Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 211

Thread: Seriously?

  1. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by exp18 View Post
    Is anyone here old enough to remember in school when they told us that pollution in the atmosphere was causing it to cool and we were going to have another ice age. How about the hole in the ozone. Then global warming, now its climate change. All from the same people that live by the publish or perish standard. Man has known that the world is a changing place from the dawn of time. Yes the human race has had an effect on the earth and we should do as much as we can to protect it. But we still need to live here and boy do I like to burn that fossil fuel to heat my house, to go places in a very short time and to make all though thing that make my life easier. I am a consumer of goods as we all are.

    It is a common misconception that a coming ice age was predicted back in the seventies. The reality is that the majority of studies predicted warming, however the popular press published the theory of coming cooling the most thus it is what folks remember.

    The ozone layer is a good example of a problem seen by the world, laws passed and now the ozone layer has stopped getting worse and is starting to recover.



    Sorry to all if I come on too strong. This is a special issue of concern for me. My college education is in environmental science though I don't work in science now. I cannot let stand misstatements about it or let politics define it.

  2. #52
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: mtbxplorer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    6,849
    Unfortunately I don't think climate change is irrelevant to fatbiking - snow, ice, and freezing temps are important. Around here (VT) everyone from the the ski areas to snowmobile dealers to maple sugarers are concerned. While this is a global issue, the data from your backyard may be most informative - check whats going on locally.

    We have a couple lakes with 40 years of freeze-up and ice out data, and the trend is for freeze up to be about 4 days later/decade, ice-out in spring to be about 3 days earlier per decade. So about 7 days less of frozen conditions every decade for the last 4. A month less of winter in less than my lifetime seems pretty significant.

    For anyone that wants the data, see http://www.anr.state.vt.us/anr/clima...ngeVTBetts.pdf

  3. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,723
    Quote Originally Posted by fishwrinkle View Post
    Lol. Only one who would try to sell a car in their sig. Lol
    Only one what?

    Anyways, I don't exactly rely on my MTBR signature to feed the family, but it has sold two cars so far, so I must have a fairly good understanding of one of my target demographics. Mostly I just answer PMs to help people not get ripped off by shady dealerships. Its all good.
    '15 Specialized Fatboy
    '14 Kona Zone Two
    '13 Surly Big Dummy

  4. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    871
    OK Seriously...

    IF global warming IS a fact, there has to be an upside. Why is it presented as a doom and gloom thing? We HAVE to SAVE the planet...or...we are ALL going to DIE!

    Please establish which is first...a rise in temps or a rise in CO2 giving rise to temps.
    When the weather turns warmer in the spring, plant life increases, which increases...CO2production. Plants need CO2 and from them Oxygen is released.

    Warmer temps increase the amount of water vapor in the air, producing rain. Which in turn increases plant growth in the more arid regions...and so it goes until there is a reset point reached. Back and forth until an self sustaining point is reached?

    Lets not forget that furnace up there in the sky. Turn that thermostat up or down just a notch, I submit can and will bring about a larger change than man could by trying.

    Another thing, IF we are the cause, and if in a warming trend we are being told to cut back upon CO2 production...So when it turns...and we ARE looking at an ice age...then what? Get out the diesel, gasoline, remove all the solar panels, and the wind farms?

    Yeah...and if you don't...the government will tax you into compliance...all for your own good...you understand.

    IF man has this type of control over the climate, how come we (they) can't get the forecast right more often? Oh yeah, my crops need rain and Joe over in the next state needs less, can they fix us up?

    As things now stand, I fail to see any reasonable reason as to why I should care.

    With the exception of those who seek to enrich themselves at my expense over this drummed up issue.

    There...now I feel better!

  5. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,131

    Re: Seriously?

    I guess the one upside to these climate threads, is that they expose the dullards and dummies for all to see, when you otherwise wouldn't know.

  6. #56
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,612
    Sand Rat - you should care: Food prices will change (for the worse). We have to breathe the stuff we put into crowded city air (this is a current problem, not a projected one).

    It doesn't really matter, though. Millions of years from now, the sun will die and swallow up our planet. Unless we become a space faring species, who gives a crap?

    I'm playing devil's advocate with that last question. For me, it is about being a good tenant. We are only renters, after all.

    HEY LET'S TALK ABOUT BIKES AND BIKE RIDING AND WHEELS AND PONIES HOLY SH!T WOULDN'T IT BE COOL TO HAVE A PONY
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  7. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,068
    Quote Originally Posted by beachride View Post
    It is a common misconception that a coming ice age was predicted back in the seventies. The reality is that the majority of studies predicted warming, however the popular press published the theory of coming cooling the most thus it is what folks remember....
    I distinctly remember being taught that in our science classes. But that was in the 60s in Scotland, so it was easy to believe in a coming ice age.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    ...HEY ... HOLY SH!T WOULDN'T IT BE COOL TO HAVE A PONY
    Oh don't do that - think of the methane.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57ļ36' Highlands, Scotland

  8. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    871
    Don't take me wrong Drew, here in the wonderful Willamette Valley of Oregon, the Indians have a name for it...the valley of death, and I reside at the south end, if you get my drift. I was railing against what I see as nothing more than hype, not to diminish our God given duty to be a good steward. Therein is the bait on the hook.

    What is lacking is balance. Balance in the quest for the truth and in education. Without the former the latter are indoctrinating, not educating.

    And I also remember the fears/hype over the coming ice age, same thing, a play on emotion. Somebody raises an honest question, and those who see $$$ to be had fan the unstableness of the Chicken Little's. With the ensuing racket the public becomes alarmed...over what, no one is quite sure. They just want the racket to stop so they can go about their lives in peace.

    With all the methane on this thread...anybody got a match?

  9. #59
    Human Test Subject
    Reputation: Volsung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    893
    Why do people insist on teaching the incorrect side of the story too? If 97% of scientists agree that there not only IS global warming, but that it's man made, then there is no other side of the story to teach.

  10. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    466
    Come on folks we are past Global Warming Itís now Climate Change! We need a new stream of Gov. funding, if we donít we will have a lot of people look for jobs, Thatís bad I guess

  11. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,068
    See that old fellow in sackcloth and covered in ashes?

    That's me doing penance. Truly sorry I mentioned the meteorological phenomenon which must not be named.

    Can we now divert our energies to pouring scorn onto Walgoose owners/nonowners*. Please?




    *You get to pick your own victim.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57ļ36' Highlands, Scotland

  12. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by E6roller View Post
    Sure!!!!!!!! ice on the lakes longer than ever! not a question about it here!!! Global warming??

    Sea Level's rising 20 feet in the next 100 years???? Not possible, yet the anthropomorphic-apologist, global weirding crowd continue to state this.

    I live in an area (SouthCenctral Alaska) that is glaciated more than most of the earth. I fly airplanes and am unable to believe that all of this ice I see added to the earths waters, along with Greenland's ice, Iceland's ice, and Antarctica's ice, Russia and Canada's ice........ could raise waters even inches, yet the global warming advocates state we should fear 20 feet of rise worldwide. Look at a Globe, look at the ice, THINK! Their postulations DO NOT Make SENSE.
    This comment made me wonder. The area of the oceans is enormous compared to the land and the area of land covered by ice is just a small fraction. So I did some math.

    Greenland ice sheet is 2400x1100 km and about 2km deep. The more exact estimates are 1,710,000 square kilometres and 2,850,000 cubic kilometres of ice.
    The worlds oceans have an area of about 361 million km≤.
    So if the entire Greenland ice sheet were to melt that 2.8 million km^3 would be divided among the 361 million km^2 area of the ocean for about 7.7 m deep

    And the Antarctic ice sheet is bigger
    And that does not account for any glaciers in Alaska, Canada, Asia, etc.

    So it seems it is possible mathematically.

    Craig

  13. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by Volsung View Post
    Why do people insist on teaching the incorrect side of the story too? If 97% of scientists agree that there not only IS global warming, but that it's man made, then there is no other side of the story to teach.
    That's what always irks me. There is one side, the facts, and that is that the earth is getting hotter because of human activities. There is no dispute about that, and thus no "other side". Saying that you have to present "the other side", or else it is "unbalanced", is like saying that you must present the theory of the flying spaghetti monster as an equal theory of evolution. It is just bananas and it has no basis in facts and reality.

  14. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Innota View Post
    That's what always irks me. There is one side, the facts, and that is that the earth is getting hotter because of human activities. There is no dispute about that, and thus no "other side". Saying that you have to present "the other side", or else it is "unbalanced", is like saying that you must present the theory of the flying spaghetti monster as an equal theory of evolution. It is just bananas and it has no basis in facts and reality.

    Yup. It's called false equivalency. But I suspect you know that.


  15. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,131

    Re: Seriously?

    Quote Originally Posted by Innota View Post
    That's what always irks me. There is one side, the facts, and that is that the earth is getting hotter because of human activities. There is no dispute about that, and thus no "other side". Saying that you have to present "the other side", or else it is "unbalanced", is like saying that you must present the theory of the flying spaghetti monster as an equal theory of evolution. It is just bananas and it has no basis in facts and reality.
    We live in a post fact society. The truth no longer matters. It's all about who shouts the loudest and longest.

  16. #66
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    23,997
    Quote Originally Posted by Volsung View Post
    Why do people insist on teaching the incorrect side of the story too? If 97% of scientists agree that there not only IS global warming, but that it's man made, then there is no other side of the story to teach.
    Then the argument goes to "well, those scientists are involved in a conspiracy so they can keep their funding money!". Cute, but then we can not trust any science? Seriously? This is what people think? As someone who has conducted experiments and analyzed data, this is hugely offensive. I even got a grant to conduct research (and it almost covered the taxes on my clases!), but the whole academic community is full of checks and balances to ensure the science isn't biased or fabricated. So that automatically means anyone who has ever conducted science was just trying to cheat some system? People that live with these kind of belief systems are just flipping crazy.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  17. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    466
    Ya right sound like the fox watching the hen house not a thing to worry about

  18. #68
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    23,997
    Quote Originally Posted by exp18 View Post
    Ya right sound like the fox watching the hen house not a thing to worry about
    You can't trust anyone. You'll have to shoot anyone you see.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  19. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    871

    Good job! Thanks for posting Sryanak

    Quote Originally Posted by MiniTrail View Post
    not to worry guy. Not your fault or the OP at all.

    sryanak probably hates this post more than the weather that got him down in the first place
    By Sryanak's own words, this thread was started for fun. I just don't think he understood how others could/would interrupt his aim.

    He has a sense of humor, so perhaps he has been splitting his gut with laughter?

    At any rate, I have. Enjoyed this thread more than any I can remember. Seems to me, others have also.

    So thanks Sryanak!

  20. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    110
    One example of the checks and balances in science; the geological science organizations were some of the last to accept the science due to their relationship to petroleum and coal. If they could find some reasonable way to deny it they would. But even they now agree, along with every other science organization in the world.

    The problem is no-one knows about this stuff because it's simply not talked about in the lame-stream media/TV. There are reasons for that. It's not surprising that there is so much confusion about it.

    Most folks think the science is far more unsure than it really is. The experts are sure but the average person is not, nor do they think the experts are sure.


    BTW sryanak, Thank you for your sacrifice Snow melted yet? How 'bout that weather? Nevermind (it used to be a safe way to start a conversation )
    Last edited by beachride; 05-22-2013 at 10:50 PM.

  21. #71
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,924
    The "conspiracy" bit, baffles me.

    On one side, you have a group (big oil) making money, hand over fist, with the status quo.

    If you move to the other side, you'll have a group (currently "the greenies"), making money, hand over fist, by selling new technologies.

    So it's not about money being made or not. Big oil could wise up and start being the "green energy" providers, and I don't think any of us would blink and eye, or care.

    What baffles me is, why is it bad to be concerned about the one and only planet that we all have to live on? Seems the changes towards "greener" technologies still allow profits to be made, and allow for our world to be passed down to our great grandchildren, in a condition that they can use for sustaining life, and that we'd more or less recognize.

    At the same time, we'd save money by not needing to use as much energy, extracting energy. That money could be put to other uses, like education, recreation, whatever.

    What in that, is a "conspiracy", and who's "getting screwed" by it?

    Funny how all the deniers oppose more efficient, cleaner technology. I always wonder why they don't keep their windows open all the time at home, be it hot, or cold. Might as well let the heat, or A/C you paid for flow outside, since you so detest the conservation of resources......

    And since the denier group seems to be springing from the right end of the political spectrum, did they all forget they are conservatives? Start conserving already!

    As for the OP? I dunno, Fatbikers as a group, for the most part, love some good snow, so the fact that our snow delivery is getting wonky, seems this is a good thread. Kept polite, this topic needs discussion, if only so the folks who want it to stay the way it is currently, can explain to those of us baffled by such a mindset, why they think the way they do.
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  22. #72
    Smash Mode: ON
    Reputation: Dustin Mustangs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    299
    There is no clear front runner to replace petroleum. Anyone investing in such at this point is taking a huge gamble. If I was an oil company (Exxon stock anyone?), I would ride this one out as apposed to loosing my hat on the wrong 'green' technology.
    Whatever floats your bike, dude

  23. #73
    NMBP
    Reputation: crashtestdummy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Dustin Mustangs View Post
    There is no clear front runner to replace petroleum. Anyone investing in such at this point is taking a huge gamble. If I was an oil company (Exxon stock anyone?), I would ride this one out as apposed to loosing my hat on the wrong 'green' technology.
    Have you had a look at what they are doing in Europe, they obviously didn't get your memo.
    Riding Fat and still just as fast as I never was.

  24. #74
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,033
    Not sure I can add anything of value to this thread, so I'll just say I'd ride on that cold white stuff, and let others worry about the consequences of where and why the stuff is on the ground.

  25. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Dustin Mustangs View Post
    There is no clear front runner to replace petroleum. Anyone investing in such at this point is taking a huge gamble. If I was an oil company (Exxon stock anyone?), I would ride this one out as apposed to loosing my hat on the wrong 'green' technology.
    Yep,
    Look at the solar energy companies that went belly up recently.
    Currently oil and natural gas is cheap enough and "green" technologies new enough that the green technologies usually require government incentives to compete on cost.
    Oil companies have made some investments in other technologies. BP has a solar division which is a large player in that market. And some mid-east countries have renewable energy goals.
    The main problem is what people will buy. Given choices most consumers will chose the cheaper and more convenient choice, which for now is oil and natural gas.

    Europe as a whole uses oil and renewables in similar proportions to the US. The US is one of the front runners in installed wind capacity. And while Europeans do drive somewhat less than the US nearly every car on the road still uses petroleum based fuels.

    Craig

  26. #76
    Perpetual n00b
    Reputation: dgw2jr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,755
    Maybe we can speed this global warming thing along by burning this thread!
    The leg bone's connected to the Cash Bone!

  27. #77
    NMBP
    Reputation: crashtestdummy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,180
    Quote Originally Posted by CBBaron View Post
    Yep,
    Look at the solar energy companies that went belly up recently.
    Currently oil and natural gas is cheap enough and "green" technologies new enough that the green technologies usually require government incentives to compete on cost.
    Oil companies have made some investments in other technologies. BP has a solar division which is a large player in that market. And some mid-east countries have renewable energy goals.
    The main problem is what people will buy. Given choices most consumers will chose the cheaper and more convenient choice, which for now is oil and natural gas.

    Europe as a whole uses oil and renewables in similar proportions to the US. The US is one of the front runners in installed wind capacity. And while Europeans do drive somewhat less than the US nearly every car on the road still uses petroleum based fuels.

    Craig
    And why did the solar companies go belly up? There is a lot more to this lame argument.

    The US gets 13% of it's power from renewable sources. Quite a few European countries do significantly better.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...rces.html?_r=0
    Riding Fat and still just as fast as I never was.

  28. #78
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,924
    Quote Originally Posted by CBBaron View Post
    Yep,
    Look at the solar energy companies that went belly up recently.
    I'd counter that for those companies who were pushing the limits, and perhaps made poor business choices (I don't know enough to speak on that), sure, they went belly up.

    But it's akin to saying "see, those bike shops closed, the bike business must be dying". It isn't an accurate measure. Companies rise and fall all the time. I know it helps the denier argument that they are solar companies, but solar is well established, and works great. More investment will only serve to improve efficiency.

    Let's not forget, since you mentioned government subsidies and incentives, that big oil gets huge amounts of money from the government, in the form of tax breaks, subsidies, etc. This is why oil and nat gas "are cheap"......

    Don't get me started on their record profits, whilst being subsidized and not paying their full tax load though.
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  29. #79
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    23,997
    Quote Originally Posted by CBBaron View Post
    This comment made me wonder. The area of the oceans is enormous compared to the land and the area of land covered by ice is just a small fraction. So I did some math.

    Greenland ice sheet is 2400x1100 km and about 2km deep. The more exact estimates are 1,710,000 square kilometres and 2,850,000 cubic kilometres of ice.
    The worlds oceans have an area of about 361 million km≤.
    So if the entire Greenland ice sheet were to melt that 2.8 million km^3 would be divided among the 361 million km^2 area of the ocean for about 7.7 m deep

    And the Antarctic ice sheet is bigger
    And that does not account for any glaciers in Alaska, Canada, Asia, etc.

    So it seems it is possible mathematically.

    Craig
    Math is an evil liberal plot!

    (we have some ice in AK too! )
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  30. #80
    Smash Mode: ON
    Reputation: Dustin Mustangs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by crashtestdummy View Post
    And why did the solar companies go belly up? There is a lot more to this lame argument.

    The US gets 13% of it's power from renewable sources. Quite a few European countries do significantly better.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...rces.html?_r=0
    Like Iceland for example with it's 100% renewable? Iceland who is the size of Ohio with less than 3% of the population?? Kind of an apples to oranges comparison with the US isn't it? And the discussion was about petroleum so I assume all the transportation in Iceland is electric nowadays? Just sayin!

    For a while I was laughing at all the poor souls caught up in this thread headed nowhere good and now look at me!

    THAT SNOW IS BLUE!!!

    Whatever floats your bike, dude

  31. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    I'd counter that for those companies who were pushing the limits, and perhaps made poor business choices (I don't know enough to speak on that), sure, they went belly up.
    Sorry I was not clear on this point. I was pointing out its not necessarily an easy business to make money. A couple things contributed to the problems, one the economic slow down reduced energy demands which reduced energy prices. And government incentives decreased due to budget pressures. Both made solar energy less competitive. Coupled with increased competition and questionable business plans ... you get the picture.

    The renewable energy incentives are a much bigger piece of the price of renewables than they are of other industries (rightly so I believe). Tax breaks by oil companies is ofcourse a big deal but it is very hard to determine exactly how much is being paid on what for these big corporations due to the complexity of the accounting and our tax code. According to one article I read there are multiple full time IRS accountants assigned just to Exxon

    Seems what is really needed is a streamlining of the tax code so we can follow the money

    Craig

  32. #82
    NMBP
    Reputation: crashtestdummy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Dustin Mustangs View Post
    Like Iceland for example with it's 100% renewable? Iceland who is the size of Ohio with less than 3% of the population?? Kind of an apples to oranges comparison with the US isn't it? And the discussion was about petroleum so I assume all the transportation in Iceland is electric nowadays? Just sayin!

    For a while I was laughing at all the poor souls caught up in this thread headed nowhere good and now look at me!

    THAT SNOW IS BLUE!!!

    Of course it's not the same. Petroleum isn't used only for transportation. The whole climate change issue isn't about issues caused only by transportation. There is a huge overall issue here and thousands, if not millions of pieces to the puzzle.

    But look at what you had originally stated.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dustin Mustangs View Post
    There is no clear front runner to replace petroleum. Anyone investing in such at this point is taking a huge gamble. If I was an oil company (Exxon stock anyone?), I would ride this one out as apposed to loosing my hat on the wrong 'green' technology.
    Obviously, others are finding replacements for petroleum. I'm not naive enough that I expect it to happen over night, but it's not going to happen at all unless there is a real push to make it happen.

    Hopefully the big oil companies will get left with their pants down, and cease to be relevant.
    Riding Fat and still just as fast as I never was.

  33. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    466
    The Big Oil companyís make money thatís why there are there, to make money, the same reason most of us go to work. We are the reason they make money because we demand there products they produce. More demand the more they can charge, itís very simple they do what any business does. That is also why they have to worry about the tax code.
    You cannot say that about most of the Green technology industry they are not economically feasible. They are subsidized by the Government rather its electric cars, wind turbines green building technology the list goes on. A lot of that Government money is from the oil industry taxs. Also we have given the green industry a pass on being environmentally sound. Look at what it takes to make an electric car, the short life of the batteries and the disposal of them nobody talks about that. Wind turbines very small returns for high cost of manufacturing and operation. Here in Anchorage they have to increase rate to cover the cost of a few wind turbines we have. Even after they subsidized the whole process manufacturing ,install, land lease and they still had to raise the rates. No to mention the birds that get killed by the rotors. They donít even get a second look because its green. If any other industry had the same problems as the green industry the government agencies would regulate and fine them out of business. The green industry need to clean it self-up and find a way to be economically viable. Then we all can take it seriously and start to wean ourselves off some the things that are doing harm to the environment. It will happen I am sure, but we need to stop pointing a finger at every other industry and make the green industry step up, be real, stop being prompt up and produce something that is economically feasible.

  34. #84
    NMBP
    Reputation: crashtestdummy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,180
    Quote Originally Posted by exp18 View Post
    The Big Oil companyís make money thatís why there are there, to make money, the same reason most of us go to work. We are the reason they make money because we demand there products they produce. More demand the more they can charge, itís very simple they do what any business does. That is also why they have to worry about the tax code.
    You cannot say that about most of the Green technology industry they are not economically feasible. They are subsidized by the Government rather its electric cars, wind turbines green building technology the list goes on. A lot of that Government money is from the oil industry taxs. Also we have given the green industry a pass on being environmentally sound. Look at what it takes to make an electric car, the short life of the batteries and the disposal of them nobody talks about that. Wind turbines very small returns for high cost of manufacturing and operation. Here in Anchorage they have to increase rate to cover the cost of a few wind turbines we have. Even after they subsidized the whole process manufacturing ,install, land lease and they still had to raise the rates. No to mention the birds that get killed by the rotors. They donít even get a second look because its green. If any other industry had the same problems as the green industry the government agencies would regulate and fine them out of business. The green industry need to clean it self-up and find a way to be economically viable. Then we all can take it seriously and start to wean ourselves off some the things that are doing harm to the environment. It will happen I am sure, but we need to stop pointing a finger at every other industry and make the green industry step up, be real, stop being prompt up and produce something that is economically feasible.
    I hope that English is your second language.
    Riding Fat and still just as fast as I never was.

  35. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    110
    The essence of the problem is that the true costs of using fossil fuels is not included in the price. If it were, the green tech solutions would be more viable and progress faster.

    The unfortunate truth here is that the cheapest thing to do now is not the cheapest in the long run, and if we are truly ethical creatures we will accept more current cost for FF- based energy to save future generations from catastrophe. Because there is no doubt, if we keep doing what we are doing, and burn all the fossil fuels in the ground, mankind faces certain catastrophe. Not the end of the world or of us, but catastrophe nonetheless.

  36. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    466
    Quote Originally Posted by crashtestdummy View Post
    I hope that English is your second language.
    sorry teacher i will try to do better next time so maybe you can understand it

  37. #87
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,612
    exp18 - I agree with you only on your point of short lifetimes of batteries and the ramifications of their disposal. High tech batteries and/or supercapacitors will change quite a few things once they come into existence. I'm tired of reading articles promising the next big thing in batteries year after year, and having nothing functional in our hands yet. Imagine not dumping the better part of half our generated energy back into the ground, sounds pretty good to me.

    Speaking to MendonCycleSmith's point on sound business plans, Tesla Motors is going to pay off their government loan early very soon.

    EDIT: From the horse's mouth, nine years early.

    Also, for pete's sake man, use some paragraphs. No one wants to read a wall.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  38. #88
    NMBP
    Reputation: crashtestdummy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,180
    Quote Originally Posted by exp18 View Post
    sorry teacher i will try to do better next time so maybe you can understand it
    If you want to be taken seriously in a reasonably intelligent discussion, you need to be able to write with reasonable intelligence.
    Riding Fat and still just as fast as I never was.

  39. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,211
    For good or ill, I think the fat bike forum has officially jumped the shark. I blame the Wal-Mart fat bike.

  40. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    133
    One point that needs to be brought up/clarified:
    when examining past temperature and CO2 fluctuations, it is always the temperature that increases first, then increased CO2 follows. Historically, CO2 is not the driver, increases in CO2 are the result of warming.
    I personally believe that in my life science will show that the effect of CO2 is minimal to compared to the the effect of the nearest star, which we don't completely understand at the moment.

    ok, carry on. If I lived by the snow I'd have a fat bike...

  41. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    466
    Quote Originally Posted by crashtestdummy View Post
    If you want to be taken seriously in a reasonably intelligent discussion, you need to be able to write with reasonable intelligence.
    Yes we all can tell your intelligence oozes from every word i cannot wait for your next post i am sure i will all be in awe

  42. #92
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,205
    Quote Originally Posted by Slow Danger View Post
    For good or ill, I think the fat bike forum has officially jumped the shark. I blame the Wal-Mart fat bike.


    Dayum. The WalMoose will prove out to be good for Fat biking in general. That is if their riders survive.

  43. #93
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,924
    I was on a quest to get a more fuel efficient car a few years back, settled on a VW TDI, because I couldn't stomach the whole battery thing either.

    They are nasty, and the ever increasing use of rare earth elements makes them an even bigger issue.

    Add to that, the largest supplies of Lithium are in China, and yeah, I can't get behind them any more than I'm forced to, IE: consumer electronics, the lights I use for night riding, etc.

    I can't find the original piece, but found the info on another forum.

    Technology like this, can revolutionize our way of doing things. If stuff like this gets the support it needs, we can really kiss batteries goodbye. Really? 2 years on a squirt of lighter fluid, with 700 times the output of standard batteries? Damn....

    Smallest Internal Combustion Engine - The Garage Journal Board

    On another topic, related to big oil, since we seem to like a good conspiracy and all, why are we being sold on energy independence, particularly the whole fracking bit, when the vast bulk of the energy produced, is being sold overseas?

    Isn't that "ours", as in, for us? I know, it can't be stored well, it leaks out of containment systems over time.

    My suggestion? Slow down extraction, to a rate that is slightly greater than consumption. Nice, sustained profits over a longer time frame, and we can really enjoy the "hundred plus years" of energy. As it is, sounds like we're getting snowed by a patriotic spin game, and the oil companies are making even yet still more $$$.

    Then, related to the fracking bit again, anyone paying attention to the fact that the Bush and Cheney families are busily buying up water rights all over the country? As Cheneys "former" company, Halliburton is busily running around, contaminating ground water with fracking chemicals at a blistering rate?

    The heck with climate change, we're getting screwed without even talking about CO2 levels.....
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  44. #94
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,924
    Quote Originally Posted by exp18 View Post
    Yes we all can tell your intelligence oozes from every word i cannot wait for your next post i am sure i will all be in awe
    Proper spelling, punctuation, formatting etc shows you care enough about your topic and your audience to take the time to use it correctly. Why does that matter? Because you're trying to get them to see your side, or point, or what have you. If you don't care, why should they?

    Lacking that, one is basically saying, this doesn't matter to me, nor do you.

    You don't normally find academic papers, public policy statements, religious doctrines, what have you, written in such as way as to sound like the author didn't make it past 3rd grade.

    Getting cranky when someone suggests that it matters, just shows your lack of care for the topic at hand, all the more......
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  45. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,099
    Quote Originally Posted by brianb View Post
    One point that needs to be brought up/clarified:
    when examining past temperature and CO2 fluctuations, it is always the temperature that increases first, then increased CO2 follows. Historically, CO2 is not the driver, increases in CO2 are the result of warming.
    Got a source to back that up?

  46. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by exp18 View Post
    Yes we all can tell your intelligence oozes from every word i cannot wait for your next post i am sure i will all be in awe
    I think that CTD left with his tail between his legs after this well written response.

    To all you whiners complaining about where this thread has gone, a simple suggestion, don't read it. I'm enjoying it.
    Gravity: Itís not just a good idea; itís the law

  47. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,099
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post

    On another topic, related to big oil, since we seem to like a good conspiracy and all, why are we being sold on energy independence, particularly the whole fracking bit, when the vast bulk of the energy produced, is being sold overseas?

    Isn't that "ours", as in, for us? I know, it can't be stored well, it leaks out of containment systems over time.

    My suggestion? Slow down extraction, to a rate that is slightly greater than consumption. Nice, sustained profits over a longer time frame, and we can really enjoy the "hundred plus years" of energy. As it is, sounds like we're getting snowed by a patriotic spin game, and the oil companies are making even yet still more $$$.
    I believe it's mostly a matter of how the wholesale oil market works. It all gets fed into the giant established commodity trading market, and goes wherever. I guess it's better that we sell more than we buy, so we COULD be independent if the supplies from overseas get disrupted due to a war or something.

    The fracking thing is a big speed bump to alternative energy development. It will take something like the pain of ridiculously high-priced gas to get us off our ass and do some R&D.

  48. #98
    NMBP
    Reputation: crashtestdummy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,180
    Quote Originally Posted by exp18 View Post
    Yes we all can tell your intelligence oozes from every word i cannot wait for your next post i am sure i will all be in awe
    exp18, I'm sorry that I singled you out and I didn't mean to offend you. I will try to be less perspicacious.
    Riding Fat and still just as fast as I never was.

  49. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by brianb View Post
    One point that needs to be brought up/clarified:
    when examining past temperature and CO2 fluctuations, it is always the temperature that increases first, then increased CO2 follows. Historically, CO2 is not the driver, increases in CO2 are the result of warming.
    I personally believe that in my life science will show that the effect of CO2 is minimal to compared to the the effect of the nearest star, which we don't completely understand at the moment.

    ok, carry on. If I lived by the snow I'd have a fat bike...
    Well, I'm pretty sure that the climatologists have thought about that and 97% of them still believe that most if not all the recent warming over the last forty years is due to higher CO2 levels. That extra CO2 is from man. Isotope analysis proves this because fossil fuel based CO2 has a different isotope ratio than natural biospheric CO2.

    But that is correct. In the past orbital variations caused slight gradual increases in temperatures due to increased solar. The increase in temps resulted in CO2 being outgassed from the oceans. This increase in CO2 levels then resulted in even more warming. Were it not for this accentuation of temperatures by the outgassed CO2, the historic temperature swings would not be nearly as large.

    That being said, there has never been a period in the past when 9 billion tons per year of CO2 was being released into the air, like there is today. Thus comparisons to the past come up short. The release of CO2 today into the air has an immediate effect on temps due to it's greenhouse effect.



  50. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    466
    No problem Crashtest and others you are right I should of did a better job and reading through it before I posted it. But I can take the heat with a smile.
    Now to the important things I am going for a bike ride.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •