"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong - Page 31 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

02-05-2007, 07:49 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:
>>>
>>>> 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
>> Isn't that what they are doing now?
>> The Catholic--Christian---whatever has done it for 20 centuries.
>> Iraq is a holy war, Catholic--etc--Americans against the heathen Muslims.
>> We only 'care' about them for their oil anyway.
>> Do you really think we would be there to impose Democracy on them if
>> they had no oil. We still haven't gotten the conspirators of the 9/11
>> attack but, by God we are going to give them, TA-DA Democracy.
>> Bill Baka
>
> I didn't quite catch that Bill. You ARE advocating blowing up mosques
> and churches full of people going to worship, right? You still think
> that's a great idea, right?
>
> Just want to make sure I understand your position on that clearly.

Birth control. Fertility inhibition or bombs, same end result.
I go for number one.
Bill Baka
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> Home of the $795 ti frame
>
>

02-05-2007, 07:52 PM

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>> Curtis L. Russell <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:03:53 -0600, "Arnold Walker"
>>>> <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> 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.
>>> Apparently the anonymous "deputy" and his buddy Bill don't so much
>>> have a problem with organized religion as the believers themselves.
>>> In fact, it seems to me like they've probably crossed the line to bona
>>> fide "terroristic threat" language. Should be interesting.
>> I was merely hypothesizing. My opinion is just that organized religion
>> is a waste of time. I'll do my religion at the top of a hard earned
>> mountain top.
>
> Bill, are you backing away from your terroristic threats about blowing
> up houses of worship full of Christians and/or Muslims? I think
> "hypothesizing" about things like that can get you a LOT of attention
> that I'm guessing you probably aren't looking for.

I'm not advocating it but it would be interesting to see how many nut
jobs would pay for an express ride to heaven.

>
>>> At any rate, Jesus hisownself wasn't a big fan of overly organized
>>> religion either. Basically, to have a problem with true Christianity,
>>> you'd have to disagree with something Christ said - otherwise the
>>> problem's gonna be with poor execution. There have certainly been
>>> some whackos in every group ever formed, but the amount of
>>> under-the-radar relief work that most churches do is impressive, but
>>> apparently not as newsworthy as the occasional pervert priest.
>> Wow. I actually have to agree with you on that one. It is kind of silly
>> for people to be squabbling over the finer points of religion if they
>> all resolve to believing in Christ. Baptists, Protestant, and Catholic
>> all have basically the same goals, but different interpretation.
>> Why fight?
>
> I don't. There's way too much in common - no one's got all the
> details right - that's pretty clear. Our church has regular
> cross-demonimational relief efforts (like sending teams from the area
> to rebuild homes in New Orleans or sponsoring another organization
> that's caring for 600 AIDS orphans in South Africa).

OK, good for your church. If all of them did as you mention and not just
feed the Vatican things might be a little better.
Bill Baka

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

02-05-2007, 08:04 PM

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:
>>
>>> 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... ;-)

> Ahhh, Mark, you need to go back to school and work on your math.

We'll see...

> We will probably hit about 9 billion before someone in power realizes that "growth" is not a good
> thing.

China did that decades ago now.

India did too, but was so ham handed about
its approach that the castrator got the bums rush.

> As far as available land, what kind of crop can you plant in the Himalayas?

Go visit Nepal some time.

> All that land going to waste.

Plenty much more viable land than that.

And we dealt with the hike from 3B to 6B without increasing the land used too.

02-05-2007, 08:15 PM

Fred G. Mackey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
> The Real Bev wrote
>> Bill Baka wrote

>>> 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?

> We don't, but until you start considering forced abortions, genocide
> and euthenasia, there's not much we can do about the population.

We can always let the dregs die of lack of food.

> Are those options acceptable to you?

She is completely irrelevant, the chinese found
that the first one worked very well indeed.

And you dont need genocide or euthenasia, they can just starve themselves to death instead.

>> 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.

> Nice idea, but who would you kill?

Those stupid enough to keep pumping out hordes more kids than
are needed to replace them would be a good place to start.

And they dont need to be deliberately killed, just let them starve to death instead.

>>>> 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.

> I've never been to Bangladesh, but New Orleans is (yes, it STILL is) a wonderful place.

Irrelevant to whether it makes any sense to keep doing that there.

> A tragedy occurred there, but remember that nearly 300,000 people were killed in Asia as a result
> of the tsunami a couple of years ago.

They've replaced all those already.

> Katrina pales in comparison to that. Should we just extreminate everyone in SE Asia?

You aint established that increasing CO2 levels
will see any need to exterminate anyone.

> Or should we be more passive about it - refuse to trade with them, refuse to offer aid when
> disaster strikes?

Yes, if they are stupid enough to keep pumping out hordes more
brats than their pathetic excuse for a 'country' can possibly sustain.

>>>>> 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?

> Nothing - what makes you think that statement suggests something is wrong with them?

The 'even the dutch' bit.

> Perhaps the Netherlands shouldn't be populated either.

Not all of it is below sea level.

And heaps of them have been migrating away from there for centurys now anyway.

And most of them arent even self replacing population wise anymore,
just like most of western europe isnt either if you take out migration.

> Is that what you are suggesting? Should we nuke them?

Unlikely she is suggesting anything of the sort.

>>> Change your handle to "ostrich".

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

> Maybe it's not,

Corse it isnt.

> but you're the one who repeatedly asked why we "need" 6 billion people.

Its a perfectly viable approach if it turns out that increasing
CO2 levels mean we cant feed all those 6B anymore.

And that can be done without deliberately killing anyone too.

02-05-2007, 08:21 PM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
> Fred G. Mackey wrote
>> The Real Bev wrote
>>> Bill Baka wrote

>>>> 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?

>> We don't, but until you start considering forced abortions, genocide
>> and euthenasia, there's not much we can do about the population.

>> Are those options acceptable to you?

> I would prefer to limit the baby factories somehow, whether trough education

No country has ever managed to do that.

> or, if need be, by a fertility inhibitor in the food.

Or just see that happen automatically as economic
prosperity almost always produces that result.

> Now the choice would be food and no children or children and starve.

Or both.

>>> 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.

>> Nice idea, but who would you kill?

> See above. Just let them die off from old age or whatever.

>>>>> 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.

>> I've never been to Bangladesh, but New Orleans is (yes, it STILL is)
>> a wonderful place. A tragedy occurred there, but remember that
>> nearly 300,000 people were killed in Asia as a result of the tsunami
>> a couple of years ago. Katrina pales in comparison to that. Should
>> we just extreminate everyone in SE Asia?

>> Or should we be more passive about it - refuse to trade with them, refuse to offer aid when
>> disaster strikes?

> Offer free food with the above mentioned fertility inhibitor.

Some of them are stupid enough to turn up their noses at even GM food.

Their problem in my opinion.

>>>>>> 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?

>> Nothing - what makes you think that statement suggests something is wrong with them?

>> Perhaps the Netherlands shouldn't be populated either. Is that what you are suggesting? Should
>> we nuke them?

> I like the Dutch, except for that nasty little slave thing they started.

No they didnt. Slavery was almost universal LONG
before the dutch ever amounted to a hill of beans.

>>>> Change your handle to "ostrich".

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

>> Maybe it's not, but you're the one who repeatedly asked why we "need" 6 billion people.

> Listen to the politicians and it's called "Growth" not overpopulation.

Depends on which politicians you are talking about.

The chinese managed to work out what it was about, even if that fool Mao couldnt.

Rajiv Ghandi too.

> They will paint a rosy picture of Armageddon as long as it gets them elected.

There is no Armageddon, just lots of pig ignorant mindless hysterics like you.

02-05-2007, 08:24 PM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> dgk wrote:
>> 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.
>
> That's politics for you. We will just hand the problem over to our kids

And when our ancestors did that when that fool Malthus
started mindlessly hyperventilating, that worked fine.

> and we will be long gone when the **** hits the fan.

The **** wont be hitting any fan.

The most that will happen is that things adjust, even if we do
see temperatures rise by 10C and sea levels rise by 100M,
just like we handled that fine when it happened previously.

> It's the American way.

America hadnt even been invented then, stupid.

02-05-2007, 08:31 PM

Fred G. Mackey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> John Weiss <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote
>>> 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?!?

>> IN THE CONTEXT OF WHERE BIKES ARE ALLOWED.

> If that's what you mean, then ****ing say so.

I already did. You're so stupid that you didnt even notice ? YOUR problem.

> Say what you mean.

I already did. You're so stupid that you didnt even notice ? YOUR problem.

> That's all I asked in the first place.

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
irrelevant. What you might of might not have stupidly asked in spades.

>>> Then why is it the 2nd primary definition on the first entry in your cited list?!?

>> The first entry is completely irrelevant, many of them dont even mention that meaning.

> Bull****.

We'll see...

> Go check them out yourself.

Did that, try [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

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

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

> It's amazing that you were able to bull**** your way out of your mother's womb, but then again if
> she had even an ounce of intelligence, you would have been an abortion.

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

02-05-2007, 08:34 PM

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

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

> > I live in California and have a city-run utility, so we don't have
> > to deal with PG&E.
>
> Are you in the SMUD group area of Sacramento?

Nope.

> > Currently solar cells cost 25 cents per Kw-hour when the cost of
> > the installation is amortized over a 30 year period. See
> > <http://www.solarexpert.com/grid-tie/FAQs.html>.
(fixed a typo)
>
> Are you figuring national or California sun?

I'm reporting what it states on that particular web page. Also, you
should factor in the fact solar cells are dropping in price. Even if
you saved a few cents per kilowatt hour, you should consider if paying
that would be worth it in terms of what the installation would cost
you if you waited a year.

BTW, some of us live in areas were we can get fog and can't depend on
"California sun". Also, electricity costs me 7.4 cents per kilowatt
hour, and if PG&E is price gouging, it could simply drop the price if
they see a lot of customers switching to solar cells.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

02-05-2007, 08:34 PM

Fred G. Mackey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>> Glancing at a half-dozen definitions, they ALL mentioned lack of a toll.

>> Not in the context of where bikes are not allowed they dont.

> NONE of them mentioned whether or not bicycles were allowed.

Irrelevant. Even someone as stupid as you should be able to grasp that when *I*
mentioned bikes and freeways, which particular type of freeway I was referring to.

02-05-2007, 08:36 PM

Bill Baka wrote:

> The automotive engineers know this but they are paid to shut up and
> design cars that sell. Joe Consumer does not want to have to downshift
> to pass someone. That gives the somewhat slow Joe a sense of power under
> the hood, which in turn sells cars.

I'm no expert on cars, engines, or transmissions, but I do miss my old
car with the 5-speed manual transmission.

I saw nothing wrong with downshifting to get a little more acceleration
- make that a LOT more. The car I drive now is similar in many respects
- better in quite a few, but the fact that it's automatic offers me few
advantages beyond being able to drink coffee while in stop and go traffic.

That wasn't a problem when I had a manual transmission - I learned to
drink my coffee between shifts.