"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong

In article ,
says...

I don't know about you but having cars whiffing by me at 65 MPH is not
my idea of a fun ride. It's more of a death wish than I have. In
California you will get a ticket.

Except where you won't, since California is in the majority of U.S.
states that allow bicycles on at least some Interstate freeways.

Not every bicycle ride is for fun -- depending on where I'm going, a
freeway may be the shortest or safest route, even if it's less pleasant
than a meandering rural road.

--
is Joshua Putnam
http://www.phred.org/~josh/
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html

In article , Wayne Pein wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:

In article , Wayne Pein wrote
in part:

A 2 ft wide bicycle fits just fine no matter how narrow the lane.

I have driven smaller rental trucks on lanes that had at most 6 inches
to each side of the truck!

A bicycle driver need only ride right in the center of the lane.

And hold up traffic? Oh how popular! (SNORT!)

Yea, like stop lights, stopped busses and delivery trucks, and general
congestion.

Especially given states
having laws telling cyclists to stay at the right edge of the lane they
are in!

Yea, discrimination against slow traffic should be abolished.

Oh, I have heard of allowance for cyclists to hog a lane to block
vehicles that the cyclists know cannot safely pass them, but if a cyclist
needs to hog a lane more than briefly for such safety purposes then the
cyclist could easily lose on the road, and again (or the cyclist's next
of kin could lose that next battle) at a resulting jury trial!

It's not hogging the lane. It's called using the lane. Got a bias
against human power eh?

No, I actually cycle a lot more than I drive.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Wayne Pein wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:

Wayne Pein wrote:

Further, any bus with a
bike rack on it is heavier and thus gets worse gas mileage than one that
doesn't whether it gets used for carrying a bike or not.

If that rack gets just one car replaced by a bike for commuting
along/near the bus route on a daily basis, I see energy savings even if
the bus has to carry the rack all day and one bike a few miles daily!

Busses get roughly the same BTU's per passenger mile as do autos. There
is no energy savings. So anybody who rides the bus is doing a lot of
polluting (nasty diesel) and energy consumption as a chauffered motorist.

You expect me to believe that adding one passenger to a bus increases
the fuel consumption of the bus by the amount that person would have
consumed by driving? Per-passenger fuel economy of buses would surely go
up if we made them more popular!

As if your figure has any truth anyway! Where did you get it?

- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein wrote:


You expect me to believe that adding one passenger to a bus increases
the fuel consumption of the bus by the amount that person would have
consumed by driving?

I never said that.



Per-passenger fuel economy of buses would surely go
up if we made them more popular!

Yes, but guess what? They aren't popular. Yes, some people use them and
for those people that may be the best option. But they aren't popular
with the broader public for good reasons.



As if your figure has any truth anyway! Where did you get it?


Most people automatically assume that transit is environmentally
friendly and haven't taken the effort to examine the claim.

http://www.bts.gov/publications/nati...ion_statistics
/2004/html/table_04_20.html

Busses are heavy, with big engines, and start and stop alot. Much of
their trip throughout a day has few if any passengers on board. They
tend to be busy during peak times, but this doesn't make up for sparsely
utilized in-between times. Thus, averaged out their BTUs per passenger
mile are roughly that of private motor vehicles.

Wayne

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:15:03 +1100, "Rod Speed"

They do actually, which is why they are building nukes.

and the situation does, in fact get worse, the global warming phenomena might make the weather
wildly unpredictable

Not a chance. We've seen MUCH bigger variations in world temps in the past.

There have been events like the mini-Ice age due to some really big
volcanoes blowing their tops and putting megatons of materials into
the air. Not a St. Helens size but more like the Krakatoa type.

Yes, but that wont happen due to man made CO2 etc.

Thats going to be a much more gradual effect.

to the point of taking out most of humanity.

Not a chance. Even the ice ages didnt manage to do that.

No, it didn't, but there were only so many humans that did survive,
and they managed to to hunt various animals to extinction.

That extinction didnt happen due to hunting.



I hope that you're right Rod, but I think not. I think the damage that
six+ billion people have done to the planet is very severe. The rain
forests are going, the coral reefs are going, the icebergs are going.

Let's see, perhaps if we do a risk analysis. Outcome = possible
destruction of human existence. What are we willing to do to mitigate
that possibility? Nah, too much trouble.

dgk wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Bill Baka wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Bill Baka wrote

Considering that countries like China don't give a damn

They do actually, which is why they are building nukes.

India too.

and the situation does, in fact get worse, the global warming
phenomena might make the weather wildly unpredictable

Not a chance. We've seen MUCH bigger variations in world temps in the past.

There have been events like the mini-Ice age due to some really big
volcanoes blowing their tops and putting megatons of materials into
the air. Not a St. Helens size but more like the Krakatoa type.

Yes, but that wont happen due to man made CO2 etc.

Thats going to be a much more gradual effect.

to the point of taking out most of humanity.

Not a chance. Even the ice ages didnt manage to do that.

No, it didn't, but there were only so many humans that did survive,
and they managed to to hunt various animals to extinction.

That extinction didnt happen due to hunting.

I hope that you're right Rod, but I think not. I think the damage
that six+ billion people have done to the planet is very severe.

Depends entirely on how you define 'damage'

Certainly much of the forests in western europe are now gone,
and western europe manages fine without them anyway.

The rain forests are going, the coral reefs are going, the icebergs are going.

Those last two arent necessarily due to human activity tho.

And it aint the first time that icebergs have 'gone' in the past.

Let's see, perhaps if we do a risk analysis.
Outcome = possible destruction of human existence.

That is never going to happen. We've worked out how to live over a huge
range of climatic conditions, even without the technology we have today.

What are we willing to do to mitigate that possibility?

It makes absolutely no sense to cripple the world's economys
for something that isnt going to happen like that mindless claim
about 'possible destruction of human existence'

The most that might happen is that a number of islands may dissappear
beneath the waves, so the current inhabitants will have to move elsewhere, but
thats happened on a VASTLY bigger scale in the past and we managed to
survive that in the past fine, even without what is possible technology wise today.

Plenty of areas that were much more viable in the past are still inhabited
today, and that was done using bugger all in the way of technology, fine.

Nah, too much trouble.

The real reason we arent stupid enough to cripple
economys for something that is clearly readily fixable.

Even the dutch managed to work out how to do something about sea levels.

wrote
John Weiss jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Nope. The free part of freeway has nothing to do with the toll.

You are wrong. In the USA, one of the dictionary
definitions of "freeway" is "A toll free highway."

I imagine the troll

You wouldnt know what a troll was if one bit you on your lard arse, child.

is refusing to admit he's using the definition of a freeway as a roadway
with no cross intersections, thus eliminating stop signs and traffic lights.

Unlikely given that I rubbed that fool's nose in the dictionary definitions.

In which case, he's wise to refuse an answer, since many
freeways, even elevated freeways, including large parts
of the Interstate system, do in fact allow bicycles.

And plenty more dont. Which might just be why I originally
used the phrase 'sensibly organised freeways', child.

"Bill Baka" wrote in message
. net...
Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote:
"Mark Hickey" wrote in message
...
: Bill Baka wrote:
:
: Christians seem to base their life on whatever the pope interprets the
: Bible to mean, and will commit any act that is harmful to the planet
as
: their way of following God's will.
:
: Total Bull****. Remember the Crusades? Become Christian or we will
kill
: you type stuff.
:
: So if the church says to kill all non-Christians it is not sanctioned
: murder?
:
: Bill, you obviously don't have a clue what Christianity is about.
: Anyone who does would read the above and feel sorry for your lack of
: knowledge on the subject. You used the term "fruit loop detected"...
: believe me, it applies to your comments even more than the windmill
: tilter.
:
: Mark Hickey

Yeah Mark he should have said Catholics while referring to the pope like
that. You are absolutely right.

That being said he is right on regarding his charge that the stupid
christian mother****ers will kill anyone not just like them for a buck
and a shot at a seat at the jezus banquet in heaven and a chance to take
the rapture elevator to the show.

**** all christians like Rome did. Throw you to the lions you murdering
*******s.



peace
dawg
Amen.
Bill
Let's see .....you saying Meo was christian when he wiped out 40milliion.
Muslims don't have a death wish for all non Muslim.
dictators all over Africa accounting for several million killed .....were
all christian leaders
Jane Fonda ,Kerry and company were christian when they moved for a defunding
of Veitnam,
that led to 3million being killed in the 2wks after the war.Even got a war
memorial to that effect in North Veitnam.
Crusades???? seems that the Moors had overthrown Spain and were at the gates
of Paris before that started.
Might add they had converted all the Middle East and north Africa to muslim
at the tip of a sword.
Hell .....hitler ,Stalin,and 2 dozen other worse in history figures that
were less than christian.
Maybe you should rethink your case........
It was muslim pirates that extorted much of Europe over shipping rights in
the Med. and Ivory coast.
They made the mistake of "billing" the newly formed US .....the founding
fathers decided the $80,000 was better spent.
Forming the US Navy and in another couple years formed the US marines when
tactics agianst the pirates changed.
And your entire line sounds unnerving near Lincoln vrs. the Copperheads in
the Civil War.That republican had low poll rating
,too.And a mountain of Copperhead (Democrat) critics rooting for the
rebels.Seems most presidents that did what is good for
the poeple have low poll ratings.
Might be the reason many like Kerry and Clinton has changed position with
every poll change.
Has you getting good marks on the polls ,but blowing in the wind on any
stand or value.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:03:53 -0600, "Arnold Walker"
wrote:

Let's see .....you saying Meo was christian when he wiped out 40milliion.
Muslims don't have a death wish for all non Muslim.

Its generally transliterated as Mao and no, he didn't say that. You
can't read and you can't reason your way out of a paper bag.

And when it is all said and done, it will be a close call whether
organized religion was ever a net positive or negative for mankind.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Rod Speed wrote:
dgk wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Bill Baka wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Bill Baka wrote

Considering that countries like China don't give a damn

They do actually, which is why they are building nukes.

India too.

and the situation does, in fact get worse, the global warming
phenomena might make the weather wildly unpredictable

Not a chance. We've seen MUCH bigger variations in world temps in the past.

There have been events like the mini-Ice age due to some really big
volcanoes blowing their tops and putting megatons of materials into
the air. Not a St. Helens size but more like the Krakatoa type.

Yes, but that wont happen due to man made CO2 etc.

Thats going to be a much more gradual effect.

to the point of taking out most of humanity.

Not a chance. Even the ice ages didnt manage to do that.

No, it didn't, but there were only so many humans that did survive,
and they managed to to hunt various animals to extinction.

That extinction didnt happen due to hunting.

I hope that you're right Rod, but I think not. I think the damage
that six+ billion people have done to the planet is very severe.

Depends entirely on how you define 'damage'

Certainly much of the forests in western europe are now gone,
and western europe manages fine without them anyway.

The rain forests are going, the coral reefs are going, the icebergs are going.

Those last two arent necessarily due to human activity tho.

And it aint the first time that icebergs have 'gone' in the past.

Let's see, perhaps if we do a risk analysis.
Outcome = possible destruction of human existence.

That is never going to happen. We've worked out how to live over a huge
range of climatic conditions, even without the technology we have today.

Not to the point of 6 billion people. If we mess the planet up enough
then it will be very hard to produce food for even a few million. No
food ==== no people.

What are we willing to do to mitigate that possibility?

It makes absolutely no sense to cripple the world's economys
for something that isnt going to happen like that mindless claim
about 'possible destruction of human existence'

It isn't a mindless claim. We humans, well them other ones, are hacking
the planet and wildlife into extinction nearly as fast as dinosaur
killer meteor. In geological time our entire existence has been a blink
in the eye.

The most that might happen is that a number of islands may dissappear
beneath the waves, so the current inhabitants will have to move elsewhere, but
thats happened on a VASTLY bigger scale in the past and we managed to
survive that in the past fine, even without what is possible technology wise today.

Some survived, and here we are, but maybe it was down to the few
thousand, not 6 billion. That can't happen with a global brekdown.

Plenty of areas that were much more viable in the past are still inhabited
today, and that was done using bugger all in the way of technology, fine.

Nah, too much trouble.

The real reason we arent stupid enough to cripple
economys for something that is clearly readily fixable.

Even the dutch managed to work out how to do something about sea levels.


Change your handle to "ostrich".
Bill Baka