"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong - Page 27 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

02-05-2007, 05:32 PM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>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.

Errrr, perhaps you could explain the science behind that. Considering
that we're using only a portion of the available land to produce
plenty of food for a few BILLION people, I'm having a bit of a problem
seeing how we're going to take 99.9% of the available land out of
production. Or maybe "only' 99% gone with a 10% yield for what
remains?

I think we've found our new Chicken Little, folks... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Home of the $795 ti frame

02-05-2007, 05:36 PM

"di" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>"Bill Baka" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message news:VHzxh.71362>>
>> My 1988 Mustang 5.0 got 33 MPG in cruise mode, due to the extra high
>> gearing I had.
>.
>> Bill Baka
>
>Bull****!

Good luck. We've had this conversation several times. In Bill's
universe, reducing the engine speed by 35% increases gas mileage by
about 50%. I asked him why kicking in the overdrive in my Jeep Grand
Cherokee (which has a very accurate instant mileage computer, and an
overdrive that cuts the cruise RPM by about 33%) only increases my gas
mileage by about 5% (from about 19 to 20mph).

He goes silent on that (claimed it wasn't a very aerodynamic vehicle,
after claiming the effect worked great in his F-150 pickup!).

I've concluded that Bill lives in an alternate universe that's not
subject to the same limitations as the one I live in. ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Home of the $795 ti frame

02-05-2007, 05:43 PM

"Deputy Dumbya Dawg" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>Someone needs to start putting these *******s down in
>the mega-churches where they worship and give them an
>early send off for the jexus banquet in the sky. Maybe
>then we can have some peace here on earth.
>
>So long as the murdering christian warmongers....

<snipped the rest of the pointless rant>

Is it just me, or did everyone else's irony meter just peg out?

The anonymous poster "Deptuty" reminds me of a redneck I met in KY
once - talking about meeting the wife of a government official who was
sent down to set up bussing to force integration of the schools.

Out of his mouth - in one sentence - came "If I had a gun, I woulda
pulled it out and shot her dead right there in the checkout line 'cuz
I don't want my kid goin' to school with no n.....s 'cuz they're
dangerous".

Or maybe I've just missed the "Church of Murdering Warmongers" in the
Sunday Spirituality section in the paper. Bet they've got lively
music at least.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Home of the $795 ti frame

02-05-2007, 05:44 PM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>Blow up the churches and mosques when services are packing them in first.
>Never gonna happen though.
>Bill Baka

So Bill, you're advocating murdering people based on their religion?
Just want to get it on record.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Home of the $795 ti frame

02-05-2007, 06:06 PM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> dgk <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> 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.

Only because we've never had that many previously.

> If we mess the planet up enough then it will be very hard to produce food for even a few million.

Fantasy with CO2 production increased due to man made sources.

In fact that BENEFITS plant production.

> No food ==== no people.

There aint ever gunna be no food due to human activity.

>>> 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.

Corse it is. So mindless that it doesnt even allow for the FACT that higher CO2
levels in the atmosphere make it EASIER to grow plants and so animals too.

> We humans, well them other ones, are hacking the planet and wildlife into extinction nearly as
> fast as dinosaur killer meteor.

Just another utterly mindless pig ignorant fantasy.

> In geological time our entire existence has been a blink in the eye.

In spades with the current CO2 levels.

>> 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.

There aint gunna be any 'global brekdown'. The most that
we have established is a substantial measureable increase
in atmospheric CO2 levels, and that BENEFITS plant production
and so food, even if that just with animal production too.

>> 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".

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

02-05-2007, 06:06 PM

"Rod Speed" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote...
>
>>> Nope. The free part of freeway has nothing to do with the toll.
>
>> You are wrong.
>
> Nope.
>
>> In the USA, one of the dictionary definitions of "freeway" is "A toll
>> free highway."
>
> That isnt common usage in this context.
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Not common usage?!? Then why is it the 2nd primary definition on the first
entry in your cited list?!?

Gee...The one time you provide a citation, and it helps prove you wrong!

02-05-2007, 06:49 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
> In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>, "John Weiss"
> <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> says...
>> "Rod Speed" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> 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 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.
>
> 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.
>
Ummm, people,
I have driven both 80 from S.F. to Illinois and 40 from L.A. to
Nashville and guess what? Totally FREE. The toll roads are an Eastern
thing. Chicago is where I started to see toll booths.
Bill Baka

02-05-2007, 06:53 PM

Bill Baka wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> dgk <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
>>
>>> 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.

Why do we NEED 6 billion 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.

Which makes it seem kind of silly to think that what we do matters at
all on the geological timescale. It matters to us and the people we
know and the people (our great-great-grandchildren) we might know, but
the rest might as well be Martians. How much do you worry about Mars
and the Martians?

>> 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.

Repeat: why do we need 6 billion people? I think we were a lot better
off when we had far fewer people, maybe it could be that way again.

>> 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.

And plenty of places are inhabited that really shouldn't be --
Bangladesh, for example, or New Orleans.

>>> 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.

What's wrong with the Dutch?

> Change your handle to "ostrich".

Hey, maybe the sky ISN'T falling...

--
Cheers, Bev
===================================
New sig on order, watch this space.

02-05-2007, 06:58 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
> In article <OCuxh.16438$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].prodigy.net> ,
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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.
>
California is pretty much a no bicycle state on the declared "Freeways".
There are a few exceptions ( not many ) where bikes are allowed since
the is no alternative road. Get on the wrong road and you will be nailed
by a CHP with a ticket for "Pedestrian on Freeway". I even got ticketed
for walking on the side to get some gas for my out of gas car. I
described my car which he had just passed and he gave me a lift off
"HIS" road, along with a brand new ticket.
Bill Baka

02-05-2007, 07:01 PM

Fred G. Mackey wrote:

> I suppose he's talking about interstates which charge tolls. Not living
> in New Jersey or states which do that, I wasn't familiar with any. A
> google search reveals that tolls CAN be charged on interstates that were
> built with state funds prior to the creation of the interstate highway
> system.

That's interesting, I wondered abou that. It may be noted that the
bastards can charge tolls for their ratty pothole-filled "turnpikes"
because trying to get to the same place without using the turnpike is a
good way to waste a whole day getting from DC to NY while possibly
breaking an axle. The whole eastern highway system is corrupt.

> So a very small percentage (primarily in the NE) of the nearly 50,000
> miles interstates cover are allowed to charge tolls.

Why? Because they can.

--
Cheers, Bev
===================================
New sig on order, watch this space.