Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[Gregs24]

He proudly proclaims he got rid of a dirty car and replaced it with a clean hy-bred.

Come to find out he only sent the dirty car to another who continues to use it.
So, Greg gets to feel smug, I'm saving the planet, but really did nothing since the polluting car still is polluting.

Then he wants to call me out for burning fossil fuel to heat my house. All while he is using heating oil himself....

You care so much for the environment you do smokey burnouts........

A hy-bred ehh?

If you don't understand how lifetime CO2 works for a car and even how new cars become old cars and get scrapped, then you really are a fool.

I've also already said we are getting rid of our oil heating, or is your memory so short you don't remember that either?

Sponsored

 

[K4fxd]

You seem to forget your campaign against particulate emissions.

You are going to swap from oil to trees. Trees eat carbon....

 

[Burkey]

Hello; No assumption. Your reply was enough it and of itself. Do you get it yet?

Fuck. I understood the post. That doesn’t mean that I think it’s worth a pinch of shit though.

 

[Burkey]

He proudly proclaims he got rid of a dirty car and replaced it with a clean hy-bred.

Come to find out he only sent the dirty car to another who continues to use it.
So, Greg gets to feel smug, I'm saving the planet, but really did nothing since the polluting car still is polluting.

Then he wants to call me out for burning fossil fuel to heat my house. All while he is using heating oil himself....

You care so much for the environment you do smokey burnouts........

Every time I think you’ve hit the pinnacle of scientific illiteracy, you go a step further.
It‘s actually incredible to watch.

You’ve managed to ignore that the carbon in the trees came from the atmosphere and regardless of whether you burn it or not, it will return there.
That‘s why we need MORE trees, rather than the complete cessation of burning them.
You need to think a lot more about the ideas you have because they really aren’t grounded in anything more than your ignorance.

I‘ve addressed the burnout dilemma already. I understand that you don’t accept the premise of the argument, but I’m not going to continue to defend myself against your argument that is based on a logical fallacy.

 

[Burkey]

A hy-bred ehh?

If you don't understand how lifetime CO2 works for a car and even how new cars become old cars and get scrapped, then you really are a fool.

I've also already said we are getting rid of our oil heating, or is your memory so short you don't remember that either?

He seems to think that just because YOU didn’t scrap YOUR car, there isn’t a high likelihood that some junker is getting scrapped right now as a direct result of the “hand me down” effect your purchase created.

Once again, an argument based on ignorance of facts.
His argument works just fine until you ask yourself why you don’t see more cars from the 60’s and earlier roaming the streets.

 

[K4fxd]

You’ve managed to ignore that the carbon in the trees came from the atmosphere and regardless of whether you burn it or not, it will return there.
That‘s why we need MORE trees,

More trees, what a concept. Instead of burning trees for heat why not continue burning oil and plant 10 trees? The carbon released by burning the oil gets eaten by the trees and bonus, they add o2.,

I‘ve addressed the burnout dilemma already. I

Yep, you want to restrict everyone else, just not you.

It‘s actually incredible to watch.

I must admit it is fun triggering you.

 

[Burkey]

More trees, what a concept. Instead of burning trees for heat why not continue burning oil and plant 10 trees? The carbon released by burning the oil gets eaten by the trees and bonus, they add o2.,

That’s an excellent idea. I’m sure nobody’s thought of that already. Now you can go and do the proper research to work out how much extra tree mass we would require to offset the CO2 we’re emitting.
Then, you can work out how you’re going to plant all those trees and keep them watered. Clearly you’re going to need to plant them in areas of high rainfall, or at least areas that are suited to the species of tree we‘re using in each example.

Maybe someone has already conducted that study? Have you looked into it?

Yep, you want to restrict everyone else, just not you.

Clearly you have a reading comprehension issue.
I’ve quite clearly stated REPEATEDLY that I will do whatever is within the law for as long as it is allowed, but, that I also might make positive changes PRIOR to them being mandated IF it suits my budget.

If the government decides to ban drag racing and burnouts, that’s fine. At no point have I suggested that group X should be banned from Y whilst I should be allowed to continue on with Y.
You‘re projecting ideas because you don’t understand the premise of the argument in the slightest.

I must admit it is fun triggering you.

LOL. I’m not “triggered”.
As much as you might be trolling, people of the intellectual capacity you’re attempting to display actually exist. It’s a legit problem for the species.

 

[K4fxd]

Aleppo Pine which can absorb almost 50 tons per year. It’s considered that with 100 trees located in a city, they can absorb Co2 from 103,730 vehicles in the area. Therefore, 100 trees would be able to absorb virtually all Co2 from a small town.

Simple answers are always best.

https://www.gotreequotes.com/how-much-co2-do-trees-absorb/

 

[Burkey]

Aleppo Pine which can absorb almost 50 tons per year. It’s considered that with 100 trees located in a city, they can absorb Co2 from 103,730 vehicles in the area. Therefore, 100 trees would be able to absorb virtually all Co2 from a small town.

Simple answers are always best.

https://www.gotreequotes.com/how-much-co2-do-trees-absorb/

I don’t disagree with the idea in principle. Hell, if we could make it work I’d be out there planting trees like a madman.

Link to some basic info below. Not sure how accurate the figures are because they don’t cite a decent source for the information. Could be absolute rubbish for all we know.

https://www.carbonpirates.com/blog/...9jrKs_Tq1k0X6tksDXdAKJ-w0_ZgOLZGVtd-PckGfnyDt

 

[TexasMetallic5.0]

And here I am installing a free flowing exhaust tomorrow. Cheers.

 

[Burkey]

And now for a more reliable source.
The sheer number of trees required is astronomical. Seriously.
A decent read with lots of questions and very few answers at this point in time.
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/cli...ing-trees-to-help-mitigate-climate-change.amp

 

[Gregs24]

You seem to forget your campaign against particulate emissions.

You are going to swap from oil to trees. Trees eat carbon....

Again this has all been explained to you but you choose to ignore it again - or do you have the memory of a goldfish ?

 

[Gregs24]

We don't care !

 

[Gregs24]

More trees, what a concept. Instead of burning trees for heat why not continue burning oil and plant 10 trees? The carbon released by burning the oil gets eaten by the trees and bonus, they add o2.,

Once again explained to you over and over again. Trees sequester CO2 - correct. Burning trees releases the CO2 - correct (the same CO2) = short term cycle.

Burning oil and coal releases CO2 sequestered millions of years ago and cannot be re-sequestered back into fossil fuels for millions of years if at all.

It really is primary school maths but that will probably be a stretch for you.

Sponsored