person in the long run. Perhaps I would make corrections you suggest if you objectively point out evidence and not a philosophical statement. You must have gone and made the change after how many Floridians flamed you over calling Fairbanks Ave Florida State Road 528? | I've had a great day outside. Hope you did too! Its always a great day when I'm watching Football and flaming you. RC |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Green viatology: minimise your carbon footprint!
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:52:50 -0400, Reality Check wrote:
>Its always a great day when I'm watching Football and flaming you. Football? Football season doesn't start for a couple of months. Unless you're talking about that bore-fest called soccer. -- To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate" |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Green viatology: minimise your carbon footprint!
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:34:27 -0700, H.B. Elkins wrote:
> Football? > > Football season doesn't start for a couple of months. > > Unless you're talking about that bore-fest called soccer. How anyone can call a game that mostly involves moving a ball downfield in your hands or by throwing it 'football' escapes me. It's a form of rugby, really. As far as that goes I find most football('soccer') games fairly entertaining; it's a matter of having followed it for a good deal of my life. -- Otto Yamamoto |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Green viatology -- consider your environment! | Carl Rogers | Driving | 27 | February 3rd 10 04:35 PM |
Green viatology; confirming your carbon footprint | Carl Rogers | Driving | 11 | August 23rd 09 07:26 PM |
Green, responsible viatology | [email protected] | Driving | 19 | May 14th 09 04:56 PM |
Green viatology, revisited | Carl Rogers | Driving | 14 | February 4th 09 12:47 AM |
Green viatology | Carl Rogers | Driving | 0 | June 26th 08 10:47 PM |