A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Rides
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

we are putting a lot s*** into it



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 11th 06, 02:29 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default we are putting a lot s*** into it

On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 12:57:31 -0700, Mark Hickey
wrote:

That's why I would be opposed to spending
trillions of our hard-earned dollars trying to reduce CO2 emissions,
when there's very little evidence that it's more than a very, very
minor part of the problem.


One must wonder how the emissions from a million SUV's compare to a
single volcanic eruption-St. Helen's, Pinatubo, etc..
Interestingly, some propose the airborn dust from volcanic eruptions
act as a "Sunblock", reducing light that reaches the earth's surface
to be reemitted in longer wavelengths that are more readily trapped in
the "Greenhouse".
So we are back to articles of faith along party lines, that reduces
both positions to the stupid "Angels on the head of a pin"
speculation.

1: We're all gonna die and we are taking the polar bears with us.
2: Oh, Good. I can grow Super Beefsteak Tomatoes instead of Early
Girl Hybrids.
3: President Gore was robbed of his promised Birthright.
4: W, the drooling stammering lackey of Enron and the Oil and War
cartels did it all on purpose.
_______________________________________
Everybody happy? Now what about CYCLING?
_______________________________________

Ads
  #2  
Old June 11th 06, 02:42 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default we are putting a lot s*** into it

Specialized wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 12:57:31 -0700, Mark Hickey
wrote:

That's why I would be opposed to spending
trillions of our hard-earned dollars trying to reduce CO2 emissions,
when there's very little evidence that it's more than a very, very
minor part of the problem.


One must wonder how the emissions from a million SUV's compare to a
single volcanic eruption-St. Helen's, Pinatubo, etc..


Great example. Remember the uproar over CFCs? They were gonna
destroy the ozone 'cuz our air conditioners might leak occasionally.
Thing is, a single small volcano released many, many times more of the
compounds than mankind has ever produced. So what was our "solution"?
We replace the efficient R12 in our air conditioners with R43. Now
our cars burn more gas to keep us cool, thereby adding REAL pollutants
to the atmosphere.

We can repeat the same mistake with CO2 and spend trillions of dollars
(and cause more "real problems" than we solve) if we adopt the Kyoto
protocol.

Another parallel to the current global warming debate - some
scientists were convinced that our CFCs were depleting the ozone, and
that this was going to cause horrendous changes in our planet. We
were going to be forced to become mole people to avoid the sun.
Others pointed out the "volcano conundrum", and the fact that the hole
over the south pole was much bigger than the one over the north pole,
even though the industrial / automotive impact would have been a small
fraction of that of the northern hemisphere. Fast forward to today
and scientists have figured out that the ozone hole wasn't really
shrinking as much as they thought, and naturally shrinks and grows.

Interestingly, some propose the airborn dust from volcanic eruptions
act as a "Sunblock", reducing light that reaches the earth's surface
to be reemitted in longer wavelengths that are more readily trapped in
the "Greenhouse".
So we are back to articles of faith along party lines, that reduces
both positions to the stupid "Angels on the head of a pin"
speculation.

1: We're all gonna die and we are taking the polar bears with us.
2: Oh, Good. I can grow Super Beefsteak Tomatoes instead of Early
Girl Hybrids.
3: President Gore was robbed of his promised Birthright.
4: W, the drooling stammering lackey of Enron and the Oil and War
cartels did it all on purpose.
_______________________________________
Everybody happy? Now what about CYCLING?
_______________________________________


Heh heh heh. Nice synopsis.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
  #3  
Old June 11th 06, 04:03 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default we are putting a lot s*** into it

Mark Hickey wrote:
Specialized wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 12:57:31 -0700, Mark Hickey
wrote:

That's why I would be opposed to spending
trillions of our hard-earned dollars trying to reduce CO2 emissions,
when there's very little evidence that it's more than a very, very
minor part of the problem.

One must wonder how the emissions from a million SUV's compare to a
single volcanic eruption-St. Helen's, Pinatubo, etc..


Great example. Remember the uproar over CFCs? They were gonna
destroy the ozone 'cuz our air conditioners might leak occasionally.
Thing is, a single small volcano released many, many times more of the
compounds than mankind has ever produced. So what was our "solution"?
We replace the efficient R12 in our air conditioners with R43. Now
our cars burn more gas to keep us cool, thereby adding REAL pollutants
to the atmosphere.


This is untrue. From the FAQ
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/stratcl/

"In summary:

* Older indirect _estimates_ of the contribution of volcanic
eruptions to stratospheric chlorine gave results that ranged
from much less than anthropogenic to somewhat larger than
anthropogenic. It is difficult to reconcile the larger estimates
with the altitude distribution of inorganic chlorine in the
stratosphere, or its steady increase over the past 20 years.
Nevertheless, these estimates raised an important scientific
question that needed to be resolved by _direct_ measurements
in the stratosphere.

* Direct measurements on El Chichon, the largest eruption of
the 1980's, and on Pinatubo, the largest since 1912, show
that the volcanic contribution is small.

* Claims that volcanoes produce more stratospheric chlorine than
human activity arise from the careless use of old scientific
estimates that have since been refuted by observation.

* Claims that a single recent eruption injected ~500 times a year's
CFC production into the stratosphere have no scientific basis
whatsoever."


We can repeat the same mistake with CO2 and spend trillions of dollars
(and cause more "real problems" than we solve) if we adopt the Kyoto
protocol.


It was not a mistake. It was an example of world agencies recognizing a
problem, confronting the economic realities, instituting global policy
agreements and getting some progress on the problem. It's an example of
what can be done -- not a counter-example.

This is a all very reminiscent of the debates that raged over automobile
pollution control in the late 60's - early 70's. There was an uproar
over the impact on vehicle cost and efficiency, despite the horrific air
quality of the time. The right choice was made, nobody debates that now.


Another parallel to the current global warming debate - some
scientists were convinced that our CFCs were depleting the ozone, and
that this was going to cause horrendous changes in our planet. We
were going to be forced to become mole people to avoid the sun.
Others pointed out the "volcano conundrum", and the fact that the hole
over the south pole was much bigger than the one over the north pole,
even though the industrial / automotive impact would have been a small
fraction of that of the northern hemisphere. Fast forward to today
and scientists have figured out that the ozone hole wasn't really
shrinking as much as they thought, and naturally shrinks and grows.


You are exaggerating and distorting. You are representing sensationalism
as fact and marginal opinion as science. You've really got to move past
Fox News. The atmospheric chemistry is pretty well understood, and most
of the world's leadership came to relatively quick agreement to phase
out CFC's. The economic consequences haven't been as dire as the
hysterics predicted and atmospheric CFC levels have stabilized. It's a
success story, as is that (mostly) of pollution control in the
industrialized West. We could use a few more.
  #4  
Old June 12th 06, 01:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default we are putting a lot s*** into it

Peter Cole wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:


Another parallel to the current global warming debate - some
scientists were convinced that our CFCs were depleting the ozone, and
that this was going to cause horrendous changes in our planet. We
were going to be forced to become mole people to avoid the sun.
Others pointed out the "volcano conundrum", and the fact that the hole
over the south pole was much bigger than the one over the north pole,
even though the industrial / automotive impact would have been a small
fraction of that of the northern hemisphere. Fast forward to today
and scientists have figured out that the ozone hole wasn't really
shrinking as much as they thought, and naturally shrinks and grows.


You are exaggerating and distorting. You are representing sensationalism
as fact and marginal opinion as science. You've really got to move past
Fox News. The atmospheric chemistry is pretty well understood, and most
of the world's leadership came to relatively quick agreement to phase
out CFC's. The economic consequences haven't been as dire as the
hysterics predicted and atmospheric CFC levels have stabilized. It's a
success story, as is that (mostly) of pollution control in the
industrialized West. We could use a few more.


I was quoting from memory, and hadn't read up on the subject for a
number of years. In doing a little digging, it does appear that the
concept of a volcano as a major contributor to the ozone reduction has
been pretty well debunked (at least as THE major contributor - there's
some debate about how much chlorine from a large eruption reaches the
stratosphere it seems). Then there's still the question of why there
is a large hole in the ozone over the hemisphere with very little CFC
production and use, and why there isn't a corresponding one over the
north pole. And the reading I've done does validate the fact that
there is still a lot to learn about the subject, and not yet a real
consensus among all the atmospheric scientists. But you're right, I
was (unintentionally) exaggerating when I brought up the volcano
angle, and was no doubt underestimating the effect of man-made CFCs on
the ozone. Mea culpa.

Still, I remember a lot of panic among soccer moms who seemed to
believe that their progeny would burst into flames if they weren't
slathered with SPF10000 sunscreen before every exposure to the sun,
due to the "hole in the ozone" (which at most resulted in a few %
reduction in ozone in the mid-latitudes). That (IMHO) is the real
similarity between the current global warming hysteria and the ozone
issue. Both have some basis in reality, but have been blown far out
of proportion by skewed and inaccurate, sensationalist reporting.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
  #5  
Old June 12th 06, 04:54 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default we are putting a lot s*** into it

Kevan Smith wrote:

In article ,
Mark Hickey wrote:

That (IMHO) is the real
similarity between the current global warming hysteria and the ozone
issue. Both have some basis in reality, but have been blown far out
of proportion by skewed and inaccurate, sensationalist reporting.


Why would the right wing corporate media do that? It's in their interest
to promote the status quo. Oh, wait, they _are_ promoting the status quo
by labeling global warming concerns "inaccurate" and "sensationalist."


Which explains the unanimous vote by the Senate to NOT follow the
Kyoto protocol, right? 'Cuz they're all right wing corporate hacks.

LOL.

Yes, you used those terms, but I heard them on Fox first.


I've heard the arguments long before that, but I'd be surprised if you
could actually manage to watch Fox. You don't seem to tolerate
alternate viewpoints very well. ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
  #6  
Old June 12th 06, 06:13 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default we are putting a lot s*** into it

Kevan Smith wrote:

In article ,
Mark Hickey wrote:

Which explains the unanimous vote by the Senate to NOT follow the
Kyoto protocol, right? 'Cuz they're all right wing corporate hacks.


From my vantage, that's fairly accurate. Those in the Senate you would
call "liberal" are still conservative to me.


I have no problem believing that at all, Kevan... ;-)

In fact, I view _you_ as a
very far right wacko (but I'd buy one of your frames). But there's no
question that regardless of party or professed ideology, all in the
Senate are corporate whores. Corporations have the best government their
money can buy.


I'm not sure it's "all"... I'm idealistic enough to want to believe
that there are still career polititians who are serving for the sake
of serving. And I'd disagree with the premise that it's entirely
corporations that hold sway over our elected officials - it's also a
lot of special interest groups (including the evil corporations, of
course).

I think the whole problem IS the concept of a "career polititian".
The founding fathers had a concept of a government body made up by
those wealthy enough to be able to serve without needing to be paid
(and presumably, therefore much more immune to influence). And the
rest of the model was that they'd serve a short while and then retire
voluntarily.

While that sounds archaic and totally non-PC today, it would have some
serious advantages. For example, like him or hate him, it's hard to
imagine Gov. Arnie Schwarzenegger (not a career polititian by any
means) rolling over for a kickback from anyone. He simply doesn't
need the money.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
  #7  
Old June 12th 06, 06:23 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default we are putting a lot s*** into it

Mark Hickey wrote:
Kevan Smith wrote:

In article ,
Mark Hickey wrote:

That (IMHO) is the real
similarity between the current global warming hysteria and the ozone
issue. Both have some basis in reality, but have been blown far out
of proportion by skewed and inaccurate, sensationalist reporting.

Why would the right wing corporate media do that? It's in their interest
to promote the status quo. Oh, wait, they _are_ promoting the status quo
by labeling global warming concerns "inaccurate" and "sensationalist."


Which explains the unanimous vote by the Senate to NOT follow the
Kyoto protocol, right? 'Cuz they're all right wing corporate hacks.

LOL.

Yes, you used those terms, but I heard them on Fox first.


I've heard the arguments long before that, but I'd be surprised if you
could actually manage to watch Fox. You don't seem to tolerate
alternate viewpoints very well. ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame


I don't think any body that watches Fox could possibly be a Democrat. I
won't watch Fox news just because they are so obviously tilted. The same
people probably think Rush Limbaugh actually knows what he is running on
about.
Bill Baka
  #8  
Old June 12th 06, 02:25 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default we are putting a lot s*** into it

Bill Baka wrote:

I don't think any body that watches Fox could possibly be a Democrat. I
won't watch Fox news just because they are so obviously tilted. The same
people probably think Rush Limbaugh actually knows what he is running on
about.


If you never watch it, you'll never know. The difference is that Fox
puts on pundits from both sides and lets them each present their case.
Sometimes it's clear that the Democrat/Liberal has it right, sometimes
it's the Republican/Conservative. But it's always educational.

If you prefer to get your news from those who don't do that, it's fine
with me. But why settle for media with a "hidden bias" (one that's
been well-documented) when there are alternatives that will let you
actually develop your own opinions rather than have theirs subtly
applied to everything you hear?

At least with Limbaugh (almost never, ever listen to him myself, BTW)
acknowledges his bias. You know what you're getting, and can judge the
content accordingly. But when Dan Rather spoke, most listeners
thought they were getting the straight story, rather than "Dan's
twist".

A great example - the mainstream media has convinced the majority of
Americans that the economy is struggling. However, virtually every
indicator says the opposite. Fox reports that we're in the middle of
a very strong economy. Which approach would you prefer? Factual, or
one guided by political leanings?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
  #9  
Old June 12th 06, 06:15 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default we are putting a lot s*** into it

Kevan Smith wrote:
In article ,
Mark Hickey wrote:

The difference is that Fox
puts on pundits from both sides and lets them each present their
case.


I can't believe you said that seriously. First of all, it's not like
there are only two sides to issues. Second, FOX chooses "liberals" who
aren't really "liberals" at all. The range of "debate" on FOX is
laughable.


I think Kevan's on to something here, Mark. Those so-called liberals Fox
trots out are just actors! You can tell by their over-the-top,
spittle-out-the-mouth, snarling hatred of GWB. They must be "plants" to
make people side with the attractive, polite conservatives they find to
juxtapose with those rude and nasty "fake libs".

Oh, well... Fun while it lasted!


  #10  
Old June 12th 06, 09:45 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default we are putting a lot s*** into it

Mark Hickey wrote:
Bill Baka wrote:

I don't think any body that watches Fox could possibly be a Democrat. I
won't watch Fox news just because they are so obviously tilted. The same
people probably think Rush Limbaugh actually knows what he is running on
about.


If you never watch it, you'll never know. The difference is that Fox
puts on pundits from both sides and lets them each present their case.
Sometimes it's clear that the Democrat/Liberal has it right, sometimes
it's the Republican/Conservative. But it's always educational.

If you prefer to get your news from those who don't do that, it's fine
with me. But why settle for media with a "hidden bias" (one that's
been well-documented) when there are alternatives that will let you
actually develop your own opinions rather than have theirs subtly
applied to everything you hear?

At least with Limbaugh (almost never, ever listen to him myself, BTW)
acknowledges his bias. You know what you're getting, and can judge the
content accordingly. But when Dan Rather spoke, most listeners
thought they were getting the straight story, rather than "Dan's
twist".

A great example - the mainstream media has convinced the majority of
Americans that the economy is struggling. However, virtually every
indicator says the opposite. Fox reports that we're in the middle of
a very strong economy. Which approach would you prefer? Factual, or
one guided by political leanings?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame


Mark,
The only way I get non-biased news is when I turn on my short wave radio
and listen to the news direct from other countries. It would wake up
most people to hear what they say on their own station about the United
States. I get BBC, Australia, Japan, even China (Red biased) and many
others in 'Engrish'.
We are not as healthy or as popular as what Fox would have people believe.
Bill Baka
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Putting a Coker tire on the Airfoil rim john_childs Unicycling 20 January 21st 06 08:57 PM
We're Putting That Bitch On Ice [email protected] Techniques 0 June 24th 05 06:37 AM
Putting a KH seat on a Miyata--what's involved? Jethro Unicycling 4 June 20th 05 03:45 PM
putting video on gmail account miyata Unicycling 1 December 5th 04 12:25 AM
Putting cyclists at risk Wallace Shackleton UK 25 March 19th 04 12:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.