mstateglfr 

genejockey 

And yet you don't. What a shame.

genejockey 

Just wanted to post this. Not sure why...

scott967

Can we make peer review of scientific literature sustainable? I suspect the answer is "no" as the reviewers have been corrupted by capitalism. I would like to see the actual value-add of real world peer review vs its carbon footprint. Then you have the Elseviers of the world and their profit maximizing. So we move to pay to print and of course open access journals.

scott s.
.

Maelochs

I liked some posters here a lot more when they talked about bicycles ....

On another hand, ThreeAlarmer shows that s/he actually has stuff to say when not trolling.

I like surprises as long as they are removed a bit by the screen .... in real life, not so much.

If I type the word "politics " here, will this thus be a "political post"?

Anyway ..... I don't care if people make "buzzwords" out of actual legitimate terms in order to try to stifle debate .... smart people can simply not fall into the trap, just like we can go into bicycle stores and not leave with new bikes, no matter what the evil salesperson wants.

And you know what? The science of thermometers was pretty advanced back when they were first invented, even .... seeing as water boils at a fairly consistent temp, at given ambient air pressures, and yes, people 100 years ago could read thermometers and write down numbers.

Shocking, how little we have progressed.

PeteHski

Sustainability is different to any other political agenda. It's the global realisation that we really will have to do something about our ever increasing use of natural resources before it's too late. Unfortunately it goes against pretty much every other short term political agenda we could imagine. If a government or industry can avoid sustainability it will almost certainly give them a short term economic advantage over their neighbours/competitors and most political decisions are short term to serve the interests of those currently in power. So what we have now are governments and corporates attempting to negotiate their contribution (or lack of) to global sustainability. Do you buy cheap gas from Russia or spend a crap load of money developing renewable energy? On a more local level, do you sign off on that new coal fired power station that will provide thousands of jobs in a deprived area and win you the next local election or do you look at the bigger picture? Does VW really want to invest billions to develop EVs or would they make more money by delaying the switch for as long as possible? These are the political issues we face and the science makes it very difficult because it doesn't support any short-term political agenda.

So don't confuse real science with politics.

Here in the UK, the "Green Party", which does promote sustainability as their main political agenda, received only 1% of the vote in the last general election. Their influence is growing, particularly amongst the young, who are more likely to have to face the consequences of climate change, but corporate greed and government political agendas are only going to slow progress down. At least until "sustainability" really does become a political buzz word that actually wins votes. Would that be a bad thing? I don't think so, but we are definitely nowhere near that point yet.

livedarklions

Funny how much of your nonsense is based on your obviously flawed memories of what you saw on TV decades ago. Meantime, I'm pretty sure you've limited yourself to the true echo chamber of sources of "news".
Please.find any citation or copy of that Ted Danson commercial. I call BS.

Even if it did exist, that ad wouldn't negate the obvious fact that sea levels are rising, and that Florida's climate problems are getting worse and worse.

BTW, good luck with Lake Mead's water levels. If that trend keeps going the way it has been for decades, Vegas ain't gonna be there long.

shelbyfv

I figure the mods are letting this run as some kind of experiment. It's been interesting in that I didn't expect to see this much climate ignorance among cyclists. I follow a few RV forums and any mention of EVs or climate change sets them off on pages of deranged rants. I assumed the demographics of traditional RVing (not VanLife) had something to do with it- older white males, less educated, etc. Now it seems even cyclists are eager to flaunt their ignorance when given the opportunity. FWIW, I'm in favor of quick intervention, sending troll threads like this to P&R or better yet, just have them vanish. JMO

work4bike

I love this issue, it's golden

https://www.yahoo.com/news/factbox-s...060252257.html

livedarklions

Sp basically, you think you should be able to veto the topic of every thread on this forum by posting whatever conspiracy theory you want on that topic. At this point, you need a conspiracy of basically all of science to make your very political argument work.

prairiepedaler

As mentioned, the bicycle is the most elegant and energy efficient form of transportation yet created by the genius of the Western Mind. I think and believe we should properly encourage its' voluntary use, especially in the suburbs for short errands and small grocery runs. After it's initial production, the bicycle is very low in its' resource demands. It might take electricity to pump the tires up, petroleum lubricants for maintenance and synthetic rubber replacement every X000 miles but not too much else. It doesn't directly pollute. I am all for the protection of ecology, which is something humans have more control over, rather than solar cycles which we don't.

Koyote

Summary: The comedian rails (quite humorously!) against 'both-sides-ism' -- the phenomenon in which equal weight is given to the insights of qualified professionals and overly-confident ignoramuses. His implicit point is that loudly ignorant people should be ignored. And, for the most part, they are: if some guy at the bar starts ranting to me about the Earth being flat, I'll probably move away from him. But on the internet, people seem willing to engage with such nutjobs. I'm guilty of this at times, but am trying to get over it.

That's probably as healthy as any other response. It's like watching reality TV in order to confirm that you are actually pretty normal.

I mean, really, folks. When virtually 100% of peer-reviewed climate science publications and virtually 100% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing climate change, and when even the oil companies and their trade groups admit that their product is causing climate change, then climate science deniers are essentially fringe lunatics, and obviously not open to science and facts. Most of them also have virtually no influence in our world, as befits the ignorant. They're not worth any effort.

BillyD

Okay guys, so yes, this thread had definitely gone political, but it was peaceful, with opposing views agreeing to disagree, so I let it stay here in General. But then it became clear that it only takes one individual to ruin things . . . a prime example of my favorite signature post, "See, this is why we can't have nice things".

Nonetheless, let's make an effort to get back on track and discuss a normally contentious topic peacefully and respectfully. I'm going to insist that we do not address VegasJen or any of her posts any further in this thread, because she's not here to defend herself. No more name-calling, no more insults, no more ankle-biting. Continue like the disruption never happened. I'm not going back to delete any posts, they've been quoted too many times already, just ignore them.

genejockey 

My take on sustainability and bikes is that people with lots of money will continue to buy new bikes, and people with less money will continue to buy those bikes a few years later when the former buy another new bike, so the lifespan of a bicycle is considerably longer than the interval between original purchase and subsequent replacement by a newer bike.

Another point is that sustainability is in tension with full employment. That is, whatever the downsides of the consumer society, it keeps people employed, so that they're fed, clothed, and sheltered. Once upon a time, it took 90% of the population working in farming to keep 100% of the population fed. Now, that's down to 2% or less. Now, most people are involved in making, distributing, or selling stuff or services. For the individual, doing without, or making do with what you have is a virtue, but if everyone did so, a lot of people would lose their jobs. The Paradox Of Thrift.

This is a tension that sustainability needs to resolve, and which I believe CAN BE resolved, but I'm not sure how, exactly.

Maelochs

When much of the land currently producing food no longer can, we will see some major adjustments. And when people can no longer live a "modern" lifestyle in those areas, because water and energy costs associated living in those areas is not sustainable, we will have lots of jobs building new homes---yurts, turf huts, whatever---where those displaced people can live.

And the flotation device industry is bound to be booming once the coastline reaches Orlando.

There is always an upside. In communist China, the cremation industry has been booming since Covid hit.

"Always look on the bright side of life ... "

prairiepedaler

uh, no. Not by a long shot.

https://www.youtube.com/@FriendsofScience/videos

wolfchild

This thread is like a 15th century witch hunt, any person who refuses to believe in man made climate change ( new world religion ) is in danger of having unspeakable things done to them. What people fail to realize is that climate change agenda is just a way to put extra taxes and demands on the people and punish them and make them feel guilty for being born into this world. Shame be on the hypocritical governments and hypocritical people who don't even practice what they preach.

wolfchild

They have no choice because the governments coerce them and force them into publishing lies.

genejockey 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA...
*gasp*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA...
*cough,cough*

Oh, please. Imagine the size of a conspiracy like that, how many people would all have to be in on it, and nobody going public with evidence.

But, more seriously, what part of it don't you believe? The known absorption of electromagnetic radiation in the infrared range by Carbon Dioxide? The calculated amount of Carbon Dioxide released annually due to the burning known quantities of fossil fuels? The measured increase in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide? The measured increase in global average temperature? What part do you dispute, and where are your data?

shelbyfv

You haven't thought this through. Religion generally requires an element of faith. You believe in something w/o evidence of its existence. Science discourages belief w/o evidence and this difference is obvious to most. You might want to calm your fear of "unspeakable things." I don't think that you, as a climate change denier, are in danger of any personal harm beyond ridicule.

Maelochs

@wolfchild ..... yeah, you know what lies between extremes, often? Yeah, Truth.

If you cannot read a thermometer, cool .... and if you think that therefore no one else can, cool. If you think that the fact that the average temperature has been rising steadily is all a lie, .... cool.

Having spent many years as an environmental activist, I have seen the excesses of that crowd ... but when you have undrinkable water and unbreathable air, well, it is hard to stay calm.

Not sure many people realize how much better air quality, for instance, has gotten because of the enviro-nazis demand that we clean up auto and power-plant exhaust. Anyone who has been to any industrial city in China, where 1960's-era LA smog is considered "good air quality," or anyone who is concerned about lung disease associated with air pollution .... but some folks only believe what they want. Also cool with me.

The other side, the pollution producers and pollution deniers ... they are also often over-the-top ridiculous in their denials .... of course, when secret internal documents revealed that the major petro-chemical companies knew for decades that they were doing extreme damage to the atmosphere ... you have to be very careful to pick data which support the imaginary position that pollution is good for us.

Reminds me of the extreme racists who refused to admit (or in some cases still refuse to admit) that people with different last names or different accents or different skin tones are actual valid human beings worthy of human rights. It seems ridiculous, absurd, so wildly outdated that no one would ever hold to that nonsense, right? But I have met people who do.

Everyone else on the planet realizes that all people are people but some folks still deny that. And they can show the YouTube videos or whatever supporting their positions ....

And the Flat-Earthers trump everybody when it comes to denying reality staunchly ......

But sorry. Just because you can attack one extreme does not mean the other extreme is correct. The truth seems to be ... and we have known this for a Long time---that the Earth goes naturally through climate change ..... (Look at the warming trend which increased health and wealth in Europe at the end of the Dark Ages .... ) and we have known for a long time that even relatively small communities (relative to modern population densities) can dramatically alter immediate climates and in fact, can kill themselves off (heard much from Easter Island lately?)

You can deny that widespread pollution has any effect, you can argue that widespread deforestation has no effect, you can argue that major shifting of major bodies of water has no greater effect .... and you would look pretty silly.

Look, it is fine with me if you want to believe obviously untrue things. it is your option. And if you want to think that denying truth is productive .... you are right. What it has been producing so far is an increasing trend of wider and deeper environmental alterations which are already making life vastly more expensive and more difficult for many people. Here in North America, and in other developed, economically leveraged nations, the population is still living in some comfort. Of course, most of the world's population doesn't live in those conditions. We ignore the plight of anyone but ourselves .... but sooner or later we won't be able to ignore it.

Possibly neither you nor I will live long enough for me to say "Told you so" and frankly, I wouldn't want to because the situation's grimness doesn't admit much pettiness.

Anyway ... pretty sure what kind of bike I ride has about zero effect on how well the human and other races will fare in the near or far future. I suggest to everyone that honesty, kindness, and self-discipline are virtues worth cultivating.

squirtdad

humans being humans, wide spread use in North America (plenty of other places have wide spread use) will only come with a mix of being more convenient and lest costly to ride a bike than to drive.
More convenient means thinks like safe parking, easier to ride a bike than find parking for a car.

Less costly goes beyond cost of fuel, it can include safe amd covered bike parking, moving from free parking to charging for parking, moving from requiring lots of parking spots for a building, more enforcement for people parking in bike lanes, etc all in the purview of government

If you are referring to climate issue be mostly caused by solar flare....that is dead wrong.... our great grand children and beyond are going to inherit our mess. https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/20/world...ntl/index.html

Maelochs

As with so many issues ..... the political will to penalize drivers in favor of cyclists is lacking.

Koyote

Friends of Science is funded by the fossil fuel industry, and their position statement acknowledges that they don't do climate research - in other words, they are not producing peer-reviewed research (or any kind of research), and they don't seem to have any actual climate scientists on staff. If you believe they are objective and that they are climate scientists, you have been duped -- twice. You are exactly the sort of person they are targeting.

I'm just gonna tag mstateglfr on this one, because I think he'll enjoy it. (If you've read the whole thread, you'll get it. )

Maelochs

That Friends of Science stuff is hilarious. Astroturf is Real, folks.

When Pepsico decided to market Gatorade as a sports drink for the average non athlete as well as athletes .... they formed a "research council" proving that everyone needed to drink Gatorade. Coca-Cola paid scientists to "prove" that sugary drinks don't cause obesity. (https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/how...gar-and-health https://www.pharmafile.com/news/5554...ed-obesity-cri (Sorry no citation on the Pepsico claim .. Skratchlabs used to have info on it. Not sufficiently interested to search.)) So both Astroturf groups and flat-out fake "science" does get published.

Whenever I see stuff like "Americans for a Clean Energy Future" I read the fine print and Lo! the coal industry funds them. Who'd a thunk it?

Well, lots of folks, once you learn the trend. The only people who deny the facts .... are the people already denying the facts.