"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong - Page 13

02-03-2007, 07:02 PM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
> Bernd Felsche wrote
>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes
>>> donquijote1954 wrote
>>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Brent P) wrote

>>>>> The belief in human caused global warming is being used to gain more control over the
>>>>> population, to consolidate wealth, to end any sort of freedom of the masses, and put the whole
>>>>> world in the control of a small group of elites.

Just another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.

While ever you get to give the bums the bums rush at
the ballot box, no 'elite' can do a damned thing about that.

>>>> I thought that was the job of Globalization.

>>>>> I will believe that human caused global warming is a serious issue when and only when, nations
>>>>> like China are forced to do something about it.

Which wont be any century soon.

>>>>> Right now, things like the Kyoto treaty are designed simply to relocate manufacturing from
>>>>> places where there _ARE_ environmental protections to places where there are practically
>>>>> _NONE_.

Just another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.

Kyoto doesnt have a damned thing to do with the location
of manufacturing, or 'environmental protections' either.

>>>>> They expect us to believe that CO2 released in Ohio is bad, but CO2 released in Tianjin is of
>>>>> no concern.

Just another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.

>>>>> Not to mention all the pollution controls that are required in Ohio,
>>>>> the limits, the regulations, all to keep the environment cleaner
>>>>> but simply don't exist in other places in the world like China.

That is just plain wrong.

>>>> It's not Kyoto, but America that is feeding China. Go to Walmart or the Dollar Store if you
>>>> don't believe me.

>>> Bingo.
>>> Hit the nail right on the head. Bush can praise our 'progress' while we are supporting a
>>> Communist country that could care less about pollution.

They care about pollution and are doing something about that too.

>>> Meanwhile they are taking away our jobs while they
>>> do their thing, which seems to be taking our money.

And with a 5% unemployment rate, there is no shortage of jobs.

>> This is not just consumer-driven. It's also market-driven and an ethical issue... beyond CO2 etc,
>> but of the value of work.

Nope.

>> Put it this way; if you value your own work at $2/day, then feel
>> free to buy products from a nation where that is the "standard" wage. However, don't begrudge the
>> people of those countries the fruits of their labour. Fair prices

No such animal.

>> need to be fair to all.

Not even possible.

>> That provides the greatest incentive and freedom of choice across the range.

Pigs arse it does.

>> I know of no economic or political system that can impose the necessary balance. Historically;
>> systems that try to impose fairness become corrupt.

There is no such animal as 'fairness' in that area.

>> Consumer education is important;

Nope.

>> giving them sufficient information on what they are buying, how it is made and who really makes
>> the money from the products that they buy.

They dont care.

>> Only then can a choice based on equity be made.

They dont care about that either.

> Agreed.

More fool you.

> The average consumer will often buy based on price alone with no regard of where the product came
> from.

Yep, they couldnt care less about that mindless silly crap above.

> The problem is that as long as Joe consumer has a job, he doesn't care that by buying from another
> country his is taking his neighbor's job.

And when there is an unemployment rate of 5%, there
is no problem with his neighbour getting another job.

> Then a few years later he gets the dreaded 'pink slip' and wonders what happened.

Fantasy. There are so few working in manufacturing now that that aint gunna
happen when the average consumer buys goods made outside its country.

> What goes around comes around.

Mindless silly stuff.

> All of my older stuff, bicycles included came from either the U.S. or Japan, depending on what
> market and how old.

And then the world moved on.

> I remember shopping with a friend as a kid around 1959 and the store had what we called a
> "Japanese junk" section.

And then the world moved on.

> At that time a foreign car meant European and a foreign motorcycle meant a BSA or Triumph.

And they were junk.

> Fast forward and the companies have folded and the people and skills have gone too.

And the country that made them STILL has an unemployment
rate that aint much above 5% ANYWAY and they have let
hordes of immigrants into their country since then too.

> Progress?
> Maybe for the Chinese, but not for us.

Wrong, as always. Those consumers get MUCH cheaper goods, stupid.

And they get to export the pollution thats involved in that manufacture too.

> Suddenly the biggest polluter is also the biggest producer.

Who cares when they are polluting their own country ?

> If we didn't buy from China we would be crippled at this point,

Yep, and that sort of utterly mindless protectionism never works anyway.

> and the politicians don't mention the obvious fact that getting our
> manufacturing base back is at least as important as the oil issue.

Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.

The US still does plenty of manufacturing in other areas, most
obviously with software, and you get to like it or lump it anyway.

> Too big a subject for this group, and way off the mark for bicycles, so, umm, later.

No it isnt, very relevant to where bikes are made.

02-03-2007, 07:07 PM

Mauried <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].au> wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 02:18:03 GMT, Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>> Bernd Felsche wrote:
>>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:
>>>> donquijote1954 wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 2, 4:37 pm, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Brent P)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> The belief in human caused global warming is being used to gain
>>>>>> more control over the population, to consolidate wealth, to end
>>>>>> any sort of freedom of the masses, and put the whole world in
>>>>>> the control of a small group of elites.
>>>
>>>>> I thought that was the job of Globalization.
>>>
>>>>>> I will believe that human caused global warming is a serious
>>>>>> issue when and only when, nations like China are forced to do
>>>>>> something about it. Right now, things like the Kyoto treaty are
>>>>>> designed simply to relocate manufacturing from places where
>>>>>> there _ARE_ environmental protections to places where there are
>>>>>> practically _NONE_. They expect us to believe that CO2 released
>>>>>> in Ohio is bad, but CO2 released in Tianjin is of no concern.
>>>>>> Not to mention all the pollution controls that are required in
>>>>>> Ohio, the limits, the regulations, all to keep the environment
>>>>>> cleaner but simply don't exist in other places in the world like
>>>>>> China.
>>>
>>>>> It's not Kyoto, but America that is feeding China. Go to Walmart
>>>>> or the Dollar Store if you don't believe me.
>>>
>>>> Bingo.
>>>> Hit the nail right on the head. Bush can praise our 'progress'
>>>> while we are supporting a Communist country that could care less
>>>> about pollution. Meanwhile they are taking away our jobs while
>>>> they do their thing, which seems to be taking our money.
>>>
>>> This is not just consumer-driven. It's also market-driven and an
>>> ethical issue... beyond CO2 etc, but of the value of work.
>>>
>>> Put it this way; if you value your own work at $2/day, then feel
>>> free to buy products from a nation where that is the "standard"
>>> wage. However, don't begrudge the people of those countries the
>>> fruits of their labour. Fair prices need to be fair to all. That
>>> provides the greatest incentive and freedom of choice across the
>>> range.
>>>
>>> I know of no economic or political system that can impose the
>>> necessary balance. Historically; systems that try to impose fairness
>>> become corrupt.
>>>
>>> Consumer education is important; giving them sufficient information
>>> on what they are buying, how it is made and who really makes the
>>> money from the products that they buy. Only then can a choice based
>>> on equity be made.
>>
>> Agreed.
>> The average consumer will often buy based on price alone with no
>> regard of where the product came from. The problem is that as long
>> as Joe consumer has a job, he doesn't care that by buying from
>> another country his is taking his neighbor's job. Then a few years
>> later he gets the dreaded 'pink slip' and wonders what happened.
>> What goes around comes around.
>> All of my older stuff, bicycles included came from either the U.S. or
>> Japan, depending on what market and how old. I remember shopping
>> with a friend as a kid around 1959 and the store had what we called
>> a "Japanese junk" section.
>> At that time a foreign car meant European and a foreign motorcycle
>> meant a BSA or Triumph.
>> Fast forward and the companies have folded and the people and skills
>> have gone too.
>> Progress?
>> Maybe for the Chinese, but not for us.
>> Suddenly the biggest polluter is also the biggest producer.
>> If we didn't buy from China we would be crippled at this point, and
>> the politicians don't mention the obvious fact that getting our
>> manufacturing base back is at least as important as the oil issue.
>> Too big a subject for this group, and way off the mark for bicycles,
>> so, umm, later.

> There is no mechanism to force China to do anything,
> short of declaring war and invading the country,

Corse there is, we can refuse to buy what they produce.

Fortunately hardly any of us are actually that stupid.

> and I cant see anyone wanting to do this.

Yeah, even the shrub aint actually THAT stupid.

And he's completely irrelevant now anyway.

> Coal fired power is with us for a long time to
> come,and I suggest we all learnt to live with it.

That is precisely what we are doing.

> Whether global warming is real ,or isnt real , or
> whether its man made or not are all totally irrelevant.

No it isnt when we have alternatives like nukes which are the obvious
way to deal with a substantial source of CO2 if we decide that CO2
levels are a real problem that needs something done about it.

> Whats relevant is how we deal with the consequences.

> China isnt the only problem.
> Other large populated countries like India and Pakistan
> will all follow Chinas lead as they need cheap plentiful
> energy for exactly the same reasons that China does.

That is just plain wrong. Very few of them will ever be able
to dominate manufacturing so completely as china does now.

> Expect to see many more Coal Fired Power Stations being built.

Great, they can buy our coal to burn in them.

02-03-2007, 07:20 PM

donquijote1954 wrote:
> On Feb 2, 11:20 am, "Lee K" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>> Climate Change's Carnival Atmosphere
>
>> Showmanship, rather than facts, is driving the climate debate - and, yes,
>> there still is a raging debate despite pronouncements to the contrary by Al
>> Gore and the mainstream media.
>
> You send your resume here...
>
> US think tank offering cash to dispute UN climate panel: report
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> You could argue that you make black look white, that hot is cold, that
> you can make evil look good, and that Bush has been good for the
> environment.

Right wing wacko groups like the American Enterprise Institute make true
conservatives look bad. You'd be hard pressed to find a true
conservative, with any education, that disputes the UN report.

02-03-2007, 07:29 PM

On Sat, Wayne Pein <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com> wrote:

>Bill Baka wrote:
>> No way. The buses are going to run either way, full or empty.
>
>If nobody rode busses, there would be no busses. Thus, it is appropriate
>to allocate an energy/pollution penalty to each user.

Baloney.

>There is no free
>lunch. You are either a motorist or a non-motorist, and a motorist is
>either a chauffered passenger or the driver. 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. I'm quite
>certain that the bike racks on any given transit system are used for
>only a small percentage of the system's trip mileage.

I am not sure, but when reading this thread I
realized that I haven't seen the bike racks on the
front of local city buses for a year or more, I need
check that out.
It may be because I never saw a bike on
the racks at any time when I did see buses with
racks.

Frankly, it is a silly idea in many places.

Joe Fischer

02-03-2007, 08:48 PM

In <45c5459c$0$16750$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>, Wayne Pein wrote in part:

>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. I'm quite
>certain that the bike racks on any given transit system are used for
>only a small percentage of the system's trip mileage.

You think a 70 pound or whatever bike rack is going to do much damage to
the MPG of a bus that weighs 17 tons empty and still gets at least a good
few miles per gallon of diesel? Increase the weight of the bus by .2
percent or whatever, and the bus burns maybe a quart or a pint more diesel
per day?
What not enact anti-overweightness incentives for the bus drivers if you
have need to consider that amount of weight being added to a bus? How
about the advertisements and their holders inside and outside the bus?

- Don Klipstein ([Only registered and activated users can see links. ])

02-03-2007, 09:09 PM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>, Joe Fischer wrote:
>On Sat, Wayne Pein <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com> wrote:
>
>>Bill Baka wrote:
>>> No way. The buses are going to run either way, full or empty.
>>
>>If nobody rode busses, there would be no busses. Thus, it is appropriate
>>to allocate an energy/pollution penalty to each user.
>
> Baloney.
>
>>There is no free
>>lunch. You are either a motorist or a non-motorist, and a motorist is
>>either a chauffered passenger or the driver. 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. I'm quite
>>certain that the bike racks on any given transit system are used for
>>only a small percentage of the system's trip mileage.
>
> I am not sure, but when reading this thread I
>realized that I haven't seen the bike racks on the
>front of local city buses for a year or more, I need
>check that out.
> It may be because I never saw a bike on
>the racks at any time when I did see buses with
>racks.
>
> Frankly, it is a silly idea in many places.

In Philadelphia, I see these on some buses. Not all, not most, but
some - this appears experimental to me. Often the racks have bikes.

I would advise use of locks that make it hard for a thief to grab your
bike from the rack when your bus runs into a red light or has to
load/unload passengers.

The local transit authority also has prvisions for bringing bikes into
the transit vehicles when space permits. As a result of that, I see the
need for the bus bike racks being limited to cyclists that need to make
use of full buses.

Few of Philadelphia's ghettos are so bad as to be outright barriers to
most commuter cyclists. For example, Broad St goes through "North
Philadelphia", where the murder rate might make Iraq appear not too unsafe
in comparison. However, cyclists passing through during commuting periods
and business hours tend to find their main hazards to be ones typical of
Philadelphia drivers in general as opposed to crime more associated with
"criminal element types" that "North Philadelphia" probably has at least
dozens of busloads of.
Yes, I have been there and done that and made several hundred trips
down and several hundred trips up Broad St from Erie Ave to Center City,
as well as from Philadelphia's "Germantown" area to "Broad & Erie" as a
more northern leg on these trips.

What I see as the best use of bike racks on buses is for getting bike
users through bike-unfriendly bridges, also a few tunnels that I think are
no better for bikes than plenty of bridges!

- Don Klipstein ([Only registered and activated users can see links. ])

02-03-2007, 09:27 PM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>, Mark Hickey wrote:
>[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Don Klipstein) wrote:
>
>>In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>, Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Brent P) wrote:
>>>
>>>>But it isn't about the environment, it's about power, control, and
>>>>wealth.
>>>
>>>Couldn't agree more. And that applies at the individual level as well
>>>- look at the funding spent on pro-global warming, and then contrast
>>>the money spent on contrarian studies. No contest - you simply can't
>>>get rich telling people that there's no lurking invisible monster
>>>about to eat the earth, it seems.
>>
>> Oh, those that make money in ways threatened by addressing of global
>>warming sure have a lot to lose and are putting money into generation of
>>data or "data" that we don't have a problem! For one example, I remember
>>something maybe about a decade ago by a major oil company saying how the
>>temperature has not significantly warmed at some level a few miles aloft,
>>which I expect to not warm up as much as the surface and lowest couple
>>miles of the atmosphere would as a result of adding "greenhouse gases".
>
>I believe what you're talking about was the NOAA data that was used to
>exclude the urban heat centers (relying on mid-level atmospheric
>temperatures, which would obviously also have to go up in the event
>there was a true global warming scenario underway). The fact that the
>alarmists have to use selective and incomplete data to support their
>claims tells you all you really need to know. The fact they've
>singled out CO2 as the culprit just shows that they count on the
>masses not having done any reading on the subject (which is probably a
>safe assumption).

Keep in mind that there is a widely-mentioned level of the atmosphere
known as the "500 millibar level", and worldwide average sea level
pressure is about 1012 millibars.

The 500 millibar level is therefore above roughly half this planet's
atmosphere by mass and above about half this planet's CO2, and above a
much bigger majority of this planet's water vapor which is a greenhouse
gas that is a positive feedback mechanism for global warming.

The "500 millibar level" is generally close to or a little over 5
kilometers or generally between/around 3.1 and 3.5 miles above sea level.

Also, thermal-infrared-absorbing "greenhouse gases" would experience
more radiational cooling than other atmosphere components would. Given
CO2 and "greenhouse gases in general" having higher absorption/emissivity
at longer IR wavelengths where solar spectral content is low and low
absorption at wavelengths where the solar spectrum is more significant,
"greenhouse gases" would have some tendency to actually cool the upper
atmosphere (maybe mainly as low as merely a few or several miles above the
"500 millibar level") while also making the surface warmer by adding
thermal radiation (longer infrared wavelengths generally ballpark 10 to
dozens of micrometers) to the scene, half of which is towards the surface.

- Don Klipstein ([Only registered and activated users can see links. ])

02-03-2007, 09:55 PM

Bill Baka wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > Bill Baka wrote:
>
> >> LEDs are better than incandescent lights,
> >
> > What do you mean by better ?
>
> Much more mechanically robust, smaller, new and evolving technology, and
> little thermal wasted on a hot filament.

Why does 'new technology' = better ? Keeping powerful LEDS cool is actually a serious concern !
The big ones need heatsinks.

> >> maybe on par with fluorescents,
> >
> > Their efficiency in lumens / watt is currently typically no better than 50% of that of > >
> CFLs.
> >
> Even fluorescents make the light as a secondary effect.

So what ?

> >> and don't need a minimum voltage to run the electronic ballasts.
> >
> > In exactly what way don't they ?
>
> The ballasts have a minimum workable voltage. Transistors optimized for
> 110 VAC rectified don't like low voltages.

Nonsense.

> Just look at the back of your computer and see if there is a 110/220 switch.

If there was a demand computers could run on 12V too. Laptops actually run off 19V typically and
you can also get 12V DC CFLs.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

The line voltage is not even remotely the issue.

> >> I think 100 watts would be the output for an average person
> >> and even that might be pushing it for a person in a developing country
> >> who may not have enough good nutrition. At 100 watts, solar panels start
> >> to be a major investment and don't work too good at night or on hazy
> >> overcast days.
> >
> > I don't rate solar panels as an intelligent solution to today's energy issues either for ppl
> > who live on-grid.
>
> Why not? Even at only 20% efficiency they are better than fossil fuel.

No they're not. Not remotely in any way practical for most of the world.

> That is the sticking point for right now. All kinds of money is being
> spent on research to find a solar cell that goes to even 30%.

Even that doesn't solve the problem that no sun = no power output !

> If we would just start buying what is available now instead of waiting for the
> Nirvana of more efficient solar cells we might be digging out of our oil
> problem.

You'be making it worse more likely.

> Not enough windy spots for windmills, unless of course they could be
> utilized in a hurricane and suck up the power of nature on a rampage.
> I know I'm dreaming on this one.

Plenty of places that can (and do) produce wind power in Europe. Offshore generation is becoming
very popular.

You've completely failed to address the isue that most leds just produce a single colour btw.
Great for traffic lights. Not so good for lighting your house.

Graham

02-04-2007, 09:06 AM

Side note: I have heard of people getting off the bus and trying to pull
> a fast one by grabbing the bike off the rack while the driver, usually
> clueless, waits.
> Kind of like car jacking but the cyclist usually figures it out before the
> bike is history.
> There are all types of petty thieves running around.
> Life in the city is not automagically civilized.
> Bill Baka

That has happened to me. The bus driver was not clueless, but I always ride
in front anyway.

SN

02-04-2007, 09:09 AM

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.

Bull****. A bike rack is less than 0.5% of a buses weight.
<<<<<<<<<

I wonder. you could also say that since it encourages bike riding that the
passengers would all be more fit and weigh less. Gas mileage would
increase. : }