I couldn't help but notice the amount of smoke that came out of that thing. Definitely would have not passed emission testing in most states!
shareIt is a two stroke motor. The oil is mixed in with the gas. As a result, it smokes.
.
These motors are the same to this day. You can get small ones on ebay to put on bicycles to motorize them... they are also common on smaller dirt bikes.
#1: Global warming is Bulls*it. (In MY humble opinion, anyway...) The whole idea is being discounted by more and more scientists. So don't worry about it.
#2: This film takes place in the mid 70's! I don't think we got all that "environmentally conscious" til the 80's.
All I know is I WANT a Silver Bullet... The more smoke and noise, the better.
Have a nice day.
Trust me,
Swan
My, you're nosey, aren't you?
PACman66^
Love it ^
And, to add to your splendid comments: Global warming does occur -- it always has -- it's called weather and sun cycles.
Over and out ~
"I will not go gently onto a shelf, degutted, to become a non-book." ~ Bradbury
Denise....
You are absolutely right. I guess we can also attribute global warming to something called "Summer."
The heat has made me all bonkers... Can't wait for Fall/Winter!
Trust me,
Swan
My, you're nosey, aren't you?
[deleted]
Most scientists at one time believed the world was flat as well. Even if 97% of all scientists do believe in AGW, this does not in and of itself prove anything. It is nothing more than the argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy.
Assume for the sake of argument, that AGW is the case. If it is, then why are India and China not on board to help limit the emission of greenhouse gasses? After all they are the two biggest producers of greenhouse gasses in the world, so they should be included in plans to help reduce them but they aren't. Neither of them signed the Kyoto Accords, which when it came up for ratification in the US Senate, failed miserably, with 95 voting against ratification and zero to support.
You call it climate change 'denial' as if we were Holocaust deniers. And the only corrupt people in this debate are, according to you, those who question AGW. Has it ever occurred to you that those who so fervently preach AGW may themselves have less-than-noble reasons for doing so? In this case, there may very well be. The more alarmist they make the AGW danger out to be, the more government and private foundation grant money they get. So, the insinuation of corruption works both ways, doesn't it?
I am not a climate change denier; climate does change. But I do question the role that human activity plays in it and that the only nations to be affected by restrictions on carbon emissions are those of the industrialized West makes me very suspicious that there is a lot more politics than science going on the debate over AGW.
[deleted]
Utter claptrap.
share