"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong - Page 21 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

02-04-2007, 08:36 PM

donquijote1954 wrote:
> On Feb 3, 4:35 pm, Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>>> So the connection is that the same Christian fundamentalists are
>>> causing Armageddon!
>> That isn't too unreasonable since they are also the ones whom God (the
>> pope) told to have as many kids as possible so they would need a big van
>> (SUV) to carry them all over the place.
>
> I see. So it may be God that made people to ride SUVs. But since we
> know that the Devil is disguised as God, we may as well see Satan at
> work. You know, there's so much camouflage in religious afffairs...
>
> HOW GOD WAS TEMPTED
>
> One day the Devil, having heard about that incredible story of turning
> the other cheek, slapped God in order to make him fall into
> temptation... And He, without hesitation, turned the other cheek...
> Another day, escalating the provocations, the Devil pitched Him a
> brick, but God only smiled... Until, tired of wasting his time, the
> Devil had an idea: He would dress like another god...
>
> And that's how God, who wouldn't tolerate other gods, became so mad
> that He declared war against the Devil...
>
So now Earth is a war zone???

02-04-2007, 08:36 PM

donquijote1954 wrote:
> On Feb 3, 4:35 pm, Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>>> So the connection is that the same Christian fundamentalists are
>>> causing Armageddon!
>> That isn't too unreasonable since they are also the ones whom God (the
>> pope) told to have as many kids as possible so they would need a big van
>> (SUV) to carry them all over the place.
>
> I see. So it may be God that made people to ride SUVs. But since we
> know that the Devil is disguised as God, we may as well see Satan at
> work. You know, there's so much camouflage in religious afffairs...
>
> HOW GOD WAS TEMPTED
>
> One day the Devil, having heard about that incredible story of turning
> the other cheek, slapped God in order to make him fall into
> temptation... And He, without hesitation, turned the other cheek...
> Another day, escalating the provocations, the Devil pitched Him a
> brick, but God only smiled... Until, tired of wasting his time, the
> Devil had an idea: He would dress like another god...
>
> And that's how God, who wouldn't tolerate other gods, became so mad
> that He declared war against the Devil...
>
So now Earth is a war zone???

02-04-2007, 08:41 PM

In article <45c61996$0$27070$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>, Wayne Pein wrote:
>fluffy bunny wrote:
>
>> In article <45c5459c$0$16750$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
>> Wayne Pein <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com> 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.
>>
>>
>> fair enough. Now stop waving your hands near the screen and show us
>> your calculations quantifying the relative energy costs of
>> two cyclists driving two cars vs:
>> one bus driving w/o the two cyclists or rack
>> vs. one bus w/o cyclists but with a rack
>> vs. cyclists riding the bus w/ bikes on the rack
>>
>>
>Why don't you?
>
>Why don't you carry a bus bike rack on your head along an entire bus
>route. That'll give you a headache and make you respect how much energy
>is required.

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!

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

02-04-2007, 08:41 PM

In article <45c61996$0$27070$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>, Wayne Pein wrote:
>fluffy bunny wrote:
>
>> In article <45c5459c$0$16750$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
>> Wayne Pein <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com> 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.
>>
>>
>> fair enough. Now stop waving your hands near the screen and show us
>> your calculations quantifying the relative energy costs of
>> two cyclists driving two cars vs:
>> one bus driving w/o the two cyclists or rack
>> vs. one bus w/o cyclists but with a rack
>> vs. cyclists riding the bus w/ bikes on the rack
>>
>>
>Why don't you?
>
>Why don't you carry a bus bike rack on your head along an entire bus
>route. That'll give you a headache and make you respect how much energy
>is required.

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!

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

02-04-2007, 08:44 PM

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>> Religious people are hopeless.
>
> Yeah, just look at the poor owner and coach of the Colts. A couple
> real failures, those two.
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> Home of the $795 ti frame

What. Only one example. That makes my case.
Bill Baka

02-04-2007, 08:44 PM

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>> Religious people are hopeless.
>
> Yeah, just look at the poor owner and coach of the Colts. A couple
> real failures, those two.
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> Home of the $795 ti frame

What. Only one example. That makes my case.
Bill Baka

02-04-2007, 08:46 PM

Don Klipstein wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
> >fluffy bunny wrote:
> >> Wayne Pein <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com> 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.
> >>
> >> fair enough. Now stop waving your hands near the screen and show us
> >> your calculations quantifying the relative energy costs of
> >> two cyclists driving two cars vs:
> >> one bus driving w/o the two cyclists or rack
> >> vs. one bus w/o cyclists but with a rack
> >> vs. cyclists riding the bus w/ bikes on the rack
> >>
> >>
> >Why don't you?
> >
> >Why don't you carry a bus bike rack on your head along an entire bus
> >route. That'll give you a headache and make you respect how much energy
> >is required.
>
> 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!

Where is this bike rack ?

Graham

02-04-2007, 08:46 PM

Don Klipstein wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
> >fluffy bunny wrote:
> >> Wayne Pein <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com> 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.
> >>
> >> fair enough. Now stop waving your hands near the screen and show us
> >> your calculations quantifying the relative energy costs of
> >> two cyclists driving two cars vs:
> >> one bus driving w/o the two cyclists or rack
> >> vs. one bus w/o cyclists but with a rack
> >> vs. cyclists riding the bus w/ bikes on the rack
> >>
> >>
> >Why don't you?
> >
> >Why don't you carry a bus bike rack on your head along an entire bus
> >route. That'll give you a headache and make you respect how much energy
> >is required.
>
> 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!

Where is this bike rack ?

Graham

02-04-2007, 08:49 PM

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>>>> You don't want to even try to cut down on coal/oil burning plants?
>>> Sure, but not by using more resources to build solar panels that won't
>>> return the energy (much less the cost) for many years to come.
>> And it is OK to waste that same Silicon to make tons of
>> games/gadgets/cell phones!
>
> First, since silicon is essentially sand, I'm not worried about
> running out of it any time soon. Second, photocells use a lot more
> than the itty bitty little microscopic junctions in most semiconductor
> devices (where a single die the size of a small solar panel might
> contain hundreds of microprocessor chips). Third, that doesn't
> address the amount of energy and resources necessary to build that
> solar panel (or the expense, which is really the issue).

Yeah,
They can build a plant in the middle of the Sahara, solar powered of course.
>
>>>> Signs of a hard core Repuglican are starting to show.
>>> If by that you mean "pragmatic and practical, rooted firmly in
>>> reality", yup. The fact I agree with others that the solar panels are
>>> no solution at this point is inarguable.
>> They are not a single, foolproof solution, but we had better start
>> somewhere.
>
> Ahhhhh, the "do something, anything" approach to solving our problems.
> No thanks.

You probably think Bush is a great president then too. The do nothing,
go to war, and still do nothing good for the US.
>
>>>> I have a 5" solar panel that powers my portable AM/FM/Shortwave radio
>>>> quite nicely. That was a small effort on my part to obtain the
>>>> mini-panel to power the radio, even up to LOUD, and I never have to
>>>> worry about buying batteries and adding to the dumps overflowing mess of
>>>> disposables.
>>> Or you can simply use a radio that's plugged into the wall and
>>> probably consume no more than a few cents worth of electricity a month
>>> to power that portable radio (even at very loud volumes). Try funding
>>> a solar panel on that (after looking up "opportuntity cost" and
>>> understanding the concept, which may be a "Republican thing", of
>>> course, since it's not subject to debate or spin).
>> It would be very hard to find a plug in at the park my grandkids like to
>> go to, and I am opposed to disposable batteries.
>
> So do what I did - buy a radio with a crank. Doesn't require leaving
> it in the sun all day, and can be recharged any time you like with
> just a bit of finger/wrist exercise.

I had this one hiding in a corner and it is a marine RDF.
It was just begging to be used.
Bill Baka
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> Home of the $795 ti frame

02-04-2007, 08:49 PM

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>>>> You don't want to even try to cut down on coal/oil burning plants?
>>> Sure, but not by using more resources to build solar panels that won't
>>> return the energy (much less the cost) for many years to come.
>> And it is OK to waste that same Silicon to make tons of
>> games/gadgets/cell phones!
>
> First, since silicon is essentially sand, I'm not worried about
> running out of it any time soon. Second, photocells use a lot more
> than the itty bitty little microscopic junctions in most semiconductor
> devices (where a single die the size of a small solar panel might
> contain hundreds of microprocessor chips). Third, that doesn't
> address the amount of energy and resources necessary to build that
> solar panel (or the expense, which is really the issue).

Yeah,
They can build a plant in the middle of the Sahara, solar powered of course.
>
>>>> Signs of a hard core Repuglican are starting to show.
>>> If by that you mean "pragmatic and practical, rooted firmly in
>>> reality", yup. The fact I agree with others that the solar panels are
>>> no solution at this point is inarguable.
>> They are not a single, foolproof solution, but we had better start
>> somewhere.
>
> Ahhhhh, the "do something, anything" approach to solving our problems.
> No thanks.

You probably think Bush is a great president then too. The do nothing,
go to war, and still do nothing good for the US.
>
>>>> I have a 5" solar panel that powers my portable AM/FM/Shortwave radio
>>>> quite nicely. That was a small effort on my part to obtain the
>>>> mini-panel to power the radio, even up to LOUD, and I never have to
>>>> worry about buying batteries and adding to the dumps overflowing mess of
>>>> disposables.
>>> Or you can simply use a radio that's plugged into the wall and
>>> probably consume no more than a few cents worth of electricity a month
>>> to power that portable radio (even at very loud volumes). Try funding
>>> a solar panel on that (after looking up "opportuntity cost" and
>>> understanding the concept, which may be a "Republican thing", of
>>> course, since it's not subject to debate or spin).
>> It would be very hard to find a plug in at the park my grandkids like to
>> go to, and I am opposed to disposable batteries.
>
> So do what I did - buy a radio with a crank. Doesn't require leaving
> it in the sun all day, and can be recharged any time you like with
> just a bit of finger/wrist exercise.

I had this one hiding in a corner and it is a marine RDF.
It was just begging to be used.
Bill Baka
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> Home of the $795 ti frame