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 Must Be Stopped Promote Cycling(37 posts)

Global Warming Must Be Stopped Promote CyclingGreenEugene
Dec 11, 2002 4:46 PM
Why doesn't the President's energy plan include the word bicycle as means of conservation.

We stand on the brink of a global environmental catastrophe. This is not just the view of a few extreme environmentalists. It is the consensus of the mainstream scientific community. In 1992, the World Scientists' Warning to Humanity was signed by 1700 of the world's leading scientists, including a majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences. It opens with this chilling paragraph:

Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.

On the specific issue of global warming, that document took a cautious stance. The jury has since come in. Our understanding of the climate has improved, and the 1990s were the warmest decade of the last millennium.

Using a wide variety of models and scenarios, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that global mean temperatures will increase by between 3 and 10 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. Sea level is projected to rise by between 4 and 34 inches.

Global warming is a complicated issue. The "signal" of warming resulting from greenhouse gases is distorted by "noise" from natural temperature cycles, volcanic explosions, and other sources. Nonetheless, it is easily detectable. Denying global warming is like claiming that cigarettes are safe.

Permanent damage is already being done. Snow cover has been reduced by at least 10% since the late 1960s. Sea level rose by 4 to 8 inches in the 20th century. Precipitation and cloud cover have increased measurably. Glaciers are retreating at an alarming rate. Droughts are becoming more frequent -- and people are dying.

This is not a Hollywood time bomb, where everything will be fine if we act before the clock counts down to zero. Since carbon dioxide can stay in the atmosphere for centuries, we will see increased warming even if we cut our emissions right now. The actions we take in the near future will determine whether global warming is merely a disaster or an outright catastrophe.

Global warming is a classic "tragedy of the commons" situation. Everyone shrugs, "What difference is one more SUV or lawn mower going to make?" No individual raindrop ever considers itself responsible for the flood.

This is not to say that every human being is equally responsible. The US, with only a twentieth of the world's population, emits a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases. We have shamefully sabotaged the Kyoto agreement on reducing these gases. The Clinton/Gore administration negotiated in bad faith, trying to count every tree we didn't cut down as progress. The Bush/Cheney administration has abandoned Kyoto altogether, calling for more (underfunded) research instead.

Preposterously, Bush's energy plan rationalizes that our gluttonous energy consumption is justified because it's making some of us rich. When the plan briefly mentions carbon dioxide, it proudly proclaims that "the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of GDP declined by 15 percent during the 1990s". Our effect on the Earth is measured, not in total or per person, but per dollar. Fuzzy math indeed!

To avoid catastrophe, each of us must:

- Make buses, bicycles, and feet our primary means of transportation. This not only reduces greenhouse gases, but saves money, reduces urban sprawl, and makes for happier, healthier citizens. (Bush's 170-page energy plan does not contain the word "bicycle".)

- Drastically reduce electricity consumption. When weather permits, cl
You're preaching to the choir, but ...Humma Hah
Dec 11, 2002 4:54 PM
http://www.despair.com/ir.html
Glad you are on boardGreenEugene
Dec 11, 2002 5:32 PM
Tonight make the committment to save the earth. It takes a change in lifestyle, but you will be glad you did. Ride your bike, sell you car.
Can't do it tonight ...Humma Hah
Dec 11, 2002 5:40 PM
... because I did it years ago. Bikes, solar, recycling, p-B11 fusion (very green energy source that's the goal of a job I had for about 6 years), and myriad other things I've worked on and used to save energy and other resources over the years.

Personally, while global warming concerns me, ecosphere health generally scares me more. The ecosphere can soak up quite a bit of CO2 if healthy, but not if we're killing it off (destroying forests, polluting esturaries, etc.). Of course, the activities that kill it off also tend to be CO2-producers, so ...
I agree with you.GreenEugene
Dec 11, 2002 5:47 PM
It is shocking at how fast we are destroying the rainforest. Almost one football field of rainforest is destroyed every 10-15 minutes. If we don't slow down and stop all of this distruction, we are all almost certainly doomed.
Ain't none of us getting out of here alive.MB1
Dec 11, 2002 6:34 PM
Until there is a better alternative to driving and the suburban lifestyle that goes with it most Americans aren't about to give it up.

Telling folks that something is for their own good or the good of their children isn't enough. They have to be shown something that is more appealing than what they have now.

Ideas?
Ain't none of us getting out of here alive.GreenEugene
Dec 11, 2002 6:42 PM
Haven't you been reading my post? I have posted many of my ideas.
But you haven't made your ideas appealing.MB1
Dec 11, 2002 6:51 PM
Miss M and I live in the city in a 75 year old house. We do almost no driving (I'd guess we ride about 10 miles for every mile we drive) and have a very satisfactory lifestyle. Our auto will sit for weeks at a time-but it is there when we need it.

We don't live like this for some idea about saving the planet. We do it because we like it.

So your correct quest is to get people excited about the good things that will happen to them right now (not in 2050) if they make the lifestyle changes you advocate. Don't bother trying to convince Humma and I, we already live a green lifestyle.
But you haven't made your ideas appealing.GreenEugene
Dec 11, 2002 6:58 PM
Clean air, clean water, a healthier life, and an end to global warming are not appealing ideas. You know they are, so why are you challenging these ideas as appealing?
Please....MB1
Dec 11, 2002 7:08 PM
I can just hear people saying that the air and water are already clean enough, they are plenty healthy and what warming this winter is pretty cold.

If you want to make changes you gotta sell people on benefits that effect their pocketbooks or their schedule. Otherwise you are just another kook demonstrating on the mall (I live in Washinton D.C. we get several groups demonstrating every day here).

It will just be in one ear and out the other unless you do a better job of selling. Fear of something bad happening doesn't sell until the very last second.
Please present your case then.GreenEugene
Dec 11, 2002 7:13 PM
I am curious as to how you would present your side of the debate then.
I don't have a side to debate.MB1
Dec 12, 2002 4:17 AM
I am just trying (with little success it seems) to tell you (without being too rude) that while your case may have many merits your presentation needs work.

Sell the sizzle, not the steak.
Logic doesn't work........Len J
Dec 12, 2002 4:25 AM
with the converted.

Why are you wasting your time trying to convince someone who has found the "true religion" that he might need to change his approach? My experience is that the most dangerous combination of characteristics, that prevents someone from being effective, is arrogance and ignornce. Gene clearly believes that his way is the only way (arrogance) and can't accept the possibility that he might be able to benefit from a different way or that his "facts" might be subject to another interpretation(Ignorance). You're wasting your breath.

Besides, he's a troll and he's hungry.

Len
Point wel taken but every so often I feel the need to try. nmMB1
Dec 12, 2002 5:04 AM
Logic doesn't work........GreenEugene
Dec 12, 2002 5:11 AM
Global warming isn't my theory that I came up with. I just look at the facts and know it is happening, and wish to do something about it.
I rest my case. nmLen J
Dec 12, 2002 5:13 AM
I don't have a side to debate.GreenEugene
Dec 12, 2002 5:09 AM
The steak is more important than the sizzle.
re: Global Warming : another viewChiggy
Dec 11, 2002 7:03 PM
hmmm....

http://www.acs.ohio-state.edu/researchnews/archive/nowarm.htm
re: Global Warming : another viewGreenEugene
Dec 11, 2002 7:10 PM
I bet you if you did some hard research on Robert Essenhigh you would find that he is probably funded by the Republican National Committee and big business. The facts are facts. The oceans are warmer. The winters are warmer. The summers are scorchingly hotter. Ice is melting at an alarming rate in the poles. You should take this much more seriously, and find scientific studies with credible evidence, and not ones that have been funded by the RNC.
re: Global Warming : another viewdeHonc
Dec 11, 2002 8:09 PM
Eugene,

Whilst I commend your healthy commitment to the environment, you should be aware that there are many learned scientists who have no vested interests and who would support the thesis presented in the web link. I, as a geoscientist, would tend to come down on your side of the argument but the evidence is not as clear cut as you might believe.

Dan Mack { B.Sc(Hons), M.Sc; University of Adelaide.}
re: Global Warming : another viewGreenEugene
Dec 11, 2002 8:15 PM
Where do you find faults in the global warming theory. In one breath you tell me that you tend to side with me on global warming, but then you go to say that it isn't as clear cut as I think. Why is that?
re: Global Warming : another viewdeHonc
Dec 11, 2002 8:30 PM
I was pointing out that there are many scientists who totally refute global warming - I, as an individual with my own point of view, am less than convinced (ie I agree with you). Some of the arguments that are put forward to refute global warming are based on evidence from the geological record which may be interpreted in various ways. As such, and as scientists, we must make our own decisions as to how we view the data - as I said, I tend to side with the point of view you are expousing. But to reiterate, there are colleagues who disagree and who can back up their views with convincing hard data. I don't know your level of understanding regarding isotope analysis of core samples etc which can shed light on such information as CO2 levels between the atmosphere/ocean interface over the geological past, but I will say it again - the evidence is NOT as clear cut as you make it out to be and the scientists who disagree with your notion are not all dictated to by vested interests.
re: Global Warming : another viewGreenEugene
Dec 12, 2002 5:14 AM
I think it is a good idea if you stick to evidence that supports global warming, and not try to cloud things up.
I'll give you a good idea EUGENEdeHonc
Dec 12, 2002 3:05 PM
Eugene,

Your problem my friend is that you see the world in black and white - right or wrong, no middle ground. The world (the universe for that matter) just doesn't work that way - things are complicated, there are shades of grey. You are blinded by ideology and unwilling to listen or absorb any ideas contrary to your current opinion. This is very unscientific, unhelpful and ultimately foolish. Open your mind to various points of view and expand your horizons. To do what you suggest, "stick to evidence that supports global warming" is to ignore evidence that does the contrary. Well, that is sheer stupidity - if I have to explain why I 'm afraid I'm going to give up on you. And another thing - this is a Bike site - why not post your opinions on "non bicycle" page contained on this site or somewhere else more appropriate.
re: Global Warming : another viewBikeViking
Dec 12, 2002 7:46 AM
A voice of reason in the wildreness!! I wanted to reply extensively, but time doesn't really allow it today.

Your link hit the nail on the head! These global warming "Chicken Littles" have NO evidence that the warming is because of man and NOT because of the earth's natural temp cycles

Good one!!
re: Global Warming : another viewGreenEugene
Dec 12, 2002 8:00 AM
Even if there was the slightest chance that man is causing this, wouldn't you in your right mind want to help reverse it?
re: Global Warming : another viewBikeViking
Dec 12, 2002 12:30 PM
I am not one for doing anything that isn't necessary, in particular adhering to an economical nightmare like Kyoto. Yes, there is more CO2 and temps MAY be up (depends whose numbers you like). What those two things mean is what inspires such "heated" debate. It is not easy enough to say that the cause of any perceived warming in human-related. If it was actually being caused by man, I believe it would be more clear cut. How do you know it's not a natural temp fluctuation?

Pollution is another issue...gotta keep the earth clean.
Eugene, go post at Salon.com's discussion boardBreakfast
Dec 11, 2002 9:31 PM
They'll love your leftist, green, liberal perspective on things you pretend to know about.
read it again EugeneChiggy
Dec 12, 2002 6:48 AM
Read the link again. He isn't saying global warming isn't real. He just says that it has more factors than just human contribution alone. Your unsupported conclusion that it was RNC financed reduces YOUR credibility.

We should try to reduce pollution. We need clean water and clean air. But don't fool yourself into thinking that global warming will stop if we manage to do that. The earth has seen warming and cooling periods before and it will again. It is just part of nature. We need to keep the environment clean because it is the right thing to do. We all need fresh air and water but it won't stop the natural occurance of warming or cooling.
read it again EugeneGreenEugene
Dec 12, 2002 6:55 AM
You republicans are all the same. You don't want to take responsibility for your actions. It is all about big business and the war propaganda machine.
read it again EugeneChiggy
Dec 12, 2002 7:11 AM
LOL! Republican? Where did you get that from my post? You need to drop your knee jerk political attacks and learn some science. Take some geology course and learn about the earth and how it works. We humans need to reduce our pollution, clean our water, etc but don't think it will stop global warming. It won't stop the next ice age either.
We need to keep the earth clean because it is the right thing to do...not for some false partisan agenda.
read it again EugeneGreenEugene
Dec 12, 2002 7:13 AM
Global warming isn't a false agenda.
read it again EugeneChiggy
Dec 12, 2002 7:41 AM
Don't alter my words. I said "false partisan agenda". It is the politics that are false. They get in the way. As I said before ...global warming is real. It is the causes that are honestly debated. There were significant climate changes before humans were around and there will be non-human causes of climate change in the future. For example, there have been warm periods on the earth before:

"The "Medieval Warm Period" (9th to 14th centuries)·
The mid-Holocene "Warm Period" (6,000 years ago)·
The penultimate interglacial period (125,000 years ago)
The mid-Cretaceous Period (120-90 million years ago). "

Studies indicate that the current warming may not be the warmest period that has ever occurred. The real difference this time MAY BE that it is global and MAY NOT be the result of natural factors alone. Human contribution to geeenhouse gasses may be making it different this time. That is what the debate is about.
read it again EugeneGreenEugene
Dec 12, 2002 7:56 AM
I agree with you that the human contribution is making it worse. It is time that we start making changes.
Over 800 deaths in 1995 were attributed to Global WarmingGreenEugene
Dec 12, 2002 6:44 AM
Chicago's heatwave of 1995 attributed to one of the worst natural disasters in modern day history with over 800 deaths caused by global warming.
Over 800 deaths in 1995 were attributed to Global Warmingliebejungen
Dec 12, 2002 11:42 AM
The tragic results of a singular heat wave are hardly concrete scientific evidence that there is in fact an abnormal, man made increase in global temperatures. You might as well say that a blizzard that causes an abnormally high amount of fatalities or cases of frost bite was the result of global cooling.

It is purely anecdotal evidence and is highly speculative. The problem with this sort of evidence, and the placing of a disproportionate amount of significance on it, is that it is far to easy to read into it what we expect to see, or what we are looking for in order to support our arguments. In a word, the problem is BIAS. We all have it.

As scientists, we attempt to eliminate as much bias as possible by controlling the number of factor and repeating experiments...etc.

The problem with Global Warming as a Science, is that we cannot eliminate variable, we cannot repeat experiments under identical condition. WE cannot even predict the weather accurately.

All we can do is observe. And in cases like this, thought we may try with all that is in us to unravel the mysteries of the elements, it is wisest to treat all positions with a touch of humility, and admit that there is uncertainty and that there are many places in the data analysis to take a wrong.

You are free to draw your own conclusions, but please realize that there are others of us who have looked long and hard that the evidence and have come to opposite conclusions, and hold them as genuinely as you hold yours.

Science is rarely as certain as we pretend it is.
And Several Million Cases Of Body Odor...<nm>EpicX
Dec 12, 2002 8:58 PM
...