The Save the Planet thread

[pobrien]

I should not have said that I have a theory. I have read of different interpretations of the data and one theory made sense to me as a non-expert in the field.

I understand that we have several experts on the paceline so please do forgive me for my misstatement.

Patrick

[ftf]

Originally Posted by pobrien

I should not have said that I have a theory. I have read of different interpretations of the data and one theory made sense to me as a non-expert in the field.

As I pointed out in my previous post, that theory is not correct, Global Climate change is real and it is man made, Period, 97% of experts agree on this accepted scientific fact. The 3% are typically like Patrick Michaels, paid off shills.

Sad that people would take money for lying about something that endangers the entire human race, and all other life on earth, actually sad is not stating it enough, it's sickening.

[Dino Suegiù]

Indeed.
While it is not important whether the ratios are exactly 97% pro versus 3% con, or even how the 97% and the 3% make their money, what is truly disheartening is the fact that the 3% certainly control far more than 3% of the discussion/debate, and therefore real action regarding any possible solutions.

But, we knew that too...sadly indeed.

[marciero]

Originally Posted by Dino Suegiù

Indeed.
While it is not important whether the ratios are exactly 97% pro versus 3% con, or even how the 97% and the 3% make their money, what is truly disheartening is the fact that the 3% certainly control far more than 3% of the discussion/debate, and therefore real action regarding any possible solutions.

But, we knew that too...sadly indeed.

If you toss out the many climate deniers a) who may be or once were scientists but whose training and work have little or nothing to do with climate change, b) have not done meaningful research in years, or c) have no real credentials or training, I would bet that it is much closer to 99.7% vs 0.3%, and probably less than that. There are virtually no climate deniers among scientists who are currently active in the field. But yes, the deniers are the loudest and are given disproportionate representation. The worst are the ones with some credentials who cherry-pick data to support claims.

[Mzilliox]

i dont get it. not even debatable.

lets talk about why:
lets say we collectively choose not to act, there are 2 outcomes since that is currently what is happening. there is a chance the climate is not warming because of us and we will adapt and something will happen. probably life as we know it will be over, in terms of population density, in terms of technology, etc etc.

or....**** really hits the fan, we were wrong, we were the ones who caused it all, now we are dying. famine, drought, fights over water, heck, maybe it just ends for humans.

Do any of you like these 2 choices? both lead to significant change which most would consider negative.

Or we act on the knowledge we have. we make lifestyle changes and stop having petty fights over religion, because now there is a real problem to solve, not a metaphysical one. we innovate, we learn to work the land again, we stop worshipping money, we clean things up and we save our species because after all, we were the ones this whole time and we just needed to change our polluting over consuming ways.

or we were wrong, but hey, we cleaned up the planet, things are more peaceful, we have new jobs and innovations, a new way of thinking about a successful society, and we are still alive, making art, having kids, and telling stories about that time we thought we may have ended humanity.

I like these 2 scenarios way more, dont you? so lets act accordingly

or you can post this one article about how this one guy (because its always a dude) says we are only half responsible so really we should just carry on being poor stewards of the only planet we will ever get to live on. just keep spending money and tossing garbage, keep voting for jerks who dont have your interest but corporate interest in mind when passing or removing regulations designed to save humanity. nothing to see here.

how is there even a choice, why are we so bad at being good?

[pobrien]

One point more and I will stop. Everyone has opinions and we are fallible as human beings.

I know that we have many intelligent and well educated people on the forum and that is great. We all have opinions and prejudices, as we are human.

I suspect that no person here knows the truth about climate change or the significance of any that may be occurring.

We all have opinions. Those who tout their perspective the loudest or dismiss the comments of others without definitive answers really takes away from any value in the discussion.

I think we need a moderator! just kidding.

[Big Dan]

Comes down to money.

[fa63]

Originally Posted by Big Dan

Comes down to money.

Pretty much, and in more ways than one.

I work on a climate change related project, and from talking to people, one thing that needs to be kept in mind is that people who can barely get by right now (and there are many, many of them) do not necessarily have the bandwidth to internalize the effects of climate change, even though they will be the ones most affected by it. They are more worried about paying rent and putting food on the table today (and rightfully so).

They also have as much voting power as everyone else does; somehow we need to find a way to get them to vote for their long-term interest instead of short-term. But then again study after study shows lower income people having much higher discount rates (meaning they are more likely to think short-term than long-term, especially in terms of financial decisions). It really is a complex problem.

[Tickdoc]

It's a Pascal's wager right up there with belief in God, if you ask me.

You can't prove it til it's too late, so you have to act responsibly.

Nearly everyone who agrees it is man-made also believes it is too late.

[ftf]

Originally Posted by Tickdoc

It's a Pascal's wager right up there with belief in God, if you ask me.

You can't prove it til it's too late, so you have to act responsibly.

Nearly everyone who agrees it is man-made also believes it is too late.

It's different than pascals wager in that, with pascals wager you are only betting with your own life, not the life of, well all life on earth.

[ftf]

Originally Posted by pobrien

One point more and I will stop. Everyone has opinions and we are fallible as human beings.

I know that we have many intelligent and well educated people on the forum and that is great. We all have opinions and prejudices, as we are human.

I suspect that no person here knows the truth about climate change or the significance of any that may be occurring.

We all have opinions. Those who tout their perspective the loudest or dismiss the comments of others without definitive answers really takes away from any value in the discussion.

I think we need a moderator! just kidding.

Like discussing if the earth is flat, sometimes there just isn't a discussion, the earth isn't flat, we went to the moon, vaccines work, etc. Though thinking the earth is flat is less dangerous I suppose than touting climate deinal.

[C50]

This is probably a little bit off the focus of the thread but I thought I would post it since it is related and there is a lot of diverse talents and knowledge from the members of the forum. I would be interested in asking a few questions of anybody involved in the renewable energy/wind/solar field especially if they have experience in California. There is a potential project that I would like to get some opinions about from sources other than those opposed to it because they don't want anything near them or from other people who support it because they stand to gain financially from it. Feel free to send a private message and I can explain further but promise to not take up a lot of your time.

[marciero]

Originally Posted by pobrien

One point more and I will stop. Everyone has opinions and we are fallible as human beings.

I know that we have many intelligent and well educated people on the forum and that is great. We all have opinions and prejudices, as we are human.

...

We all have opinions...

No. Just no. This has nothing to do with opinion, prejudice, point of view, etc. and casting it as such only obfuscates.

[benb]

This thread got weird and I mostly ignored that part...

Couple of thoughts that were more on topic:

1) I don't feel like zip ties can be anywhere near as bad as straws. A Zip tie might be "single use" for me but that single use lasts for years and years, not 10 minutes like a plastic straw! I've bought one container of zip ties in the entire time I've been cycling, I have 90% of the container left after about 20 years of using it for bike stuff & motorcycle stuff & whatever else needs them in repair.

2) The thing about riding your bike to work being just as bad as a Prius or you need to ride your bike 15k miles to balance out production of a steel bike vs 30k for Ti or 50k for Carbon sounds like a ridiculous climate denier/conservative hoax. How many bikes can you build for the environmental impact of the production of one Prius! Can't give you the specifics but it is not 1, it's a much bigger number. Toyota can claim the factory is carbon neutral but they can't even come close to claiming that on the sourcing for all the raw materials that get carted all over the world by filthy cargo ships. I don't even think the equation can possibly work if you ignore the impact of making a car either. There is a major environmental impact to dig up the fuel to fill the prius and transport it to the filling station too, you'd have to ignore that as well. Keep cycle commuting and don't feel guilty about it.

edit: I looked at this and even the best electric car on the market is super inefficient compared to riding a bike.. you're > 10x more efficient riding your bike to work than a prius. Also bikes are easier to dispose of than cars when their lifetime is over.

4) Nitrile gloves.. just use them when you really need to use them for dangerous chemicals or glue or something. Use washable work gloves for the other stuff.

[jlwdm]

Originally Posted by rain dogs

The best thing anyone can do as a cyclist to combat climate change is ride their bike, ride their bike, ride their bike.

...

But taking this farther should a bike be ridden only when it is a necessary mode of transportation (like commuting) but not for exercise. You can walk or run for exercise and use fewer resources.

And of course you should only have one bike. And how many jerseys and so forth?

Jeff