Did anyone read this rubbish in The Herald

[charliethornton]

This idiot feels that motorsport is killing people off with exhaust gasses see

http://www.theherald.co.uk/sport/headlines/display.var.1444283.0.0.php

Why not let him see what his lot of hot air does? reply to

http://www.theherald.co.uk/sport/headlines/display.var.1444283.0.0.php#comments_form

[Mark]

Typcial whinging, yes an F1 car emits 10 times as much CO2 as a normal car. But then there are 24 F1 cars ran on 20 weekends a year, and how many normal cars are there on the road?

[Dave B]

Lots of activities harm the environment to some extent. Does he want us to live in caves with no electricity?

Ask him how many trees were felled to produce the newspaper he wrote to!

[Mark]

Ask him how many trees were felled to produce the newspaper he wrote to!

He's not just a columnist, he's the Deputy Sports Editor, thus effectively reflects the views of the newspaper as a whole. So basically 'The Herald' has declared that it hates motorsport and wishes it to be banned.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Very poorly written article


Over here, Lanarkshire Team Clyde Valley Racing, the only Scottish-owned professional team in the British Touring Car Championship, are on E85.

I guess that the columnist regularly watches motorsport then :rolleyes:

[AndyRAC]

Yet more anti- motorsport rubbish, unbelievable. Disappointing that it comes from a Deputy Sports editor, motorsport doesn't get it's fair share of coverage, only time it does is if there's a tragedy. More short sighted drivel who only classes Football as sport, anything else isn't, though he's not the only one. Get a life will yer

[CarlMetro]

Oh come now, it's about time sports pages readers had a joke column.........

[Donney]

Again stating the obvious instead of doing a proper investigation and proposing decent solutions.

A monkey with a keyboard could have written that.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Not only do I disagree with his point of view, but I find the writing style childish and many of his opinions to be factually incorrect (ie.."The faster the car, the faster it destroys the Earth - simple" - erm no).

The reference to Oswald Moseley is also completely ridiculous and un-necessary.

[Loobylou]

who only classes Football as sport, anything else isn't

Don't forget the fans walk to the matches - even the away ones - so do the players & the board members, groundsmen, cleaners & stewards etc.

I really can't see what your point is Andy. ;)

I've not read the article yet & I think I shall nip to the loo first incase I wet myself giggling at the twonk.

[Robinho]

i'll keep an interested eye on this story, i've added my (lengthy) comment and would love to see a resonse from the paper or the writer themself, if anyone has ever deserved to be fired for failing to do their job competently then this is the man

[BDunnell]

As a lot of people on here will know, I do believe that global warming is a serious problem and I do think that some curbs on car use will be necessary. I also feel that those of us who are car and motorsport enthusiasts shouldn't automatically stick our heads in the sand and ignore the concerns of people who don't share our interests, because that's pointless and possibly counter-productive.

However, this article is badly written, badly researched and doesn't move the debate on in a sensible way at all. There is a serious discussion that needs to take place, and is already taking place, on how motorsport must adapt to environmental concerns, but this sort of thing doesn't help that discussion along one bit.

[ShiftingGears]

He can also reduce carbon emissions by holding his breath...forever. Problem solved!

[Valve Bounce]

Typcial whinging, yes an F1 car emits 10 times as much CO2 as a normal car. But then there are 24 F1 cars ran on 20 weekends a year, and how many normal cars are there on the road?

Actually, an F1 caremits far less pollution than the trishaws or Tuk Tuks in Bangkok do.

But if you want to experience the ultimate pollution, just go to China. Just look up and you will notice something every Chinese already knows: you don't get to see the sky in China - it's hidden behind the pollution.

Just tonight, I heard on the news about what goes into the Yangtze River: untreated effluent, factory wastes including poisonous stuff from acids to many other chemicals. There is no control of pollution in China. I don't know about India or Indonesia - havn't been to these places but someone who has might like to comment.

[millencolin]

He can also reduce carbon emissions by holding his breath...forever. Problem solved!

did you watch the chasers war on everything as well tonight?

Oi... hasnt the FIA (F1/WRC etc) been carbon Neutral for like 10 years now?

[Captain VXR]

He can eff off stupid killjoy just one of those snobs who hate motorsport but think hunting is a sport. I would make a rant if I could be feckin' arsed :mad:

[Captain VXR]

Had two rants on there :D

[CharlieJ]

It's so bigoted and inaccurate that I can't even be bothered to rant.

Oh... OK then.....

Idiot, moron, cretin, ignorant ****hole! :eek:

[BM]

I and others have invited him to Knockhill on the 24th of June.

Will keep you updated, but I won't hold my breath. :up:

[Brown, Jon Brow]

CarlMetro's surname is Metrovich :eek: :s hock:



Posted by: Carl Metrovich, Sandy on 10:12am today

[Robinho]

and you just thought he was an austin Metro fanatic! :)

[Daniel]

Oh come now, it's about time sports pages readers had a joke column.........
Nice reply on there Carl :p

[Daniel]

I just wrote a nice email to james.porteous@theherald.co.uk and CC'ed in his editor and deputy editor Janette.Harkess@theherald.co.uk andCharles.McGhee@theherald.co.uk

You should too :)

[Brown, Jon Brow]

We even have god on our side :D


Posted by: vishnu on 4:32am today

[janneppi]

Meh, while the guys comments aren't the most sensible, this discussion reminds of a certain web comic where characters made comments about how the new pirates movie sucked, the next week he had to ask people not to send him emails anymore saying how wrong they thought he was. Apparently there were lot's of people mad about his comments. :)

[Spoonbender]

I've just posted my ten peneth on the Herald website. Are all those replys from this forums members? V impressive.

[SEATFreak]

But biodiesel creates more problems than it solves. The price of food goes up greatly as land is used to grow crops for fuel rather than food. In some parts of Mexico the price of corn has increased 50% because of demand from biofuel producers. And the vast amounts of land necessary encourages the felling of tropical forests.

And is that comment also a load of bull too? I don't mean that to sound like I am standing up for the guy's comments because I am not. It is just I am a great fan of Bio-ethanol and I take exception to that and I just want to know if it is.

I have just emailed [email:1jx8gmwc]info@eemsonline.co.uk[/email:1jx8gmwc] and brought that comment to their attention and asked if their is any truth to it.

[BeansBeansBeans]

I've just posted my ten peneth on the Herald website. Are all those replys from this forums members? V impressive.

Some of the replies are well thought out and reasonable. Some of them are more childish than the article itself.

[SEATFreak]

I liked especially the ones pointing out the facts. I would love to know where they got the facts from to be able to call it up so easily.

On the negative comment I mentioned, not more than about 4mins later after logging of, I caught the end of an interview Sir Richard Branson gave about the first bio-ethanol train (a Virgin one) and I am certain he said that sugar based bio-ethanol doesn't harm food production. Surely is the food production isn't harmed then therefore the price isn't harmed. Or is the two not related?

On the issue of motorsport being bad for the environment, let us think of the amount of usage a typical racing car goes through per year - all racing and testing included. Several years ago when Keith Floyd was a top TV-chef he did a show from Monaco. He was taken round the route by Johnny Herbert. The street was absolutely heaving with cars. Multiply that to 7 days a week for most of the year and compare that to the total testing and racing of a typical F1 car.

[reidy_fan]

there was quite a few of the lads from the website scottish club racing posted, but yeah that bloke is just a fud

[SEATFreak]

The faster the car, the faster it destroys the Earth - simple. Winning races and saving the planet are not compatible.

IMHO though I don't have the sources to prove whether it is right or wrong, I don't even believe that. I can see an equation between the fuel burned per minute and Co2 emitted but I cannot see it between speed and the level of Co2 emitted.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

The faster the car, the faster it destroys the Earth - simple. Winning races and saving the planet are not compatible.

Of course this is true. A Mini produces far more Co2 than a Tank as the Mini is far faster and far more uneconomical. :rolleyes:

[Robinho]

I liked especially the ones pointing out the facts. I would love to know where they got the facts from to be able to call it up so easily.

On the negative comment I mentioned, not more than about 4mins later after logging of, I caught the end of an interview Sir Richard Branson gave about the first bio-ethanol train (a Virgin one) and I am certain he said that sugar based bio-ethanol doesn't harm food production. Surely is the food production isn't harmed then therefore the price isn't harmed. Or is the two not related?

On the issue of motorsport being bad for the environment, let us think of the amount of usage a typical racing car goes through per year - all racing and testing included. Several years ago when Keith Floyd was a top TV-chef he did a show from Monaco. He was taken round the route by Johnny Herbert. The street was absolutely heaving with cars. Multiply that to 7 days a week for most of the year and compare that to the total testing and racing of a typical F1 car.

SEATfreak, there is a potential risk to food production from using crops to produce Bio fules, should there come a time when a large proportion of the worlds fuel need is met by Bio-fuels. to gorw the crops requires arable land that otherwise would be used for food production, and it makes sense that the the profit involved in a "cash crop" for fuel will be greater than that for food, thius more people will want to get a slice of the potential revenue.

if properly managed howver, with the surplus food the Western world already creates which never reached the mouths oft he starving, then there is no means a definite problem here, but the risk of hitting food production is real, as is the risk of destroying valuable rain forest land for increades crop potential.

however, despite this, most if not all of the journalists piece is rubbish and to discount Biofuels as a potential solution to climate problems is just as ridiculous

[SEATFreak]

SEATfreak, there is a potential risk to food production from using crops to produce Bio fules, should there come a time when a large proportion of the worlds fuel need is met by Bio-fuels. to gorw the crops requires arable land that otherwise would be used for food production, and it makes sense that the the profit involved in a "cash crop" for fuel will be greater than that for food, thius more people will want to get a slice of the potential revenue.

if properly managed howver, with the surplus food the Western world already creates which never reached the mouths oft he starving, then there is no means a definite problem here, but the risk of hitting food production is real, as is the risk of destroying valuable rain forest land for increades crop potential.

however, despite this, most if not all of the journalists piece is rubbish and to discount Biofuels as a potential solution to climate problems is just as ridiculous

So not all of the comments from Mr Porteous it seems is rubbish. Some of it like the one I quoted sounds perfect logic when you put it that way.

Particularly the piece where you said to grow the crop requires land what would otherwise be used for food production. You cannot it seems grow the crop for fuel without sacrificing a percentage of the crop for production. And I see the point regarding forests being destroyed. The more room you have the more crops you can yield.

Though I don't see how the profit for the crops when used for fuel is better than the profit when it is used for food.

[Robinho]

his comment isn't complete rubbih on that point, but it is a peap of faith rather than a fact, and is poorly researched and written, especially considering that he refers to bio-diesel not bio-ethanol or any other bio fuels.

the profit for growing fuel will be massive as the price of petrol and demand for it worldwide is massive, whereas returns on food crops are rarely very high, although if food becomes scarce that balance wil undoubetdley change and we won't be able to afford the scarce food available - at least that is what mr Porteous would have us believe.

as for destroying forests, this is a double edged sword, as you would think that the land the forests grow on are particularly fertile, and this is true to an extent, but what makes them fertile is the forest and the balanced ecosystem it supports, take it away and the soil loses its source of nutrients whilst the crops remove them, soon the land is useless to farming and they have to destroy more forest. IMO our best hope is a good system where the good food producing areas of the world (Russian Steppes, Great Plains USA, large parts of China etc) provide the majority of the food/fuel for the rest of the world, but no-one wants to rely on someone else for food and fuel so it unlikely to work in that way