Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 151 to 200 of 211

Thread: Seriously?

  1. #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

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

  3. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,103
    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".

  4. #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

  5. #155
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    114
    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!

  6. #156
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,033

  7. #157
    Human Test Subject
    Reputation: Volsung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    963
    i was enjoying this thread till bikeabuser got unbanned and started spamming

  8. #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.

  9. #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?

  10. #160
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smithcreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    496
    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!

  11. #161
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: mtbxplorer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    6,915
    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.

  12. #162
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,103
    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.

  13. #163
    backwoods and backwards
    Reputation: MOJO K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,567
    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.

  14. #164
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smithcreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    496
    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!)

  15. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,187
    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

  16. #166
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,103
    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.

  17. #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.

  18. #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.

  19. #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.

  20. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,103
    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?

  21. #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.......

  22. #172
    NMBP
    Reputation: crashtestdummy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,181
    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.

  23. #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 ?

  24. #174
    squish, squish in da fish
    Reputation: fishwrinkle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,583
    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?

  25. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,211

  26. #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."

  27. #177
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    880
    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*

  28. #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.

  29. #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 10:44 AM.

  30. #180
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    880
    Thanks for the fix...bikeabuser

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

    It is what it is.

  31. #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 !

  32. #182
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,134
    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!

  33. #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.

  34. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,134
    ^ I don't think its a coincidence that a large piece of the science denier community happen to be religious, right wing types.

  35. #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.

  36. #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:

  37. #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.

  38. #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.

  39. #189
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,134

    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.

  40. #190
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    880
    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.

  41. #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

  42. #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.

  43. #193
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    114
    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.

  44. #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.

  45. #195
    Gettin' old
    Reputation: KK89's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    97
    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.

  46. #196
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    114
    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.

  47. #197
    Gettin' old
    Reputation: KK89's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    97
    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.

  48. #198
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,134

    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?

  49. #199
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,134

    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.

  50. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    114
    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 4 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
  •