"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong - Page 60 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

02-09-2007, 04:19 PM

In article <BT8zh.3837$4H1.423@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, Bill Baka wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <IB4zh.5737$gj4.756@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>, Bill Baka wrote:
>>
>>> Impractical is a stick in San Francisco. They put stop signs at the top
>>> of a hill and unless you have a hand operated emergency brake you can
>>> roll back and get the car behind you. That's the one place where I don't
>>> want to have a stick.
>>
>> After being hit a few times maybe people would get the message and not
>> stop 2 inches behind someone

> Maybe that counts as a rear end collision and the other guy pays for
> being that stupid. I would be on the sidewalk if I was cycling there,
> and I don't even want to think about how fast a downhill could be on
> pavement. I have nearly fried a cars brakes and don't know if bicycle
> brakes would cook either(and--or??).

The brakes on my Giant road bike did fine going down the bluff in WI to
the Mississippi river. Also had no problem with the rental road bike
riding down from Iao Needle on Maui. Now going up that bluff on the
giant, that did do something to the bike

Of course I'm a flatlander here in IL, so those are about the biggest
downhills I've ever had to deal with. I would doubt an urban hill would
be worse, but all I've seen of San-Fran in person was from the air and the
airport, so I wouldn't know how bad the hills there are.

02-09-2007, 04:28 PM

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

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> "donquijote1954" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 6, 8:00 pm, Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> As far as available land, what kind of
>>>>>> crop can you plant in the Himalayas? All that land going to waste.
>>>>> You didn't answer my question. You predicted that 99.9% of the
>>>>> world's food-producing capability was going to go away. I'm still
>>>>> curious what your thought process was on that one. And I've been in
>>>>> the Himalayas - they grow plenty (including poppies and pot).
>>>> That wasn't a question that really deserved an answer. It should be
>>>> obvious that more people will build more buildings and thus there will
>>>> be less land available. The oceans are getting over fished so that
>>>> resource will soon run out. Do you expect we will farm the moon or
>>>> something?
>>> I think they expect God to come from the skies with a cornucopia of
>>> fruits and vegetables. Well, of course, he will come in an SUV (Hummer
>>> most likely) killing pagans since there's no fruits and vegetables for
>>> all. Cyclists though got no place in Heaven 'cause they voted for
>>> Gore, who endorsed homosexuals, etc, etc.
>>
>> Oh, so YOU think 99.9 percent of the available farmland will be
>> overcome with development too, huh? You'd better hope there's a place
>> in heaven for those with no math skills. ;-)
>
>Don't forget the "Common sense" skills, Mark.

I haven't (that's why I question such a nonsensical position as yours
- that 99.9% of the available farmland on earth will be used up by
buildings and roads). You still owe me a rough population figure that
would require such a misappropriation of resources (or a mea culpa
statement). ;-)

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

02-09-2007, 04:43 PM

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

>>>> schools...........
>>>> I would say that is a problem with the county officials either completely
>>>> blowing it, or getting their pockets lines to ignore the obvious.

>>> Probably not, where there is an influx of residents,
>>> all public services are short of money.

>> Specially with the terminally stupid US system where schools funding is local.

> And the reason for that is so the parents through an elected
> school board and the PTA have some say about it.

Perfectly possible to have that without the downsides of local funding.

> Most of the school funding in the US comes from the
> federal government and state, on a per student basis,
> but as long as certain rules are followed, control is local.

So there clearly is no need for local funding.

>> That inevitably means that the areas with the most need due to
>> lots of the dregs of society also have the lowest tax revenue too.

> Why assume the same reason for all money problems,

I didnt.

> here it is because the state will not allow new residential
> construction below the 100 year flood elevation (even
> though the 1937 flood is considered to be a 500 year flood).

> An average of one or two houses are torn down each
> year because of residual flood damage and old age.
> There have been lots of floods, no doubt a big
> one when the glacier melted 18,000 years ago.

Irrelevant to the problem country wide.

>> In virtually all other modern first world countrys,
>> the funding for schools is state or country based.

> And some group with an agenda has imposed learning
> not wanted by most of the population in some countries.

Bet you cant list even a single example
of that in any modern first world country.

>> And the results the catholic systemic schools get
>> shows that it aint really about money anyway.

> It is when the liberal federal government sets the
> requirements for redistribution of collected taxes.

No it isnt when those schools get much better
results with much less money per brat.

>>> And in some towns, like mine, the school may close
>>> because there are not enough students to make the
>>> payroll, for 150 grade school students, laws require a
>>> school superintendent with an advances degree, a principle,
>>> and accredited teachers to qualify for federal funds.

>>> With high fuel costs, look for more people moving south,
>>> or closer to work and schools and shopping centers, or
>>> if oil stays above $60 a collapse of the world economy.

>> That last aint gunna happen.

> It is already happening, slowly,

Pigs arse it is. The world economy is doing fine.

> Venezuela has given up all franchised gas station contracts
> beginning some time this year because they had to buy
> gasoline on the open market and didn't feel it was profitable.

Irrelevant to the world economy.

>>> Garages and large commercial buildings where there is not a
>>> lot of business are not heated with modern heaters any more.

>>> Sitting in an upholstered chair with a propane radiant heater to warm
>>> the front feels pretty good when it is 20 or 30 degrees below normal.

>>> Just some normal weather would be nice.

>> You should pipe in the hot air from usenet.

> The compost furnace sounds good, if it would work, definitely renewable.

Pity about the stench tho.

02-09-2007, 04:48 PM

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:
>>> adm wrote:
>>>> "dgk" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>>>>> On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 11:55:47 -0800, The Real Bev
>>>>> <bashley101+[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Baka wrote:
>>>>>> My grandkids live in an affluent (not rich, but containing mostly
>>>>>> those monster tract homes that are going for $3/4 million now)
>>>>>> district. They have "lockdown" drills. That's what's supposed
>>>>>> to happen when a weapon or other threat is discovered. The kids
>>>>>> drop flat on the floor and the staff turns out the lights. I
>>>>>> need to find out more...
>>>>> Unfortunately that would appear to be a smart thing to plan for
>>>>> considering the number of actual incidents. Back when we were kids
>>>>> we had those idiot abomb drills. Climb under the desk and put your
>>>>> head between your legs. And, as the precocious kids added, kiss
>>>>> your ass goodbye.
>>>> Do you not think that making weapons far harder to get hold of
>>>> might help a bit ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No. There would just be a black market for guns. We just need to get
>>> rid of some people and maybe arrest them before the fact. Many times
>>> the shooter has had a history of animal abuse or other signs that he
>>> is whacko, and the police never put 2 and 2 together.
>>
>> Trouble is the huge numbers who abuse animals and who never gun down
>> kids in schools.
> There is where the problems arise. We had a rather famous murder trial
> here (Polly Klas(sp?)) and the killer was a known animal sadist plus a
> lot of other stuff back to when he was 6 years old. How much of being
> a red flag does someone have to have to be monitored?

Monitoring just isnt feasible. You do jail the dregs like that at
a decent rate so they only get to murder other dregs in jail etc.

02-09-2007, 04:54 PM

Brent P wrote:
> In article <BT8zh.3837$4H1.423@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, Bill Baka wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article <IB4zh.5737$gj4.756@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>, Bill Baka wrote:
>>>
>>>> Impractical is a stick in San Francisco. They put stop signs at the top
>>>> of a hill and unless you have a hand operated emergency brake you can
>>>> roll back and get the car behind you. That's the one place where I don't
>>>> want to have a stick.
>>> After being hit a few times maybe people would get the message and not
>>> stop 2 inches behind someone

>
>
>> Maybe that counts as a rear end collision and the other guy pays for
>> being that stupid. I would be on the sidewalk if I was cycling there,
>> and I don't even want to think about how fast a downhill could be on
>> pavement. I have nearly fried a cars brakes and don't know if bicycle
>> brakes would cook either(and--or??).
>
> The brakes on my Giant road bike did fine going down the bluff in WI to
> the Mississippi river. Also had no problem with the rental road bike
> riding down from Iao Needle on Maui. Now going up that bluff on the
> giant, that did do something to the bike

>
> Of course I'm a flatlander here in IL, so those are about the biggest
> downhills I've ever had to deal with. I would doubt an urban hill would
> be worse, but all I've seen of San-Fran in person was from the air and the
> airport, so I wouldn't know how bad the hills there are.
>
>
I was born in Chicago so I know how hard it is to find a hill, any hill.
There have been bluffs that I know were over 10% but lucky for me they
were pretty straight. There is one boat ramp/road about 15 miles into
the mountains (foothills) that runs about 15--20%. The bottom is a boat
launch and I almost went into the water. Coming back up was so steep it
was a walker. It might have been ridable by a total masochist but even
walking and dragging a bike was painful. Gotta love California and it's
geographical diversity.
Bill Baka

02-09-2007, 04:55 PM

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

>>>>> Impractical is a stick in San Francisco. They put stop signs at the top of a hill and unless
>>>>> you have a hand operated emergency brake you can roll back and get the car behind you. That's
>>>>> the one place where I don't want to have a stick.

>>>> Your gross incompetance is your problem, as always.

>>> Should I even bother with *******s?

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

> That line seems to be YOUR standard come back.

Only with the pathetic excuses for bull**** artists like you.

>>> Or should I be nice and just call you an idiot who has never tried a stick in S.F.???

>> But have done it fine in places much worse than that thanks.

> Grammar boo boo.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasyland.

>>> Try it,

>> Been doing that since before you were even born thanks.

> You would have to be 80 for that to be true. I'm a senior, not a junior.

>> In grossly underpowered cars too.

>>> then bitch about it.

>> Nothing to bitch about.

> Getting beat at the stoplight uphill drag races is "bitch about" fodder.

Not for anyone with a clue.

>>> It can be done with a foot emergency brake but you have to pull the
>>> release at the same time as letting out the clutch and giving it gas,

>> Completely routine for anyone but a complete incompetant.

> I can do it but prefer not to.

You are lying now or you were lying originally. Cant have it both ways.

> I tend to double clutch when I downshift. Do you even know what that is?

Corse I do.

> I do it on a motorcycle too.

Well whoopy ****ing do. Have this funky leather medal. If you're a
really good boy we might even spray it with gold paint if you stop boasting.

>>> while wearing out the release mechanism.

>> Just another pig ignorant fantasy. Never ever wore out any of mine.

> Lucky turd then, aren't you. (:-)

Nope, not a shred of luck involved.

>>> Or maybe you have 3 feet, no doubt all of them left.

>>> Only those who have driven S.F. know what I mean.

>> SF aint the only place that hilly, ****wit.

> L.A. is fun too,

So are any hilly areas.

> like driving Laurel Canyon road in the dark on a motorcycle. Been there, done that, after a 6 pack
> no less. 1969.
> I forget what else I did that year, but damn, was it fun.

Soorree, you have flunked on the gold paint.

02-09-2007, 05:03 PM

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>> "donquijote1954" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 6, 8:00 pm, Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> As far as available land, what kind of
>>>>>>> crop can you plant in the Himalayas? All that land going to waste.
>>>>>> You didn't answer my question. You predicted that 99.9% of the
>>>>>> world's food-producing capability was going to go away. I'm still
>>>>>> curious what your thought process was on that one. And I've been in
>>>>>> the Himalayas - they grow plenty (including poppies and pot).
>>>>> That wasn't a question that really deserved an answer. It should be
>>>>> obvious that more people will build more buildings and thus there will
>>>>> be less land available. The oceans are getting over fished so that
>>>>> resource will soon run out. Do you expect we will farm the moon or
>>>>> something?
>>>> I think they expect God to come from the skies with a cornucopia of
>>>> fruits and vegetables. Well, of course, he will come in an SUV (Hummer
>>>> most likely) killing pagans since there's no fruits and vegetables for
>>>> all. Cyclists though got no place in Heaven 'cause they voted for
>>>> Gore, who endorsed homosexuals, etc, etc.
>>> Oh, so YOU think 99.9 percent of the available farmland will be
>>> overcome with development too, huh? You'd better hope there's a place
>>> in heaven for those with no math skills. ;-)
>> Don't forget the "Common sense" skills, Mark.
>
> I haven't (that's why I question such a nonsensical position as yours
> - that 99.9% of the available farmland on earth will be used up by
> buildings and roads). You still owe me a rough population figure that
> would require such a misappropriation of resources (or a mea culpa
> statement). ;-)

It had the desired effect, by affecting your response. About 9 billion
should be the absolute limit before people start going nuts from over
population. Read up on the Lemmings in England. Mass suicide due to
overcrowding. With 9 billion people all competing for space and paving
over every thing in sight, plus deforestation, plus the jet travel,
something will have to give. It will either be starvation, war, or a
fast spreading new disease, but something WILL happen. Humans are
indisputably the most destructive animals ever to inhabit this planet.
Just because we have bigger brains is no excuse for destroying an entire
planet.
Think about it.
Bill Baka
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> Home of the $795 ti frame

02-09-2007, 06:42 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:
>>
>>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>> "donquijote1954" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 6, 8:00 pm, Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As far as available land, what kind of
>>>>>>>> crop can you plant in the Himalayas? All that land going to
>>>>>>>> waste.
>>>>>>> You didn't answer my question. You predicted that 99.9% of the
>>>>>>> world's food-producing capability was going to go away. I'm
>>>>>>> still curious what your thought process was on that one. And
>>>>>>> I've been in the Himalayas - they grow plenty (including
>>>>>>> poppies and pot).
>>>>>> That wasn't a question that really deserved an answer. It should
>>>>>> be obvious that more people will build more buildings and thus
>>>>>> there will be less land available. The oceans are getting over
>>>>>> fished so that resource will soon run out. Do you expect we will
>>>>>> farm the moon or something?
>>>>> I think they expect God to come from the skies with a cornucopia
>>>>> of fruits and vegetables. Well, of course, he will come in an SUV
>>>>> (Hummer most likely) killing pagans since there's no fruits and
>>>>> vegetables for all. Cyclists though got no place in Heaven 'cause
>>>>> they voted for Gore, who endorsed homosexuals, etc, etc.
>>>> Oh, so YOU think 99.9 percent of the available farmland will be
>>>> overcome with development too, huh? You'd better hope there's a
>>>> place in heaven for those with no math skills. ;-)
>>> Don't forget the "Common sense" skills, Mark.
>>
>> I haven't (that's why I question such a nonsensical position as yours
>> - that 99.9% of the available farmland on earth will be used up by
>> buildings and roads). You still owe me a rough population figure
>> that would require such a misappropriation of resources (or a mea
>> culpa statement). ;-)

> It had the desired effect, by affecting your response.

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

> About 9 billion should be the absolute limit before people start going nuts from over population.

That aint gunna happen at higher levels than that.

> Read up on the Lemmings in England.

There are no lemmings in england and there never were either.

> Mass suicide due to overcrowding.

That has always been an urban myth perpetrated by a stupid disney film.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

And we have never ever seen anything like that with humans,
even in the highest density of population areas like HongKong.

> With 9 billion people all competing for space and paving over every thing in sight, plus
> deforestation, plus the jet travel, something will have to give.

Nope, we can handle that number fine. I'd prefer we went
down from the current 6B personally, but 9B is very viable.

> It will either be starvation,

Pig ignorant fantasy. The current system can feed 9B fine.

> war,

Have fun listing even a single war that has ever been due to population numbers.

> or a fast spreading new disease,

Another pig ignorant fantasy. The modern reality that we can control
stuff like that fine, even in the highest density living areas like HongKong.

And we wouldnt see stuff like bird flu if they stopped mixing the breeding
of chickens and ducks in asia with the breeding of other livestock like pigs.

> but something WILL happen.

Just another of your silly little pig ignorant fantasys.

> Humans are indisputably the most destructive animals ever to inhabit this planet.

And we live much better than we have ever done
in the past anyway, even in places like HongKong.

> Just because we have bigger brains is no excuse for destroying an entire planet.

There is no destruction of the entire planet except in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

> Think about it.

Not even possible with your ear to ear dog ****.

02-09-2007, 07:02 PM

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

>..........
>With 9 billion people all competing for space and paving
>over every thing in sight,

You need to get out more, except for a few places
like close to Manhattan, Los Angeles, Miami, etc., people
often get lost in the woods.

>plus deforestation,

There are a lot more trees being planted than
cut down, the big deforestation period was the century
before coal was available at low cost.

>plus the jet travel,
>something will have to give.

Because of a lack of affordable energy, not
a lack of space. It was 30 F here this afternoon,
and driving past the cement plant, I turned off the
climate control in my car to prevent the white dust
on the road near the cement plant getting in the car,
and when I turned it back on, the air conditioning
came on for a minute, the sun was warming the
car, but it wasn't noticeable with automatic climate
control.

That makes me wonder, on a cold morning
I set the climate control for 78 F, could that be what
they are talking about on TV, I used to set it at 74.

>It will either be starvation, war, or a
>fast spreading new disease, but something WILL happen.

It always has, but the conditions that are a problem
today is almost total reliance on the commercial sector
for space heating, and in cold country, that can be a
big problem at any moment.

A least with a big house, when things get
really cold and there is no electric, oil, or natural gas,
one or two rooms might be enough wood to last
the rest of the winter when it will be warm enough
to start walking south. :-)

Joe Fischer

02-09-2007, 07:11 PM

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

>Mark Hickey wrote:

>> I haven't (that's why I question such a nonsensical position as yours
>> - that 99.9% of the available farmland on earth will be used up by
>> buildings and roads). You still owe me a rough population figure that
>> would require such a misappropriation of resources (or a mea culpa
>> statement). ;-)
>
>It had the desired effect, by affecting your response.

And still no answer about your basis for your 99.9% claim. C'mon
Bill, how hard can it be to say "oops, I was talking out my butt"?

> About 9 billion
>should be the absolute limit before people start going nuts from over
>population. Read up on the Lemmings in England. Mass suicide due to
>overcrowding. With 9 billion people all competing for space and paving
>over every thing in sight, plus deforestation, plus the jet travel,
>something will have to give. It will either be starvation, war, or a
>fast spreading new disease, but something WILL happen. Humans are
>indisputably the most destructive animals ever to inhabit this planet.
>Just because we have bigger brains is no excuse for destroying an entire
>planet.
>Think about it.

I thought about it.

There are only two possibilities.

One, everyone in China just jumped off a cliff, or you don't have a
clue. Hmmmmm. Lessee now - well over 1 billion people live within
100km (62 miles) of the coastline in China. That would be roughly the
equivalent of a similar strip of land running from Maine to Texas.

Since I haven't heard reports of mass suicide in China, I can only
conclude that you're making this stuff up again. Y'know Bill, I'm
really starting to worry about any tenuous connection you're still
maintaining with reality - it seems to be slipping away with every
post. Better go get a big dose of reality somewhere quick before you
slip irreversibly into lala land.

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