Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 211

Thread: Seriously?

  1. #101
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,094
    Meanwhile in Australia.... one month nearly gone in our Winter.

    Perfect riding weather anyone ?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Seriously?-winter.jpg  

    Evil Following
    Trek 9.9 Superfly SL
    IndyFab Deluxe 29
    FM190 Fatty
    Pivot Vault CX
    Cervelo R3 Disc

  2. #102
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,033
    Quote Originally Posted by Dirty $anchez View Post
    Dayum. The WalMoose will prove out to be good for Fat biking in general. That is if their riders survive.
    I got a WalMoose secret.

  3. #103
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,033
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    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 $$$.
    Being as this thread is still here,
    Yea, you nailed it, on the getting screwed aspect.

    FWIW,
    How much oil does the United States consume per year?

    The United States consumed a total of 6.87 billion barrels (18.83 million barrels per day) in 2011 and 7.0 billion barrels (19.18 million barrels per day) of refined petroleum products and biofuels in 2010. For both years, this was about 22% of total world petroleum consumption.
    How much oil does the United States consume per year? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
    There are 144 refineries, of which 134 are operating, and their combined daily output is 17,322,178 barrels.
    U.S. Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries

    How much of the oil produced in the United States is consumed in the United States?

    EIA cannot determine exactly the amount of crude oil produced in the United States (U.S.) that is consumed, as refined products, in the U.S.

    However, the majority of the crude oil produced in the U.S. is refined in U.S. refineries. The U.S. also produces other liquids that are used in the refining process that are added or blended with the refined products. In December 2012, the U.S. produced about 7.03 million barrels of crude oil per day and imported about 7.58 million barrels per day.

    EIA is not able to track how much domestically produced crude oil and other liquids are exported in the form of refined products. The small quantity of crude oil produced in the U.S. that is exported, nearly all to Canada, may actually be returned to the U.S. as refined products.

    The U.S. became a (slight) net exporter (exported more than we imported) of refined petroleum products in 2008. Refined petroleum products produced in the U.S. from both domestic and imported crude oil are exported to other countries. The volume of net exports of refined products in December 2012 was equivalent to about 8.5% of the total volume of U.S. petroleum consumption in December 2012.
    How much of the oil produced in the United States is consumed in the United States? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
    So I guess it really comes down to which EIA report you want to look at while being screwed

  4. #104
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,033
    Quote Originally Posted by SmooveP View Post
    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.
    The only real problem is that we use more than we produce.
    If the import tap were to stop, we'd be screwed.

  5. #105
    Enthusiast
    Reputation: KK89's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    101

    Global Scam

    I think global warming is a Global Scam. Just to scare people.. Why? 'cause few make money with fear. Just like scaring people that their going to die of high cholesterol and make them eat pills they really don't need. The pills are what really is going to kill you if you really don't need them.

    Some selfish b*stards have made a fine system to make money without really earning it. (by earning I mean they haven't done anything constructive that people or nature would benefit)

    This in the otherhand could be coming: The next big freeze could last 250 years: Experts say Sun's activity wanes every 200 years - and the next 'cooling period' is due by 2040 | Mail Online

    Im not saying climate change is a fraud. It is a normal cycle of life on earth.

    But looks like your going to need your fatty anyway..

  6. #106
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,603
    Meanwhile, here in the north of Scotland we are all releasing as much CO2 and methane as we can in the hope of some global warming.

    Then we might get to see what this "summer" season is that all the southerners seem to enjoy.

    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  7. #107
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,094
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    Meanwhile, here in the north of Scotland we are all releasing as much CO2 and methane as we can in the hope of some global warming.

    Then we might get to see what this "summer" season is that all the southerners seem to enjoy.

    Funny

    Was speaking to my Brother in Norn Iron last night and he said they were having shocking weather for nearly June... so just the way I remember it.
    Evil Following
    Trek 9.9 Superfly SL
    IndyFab Deluxe 29
    FM190 Fatty
    Pivot Vault CX
    Cervelo R3 Disc

  8. #108
    Human Test Subject
    Reputation: Volsung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,044
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    Meanwhile, here in the north of Scotland we are all releasing as much CO2 and methane as we can in the hope of some global warming.

    Then we might get to see what this "summer" season is that all the southerners seem to enjoy.

    global warming might cause english refuges to swarm up to your mountains. it's something to consider.

  9. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,603
    Yeah, just got some friends from Qld over. They thought they'd come for the summer. Poor sods are now wearing all my extreme weather gear and still shivering even though it's a balmy 5ºC.

    Quote Originally Posted by Volsung View Post
    global warming might cause english refuges to swarm up to your mountains. it's something to consider.
    You're forgetting our specially trained attack midges. They'd quickly swarm back...
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  10. #110
    Location: SouthPole of MN
    Reputation: duggus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,711
    This thread should have ended right here. Basically sums it up:

    Quote Originally Posted by ultraspontane View Post
    Shut up, everyone. There is plenty of information out there should you be interested. You're not going to convince angry, science denying codgers of anything over an internet forum. If thousands of scientists, studies, and papers aren't going to convince them, you're not going to either.

    Just take it to the off topic section, will ya.
    Quote Originally Posted by MiniTrail View Post
    Both sides have had their say so you can bin this now mods

  11. #111
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,382
    Quote Originally Posted by duggus View Post
    This thread should have ended right here. Basically sums it up:
    I dunno, both sides seem to be having a polite discussion. We may not change minds, but if it can be done without resorting to insults and personal attacks? I see no reason why it can't continue.

    That being said? Seems to me, the most aggressive opinion sharing being done here, is by the folks who want the thread to go away. Curious......

    Onto other interesting topics, it's recently come to my attention that bedding down with the denier camp, is a whole, separate group of science resisters.

    I can't make this up people.

    Meteor doubters. Yes, they believe that meteors are a manufactured concept, designed to make us spend dollars on research, planning, tracking, awareness, etc.
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  12. #112
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,094
    The stuff my family and friends are posting on facebook says it all.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Evil Following
    Trek 9.9 Superfly SL
    IndyFab Deluxe 29
    FM190 Fatty
    Pivot Vault CX
    Cervelo R3 Disc

  13. #113
    Perpetual n00b
    Reputation: dgw2jr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,762
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    I dunno, both sides seem to be having a polite discussion. We may not change minds, but if it can be done without resorting to insults and personal attacks? I see no reason why it can't continue.

    That being said? Seems to me, the most aggressive opinion sharing being done here, is by the folks who want the thread to go away. Curious......

    Onto other interesting topics, it's recently come to my attention that bedding down with the denier camp, is a whole, separate group of science resisters.

    I can't make this up people.

    Meteor doubters. Yes, they believe that meteors are a manufactured concept, designed to make us spend dollars on research, planning, tracking, awareness, etc.
    Curious that people don't come to the Fat Bikes forum to read the same global warming arguments over and over again? It's great that everyone is being so civil and all but this thread really should be in the off-topic forum since it no longer pertains to Fat Bikes or biking at all really.
    The leg bone's connected to the Cash Bone!

  14. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    5
    Halleluiah, They're not wrong, not right, right now

  15. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by KK89 View Post
    I think global warming is a Global Scam. Just to scare people.. Why? 'cause few make money with fear. Just like scaring people that their going to die of high cholesterol and make them eat pills they really don't need. The pills are what really is going to kill you if you really don't need them.

    Some selfish b*stards have made a fine system to make money without really earning it. (by earning I mean they haven't done anything constructive that people or nature would benefit)

    This in the otherhand could be coming: The next big freeze could last 250 years: Experts say Sun's activity wanes every 200 years - and the next 'cooling period' is due by 2040 | Mail Online

    Im not saying climate change is a fraud. It is a normal cycle of life on earth.

    But looks like your going to need your fatty anyway..
    So I'm curious which of the following two facts that you dispute? 1) Mankind has caused the CO2 levels to increase by 40%. or 2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

    Because if one accepts those two facts as true, logic says the atmosphere should warm. There's no need to look any further at conspiracies or hoax's that involve virtually the entire world's science community.

  16. #116
    Enthusiast
    Reputation: KK89's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    101
    I really don't think that humans can possibly cause any major damage to nature. Nature is stronger. Climate can warm or get colder.. it never stays the same. But I just don't think people are causing it. It happens 'cause nature go by it's own cycle. We simply can not do anything else but adapt. (Fatbikes)

  17. #117
    NMBP
    Reputation: crashtestdummy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,183
    Quote Originally Posted by KK89 View Post
    I really don't think that humans can possibly cause any major damage to nature. Nature is stronger. Climate can warm or get colder.. it never stays the same. But I just don't think people are causing it. It happens 'cause nature go by it's own cycle. We simply can not do anything else but adapt. (Fatbikes)

    Wow! And all those species of animals that we humans caused to go extinct? Must of been nature that did it.
    Riding Fat and still just as fast as I never was.

  18. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,112
    Quote Originally Posted by KK89 View Post
    I really don't think that humans can possibly cause any major damage to nature. Nature is stronger. Climate can warm or get colder.. it never stays the same. But I just don't think people are causing it. It happens 'cause nature go by it's own cycle. We simply can not do anything else but adapt. (Fatbikes)
    Not trying to make your brain explode, but humans are part of nature. We're sort of like a virus that's infected the earth.

  19. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    419
    Advocates that global warming is mostly or solely man-made (I don't advocate any particular source for global warming if it exists, which it apparently does): Why does NASA keep the original source document data confidential? The only known reason is to spin, steer, and pre-determine the cause.
    jimbo

    www.jamesromeyn.com Music and Audio, LLC
    www.prime-vibe.com guitar & violin seasoning device

  20. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    48
    Which document?

  21. #121
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    419
    Quote Originally Posted by Bevalhalla View Post
    Which document?
    Kindly correct if the following is no longer true: NASA keeps confidential the original source data on which all their conclusions are based regarding the cause/source/reasons for so-called "global warming."

    If above is true, there is no good and only bad reasons for said confidentiality of original source data. TPTB often justify such action for reasons of "national security," which I estimate to be 90+% of the time pure unadulterated you know what.

    Normally any scientific conclusion lacking all accumulation of source data is laughed off the stage. It's the opposite of science and is rather considered voodoo.
    jimbo

    www.jamesromeyn.com Music and Audio, LLC
    www.prime-vibe.com guitar & violin seasoning device

  22. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    48
    The raw data got processed into several hundred papers. What kind of data would you like? Here's a few thousand Phd's worth of climate data: National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) | The world's largest active archive of weather and climate data producing and supplying data and publications for the world.

  23. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    709
    If the recent warming is due mostly to anthropogenic forces, which seems reasonable given the current data, I don't think nature will be significantly harmed because of it. Mother nature is very strong. We could do a lot of damage, burn all the fossil fuels, even nearly destroy all life with Nuclear war, and I'm pretty sure the planet will recover, and life will continue to exist for a very long time.

    I'm not sure how much we could even hurt the habitability for humans. Even if we were to stop producing CO2 by burning fossil fuels, what we have done already combined with the long term warming that has been happening since the last Ice age will bring about warmer global temperatures for some time. A lot of the greenhouse gas warming is self perpetuating. the warmer it gets, the more water vapor, methane and CO2 will be released, and it will get even warmer. All we can do is try not to speed it up any more than we have. Overall, we all have chosen to continue to burn fossil fuels by living a life full of the luxuries and conveniences that come with doing so. I think mankind will never choose to go back to preindustrial living just to avoid speeding up the warming of the planet. some say that if we don't take more drastic measures to reduce CO2 output, that terrible things will happen, but i think the only solution we have come up with right now is to reduce fuel consumption. Unless you have a lot of money to buy the more expensive carbon free energy, you will suffer some amount of hardship by reducing consumption. Of course we could all get by with less, but those who have less already would suffer the most. How can we tell developing countries not to take advantage of cheap, dirty energy like we have been doing for a couple hundred years. I don't think you will ever have a reduction in CO2 output until we run out of fossil fuels, and even if we do curb it's use, we will probably still end up using all of it eventually, so the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will eventually reach it's potential. The only way to change this will be to come up with an alternate energy source that is just as cheap or cheaper, or a way to get rid of the carbon from the atmosphere that is reasonable. I don't think there are enough people that concerned about the long term climate to support regulations forced on the whole world, since it would require forcible action(war) to keep developing nations from burning any fossil fuel we decide not to use.

  24. #124
    NMBP
    Reputation: crashtestdummy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,183
    Quote Originally Posted by SmooveP View Post
    Not trying to make your brain explode, but humans are part of nature. We're sort of like a fatal virus that's infected the earth.
    I fixed it for you.
    Riding Fat and still just as fast as I never was.

  25. #125
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,112
    Quote Originally Posted by crashtestdummy View Post
    I fixed it for you.
    Gee, thanks. But I have the feeling that the earth will outlive us. Its "immune system" is bound to kick in at any time.

  26. #126
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,033
    Interesting perspectives are within this thread, and few (globally, not just in this thread) seem to be looking at WHY some within positions of influence offer their bias/argument so openly to the public.

    IMO,
    The argument isn't about the environment, it's about controlling others, and making a profit from the confusion.

  27. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,112
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeabuser View Post
    Interesting perspectives are within this thread, and few (globally, not just in this thread) seem to be looking at WHY some within positions of influence offer their bias/argument so openly to the public.

    IMO,
    The argument isn't about the environment, it's about controlling others, and making a profit from the confusion.
    Not sure what you're getting at here.
    Who, exactly is trying to control who? And who is making these profits?

  28. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    886
    Quote Originally Posted by autodoctor911 View Post
    If the recent warming is due mostly to anthropogenic forces, which seems reasonable given the current data, I don't think nature will be significantly harmed because of it. Mother nature is very strong. We could do a lot of damage, burn all the fossil fuels, even nearly destroy all life with Nuclear war, and I'm pretty sure the planet will recover, and life will continue to exist for a very long time.

    I'm not sure how much we could even hurt the habitability for humans. Even if we were to stop producing CO2 by burning fossil fuels, what we have done already combined with the long term warming that has been happening since the last Ice age will bring about warmer global temperatures for some time. A lot of the greenhouse gas warming is self perpetuating. the warmer it gets, the more water vapor, methane and CO2 will be released, and it will get even warmer. All we can do is try not to speed it up any more than we have. Overall, we all have chosen to continue to burn fossil fuels by living a life full of the luxuries and conveniences that come with doing so. I think mankind will never choose to go back to preindustrial living just to avoid speeding up the warming of the planet. some say that if we don't take more drastic measures to reduce CO2 output, that terrible things will happen, but i think the only solution we have come up with right now is to reduce fuel consumption. Unless you have a lot of money to buy the more expensive carbon free energy, you will suffer some amount of hardship by reducing consumption. Of course we could all get by with less, but those who have less already would suffer the most. How can we tell developing countries not to take advantage of cheap, dirty energy like we have been doing for a couple hundred years. I don't think you will ever have a reduction in CO2 output until we run out of fossil fuels, and even if we do curb it's use, we will probably still end up using all of it eventually, so the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will eventually reach it's potential. The only way to change this will be to come up with an alternate energy source that is just as cheap or cheaper, or a way to get rid of the carbon from the atmosphere that is reasonable. I don't think there are enough people that concerned about the long term climate to support regulations forced on the whole world, since it would require forcible action(war) to keep developing nations from burning any fossil fuel we decide not to use.
    Why Doc...You and I have the same basic understanding...all without you leading me by the hand! Though I will grant that you have said it better than I.

    Now IF this global warming thing is true...think I will look for lots of wide open land deals in Antarctica. See...global warming CAN have an upside!

    Better yet...get the Rights to sell...make lots of $.

  29. #129
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,033
    Quote Originally Posted by SmooveP View Post
    Not sure what you're getting at here.
    Who, exactly is trying to control who? And who is making these profits?
    Start by researching UN Agenda 21, and Sustainable Development ... Those 2 topics will take many weeks to digest, provide you with a wealth of information, and might cause you to develop a similar opinion, as they lead you to a multi-decade plan for implementation, that is already over 50 years in the making.

    FWIW,
    IMO,
    Al Gore arrived late to the party.

  30. #130
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,033
    Quote Originally Posted by Sand Rat View Post
    Better yet...get the Rights to sell...make lots of $.
    This rabbit hole has many paths

  31. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    886
    [QUOTE=bikeabuser;10420244

    FWIW,
    IMO,
    Al Gore arrived late to the party.[/QUOTE]

    Yip... Algore has his carbon credits, just a piece of paper. I'll be offering you honest to goodness L_A_N_D!

  32. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by ro7939 View Post
    Advocates that global warming is mostly or solely man-made (I don't advocate any particular source for global warming if it exists, which it apparently does): Why does NASA keep the original source document data confidential? The only known reason is to spin, steer, and pre-determine the cause.

    Total nonsense. Did you confirm the story with a reliable source? There are reams of data available at the NASA site and they are holding nothing back. You are repeating a lie fostered by the fossil fuel interests.

    Global ocean heat and salt content

    Regardless, there is a huge breadth of data from many places and sources. They all essentially say the same thing.

    And you may want to look again at the chart I posted above and then come back and tell us you don't know where the warming is coming from.

  33. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeabuser View Post
    Interesting perspectives are within this thread, and few (globally, not just in this thread) seem to be looking at WHY some within positions of influence offer their bias/argument so openly to the public.

    IMO,
    The argument isn't about the environment, it's about controlling others, and making a profit from the confusion.

    That's correct. That's exactly what the fossil fuel interests through their minions are doing by continuing to deny the science and spreading disinformation. They have one of political parties under their wing and groveling at their feet. They control the party and they profit from the confusion over AGW.

    This idea that the vast green power industry has more control than the puny fossil fuel industry is amusing.

  34. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    110
    If the earth was a bowling ball, a ping pong ball would hold all of it's air. (at sea level pressure).

  35. #135
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    27,362
    Quote Originally Posted by KK89 View Post
    I really don't think that humans can possibly cause any major damage to nature. Nature is stronger. Climate can warm or get colder.. it never stays the same. But I just don't think people are causing it. It happens 'cause nature go by it's own cycle. We simply can not do anything else but adapt. (Fatbikes)
    We are doing face and double-arm transplants now.

    Have you ever even seen new york city?

    Man>nature.
    "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.

  36. #136
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    27,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Bevalhalla View Post
    The raw data got processed into several hundred papers. What kind of data would you like? Here's a few thousand Phd's worth of climate data: National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) | The world's largest active archive of weather and climate data producing and supplying data and publications for the world.
    Hey, I use that data all the time at work! I sure hope it's not a conspiracy!
    "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.

  37. #137
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    27,362
    Quote Originally Posted by exp18 View Post
    Here in Anchorage they have to increase rate to cover the cost of a few wind turbines we have.
    Dude, we don't even pay taxes here. They give us money each year to live here. Bring on the turbines, we're rolling in cash.
    "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.

  38. #138
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeabuser View Post
    Start by researching UN Agenda 21, and Sustainable Development ... Those 2 topics will take many weeks to digest, provide you with a wealth of information, and might cause you to develop a similar opinion, as they lead you to a multi-decade plan for implementation, that is already over 50 years in the making.

    FWIW,
    IMO,
    Al Gore arrived late to the party.
    What's the deal with you Americans and the fear of the UN? The UN is the only form of world democracy we have, but the US has regularly opposed UN treaties that are not in their interest. Take the international treaty against genocide. The US made reservations against that, meaning that the US thinks it should be allowed to perform genocide without repercussions.

  39. #139
    Enthusiast
    Reputation: KK89's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by SmooveP View Post
    Not trying to make your brain explode, but humans are part of nature. We're sort of like a virus that's infected the earth.

    Well that I agree. We are a decease witch will be defeated by nature.

  40. #140
    Enthusiast
    Reputation: KK89's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeabuser View Post
    Interesting perspectives are within this thread, and few (globally, not just in this thread) seem to be looking at WHY some within positions of influence offer their bias/argument so openly to the public.

    IMO,
    The argument isn't about the environment, it's about controlling others, and making a profit from the confusion.

    Spot on!

  41. #141
    Enthusiast
    Reputation: KK89's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    101
    I think we should still prefer things that are less harmful to nature, whether we are the cause of GW or not.

    Go to work/school 5km (3.11 M) from your home, by car or bicycle.. you decide.


    Edit:
    All civilizations before us have been whiped out. Why not ours? We are killing ourselves not the planet.


    (Well now it comes down to, what we're talking about?.. Destroying the planet or the humankind?)

  42. #142
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,094
    Pheeewww this thread is aptly named. 146 post in 6 days.... that will be stressing the fatbike forum server.

    It would go well in the Passion forum, there would be a few of the usual earth muffins, non drinkers and gun haters show up... a sh1t fight would occur followed by a whole lot of negging then ensued by it being locked
    Evil Following
    Trek 9.9 Superfly SL
    IndyFab Deluxe 29
    FM190 Fatty
    Pivot Vault CX
    Cervelo R3 Disc

  43. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    886
    That they haven't goes to prove the point that this sub forum is the best on MTBR

    Kind of like watching a train wreck though...gota look.

  44. #144
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,033
    Quote Originally Posted by Innota View Post
    What's the deal with you Americans and the fear of the UN? The UN is the only form of world democracy we have, but the US has regularly opposed UN treaties that are not in their interest. Take the international treaty against genocide. The US made reservations against that, meaning that the US thinks it should be allowed to perform genocide without repercussions.
    Oh, it's actually really simple ... Us Americans don't live in a Democracy.
    We have a limited Republic.

    As for your genocide example,
    and many other International issues we don't sign into agreement with,
    You have to look at the big picture and relate it back to "Our" system of Government.
    Signing an agreement that might place our troops under an organizations control for enforcement purposes ... We already do to much policing of the planet.
    No need tohave others telling us to play World Cop.
    But nice twist on genocidal reality you present.

    Concerning "fearing" the UN ... It became (IMO) a worthless political leverage arm many decades ago.

    But,
    If you're really in favor of a World Democracy ... I'll never be able to convince you that it is a worthless organization, and that "We" as a nation should have pulled out of that organization, long ago.

  45. #145
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,033
    Quote Originally Posted by KK89 View Post
    I think we should still prefer things that are less harmful to nature, whether we are the cause of GW or not.

    Go to work/school 5km (3.11 M) from your home, by car or bicycle.. you decide.


    Edit:
    All civilizations before us have been whiped out. Why not ours? We are killing ourselves not the planet.


    (Well now it comes down to, what we're talking about?.. Destroying the planet or the humankind?)
    I completely agree ... And prefer education and choices over National and International forced changes via legislation.

    If we choose wrong, and die because of it, the planet will still exist, after we are gone.

  46. #146
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,033
    Quote Originally Posted by ozzybmx View Post
    Pheeewww this thread is aptly named. 146 post in 6 days.... that will be stressing the fatbike forum server.

    It would go well in the Passion forum, there would be a few of the usual earth muffins, non drinkers and gun haters show up... a sh1t fight would occur followed by a whole lot of negging then ensued by it being locked
    Quote Originally Posted by Sand Rat View Post
    That they haven't goes to prove the point that this sub forum is the best on MTBR

    Kind of like watching a train wreck though...gota look.


    Couldn't agree more ... A good crowd in this section.

    I still want to ride on snow.

  47. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeabuser View Post
    Oh, it's actually really simple ... Us Americans don't live in a Democracy.
    We have a limited Republic.

    As for your genocide example,
    and many other International issues we don't sign into agreement with,
    You have to look at the big picture and relate it back to "Our" system of Government.
    Signing an agreement that might place our troops under an organizations control for enforcement purposes ... We already do to much policing of the planet.
    No need tohave others telling us to play World Cop.
    But nice twist on genocidal reality you present.

    Concerning "fearing" the UN ... It became (IMO) a worthless political leverage arm many decades ago.

    But,
    If you're really in favor of a World Democracy ... I'll never be able to convince you that it is a worthless organization, and that "We" as a nation should have pulled out of that organization, long ago.
    The reason that the UN becomes powerless on a lot of issues is simply that the US doesn't respect any rulings or treaties that doesn't favor them. If a ruling is not in the US interest then the US simply ignores it. This is extremely dangerous for the rest of the world, since other countries are at the mercy of US leadership without having any say in any issues that concern them ,because the US simply ignores the UN if they don't act in their interest.

    The funny part is that opinion polls even show a majority of US citizens being in favor of the United Nations, and the leaderships disaccord with the public opinion is not exactly very democratic.

  48. #148
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,033
    Quote Originally Posted by Innota View Post
    The reason that the UN becomes powerless on a lot of issues is simply that the US doesn't respect any rulings or treaties that doesn't favor them. If a ruling is not in the US interest then the US simply ignores it. This is extremely dangerous for the rest of the world, since other countries are at the mercy of US leadership without having any say in any issues that concern them ,because the US simply ignores the UN if they don't act in their interest.

    The funny part is that opinion polls even show a majority of US citizens being in favor of the United Nations, and the leaderships disaccord with the public opinion is not exactly very democratic.
    Funny how that seems to work.
    Why do you think such an organization is powerless without the United States ?

    As for polls,
    They can't be trusted, and many people can't even tell you who there elected officials are ... They don't want to be bothered with such things when they have Survivor, Celebrity Apprentice, and a multitude of other entertainment outlets available to occupy their idle time.

    IMO,
    If more people realized what their government does on it's behalf, they'd be upset with the actions, and polls about UN involvement would be much different.

    Examples:
    Howard Stern Exposes Obama Voters Again! 2012 Edition! - YouTube
    Confusing Question of the Day - Obama, IRS, and Benghazi - YouTube

    Sad examples, and most assuredly (intentionally) skewed, but ... It showing how oblivious many people are to the workings of their government.

    ETA:
    Realize, also,
    That any Treaty the US enters into must be ratified or it hold no weight within the Nations structure of Government.
    Ratification is when the people of the Nation become the power brokers ... Many things that some (other Nations) feel are ignored, are not ignored, they are dismissed because the People would not agree with the core of said Treaty.

    Truth be told, many Nations have signed onto treaties that actually hold no enforcable status, but make (some) people feel good.

  49. #149
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,033
    We should probably get away from politics, or this thread will get closed.

    Then again,
    Most anything that isn't about a bike, can become, or is political.

  50. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeabuser View Post
    Funny how that seems to work.
    Why do you think such an organization is powerless without the United States ?

    As for polls,
    They can't be trusted, and many people can't even tell you who there elected officials are ... They don't want to be bothered with such things when they have Survivor, Celebrity Apprentice, and a multitude of other entertainment outlets available to occupy their idle time.

    IMO,
    If more people realized what their government does on it's behalf, they'd be upset with the actions, and polls about UN involvement would be much different.

    Examples:
    Howard Stern Exposes Obama Voters Again! 2012 Edition! - YouTube
    Confusing Question of the Day - Obama, IRS, and Benghazi - YouTube

    Sad examples, and most assuredly (intentionally) skewed, but ... It showing how oblivious many people are to the workings of their government.
    It's obvious why the UN can't do much if the US disagrees. It is because the US is the worlds most powerful nation. BUT this does not mean that it should be that way, or that it is right. Democracy is based on accepting the outcome of majority decisions. You can't abolish democratic decisions just because you don't like their outcome (something the US has been fond of doing).

    And regarding the opinion polls: that people doesn't know any better is hardly an argument that can or should be raised, and frankly sounds like something that 18th century aristocracy would say with regards to democracy. If one takes it that serious polling organizations such as Gallup knows how to do opinion polls, then such polls do reflect public opinion and should hardly be compared with what two-bit radio hosts such as Howard Stern calls "polling".

  51. #151
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,033
    Quote Originally Posted by Innota View Post
    It's obvious why the UN can't do much if the US disagrees. It is because the US is the worlds most powerful nation. BUT this does not mean that it should be that way, or that it is right. Democracy is based on accepting the outcome of majority decisions. You can't abolish democratic decisions just because you don't like their outcome (something the US has been fond of doing).

    And regarding the opinion polls: that people doesn't know any better is hardly an argument that can or should be raised, and frankly sounds like something that 18th century aristocracy would say with regards to democracy. If one takes it that serious polling organizations such as Gallup knows how to do opinion polls, then such polls do reflect public opinion and should hardly be compared with what two-bit radio hosts such as Howard Stern calls "polling".
    I'm not here to argue, but will state that I could care less what a majority thinks.
    If they oppose the individuals rights, they violate the individual, and that is why I like living in a limited Republic ... A true Democracy is Mob Rule.

    Take that Individual Rights thought to the International level, and you'll find the inner workings of the UN, and it's exclusion policy ... The little club that only allows a voice to those it wishes to allow a voice.

    The UN does an International STFU (daily) to those they do not agree with

  52. #152
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,033

  53. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,112
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeabuser View Post
    Start by researching UN Agenda 21, and Sustainable Development ... Those 2 topics will take many weeks to digest, provide you with a wealth of information, and might cause you to develop a similar opinion, as they lead you to a multi-decade plan for implementation, that is already over 50 years in the making.

    FWIW,
    IMO,
    Al Gore arrived late to the party.
    And what opinion is that? You're just tossing out vague, ominous sounding statements about some evil, undefined "them".

  54. #154
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,033
    Quote Originally Posted by SmooveP View Post
    And what opinion is that? You're just tossing out vague, ominous sounding statements about some evil, undefined "them".
    Conduct your own research, or not ... I'm gonna go to work, and then ride my bike.
    Life's to short to stay on this subject for very long

  55. #155
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeabuser View Post
    I'm not here to argue, but will state that I could care less what a majority thinks.
    If they oppose the individuals rights, they violate the individual, and that is why I like living in a limited Republic ... A true Democracy is Mob Rule.

    Take that Individual Rights thought to the International level, and you'll find the inner workings of the UN, and it's exclusion policy ... The little club that only allows a voice to those it wishes to allow a voice.

    The UN does an International STFU (daily) to those they do not agree with
    I have no idea where you have that club thing from, but the UN has regularly been a place for smaller countries to voice their opinion against larger countries bullying them. Take Nicaragua for example, which got a world court ruling against the United States to stop supporting the contras in Nicaragua. This was ignored by the United States, which continued supporting the contras.

    My point here is that the American disdain for the United Nations is little more than indoctrination for supporting whatever the US leadership sees fit to do at the given time, and labeling everyone who opposes it as un-american, terrorists, communists, etc. Following UN charters would mean limitations for the US, e.g. no more aggression or imperialism. This would be a great blow to US business interests, and we simply cannot have that!

  56. #156
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,033

  57. #157
    Human Test Subject
    Reputation: Volsung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,044
    i was enjoying this thread till bikeabuser got unbanned and started spamming

  58. #158
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,033
    Quote Originally Posted by Volsung View Post
    i was enjoying this thread till bikeabuser got unbanned and started spamming
    Curious if you're referencing my comments, or the video/images as being spam.

    Off to work !

    ETA:
    If it's comments, the thread evolved into what it is, if it's images, it's my way of expressing that the thread has went into the realm of politics, and that is a subject the rules of the forum state are not allowed.

    Ehh,
    I'm no moderator, so we'll just have to see what happens to the thread.

    Later, and sorry to have offended you.

  59. #159
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    110
    Well I hope that this talking about the UN and politics of AGW means we've moved past any question about the validity of the science. They are two different things. The first step is seeing the science, and only after understanding it then deciding what, if anything to do about it.

    To repeat, 97% of all the world's climatologists and all the world's science organizations agree in the basics of man-made global warming.

    In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.

    A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).

    Multiple other surveys have confirmed this same consensus.









    The above charts tell the story. The ocean heat content one is most telling since the vast bulk of the planet's heat is within it. The atmospheric temps are more short-term variable.

    Now the question is what if anything to do about it. What if we do nothing? Anyone want to guess what will happen to this earth and it's inhabitants?

  60. #160
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smithcreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    501
    Quote Originally Posted by beachride View Post
    Well I hope that this talking about the UN and politics of AGW means we've moved past any question about the validity of the science.
    LOL!!! I always wondered what the obnoxious guy at a get together/party that rants on and on about this kind of crap thinks when people get tired of listening to his know it all BS and go find another room to hang out in. Apparently he thinks he's shown them the light!

  61. #161
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: mtbxplorer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    6,996
    Quote Originally Posted by beachride View Post
    What if we do nothing? Anyone want to guess what will happen to this earth and it's inhabitants?
    Well, some inhabitants will be worse off sooner than others. Like polar bears and fatbikers.

  62. #162
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,112
    Quote Originally Posted by smithcreek View Post
    LOL!!! I always wondered what the obnoxious guy at a get together/party that rants on and on about this kind of crap thinks when people get tired of listening to his know it all BS and go find another room to hang out in. Apparently he thinks he's shown them the light!
    Over the line, Smokey!
    Why would you bash someone who takes the time to inform themselves about this topic? I give Beachride credit for his persistence and fact-based approach. Some things are worth ranting about.

  63. #163
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,648
    If, when I reach the end of my life and I see the world falling apart, I would feel like a fool if I had done nothing. Might happen, might not...

    It might snow here in VT hills tonight. I like bikes.

  64. #164
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smithcreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    501
    Why would you bash someone who takes the time to inform themselves about this topic? I give Beachride credit for his persistence and fact-based approach.
    Then I guess you and I will just have to disagree about the definitions of "informed" and "fact based." Going "all in" on one side of the argument hook line and sinker, learning to regurgitate massively massaged "data" that back up or refute positions you like or don't like isn't how I define them. Anyway, you guys have fun with your little "save the world" thread, last one out turn off the lights (cause they probably are running off some coal powered plant!)

  65. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,196
    I have seen the climate change myself. I'm 53 and remember vividly my youth and the weather.

    My thought is we do not want to add to the natural weather resonance that occurs if its not in our favor. Kinda like pushing one on a swing. A small push in the beginning gives large results in the end. Now if our civilization was at this point going into a cold cycle that might be just the ticket. But I don't think so. Oh the cruelty of statistics.

    The train is moving fast..and the track is short.
    lean forward

  66. #166
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,112
    Quote Originally Posted by smithcreek View Post
    Then I guess you and I will just have to disagree about the definitions of "informed" and "fact based." Going "all in" on one side of the argument hook line and sinker, learning to regurgitate massively massaged "data" that back up or refute positions you like or don't like isn't how I define them. Anyway, you guys have fun with your little "save the world" thread, last one out turn off the lights (cause they probably are running off some coal powered plant!)
    Note that I didn't question the validity of your opinion on the topic (mostly because you didn't bother to offer up any facts, evidence or rationale to support your opinion or refute the other guy's). Got a beef with the guy's facts? Then address the facts instead of just name-calling.

  67. #167
    JYB
    JYB is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    213
    SmooveP,
    You are a class act. I agree with what you have posted. I also appreciate the words of MendonCS. As someone who studied biology as an undergrad, conducted research in grad school, and currently teaches Life Science to middle schoolers I would really like to see the evidence that mankind is not massively contributing/causing global climate change. Where is the evidence and peer reviewed research, naysayers? I deeply care about the environment, and it blows my mind that there are mountain bikers out there who don't seem to care about human impacts on the environment. Some of the naysayers on this forum even dare to suggest that climate change will have some upsides. Like what? Bleaching of coral reefs and mass extinctions? Even if you don't believe in climate change, how can you not see the benefits to reducing greenhouse gas emissions? It amazes me that even my 7th graders can see how pig-headed, ignorant, and selfish Americans can be. At least I am successfully encouraging them to be a generation that cares about the environment. Naysayers, you are certainly entitled to your opinions, but you come across as very uninformed.

  68. #168
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,033
    Quote Originally Posted by JYB View Post
    SmooveP,
    You are a class act. I agree with what you have posted. I also appreciate the words of MendonCS. As someone who studied biology as an undergrad, conducted research in grad school, and currently teaches Life Science to middle schoolers I would really like to see the evidence that mankind is not massively contributing/causing global climate change. Where is the evidence and peer reviewed research, naysayers? I deeply care about the environment, and it blows my mind that there are mountain bikers out there who don't seem to care about human impacts on the environment. Some of the naysayers on this forum even dare to suggest that climate change will have some upsides. Like what? Bleaching of coral reefs and mass extinctions? Even if you don't believe in climate change, how can you not see the benefits to reducing greenhouse gas emissions? It amazes me that even my 7th graders can see how pig-headed, ignorant, and selfish Americans can be. At least I am successfully encouraging them to be a generation that cares about the environment. Naysayers, you are certainly entitled to your opinions, but you come across as very uninformed.
    Not sure I saw anyone flat out denying, but I guess it's possible.

    Myself,
    I'm just against legislation that mandates implementation of corrective actions toward something we don't fully understand.

    Replacement of a standard light bulb is a good example of this.
    Mandating that we use an alternative, when the best available at the time was a CFL and it's mercury content (granted, small amount) just seemed dumb, and now that we have a good supply of LED based lighting fixtures, the CFL should be the item on the chopping block, and not an energy using standard light bulb.

  69. #169
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,033
    Quote Originally Posted by 1niceride View Post
    I have seen the climate change myself. I'm 53 and remember vividly my youth and the weather.

    My thought is we do not want to add to the natural weather resonance that occurs if its not in our favor. Kinda like pushing one on a swing. A small push in the beginning gives large results in the end. Now if our civilization was at this point going into a cold cycle that might be just the ticket. But I don't think so. Oh the cruelty of statistics.

    The train is moving fast..and the track is short.
    I'm right behind you, at 51, and think you'd be crazy to think we are not affecting the environment, but ... See my previous.

  70. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,112
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeabuser View Post

    Myself,
    I'm just against legislation that mandates implementation of corrective actions toward something we don't fully understand.
    I don't think you can be 100% sure of anything, and it's good science to retain some skepticism.

    But if we're reasonably sure, and the proposed remedies have little to no downside (and possibly other benefits), then why shouldn't we act? I'll admit to having some doubts, but moving towards alternative fuels makes sense for lots of other reasons:

    1) For all practical purposes, oil is not renewable. The supply will likely be exhausted before we have an equivalent replacement energy source. Yeah, we can get by with electric cars, but we're nowhere near being able to do things like air travel yet. Also, there are thousands of non-fuel products that are derived from petrochemicals. Plastics, asphalt, roofing, paints, etc. come to mind. What's the alternative for all that stuff?

    2) Pollution. Burning fossil fuels is still the world's biggest source of pollution. Stuff that's arguably nastier and more immediate than CO2.

    3) Energy independence. Discussed in detail already in this thread.

    4) Economic competitiveness. Do you want to be sitting around in 10 or 20 years griping about how we let China or Germany or Japan get the jump on developing the next energy sources?

    I'd love to think that it could be done without the government getting involved, but I don't see how that would happen. Massive grassroots movement?

  71. #171
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by SmooveP View Post
    Note that I didn't question the validity of your opinion on the topic (mostly because you didn't bother to offer up any facts, evidence or rationale to support your opinion or refute the other guy's). Got a beef with the guy's facts? Then address the facts instead of just name-calling.
    Thank you Smoove. If he is like most of the deniers, he will bypass NASA, NOAA, The Met Office etc (ie. the reliable authoritative sources) in his search for 'facts'.

    Assuming he looks for them at all.

    Cue quotes from 'Watt's Up Wit Dat' in , three, two, one.......

  72. #172
    NMBP
    Reputation: crashtestdummy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,183
    Quote Originally Posted by JYB View Post
    SmooveP,
    You are a class act. I agree with what you have posted. I also appreciate the words of MendonCS. As someone who studied biology as an undergrad, conducted research in grad school, and currently teaches Life Science to middle schoolers I would really like to see the evidence that mankind is not massively contributing/causing global climate change. Where is the evidence and peer reviewed research, naysayers? I deeply care about the environment, and it blows my mind that there are mountain bikers out there who don't seem to care about human impacts on the environment. Some of the naysayers on this forum even dare to suggest that climate change will have some upsides. Like what? Bleaching of coral reefs and mass extinctions? Even if you don't believe in climate change, how can you not see the benefits to reducing greenhouse gas emissions? It amazes me that even my 7th graders can see how pig-headed, ignorant, and selfish Americans can be. At least I am successfully encouraging them to be a generation that cares about the environment. Naysayers, you are certainly entitled to your opinions, but you come across as very uninformed.
    I applaud you for your effort. In my backwards state they would probably fire you for teaching that. Unfortunately, my legislative representative is also on the House Science, Space and Technology committee.
    Riding Fat and still just as fast as I never was.

  73. #173
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,033
    Quote Originally Posted by SmooveP View Post
    I don't think you can be 100% sure of anything, and it's good science to retain some skepticism.

    But if we're reasonably sure, and the proposed remedies have little to no downside (and possibly other benefits), then why shouldn't we act? I'll admit to having some doubts, but moving towards alternative fuels makes sense for lots of other reasons:

    1) For all practical purposes, oil is not renewable. The supply will likely be exhausted before we have an equivalent replacement energy source. Yeah, we can get by with electric cars, but we're nowhere near being able to do things like air travel yet. Also, there are thousands of non-fuel products that are derived from petrochemicals. Plastics, asphalt, roofing, paints, etc. come to mind. What's the alternative for all that stuff?

    2) Pollution. Burning fossil fuels is still the world's biggest source of pollution. Stuff that's arguably nastier and more immediate than CO2.

    3) Energy independence. Discussed in detail already in this thread.

    4) Economic competitiveness. Do you want to be sitting around in 10 or 20 years griping about how we let China or Germany or Japan get the jump on developing the next energy sources?

    I'd love to think that it could be done without the government getting involved, but I don't see how that would happen. Massive grassroots movement?
    I still have hope in mankind, and thus feel the best approach for government to take, is to educate the public and let the market and public conscious drive the result.

    Given sufficient information, people will (I hope) make the right decisions.
    IMO, people (on average) always seem to make the right decision when properly informed of a situation.

    Currently, it seems that many want the government to step in and tell everyone what to do, and how to do it ... And based on statistics, the government is more often than not, wrong in both their assessment and implementation of many things.

    Cash for Clunkers, Solyndra, Housing Bubble (never would have happened, if not for Gov. mandates) ... The list is long, and mismanagement, and bad decisions are status quo for many things the Gov. gets involved in.

    I'd rather Gov. spend our money education the public, stop playing political favorites, and making decisions the public, when made aware of the situation, don't agree with.

    Grassroots will work IF people are made aware of the situation and given the chance to make choices.

    In past decades many things were addressed via public announcements and educational propagation ... Now it seems Gov. wants to tell people what to do, and can't justify why they should give US (The People) choices.

    Does that make sense ?

  74. #174
    squish, squish in da fish
    Reputation: fishwrinkle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeabuser View Post
    Interesting perspectives are within this thread, and few (globally, not just in this thread) seem to be looking at WHY some within positions of influence offer their bias/argument so openly to the public.

    IMO,
    The argument isn't about the environment, it's about controlling others, and making a profit from the confusion.
    would you like to buy a carbon credit?

  75. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,211

  76. #176
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    110
    Good article. Well written.

    from the article

    "Sadly, following a century of intense focus on the value of science for society, we are even facing a growing and dangerous antiscience movement that appears to originate from adherence to a variety of social, political, and religious doctrines that favor alternate realities."

  77. #177
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    886
    Quote Originally Posted by JYB View Post
    SmooveP,
    You are a class act. I agree with what you have posted. I also appreciate the words of MendonCS. As someone who studied biology as an undergrad, conducted research in grad school, and currently teaches Life Science to middle schoolers I would really like to see the evidence that mankind is not massively contributing/causing global climate change. Where is the evidence and peer reviewed research, naysayers? I deeply care about the environment, and it blows my mind that there are mountain bikers out there who don't seem to care about human impacts on the environment. Some of the naysayers on this forum even dare to suggest that climate change will have some upsides. Like what? Bleaching of coral reefs and mass extinctions? Even if you don't believe in climate change, how can you not see the benefits to reducing greenhouse gas emissions? It amazes me that even my 7th graders can see how pig-headed, ignorant, and selfish Americans can be. At least I am successfully encouraging them to be a generation that cares about the environment. Naysayers, you are certainly entitled to your opinions, but you come across as very uninformed.
    Twas I Sir, who dared to suggest that global warming HAS to have an upside...Twas I.

    Tis I Sir, who has the uninformed opinion that a coin MUST have TWO sides. Please Sir, surely you have in your possession such a coin that you have shown to your class? Or, lacking that, can present a mathematical equation supporting such?

    Lacking either, please sir, teach our youth HOW to think...knowing that, WHAT to think will come on its own accord.

    I made reference to the ice melting at the south pole to the extent that people could live there and support themselves...I made a JOKE about getting the rights to sell the then available land, like Algore with his carbon credits.

    I made that joke, knowing this...http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...ic-debate.html

    With increased GW, at some point, what I purposed for myself will be granted to someone?

    There is also this...CO2 and Health

    Endeavor to be an honest educator, presenting BOTH sides.

    PS: The link to the Bloomberg article doesn't seem to work...I must be missing something to correct it...however I found it by a search for *Northwest Passage Treaties*

  78. #178
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,033
    Quote Originally Posted by Sand Rat View Post
    I made that joke, knowing this...http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...ic-debate.html

    With increased GW, at some point, what I purposed for myself will be granted to someone?

    There is also this...CO2 and Health

    Endeavor to be an honest educator, presenting BOTH sides.

    PS: The link to the Bloomberg article doesn't seem to work...I must be missing something to correct it...however I found it by a search for *Northwest Passage Treaties*
    I think Bloomberg fixed a spelling error in their link.
    the opening of the Arctic, with its shortcut from the Atlantic to northeast Asia and its untapped oil reserves, can redraw the geopolitical map and create new power brokers.

    When the U.S., Russia and six other major stakeholders of the Arctic Council meet May 15 in the northernmost Swedish city of Kiruna, they’ll be joined by nations with observer status, including China and the European Union, that are angling for an elevated status in the diplomatic club and a greater say in the region’s future.

    Melting Ice Opens Fight Over Sea Routes for Arctic Debate - Bloomberg
    Ain't CONTROL grand !!!

    They had forests up there ... Long ago.
    Maybe it was warmer in the past.

    Interesting !!
    Plants breath that stuff, and it appears a bit more of it is being argued as beneficial to humans.

    Dang I'm getting scared ... Someone just has to be wrong.

  79. #179
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    110
    "There is also this...CO2 and Health"


    Oh brother. Oh yes, the highest levels of CO2 in 5 million years and the highest in human history is GOOD for us !

    You just know it's good science when it derides Al Gore in the 2nd paragraph among all it's 'facts' about CO2.

    And yes it is a tiny tiny fraction of the atmosphere. But that tiny fraction has always been responsible for 12 - 24% of the greenhouse effect. Without it, we would be much colder

    Water is needed for life also and yet people drown in it all the time.

    "Tis I Sir, who has the uninformed opinion that a coin MUST have TWO sides. "

    Yes......like some say the earth is round, the other side of the coin says it's flat. Some say we actually landed on the moon. An objective teacher will present equal time to the fact that man did NOT land on the moon and that it's obvious from looking that the earth is flat.


    But to look at the other side of CO2 increase, yes, higher CO2 can lead to more plant growth. But studies that have looked at this have determined that the stresses of rapidly changing and more violent weather has been and will continue to lead to more crop losses.

    Yes, some lands will warm up and become more habitable. But others will disappear under the sea and the tropics will become death traps. Most science teachers bring this stuff up. But science teachers teach what we know, and what we know is that on balance GW is going to make things worse not better.
    Last edited by beachride; 05-26-2013 at 09:44 AM.

  80. #180
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    886
    Thanks for the fix...bikeabuser

    Beachride...not trying to persuade...but present.

    It is what it is.

  81. #181
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,033
    Quote Originally Posted by Sand Rat View Post
    Thanks for the fix...bikeabuser

    Beachride...not trying to persuade...but present.

    It is what it is.
    I suppose if you took todays mentality back a few hundred years, you'd find that people claiming the Earth is round would be unable to pay the fines for such absurdity.

    I also suspect that those who professed that heavy and light objects fall at the same rate would be belittled for holding an opposing view to the then current scientific belief

    It is what it is, is a good way to put things.

    Education and experimentation corrected the examples I just gave.
    Scientific belief was proven wrong, and as is typically the case, it is usually proven wrong by scientists.

    It's fine to be concerned about the impact of our actions, but it's often dangerous to follow the lemmings principle ... Thankfully, the environmental salvation idea of seeding the sky with stuff that blocks the Sun, hasn't caught on.



    Something to think about.

    How Geoengineering Works: 5 Big Plans to Stop Global Warming - Popular Mechanics
    This made me laugh !

  82. #182
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,133
    It's interesting to watch the cycle of denial.

    At first its like: The Earth isn't getting warmer, it's all a hoax created by the gays who want to convert our children and take our guns and Mountain Dew away!

    Then its: OK, well the Earth is getting warmer, but WE didn't cause it. Humans cannot induce changes in our climate. Only Jesus can do that.

    Then: Alright, so humans are indeed contributing to the warming of the planet, but there is nothing I, nor anyone else can do about it, so those politicians and tree huggin' hippies should shut up already. GAWD gave ME diminion over this Earth!

  83. #183
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,033
    ^^^ I do appreciate the claims that some are in denial ... But I have seen none of what you're writing about.

  84. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,133
    ^ I don't think its a coincidence that a large piece of the science denier community happen to be religious, right wing types.

  85. #185
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    709
    I do believe that there is anthropogenic climate change due to CO2 released by burning fossil fuels, and that it would be great to find alternatives to using more and more fossil fuels.

    I also think government regulations are necessary, and even beneficial beyond their original intent in many cases, like the emissions reductions on cars, which lead to more efficient, better running cars earlier than if they hadn't been forced to do so. But, some of the efforts to use other energy sources, just because they are not petroleum has been ridiculous.

    Take ethanol for example. They have barely gotten to the point that ethanol can break even on energy for refining it from corn, much less cover the energy it takes to grow the corn and transport it, yet we have been subsidizing it's production, and even mandated it's use in all gasoline. Guess where the energy to refine the ethanol, and grow the corn and transport it came from. That's right, fossil fuels.

    So, by subsidizing and mandating ethanol as a fuel in this country, we are causing a net increase in carbon emissions.

    there are cases where ethanol is a viable fuel, if it is made from something higher in sugar, like sugar cane, or sugar beets, etc, but not the way we are doing it.

  86. #186
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,033
    Interesting stereotype, ultraspontane !

    I find it very disturbing that the environmental group that professes WE must save the planet, disregard or ridicule opposition, ignore facts that don't fit their belief, while also using fear tactics and children to convince people that their belief is the right belief.

    Example from the Copenhagen meeting of 2011:

  87. #187
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,033
    Quote Originally Posted by autodoctor911 View Post
    I do believe that there is anthropogenic climate change due to CO2 released by burning fossil fuels, and that it would be great to find alternatives to using more and more fossil fuels.

    I also think government regulations are necessary, and even beneficial beyond their original intent in many cases, like the emissions reductions on cars, which lead to more efficient, better running cars earlier than if they hadn't been forced to do so. But, some of the efforts to use other energy sources, just because they are not petroleum has been ridiculous.

    Take ethanol for example. They have barely gotten to the point that ethanol can break even on energy for refining it from corn, much less cover the energy it takes to grow the corn and transport it, yet we have been subsidizing it's production, and even mandated it's use in all gasoline. Guess where the energy to refine the ethanol, and grow the corn and transport it came from. That's right, fossil fuels.

    So, by subsidizing and mandating ethanol as a fuel in this country, we are causing a net increase in carbon emissions.

    there are cases where ethanol is a viable fuel, if it is made from something higher in sugar, like sugar cane, or sugar beets, etc, but not the way we are doing it.
    I gotta more or less agree with you on these aspects, and while cars are certainly cleaner, a good argument can be made for their lack of efficiency gains due to the offset demanded via safety/comfort/performance concerns.
    A model T got about 24mpg ... Dirty as heck, not very comfortable, slow, but light weight.

    How come all the new cars still have wide tires ?
    I've often wondered about this, as they claim to be giving us more efficient, and higher MPG vehicles.

    When I consider the 67 VW I had, with it's 135mm tires getting 40mpg ... It just falls back to what people will accept.

    We (as a Global society) want comfort, safety, A/C, and good looks ... And we push the things that would provide real efficiency to the back burner.

    Ethanol = Dead On !!!
    A solution to a problem that ignores the bigger problem it creates.

  88. #188
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    709
    When it comes down to regulating CO2 emmisions on cars, it is the same as fuel economy, so yes, the heavier, safer, more comfortable cars we have now may have very low emissions of hydrocarbons, CO, NOx, etc., but the CO2 is always directly proportional to the amount of fuel consumed, at least with current technology.

    The unintended benefits of lower emissions requirements on cars sped up the move to fuel injection, and more efficient engine designs, which did improve fuel consumption some, even before CAFE started, as well as making them more powerful and reliable. European countries tax cars based on carbon output as well as having greater taxes on fuel.
    I think higher fuel prices would be a good thing in the US. So many people drive way more than they need to, with way more vehicle than they need. How many full size pickups and SUVs do we have running around with one person and no cargo. I know plenty of people who live within 10 miles of their workplace, and put up to 5000 miles on their vehicles each year, without ever leaving town. That's in a major metropolitan area, where you can find almost anything you need within 5-10 miles. Most of the time a little planning would be all that's necessary to cut down their mileage by 20% at least.

  89. #189
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,133

    Re: Seriously?

    Quote Originally Posted by bikeabuser View Post
    Interesting stereotype, ultraspontane !

    I find it very disturbing that the environmental group that professes WE must save the planet, disregard or ridicule opposition, ignore facts that don't fit their belief, while also using fear tactics and children to convince people that their belief is the right belief.

    Example from the Copenhagen meeting of 2011:

    We're all so glad you're back.

    You want to talk about belief? Belief would be going against nearly every reputable scientific body on the planet. That's taking quite a leap of faith there.

    I have no problem with the proposing that we call dummies dumb. There is too much false equivalency in today's society. Let's let the smart people talk, please.

  90. #190
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    886
    As bikeabuser has tried to point out, there were times when it was considered heresy to go against 'established' thought.

    The earth once was thought to be the center of the universe, the earth, flat; that if you sailed far enough...you would fall off.

    Until someone sailed...and returned. There is a growing amount of evidence that this knowledge was known by others much longer before; before the Vikings.

    Automobiles were once considered to be the solution to the pollution problem in cities...horse pucky.

    And speaking of autos...doc is correct to purpose the question: Would the advances in engine efficiency have came as soon as they have if not for regulations?

    So we see both sides of the coin...tyranny from either side, regardless of the outcome, is still tyranny. Today there is a different 'church' in control, doing the same as the one before. Yip...you heard that right.

    The TRUTH is what it is. Truth has a way of establishing itself, it is not a thing...it is alive.

  91. #191
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeabuser View Post
    I suppose if you took todays mentality back a few hundred years, you'd find that people claiming the Earth is round would be unable to pay the fines for such absurdity.

    I also suspect that those who professed that heavy and light objects fall at the same rate would be belittled for holding an opposing view to the then current scientific belief

    It is what it is, is a good way to put things.

    Education and experimentation corrected the examples I just gave.
    Scientific belief was proven wrong, and as is typically the case, it is usually proven wrong by scientists.

    It's fine to be concerned about the impact of our actions, but it's often dangerous to follow the lemmings principle ... Thankfully, the environmental salvation idea of seeding the sky with stuff that blocks the Sun, hasn't caught on.


    Something to think about.

    How Geoengineering Works: 5 Big Plans to Stop Global Warming - Popular Mechanics
    This made me laugh !
    John Stossel does very well for himself and the Koch bros and Roger Aisles likes him very much I'm sure.

    But personally, I'll listen to the experts. He is not an expert. He is a deceptive, entertaining, ideologically-warped talking head that fits in with the Fox News narrative very well.


    And why did you laugh at the geoengineering article? We are already geoengineering on a huge and profound scale. That's why the ice is melting and temps are increasing at a historically unprecedented rate. Some of those ideas may be needed in the future to rectify what we are currently doing.


    Lemmings are stupid. Most people are smarter than that. And certainly one would have difficulty trying to prove that climate scientists as a group are stupid or that all the world's science organizations are stupid.

    There are lemmings involved here though. They are usually listening to the fossil fuel industry propaganda as presented on Fox News programs. They usually ignore reliable authoritative sources like NOAA, considering them to be wrong because they are a govt agency. The same govt that is basically run by the fossil fuel industry.


    Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions

  92. #192
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,033
    Quote Originally Posted by ultraspontane View Post
    We're all so glad you're back.

    You want to talk about belief? Belief would be going against nearly every reputable scientific body on the planet. That's taking quite a leap of faith there.

    I have no problem with the proposing that we call dummies dumb. There is too much false equivalency in today's society. Let's let the smart people talk, please.
    Are you really trying to take this discussion to a personal level, or am I just misinterpreting your words ?

    Concerning going against reputable scientific bodies ... They (his Government) locked Galileo up for doing exactly that when he proposed that the Universe did not revolve around the Earth, but instead revolved around the Sun

    Suggestion,
    You believe what you want to believe, and I will believe what I want to believe ... Time will determine if the data thus far collected is worthy, or should be replaced with a better understanding of theory.
    If you want to give money to an organization in support of your belief, go for it.
    Just a thought.

    Myself,
    I think more data is needed before we start tossing money around, and mandating that others throw money, at a belief.
    That we can effect an environmental change that is positive without full understanding is a religion to which I cannot curently subscribe.

  93. #193
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    115
    Talking about paradigm changes (e.g. flat vs. round earth) are only valid up to a certain point. Take the law of gravity, for example. That is a theory, but that does NOT mean that it may be overthrown by a new, competing theory in the future. We understand why it works, but the future will bring about more understanding about it, not paradigm changes. Change the law of gravity with climate change, and you get the idea.

  94. #194
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Volsung View Post
    i was enjoying this thread till bikeabuser got unbanned and started spamming


    2nd this.

  95. #195
    Enthusiast
    Reputation: KK89's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    101
    I think it's a belief of it's own to beleave someone without seeing evidence and knowing how they got to that solution.

    I'm just that kind of person who will resist till absolutely proven wrong. When I'm wrong I will admit it.


    and I think that shoving ideas or teories down our childrens throat is very irresponsible. They should come to an conclusion by themselves so they completely understand why they are doing what they are. A child takes easily things as truth if it comes from his/her parents, and then it is a religion. (followed blindly)

    I've been behind my opinin from the start even if I didn't make it clear enough on my first post. Climate change is coming no matter what. I think we didn't cause it, and don't think there's much to do about it, but we should prefer the nature favoring decision.

  96. #196
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by KK89 View Post
    I think it's a belief of it's own to beleave someone without seeing evidence and knowing how they got to that solution.

    I'm just that kind of person who will resist till absolutely proven wrong. When I'm wrong I will admit it.


    and I think that shoving ideas or teories down our childrens throat is very irresponsible. They should come to an conclusion by themselves so they completely understand why they are doing what they are. A child takes easily things as truth if it comes from his/her parents, and then it is a religion. (followed blindly)

    I've been behind my opinin from the start even if I didn't make it clear enough on my first post. Climate change is coming no matter what. I think we didn't cause it, and don't think there's much to do about it, but we should prefer the nature favoring decision.
    Following that logic then we can't really teach much about anything. We know mostly why gravity works, with some details still eluding us. Should we then stop teaching the theory of gravity because we don't understand it completely yet? As you probably see, that is complete nonsense. Scientists don't disagree that global warming is man-made. 97% of them agree that it is. Acting and preventing the consequences of global warming (if it is still even possible) is the only way to avoid large scale catastrophes in the future. Nature cares little if humans exist or not, but we most definitely do, and if we want to exist as a specis in the future then we have to stop us from destroying ourselves.

  97. #197
    Enthusiast
    Reputation: KK89's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    101
    Time has proven gravity being right and it's more obvios that GW. You go outside and can't really say that GW has effected todays whether.
    GW isn't hundreds or thousands years old theory.

  98. #198
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,133

    Re: Seriously?

    Quote Originally Posted by bikeabuser View Post
    Are you really trying to take this discussion to a personal level, or am I just misinterpreting your words ?

    Concerning going against reputable scientific bodies ... They (his Government) locked Galileo up for doing exactly that when he proposed that the Universe did not revolve around the Earth, but instead revolved around the Sun

    Suggestion,
    You believe what you want to believe, and I will believe what I want to believe ... Time will determine if the data thus far collected is worthy, or should be replaced with a better understanding of theory.
    If you want to give money to an organization in support of your belief, go for it.
    Just a thought.

    Myself,
    I think more data is needed before we start tossing money around, and mandating that others throw money, at a belief.
    That we can effect an environmental change that is positive without full understanding is a religion to which I cannot curently subscribe.
    There was way too much pleasant fatbike talk not related to Mongoose while you were out. Now we can get our daily dosage of facetiousness and brick wall head bashing again.

    Trying to compare climate deniers to Galileo? Really?

  99. #199
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,133

    Re: Seriously?

    Quote Originally Posted by KK89 View Post
    I think it's a belief of it's own to beleave someone without seeing evidence and knowing how they got to that solution.

    I'm just that kind of person who will resist till absolutely proven wrong. When I'm wrong I will admit it.


    and I think that shoving ideas or teories down our childrens throat is very irresponsible. They should come to an conclusion by themselves so they completely understand why they are doing what they are. A child takes easily things as truth if it comes from his/her parents, and then it is a religion. (followed blindly)

    I've been behind my opinin from the start even if I didn't make it clear enough on my first post. Climate change is coming no matter what. I think we didn't cause it, and don't think there's much to do about it, but we should prefer the nature favoring decision.
    Quoted for preservation. This stuff is just too good.

  100. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by KK89 View Post
    Time has proven gravity being right and it's more obvios that GW. You go outside and can't really say that GW has effected todays whether.
    GW isn't hundreds or thousands years old theory.
    And neither is gravity. We have only understood that properly for the last 70 years or so.

    The rather frequent amount of tornados in the US lately could be signs of climate changes already occurring, but the worst is still expected to come in the future. We actually have time to prepare for it, and doing anything else would be foolish. It is very simple logic that changing one thing in a complex system have the posibility to create unexpected consequences, and this is exactly what we are doing by increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Thinking that the amount of greenhouse gases doesn't affect the climate is simply denying reality.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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