RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


Global Warming is Real(58 posts)

Global Warming is RealUncle Tim
Dec 4, 2002 7:52 AM
As another SUV related debate rages on, it may behoove many of you to check out the Global Climate Change Conference that is taking place right now. Check out this website:

http://climatescience.org

It may come as a great shock to you that the Bush Administration has quietly accepted Global Warming not only as "real", but as a very real threat to the US in the long run. This morning, C-Span dedicated a decent amount of time to this topic and, if you stay alert, you can see replays of the program that outlines the Bush position on the topic. If you research the above website, you will see the consensus reached about the climate threats that are caused directly and indirectly due to human behaviors.

The consensus is that we need to find ways to stop burning so much fossil fuel.

This acknowledgement should be boon to bicycle advocates all over the nation, resulting in increased funding for things that make cycling a more realistic transportation option. Armed with this knowledge, we can really apply the necessary pressure to our leaders at all levels.
solution?DougSloan
Dec 4, 2002 8:05 AM
If we could just build lots of nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro power plants and develop electric cars, global warming would dissappear, wouldn't it?

Pick your poison.
solution?mike r
Dec 4, 2002 11:58 AM
if we stop the release of anthropogenic (human related) green house gases ie. CO2, CH4 (methane), NOx (from combustion engine)and water vapour. it will still take 15-20 years for the climate to recover.

its vital we do everything possible to reduce emission of these gases.
anyone who doesn't believe in global warming is deluding themselves.
temperature changes this century have been far greater than previous natural climate change.
dream onColnagoFE
Dec 4, 2002 8:10 AM
Do you really think a Republican administration with close ties to big oil is going to do much other than lip service about reducing the use of fossil fuels?
interestingSteve_0
Dec 4, 2002 8:33 AM
that you question an administration's sincerity based on it's ties to the oil industry, yet you wholeheartedly support that industry by consuming twice the oil necessary.
how do you quantify *by consuming twice the oil necessary*? nmNo_sprint
Dec 4, 2002 8:35 AM
quantificationSteve_0
Dec 4, 2002 8:37 AM
Colnego drives an SUV (admittingly, an assumption on my part, buy fairly believable based on his arguements).

Assuming he has a very efficient SUV which obtains 20 mpg, he is consuming twice the oil as a person who's vehicle obtains 40 mpg.
quantification againNo_sprint
Dec 4, 2002 8:40 AM
So according to you a person who drives a car that gets 30 mpg is also consuming twice the oil necessary.
actually, yes....Steve_0
Dec 4, 2002 8:43 AM
my daily commuter gets nearly 60 mpg.... since I get to work everday just fine, If i were to trade in my vehcile for one which gets 30 mpg, i would be consuming twice the oil necessary to get to work.
actually, yes....No_sprint
Dec 4, 2002 8:52 AM
So, everyone getting less than 30 mpg is using twice the oil necessary. How about others lines of acceptibility? How about the guy next to you in the EV? According to your logic, he thinks you're a damn bozo because you're using WAY more than twice the oil that's really necessary for a commute. Come on Steve O! Get it together! You're using WAY to much oil!!!
I agree, to some degree...Steve_0
Dec 4, 2002 8:59 AM
certainly, if i rode my bicycle to work, my 60 mpg seems to be much more oil than necessary. My job necessitates a vehicle, though, so i consume the minimum amount necessary given my constraints.

I'm not against oil consumption, i'm against irresponsible oil consumption.

Driving an suv to an office job, to the supermarket, because you 'have kids, or 'in case i need to haul stuff', is all irresponsible, imo.
actually, yes.... againNo_sprint
Dec 4, 2002 9:06 AM
Once again, it sounds like SUV is not relative to you. It's obviouis that fuel efficiency is your concern. It sounds as is you're judging everyone relative to yourself in terms of fuel efficiency. By your standards the enormously vast majority of the population whether in the U.S. or Europe or anywhere for that matter do not compare favorably.

Man, you've got a lot of work to do! Better not waste anymore time posting here!
so who's judging who ?Steve_0
Dec 4, 2002 9:21 AM
youre correct, SUVs are not my concern. My initial post never mentioned an SUV. You're incorrectly inferring intent into my post.

Fuel efficiency is not my concer either. I merely abhor Irresponsible consumption of fuel.

on what basis are you determining my 'standards' or the 'work' i need to do?
once again, here you goNo_sprint
Dec 4, 2002 9:56 AM
Well, this is a whole new concept Steve O.

You did say SUV, twice. Our entire conversation yesterday surrounded your 1 in 4 vechicles sold are SUVs premise.

You compared fuel efficiency of ColnagoFE to that of a person driving a twice as efficient automobile.

Here are quotes from you:

Colnego drives an SUV (admittingly, an assumption on my part, buy fairly believable based on his arguements).

Assuming he has a very efficient SUV which obtains 20 mpg, he is consuming twice the oil as a person who's vehicle obtains 40 mpg.

So, if your point is total fuel consumption, what does an SUV have to do with anything in your statement? What does fuel efficiency have to do with anything in your statement? If your concern is total fuel consumption how do you quantify that Colnago wastes twice as much fuel as a person driving a 40mpg car? As Colnago states, he does not commute using his SUV at all.

Therefore, even if your car gets 60mpg, it appears that you are wasting much more fuel than ColnagoFE.

A totally new concept from you.
heres another quote...Steve_0
Dec 4, 2002 10:37 AM
"My initial post never mentioned an SUV"

You wanted quantification, so i quantified using colnegos SUV. If i knew he had a sportscar, I would have done the same.

"So if your point is total fuel consumption"

I never said that was my point.

"how do you quantify that colnago wastes twice as much fuel as a person driving a 40mpg car"

Keeping travel demands relative, He DOES waste twice as much fuel as a person who drives a 40mpg car. A person who drives an SUV just to church on sunday STILL uses twice the fuel he would if he drive a civic. What dont you understand about this?

"Therefore, even if your car gets 60mpg, it appears that you are wasting much more fuel than ColnagoFE. "

1) I never said I own a car
2) You have no basis to determine I'm wasting more fuel than colnago without knowing either of our driving habits.

Your deductions are more illogical than your inferences.

You bore me.

ciao.
and againNo_sprint
Dec 4, 2002 11:00 AM
Boy, you keep on truckin' though. 60mpg of what then? oooo, you're so tricky if you're getting 60mpg of water. Why then compare to my 30mpg example if you're not using gas?

Just breakin' through this anti-SUV stuff, that although I'm not an owner of one, find absolutely stupid.
not very analytical, are you?Steve_0
Dec 4, 2002 11:36 AM
I never said im not using gas. I put gasoline in my vehicle nearly every week. Thats the problem with closeminded people like yourself; cant see beyond the blinders of their limited minds.

I had decided earlier my last response to you was my final; by i find myself strangely drawn to your simple way of thinking;

My apologies. Ill refrain in the future.
this is a simply an internet discussion forumNo_sprint
Dec 4, 2002 12:00 PM
of course I'm not overly analytical. I leave that to business. I do too much of that every day. If your limited mind wants to fuss over the definition of *is* or irresponsible use versus waste and other meaningless rhetoric, you need to go elsewhere.

Just breaking you down boy. Just breaking you down.
doing a good job of it....Steve_0
Dec 4, 2002 12:22 PM
I usually use wit and skill to brake down my opponents; not flawed reasoning and illogical inferences.

peaceout man

oh, by the way, motorcycles are vehicles too.
I'm well awareNo_sprint
Dec 4, 2002 12:32 PM
Additionally, motorocycles were my only mode of transpo for years. Out of necessity, not tree huggerness.

Maybe all automobiles should be banned, irresponsible use of fuel runs rampant. Since all is relative, I'm sure that there are those who think a motorcycle rider is irresponsibly using fuel.
and againNo_sprint
Dec 4, 2002 8:48 AM
what does SUV have to do with it? what if it's a non-SUV getting the same mpg? what if he drives a 20 year old Civic that is running so badly that it gets 10 mpg?

what if out of necessity he drives a dually Triton that gets 12 mpg?
what does triton have to do with it?Steve_0
Dec 4, 2002 9:03 AM
I was merely noting irony. I dont care if hes drives an suv, a ferarri, or enjoys pouring oil down the bathroom drain. Wasthing oil is wasting oil.
67.26.60.64chops
Dec 4, 2002 10:20 AM
quantification
even though I own a SUVColnagoFE
Dec 4, 2002 9:46 AM
I commute to work 100% of the time by bus and ride my bike for in-town errands whenever possible. I'd be totally behind some incentives to get people using mass transportation and cycling instead of driving, but I personally don't see it happening with the current administration. The other problem is getting people out of the mindset that driving themselves to work is more desirable than riding the bus or cycling. Americans love their cars and with cheap gas and a great road system what reason do they have to not love them?
thats coolSteve_0
Dec 4, 2002 9:55 AM
glad not everyone flips out on a little dig,

peaceout;
An interesting question...TJeanloz
Dec 4, 2002 9:56 AM
I also own an SUV, and I also rarely drive. My car (SUV) is actually garaged about 50 miles from my house, which is in Downtown Boston. I have no need or desire to drive, unless I need to move large objects (which are difficult to carry on the T) or many small objects. I don't really understand why SUV ownership is villified. I understand that polluting could be villified, but owners of SUVs are not, inherently, polluting more or less than owners of cars.
I think the media helps feed this stereotypeColnagoFE
Dec 4, 2002 10:08 AM
People think of SUVs and they immediately see soccer moms driving one kid around town, menacing other drivers, and generally being pigs that are indifferent about using up "our" natural resources. I'd guess there are some of those people out there, but I'd also guess that there are people who use them for what they were intended for--namely transporting larger things, carrying larger quantities of people all at once, towing things, and going off-road on occasion. In a free market people buy what they want. As popular as SUVs are there must be a reason. If a minivan did it for them then they would be the big sellers, but obviously minivans and station wagons don't fill the real or imagined needs of the consumer as well as the SUV does.
Your an exception.czardonic
Dec 4, 2002 10:49 AM
You are clearly using your SUV for what it was intended for, and fall within the exception that most reasonable people grant to SUV ownership, i.e. a person who uses it when its required, and uses other vehicles when it is not.

Do you really believe that the vast majority of SUV drivers fall into this category? I suppose it is possible that my area has an unrepresentative concentration of urban professionals commuting to office jobs in Land Rovers.
Thats only possible if you live in my area as well.Steve_0
Dec 4, 2002 10:53 AM
I see the same demo.
Your an exception.No_sprint
Dec 4, 2002 10:54 AM
Is a person who uses an SUV as intended any better in your opinion than a person who still drives an efficient, taller than you, blinding you, more dangerous to you car, as it is not intended?

Are SUVs worse than full size trucks? They're still taller, more dangerous to smaller cars, blinding you, and even more efficient than SUVs. Additionally, there are far far more full size trucks on the roads than any size SUVs.
Yes. Isn't that clear?czardonic
Dec 4, 2002 12:10 PM
Some people do need to move big things, tow heavy things, or move lots of people. If they were to do so by taking more trips or using more cars, they would be burning even more gas and I suspect elevating the accident risks in other ways.

No, I don't care much for large trucks either. But they also have their place (i.e. hauling cargo). Nor do I think that large numbers of tanks or Bull Elephants belong on our city streets for frivilous fashion reasons, despite the fact that they do have their own utility under limited circumstances.
So, then, what is the rule?No_sprint
Dec 4, 2002 12:19 PM
What is the rule? How many hours must one log hauling kids and dogs in their SUV to be deemed acceptable? How many miles must one log hauling stuff in their truck to be deemed acceptable?

I'll tell that around here there are far more empty trucks cruising around than empty SUVs. According to your logic most SUV drivers pass the test, more trucks and average cars don't. It also follows by that logic, a four door, four seater hauling one person (25% occupied) to work and back is far worse simply because of the vast numbers of commuters and vehicles that fall into this category. When I'm driving solo my vehicle is 50% occupied.

Where is the intended use of SUVs published?
I guess it's not obvious to you.czardonic
Dec 4, 2002 1:31 PM
It always amazes me that people like you will adopt a position of abject ignorance simply to win a rhetorical point. Why would someone build a car with so many seats, so many cubic feet of cargo space, so many inches of clearance etc., if the intended use was not to use them?

On needn't log any number of hours or miles. One simply needs to demonstrate the need for that capacity the majority of the time. According to my experience, SUVs do not pass my logic (and no, neither to most cars). Per auto, cars are still better than SUVs, however.
It's all relativeNo_sprint
Dec 4, 2002 1:56 PM
I guess it's a law school thing, probing to find the real root of the issue, pushing the envelope, etc.

Your real problem is obviously with human nature rather than any particular vehicle. If it were with the vehicle, it wouldn't matter to you what any particular person were doing with the vehicle, you would hate it equally. Had you been able to say this earlier, we could have typed a lot less. :)

I'll bet there are many that believe the one trip per year they do in the deep snow will validate their purchase of an SUV. I'll bet you that the working mom who fills the car in the morning and the evening fully believes she is absolutely demonstrating and fulfilling her need. The weekend warrior who is out with buds every weekend hunting and fishing and hiking, who cannot afford two cars is in my opinion fully demonstrating his need.

Maybe all these people be forced to go rent an SUV for these times?

So, YOUR rule is the majority of the time. Others rules are obviously different. Sure, per auto maybe cars are better, however, as Steve O said, only 1 in 4 new cars are SUVs, so, doing the math, there are many more *cars* out there, thus in all likelihood, the non-fully occupied number of cars impact is likely greater than the SUV.
Then there is no truth.czardonic
Dec 4, 2002 4:25 PM
Law school, I might have known. :Þ

I don't think I indicated that my problem with the vehicles was not directly related to their missuse (IMO). Perhaps I didn't make that clear.

Personally, I don't beleive that faith should trump logic. Yes, the point where you draw the line between justification and frivolity would have to be subjective. So are many issues on which we draw logical (and legal) lines in the sand.

If you stipulate that per auto cars are better, then doesn't it follow that if you replaced SUVs with cars, fuel consumption and emmissions would drop? In other words, if people are going to drive around with 3 empty seats, aren't we better off if those three empty seats are bolted to a class of vehicles that are, on average, more efficient?
the rule is . . .Steve98501
Dec 5, 2002 2:49 PM
If a regular car (meets emission standards and safety features) meets your transportation functional requirements, then don't buy and drive a SUV. If only a SUV meets your hauling, towing, 4x4, or other functional need, then despite emission and safety shortcomings, a SUV is your only functional choice. Number of times per year is relative and subjective. I bought a Subaru because it meets the vast majority of my functional requirements (hauls hiking, biking, camping, fishing gear and tows small boat) and I'll rent or borrow a truck the 3 times per year that I actually need one.
you're usually logicalSteve98501
Dec 5, 2002 1:34 PM
If ordinary cars are required to meet exhaust emission standards and SUVs and light trucks are not, then every time a driver turns the ignition of his/her SUV he pollutes more than if he/she had an ordinary car instead. Isn't that pretty understandable?

I considered buying an SUV until I learned that they don't meet strict emission standards. They also fall short on important safety issues as well, but I didn't learn about that until after I'd bought my new car 2 years ago. I chose a Subaru Outback (not the best mileage, but OK) because it does everything I would have used a SUV for.

Granted, there are other ways to measure, such as driving a SUV 5K miles per year instead of 10K in a regular car. But a reasonable assumption is that individuals each have an annual mileage need or want. However many those miles are, choosing a regular car results in less pollution than using a SUV to cover those miles.
What about that "other" administrationBikeViking
Dec 4, 2002 10:57 AM
True, The Bush administration has not gone full-bore with alternative transportation, but the did increase spening on fuel cell technology (I remember reading about it, no source)

BUT to be fair what happened with this issue from 1992 - 2000?...not a lot.
trueColnagoFE
Dec 4, 2002 11:15 AM
The democrats seem too scared to do much of anything these days. Still when it comes to environmental issues they have a better long-term track record than the GOP. Maybe the lesser of the 2 evils.
Consensus about reducing fossil fuel usage?mja
Dec 4, 2002 8:32 AM
How quick some enviros are to attack one of their favorite bogeyman -- oil. If a consensus forms at all, it will be to reduce atmospheric co2 levels (or establish a fixed level). And that can be achieved either by reducing production of co2, or by increasing absorption of same. The latter could be achieved by increasing plankton concentrations in the oceans or even by developing bacteria that can convert co2 to something less "harmful". Other means such as adding reflective particles to the stratosphere could be used to adjust levels of incoming solar radiation.

If warming is real, then an interesting debate can be had about what mean temperatue for Earth is desired. It was both colder -- as recently as the 17th century -- and warmer in the past: What the temperature is now is normal -- for now only!
increasing plankton or developing bacteriaSteve_0
Dec 4, 2002 8:35 AM
are both excellent ideas! Why stop at pollution when we can offset the balance of the ecosystem as well!
well said! finally someone with common sense nmmike r
Dec 4, 2002 12:18 PM
Please take this kind of conversation to non-cycling nmDave Hickey
Dec 4, 2002 8:34 AM
Please take this kind of conversation to non-cycling nmSteve_0
Dec 4, 2002 8:40 AM
"This acknowledgement should be boon to bicycle advocates all over the nation, resulting in increased funding for things that make cycling a more realistic transportation option. Armed with this knowledge, we can really apply the necessary pressure to our leaders at all levels"

if this post isnt cycling related, I dont know what is.
Nebulous cycling content,TJeanloz
Dec 4, 2002 8:48 AM
If the discussion were more focused on the boon to cycling, and less on the existence of global warming, it might pass as cycling content. As it stands, this post isn't really bicycle related.

An example of what is bike related can be found in Doug Sloan's query as to what the value of his bicycle is. That is definitely bicycle related.
ok, butSteve_0
Dec 4, 2002 9:04 AM
I dont think the original poster can control the direction of the topic flow.

I didnt see anything wrong with the initial post that it warrents relocation.
It was a political postjtolleson
Dec 4, 2002 11:34 AM
at its core with a tangential relationship to cycling... the suggestion that it belongs where these debates go (in non-cycling) is valid in my book. And you've done plenty to keep it on the track that its taken by pointing fingers at what other people drive, etc.
Bicycle solution is incredibly insignificant.Breakfast
Dec 4, 2002 6:38 PM
Just wait until China and India become as motorized as the U.S.!!!
re: Global Warming is Realmainframe
Dec 4, 2002 8:35 AM
Climatic warming/cooling cycles have occurred many times over the earth's history, none of which had anything to do with fossil fuel consumption. If the present warming trend is is solely or partially a function of ff consumption, then I supposed Doug Sloan's question contains the solution given the technology and assuming there remains ( an ever-increasing) human demand for energy.
True (nm)Chen2
Dec 4, 2002 9:45 AM
"When you ride alone you ride with Bin Laden"-B. MaherColnagoFE
Dec 4, 2002 9:49 AM
from CNN
It has been going on for millions of yearsRadicalRonPruitt
Dec 4, 2002 10:12 AM
obviously it has. if it hasn't then the great lakes would be frozen and we would still be in an ice age. you can't stop global warming. i am laughing at you because you think you can.
re: Global Warming is Reallonebikeroftheapocalypse
Dec 4, 2002 10:25 AM
Bring it on! I'm freezing my butt of here (WNY) and I can't ride my bike. Its 15 degrees out right now and the roads are covered with salt.
re: Global Warming is RealBikeViking
Dec 4, 2002 10:49 AM
The amount of C02 has increased, that is a fact...the debate is on whether that is causing any perceived "warming" or not. To separate the earths cyclical temperature variances from any alleged man-caused warming cannot be done. There has been no catastrophic changes to global temps. ANy changes cannot be blamed on man because no one can prove BY FACT, that any temp increases were induced by man and NOT the result of the earth tem variations.

On the flip side, I wholeheartedly agree that we should do what is economically feasible to get off of the Saudi oil teat. Once alternative fuels become economically viable (which they will) I'll be MORE than happy to drive a fuel cell car.

Anyone remember the "Second Ice Age" warnings of the 60's and 70's. I am still waiting for that to happen
re: Global Warming is RealBikeViking
Dec 4, 2002 10:50 AM
The amount of C02 has increased, that is a fact...the debate is on whether that is causing any perceived "warming" or not. To separate the earths cyclical temperature variances from any alleged man-caused warming cannot be done. There has been no catastrophic changes to global temps. ANy changes cannot be blamed on man because no one can prove BY FACT, that any temp increases were induced by man and NOT the result of the earth tem variations.

On the flip side, I wholeheartedly agree that we should do what is economically feasible to get off of the Saudi oil teat. Once alternative fuels become economically viable (which they will) I'll be MORE than happy to drive a fuel cell car.

Anyone remember the "Second Ice Age" warnings of the 60's and 70's. I am still waiting for that to happen
Create a positive incentive to conserveStarliner
Dec 4, 2002 12:42 PM
Causing change by using fear and threats as motivators won't create a rush by the gas guzzlers among us to run out and trade our SUVs in on a hybrid powered car.

Totally new thought must be applied to the problem in order to find a solution that will have positive consequences for those who choose to conserve, and negative consequences for those who choose to consume.

I recently presented to this board a simple, dollars and cents solution that touches this issue:

TJeanloz "How to help the environment without legislating away SUVs" 9/19/02 11:22am

For change to occur, the responsibility monkey should rest squarely on the backs of the consumer. We benefit from the freedom of choice; it is we who decide to waste or to conserve by the choices we make. Government's part in the equation should be to create incentives that would lead to good choices, and to create penalties for making poor choices. Presently, government seems to be focused upon finding ways to preserve old habits that result in our high levels of consumption and waste. Kind of like keeping a junkie high, instead of a weaning process.
It is real...but is it natural?Zyzbot
Dec 4, 2002 3:39 PM
One person's view:

http://www.acs.ohio-state.edu/researchnews/archive/nowarm.htm
Works for me!! n/mGiant_Tom
Dec 4, 2002 7:56 PM