Alfa Romeo Forums banner

2901 - 2920 of 2938 Posts

·
Out of the office!
Joined
·
11,169 Posts
Where I live, there are cyclists on the sidewalk. Most all of them don't say anything when they want to go around you. Many, many of them have these little bells like we had on our tricycles as kids. Ding, ding, ding....who can hear that?

Most of the young folks have no etiquette and no idea of what safety actually is. Walking my dogs on the sidewalks is always a risk because of the cyclists seem to think they own the entire path. When they go whipping around folks walking their dogs, they startle the dogs and cause issues. If they do issue a vocal warning, there is never enough time to get out of the way because they don't slow down.

I ride on the streets, in the bike lanes. I also ride along a state highway with a nice wide shoulder. I never have any issues with vehicles, only other cyclists who aren't safe and don't issue any sort of vocal warning when passing. I may be slow, but I am safe and courteous to any cyclists that I might pass.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,596 Posts
:smile2:Back on topic......


Althou....
A case could be made with todays logic that the rise in bike use has had a negative effect on the climate. Use of bikes has risen along with hurricanes, the rise in oceans and sea ice melts. Or it could be the other way round, depending on who is funding the research!! 0:)
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
Couple of points:

1. Energy storage technology has improved exponentially in my lifetime and the laws of physics in that arena have yet to be broken so expect further exponential improvement.
2. Articles appearing in that publication aren’t peer-reviewed scientific papers produced by MIT researchers. That article was written by a professional journalist on staff that doesn’t even necessarily have a science degree in the field, much less from MIT. In fact, if care to look under the rug, the editorial board’s credentials aren’t too impressive either. They largely appear to be journalists with business backgrounds and none of their bios include an MIT university degree. And his argument is the current energy storage technology is too expensive? Sounds like something a business person would say.

Actually energy storage technology has not improved "exponentially", the laws of physics are at work here no matter what you hope for. And for those all important "peer review" articles you speak so glowingly about what it means in today's world in the climate arena is you get your buddy who has the same climate philosophy as you to review your paper and wow it gets a fantastic review. I've written professional papers and I've reviewed them and the way it's done today relative to climate is totally bogus. Unless you have a review from a top scientist with no skin in the game then the review is open skepticism at least and out right rejection at most.

Also speaking of "peer-reviewed" take a close look at the nimrods who put out that 97% consensus crap about man-made global warming and you will find this little group of true believers are grad students, journalists, and a self proclaimed communist professor at the University of San Diego. They all have an agenda and zero credibility.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
....take a close look at the nimrods who put out that 97% consensus crap about man-made global warming and you will find this little group of true believers are grad students, journalists, and a self proclaimed communist professor at the University of San Diego. They all have an agenda and zero credibility.
Agreed

FEAR = FUNDING
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
380 Posts
Agreed

FEAR = FUNDING
Those dang scientists are getting rich off of doing science with all their fancy book-learning.

This thread should renamed “Do you believe there are so many morons in the US?”
 

·
Out of the office!
Joined
·
11,169 Posts
Those dang scientists are getting rich off of doing science with all their fancy book-learning.

This thread should renamed “Do you believe there are so many morons in the US?”
Just because someone believes something that you don't does not make them a moron.

You guys just keep banging your heads and never reaching any kind of consensus. What do you hope to accomplish by stating there is no such thing as global warming vs there is global warming? Neither side seems to be swayed by what the other says. So, what exactly is the point of this thread?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,136 Posts
You guys just keep banging your heads and never reaching any kind of consensus. What do you hope to accomplish by stating there is no such thing as global warming vs there is global warming? Neither side seems to be swayed by what the other says. So, what exactly is the point of this thread?
[/QUOTE]


Exactly, Osso. While I think the context of our on-going discussion has been generally interesting, I also think the quality of the discussion itself has become stale, if not stultifying. It's obvious that our in-and-out population of advocates prefer to limit their discussions to defending the methodology and veracity of "climate science" --- while rather obviously ignoring the fact that there is a corresponding effort to completely restructure world economies and societies as a way of meeting the demands of climate change activists. Simply put, you can't achieve those kinds of changes without creating a police state. And police states are not protectors of the kinds of liberties and freedoms we typically take for granted. While this is something that should be under discussion here, it curiously isn't.

As we approach nearly 3000 posts on this 11 year old thread the numerous advocates who have posted here have been noticeably circumspect about any discussion about how, exactly, we should actually go about dealing with the climate changes the "experts" claim is going to doom the earth. In all that time---at least to the best of my knowledge as a long time participant---only Pete has had the courage and intellectual honesty admit the truth: you can't do this stuff without an authoritarian restructuring of modern societies. Instead what we get is navel gazing over the "proof" of climate change predictions.

IMHO, if you want a good example of how you can take an important issue and reduce it to idle, virtue signalling twaddle all you have to do is come here.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
380 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
380 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
453 Posts
I agree, cyclists act like jack asses, and should stay on the sidewalk. The bike lanes you speak of on the sides of the roads/highways should be removed and make more lanes for vehicle traffic. It drives me crazy when I'm in traffic bottlenecks and a full lane of traffic is consumed by a stupid bike path that nobody is using.
I ride a lot, about 250 miles a week, ave cruising speed 20- 21 mph,, just think of me on a sidewalk at that speed?and most bike paths on the side of the street are only 6 feet wide.. you would need a skinny car for that, and even if you added more lanes,, still would be traffic jams, anyway..also I ride to work about 8 months out of the year, short ride of 22 miles each way..hey, keeps my big Avalon of the street, more room for you..also keeps me slim and fit.. easier to sit in my spider, when shes back on the road
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
462 Posts
Dr. Mengele here is an economist.
You again? Anyway, it's about the charts; the complete charts, as shown in the first eight minutes of the video, not those portions edited for the press, regardless of the presenter. The complete data (as opposed to the cherry-picked data) certainly doesn't suggest there's any kind of climate emergency; not even close.

The truth of it is that everywhere but where it's very very cold, water vapor completely eclipses the greenhouse contribution of C02. So it is not the case that warm places are getting warmer or hot places are getting hotter (hot air still has a lot of water vapor, it just has low relative humidity) but rather that very very cold (and therefore low water vapor content) places -- the Arctic and Antarctic -- are getting very slightly less very very cold. But they are still bitterly cold; they would still be the same deadly threat to the likes of Scott and Shackleton. That's why all those loony tourist expeditions to the Arctic and Antarctic to see "global warming first hand" keep getting stuck in ice, with those ships of fools ending up having to be rescued by carbon-spewing helicopters. Reality keeps getting in the way of their apocalyptic fantasies.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
380 Posts
You again? Anyway, it's about the charts; the complete charts, as shown in the first eight minutes of the video, not those portions edited for the press, regardless of the presenter. The complete data (as opposed to the cherry-picked data) certainly doesn't suggest there's any kind of climate emergency; not even close.
Yes. Me again. Once again pointing out your sources are weak tea. Why don't you walk the talk and, next time your are really sick, make an appointment with an economist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
462 Posts
Yes. Me again. Once again pointing out your sources are weak tea. Why don't you walk the talk and, next time your are really sick, make an appointment with an economist.
The sources? The charts are from the National Climate Assessment, the go-to source for many alarmists and True Believers like you. You also claim the MIT Technology Review is a poor source, as is Forbes, CNN (I agree with you there, but not for the same reasons I'm sure), etc.; so from where do you get the powder to sprinkle your non-physics/reality-based unicorn magic? Michael Mann and the like I'd guess. So MIT's Technology Review is unreliable but Mann is, I imagine.

BTW, you are once again resorting to ad hominem. Tony Heller is Dr. Mengele? I can't begin to understand that analogy. Here's a hint though, for humor to be funny, it has to have some semblance of intelligibility. Here's another hint. Holocaust humor is a non sequitur among sane people. It seems common among some segments of society though, unfortunately.

BTW, re walking the talk, I laid out the physics of how renewable energy without nuclear can't possibly power the grid and how we can't possibly manufacture enough battery storage for a non-nuclear renewables-driven grid without ripping up an unimaginable amount of earth. You had no response except to say we'll "agree to disagree." In other words, I haven't seen you make any kind of cogent argument at all; you simply lob insults at whomever.

So you "walk the talk" (who talks like that?; no one I know thankfully); how do the charts from the National Climate Assessment support your position?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
380 Posts
The sources? The charts are from the National Climate Assessment, the go-to source for many alarmists and True Believers like you. You also claim the MIT Technology Review is a poor source, as is Forbes, CNN (I agree with you there, but not for the same reasons I'm sure), etc.; so from where do you get the powder to sprinkle your non-physics/reality-based unicorn magic? Michael Mann and the like I'd guess. So MIT's Technology Review is unreliable but Mann is, I imagine.

BTW, you are once again resorting to ad hominem. Tony Heller is Dr. Mengele? I can't begin to understand that analogy. Here's a hint though, for humor to be funny, it has to have some semblance of intelligibility. Here's another hint. Holocaust humor is a non sequitur among sane people. It seems common among some segments of society though, unfortunately.

BTW, re walking the talk, I laid out the physics of how renewable energy without nuclear can't possibly power the grid and how we can't possibly manufacture enough battery storage for a non-nuclear renewables-driven grid without ripping up an unimaginable amount of earth. You had no response except to say we'll "agree to disagree." In other words, I haven't seen you make any kind of cogent argument at all; you simply lob insults at whomever.

So you "walk the talk" (who talks like that?; no one I know thankfully); how do the charts from the National Climate Assessment support your position?
The analogy concerned the poster child for that video, Dr. Ottmar Endenhofer, (not Tony Heller whoever the hell that is. certainly not a scientist based on his video) and I'm a Jew so I can use Holocaust humor.

The underlying reason we can't communicate is you see this issue as a political one and I see it as a science issue but just with respect to energy storage technology, you can't assume it's reached it's limit. For example, in the future, instead of a national power grid, perhaps a local (county/city) power grid would be the way to go. Some individual homes are already doing that using wind and/or solar and their own little battery farm. I don't believe nuclear is the future any longer. The waste is a problem and the potential for a catastrophic event is as well and I don't know why we should trust the private sector to keep us safe from that given their profit motive. I just returned from Japan on Saturday and they still have a big energy problem resulting from the Fukishima meltdown a few years ago. Office buildings are required to keep their AC not below 82 degrees and it's hot and humid in Japan in the summertime. It's not comfortable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts

Exactly, Osso. While I think the context of our on-going discussion has been generally interesting, I also think the quality of the discussion itself has become stale, if not stultifying. It's obvious that our in-and-out population of advocates prefer to limit their discussions to defending the methodology and veracity of "climate science" --- while rather obviously ignoring the fact that there is a corresponding effort to completely restructure world economies and societies as a way of meeting the demands of climate change activists. Simply put, you can't achieve those kinds of changes without creating a police state. And police states are not protectors of the kinds of liberties and freedoms we typically take for granted. While this is something that should be under discussion here, it curiously isn't.

As we approach nearly 3000 posts on this 11 year old thread the numerous advocates who have posted here have been noticeably circumspect about any discussion about how, exactly, we should actually go about dealing with the climate changes the "experts" claim is going to doom the earth. In all that time---at least to the best of my knowledge as a long time participant---only Pete has had the courage and intellectual honesty admit the truth: you can't do this stuff without an authoritarian restructuring of modern societies. Instead what we get is navel gazing over the "proof" of climate change predictions.

IMHO, if you want a good example of how you can take an important issue and reduce it to idle, virtue signalling twaddle all you have to do is come here.[/QUOTE]


Well along those lines, it seems the alarmists have completely accepted the "correlation = cause" scenario no matter what. That's not science that's politics and a "make you feel good" exercise. To get beyond that one must look at what can be done about averting this doomsday prediction at the hands of "climate change" and calculate what, and how, and where, and how long, and at what cost this complete energy switch can all come about. Oh, OK wait a minute I remember someone here (yes it was me!) directing people to those scientists (Professor Roger Pielke Jr. and Professor David MacKay, to name just 2) that have already calculated those factors; it's math and the laws of physics folks and nothing else. But for some reason the alarmists are quite afraid of what the answers are and so they just ignore them. I have read and listened to both sides extensively over the past 2-3 years and if someone is afraid of even acknowledging there are two sides to this topic then we should just end this thread now and go our separate clueless (alarmist) ways. This is ALL about politics now because science has left the building.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,426 Posts
"A global group of around 11,000 scientists have endorsed research that says the world is facing a climate emergency. The study, based on 40 years of data on a range of measures, says governments are failing to address the crisis."

The worldwide 'Science Cabal' speaks. Got to watch these con artist shysters.

Suuuure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,136 Posts
"A global group of around 11,000 scientists have endorsed research that says the world is facing a climate emergency. The study, based on 40 years of data on a range of measures, says governments are failing to address the crisis."

The worldwide 'Science Cabal' speaks. Got to watch these con artist shysters.
And this, of course, includes the august personages at Goddard?
 
2901 - 2920 of 2938 Posts
Top