Joe Papasnap Maher Posted August 15, 2008 Report Share Posted August 15, 2008 Im currently watching porn.in ur face.Me to? Limewire ***...torrents ***.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balman Posted August 15, 2008 Report Share Posted August 15, 2008 id just like throw a big f**k YOU towards joe maher.Personaly i was just enjoying using 'Flickr' how about joe maher with he's silly unbritish weather nope can't do it lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M-i-t-c-h Posted August 15, 2008 Report Share Posted August 15, 2008 CBA to read the whole thread, so sorry if someone has already said this.Rainfall is generated by and large bt cyclic winds called Hadley cells. Theses winds move laterally over a course of 8 to 10 years. So we get wetter weather while parts of places like african gets dryer, don't worry it weather will come back, just give it time.As for global warming, this changes the speed and distance that the Hadley cells move, so we get wetter and dryer periods for longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidehop Posted August 15, 2008 Report Share Posted August 15, 2008 Try living in scotland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikeperson45 Posted August 15, 2008 Report Share Posted August 15, 2008 I like scotland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casualjoe Posted August 15, 2008 Report Share Posted August 15, 2008 http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadle...bsdata/cet.htmlyou may find this interesting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M-i-t-c-h Posted August 15, 2008 Report Share Posted August 15, 2008 Had centre is.... well ..... not very interesting at all infact its rubbish in the most part. http://www.netlinkaccess.com/Accounting-Degree/55465.htm Not the best example of a non bias view, but still pretty much all right. Hadcet just ignore "anomalies" on repat occasions and dont account for issues such as urbanisation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haz Posted August 15, 2008 Report Share Posted August 15, 2008 There is more evidense that climate change is caused by solar activity than it is affected by polution.That's not to say polution is good or doesn't matter, of course.There is a graph which shows global temperature against solar flare activity, and there is a very strong correlation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c.j Posted August 15, 2008 Report Share Posted August 15, 2008 are china reducing their carbon footprint?also christmas lights? arent they the stupidist thing we do towards 'global warming?' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannah Shucksmith Posted August 15, 2008 Report Share Posted August 15, 2008 are china reducing their carbon footprint?also christmas lights? arent they the stupidist thing we do towards 'global warming?' but everyone loves christmas lights Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davetrials Posted August 17, 2008 Report Share Posted August 17, 2008 Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's wrong to try and slow down global warming, but what I really want to know is why now? For years, we've been taught about global warming, my nan told me they discussed it when she was in school (which was a god damn long time ago...) so why is it only now that we're being taught to 'reduce our carbon footprint' or 'go green'?more rain? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endofreak Posted August 17, 2008 Report Share Posted August 17, 2008 We've had a little bit of flooding here in belfast. There was a new underpass opened recently on one of the motorways leading into the city but I don't think it's been designed very well.Not a great pic but that's what the underpass looked like yesterday. Doesn't look like much but that puddle is 40 - 50ft deep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davetrials Posted August 17, 2008 Report Share Posted August 17, 2008 beg ur pardon 40-50feet:S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Quinn Posted August 17, 2008 Report Share Posted August 17, 2008 If it's an inner city motorway underpass filled to the brim it will definately be pretty f**king deep. Dunno about 40 foot though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endofreak Posted August 18, 2008 Report Share Posted August 18, 2008 My bad. Should check my sources before posting something. It is more like 20 odd foot but still quite shocking to see something that normally has lorries etc drive under it fill with water in a matter of hours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Token Posted August 18, 2008 Report Share Posted August 18, 2008 Maybe the engineer that designed it thought he was creating a reservoir not an underpass?.... it happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmo =) Posted August 18, 2008 Report Share Posted August 18, 2008 (edited) gordon brown is a f**k tard, he charges all new 4x4 a ton of tax yet alot of them chuck a lot less emissions out then the old cars. i work in a car engineering garage and do emissions on cars for mot's aswell. Believe me most older style cars such as the old feistas and most imports give out far more emissions then a new 4x4 or a new car would. Yet they still charge higher tax on new 4x4 and cars it pathetic, they havent thought it through at all. gordon brown needs a slap round the face. Edited August 18, 2008 by Elmo =) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomm Posted August 18, 2008 Report Share Posted August 18, 2008 Haha, I quite like the tax on 4x4s, because they really piss me off driving around in the middle of towns. You see so many clowns who buy a range rover, stick alloys on it and lower it, so it's totally useless off-road. The thought of higher taxes for these clowns makes me warm inside (the same goes for all the mums who drive their kids to school in BMW X5s etc). Besides, if you can afford a posh 4x4, you can probably afford to pay a bit more tax. Taxing the wealthy a higher rate is hardly news. The only real losers in this case are the people who need a 4x4. So, er, no one then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anzo Posted August 18, 2008 Report Share Posted August 18, 2008 For people who actually need 4X4s its a kick in the teeth, however the wanker that cuts me up every day on the way to work in his 4X4, which he obviously needs as he has 2 kids, deserves to be over taxed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balman Posted August 18, 2008 Report Share Posted August 18, 2008 range rover, stick alloys on it and lower it, so it's totally useless off-road. The thought of higher taxes for these clowns makes me warm inside (the same goes for all the mums who drive their kids to school in BMW X5s etc).Haha Elmo's dad drives a range rover sport and his mum has a big 4x4 to thus the moaning then someone stright after starts caneing them haha found it funny. I personaly would rather spend the money one somthing with a smaller engine a bit quicker alot more fun and enjoy niping about you dont acctully have to break the speed limit to have fun driving imo. I will admit my mum drives a big merc ml and i personaly don't see the point as you can fit just as many people in my fiesta but she likes the feeling that everyones safe as its massive and not much chance of a normal car coming out better off due to size. I don't complain though saying that as she often pic's me up when my bikes broken and i can simply put the bike in the back with out having to take it apart and jump in the back saying that you can do that in fiestas or get a boot/roof rack. But each to there own ill never understand it but some people won't ever understand why we all bounce up and down walls on a seatless bike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krisboats Posted August 18, 2008 Report Share Posted August 18, 2008 Haha, I quite like the tax on 4x4s, because they really piss me off driving around in the middle of towns. You see so many clowns who buy a range rover, stick alloys on it and lower it, so it's totally useless off-road. The thought of higher taxes for these clowns makes me warm inside (the same goes for all the mums who drive their kids to school in BMW X5s etc). Besides, if you can afford a posh 4x4, you can probably afford to pay a bit more tax. Taxing the wealthy a higher rate is hardly news. The only real losers in this case are the people who need a 4x4. So, er, no one then?My dad drives one of those landrovers because he goes shooting, which entails driving several gunmen and dogs to random parts of fields. He gets much higher tax, despite it being a fairly new car. He also didn't just buy it on a whim, he saved for a while for it and the amount of tax he has to pay is so high he's looking at having to change it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Nick Riviera Posted August 18, 2008 Report Share Posted August 18, 2008 I like how this has gone from weather to car tax in under half a page Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krisboats Posted August 18, 2008 Report Share Posted August 18, 2008 I like how this has gone from weather to car tax in under half a pageThey are closely linked though. Global warming is the new government craze, and as a result they can milk more money out of the public in tax's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomm Posted August 18, 2008 Report Share Posted August 18, 2008 My dad drives one of those landrovers because he goes shooting, which entails driving several gunmen and dogs to random parts of fields. He gets much higher tax, despite it being a fairly new car. He also didn't just buy it on a whim, he saved for a while for it and the amount of tax he has to pay is so high he's looking at having to change it.Fair enough, but your dad is obviously in the minority. Changes in taxes always makes winners and losers, but personally I'm glad that the government are recouping more money from idiots who drive 4x4s for the hell of it. Not that I'm counting your Dad in this - it sounds like he is one of the unlucky ones but someone will always lose out, as long as it's not me I don't care. Besides, the cost of tax in terms of the annual running costs of a car is pretty small. Land Rovers aren't particularly fuel efficient anyway so I'd imagine your dad's fuel bill runs pretty high...I actually lost out quite a lot when they changed the tax, because my car is a 1.6. If the engine was 40cc smaller, I'd save ~£80 a year on tax. D'Oh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted August 18, 2008 Report Share Posted August 18, 2008 I know a good few farmers, and they all drive landrover defender 90s or 110s.These shouldn't have the huge tax if you ask me, just the other 4x4s which never see mud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.