If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KGW Portland)   State Rep. thinks that heavy breathing caused by cycling leads to global warming. Kittens sigh in relief   (kgw.com) divider line 168
    More: Fail, Northwest, bike shop, cultural bias, KGW  
•       •       •

8996 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Mar 2013 at 7:48 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



168 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-03 03:41:17 AM
Looks like someone else wanted attention..
 
2013-03-03 06:58:00 AM
This guy is a loon but a bike tax used to build better bike lanes would probably be supported by bikers.
 
2013-03-03 07:19:15 AM

johnryan51: This guy is a loon but a bike tax used to build better bike lanes would probably be supported by bikers.


When it gets diverted to other uses, they're going to be pissed.
 
2013-03-03 07:50:46 AM
Ah, the "Bicycles are a Mooslin Kenyan Conspiracy to Take Our Freedom!" thing again.
They have a deep well of mental illness from which to draw the derp.
 
2013-03-03 07:52:50 AM

johnryan51: This guy is a loon but a bike tax used to build better bike lanes would probably be supported by bikers.


Exactly. I'd have no problem with a bike tax that'd add or improve bike lanes, trails, bike racks, etc. so long as the money really went to those things.

Claiming that people breathing is somehow polluting (particularly when compared to a car) is both silly and stupid.
 
2013-03-03 07:54:13 AM
With that kind of keen analytical insight I'm shocked the GOP hasn't named him Chairman of the Education Committee.
 
2013-03-03 07:55:52 AM
Why not just have them pay a smaller excise tax like car owners do?
 
2013-03-03 08:01:50 AM
If it keeps the Rs from talking about rape, it may be worth it.
 
2013-03-03 08:02:11 AM
No, it's politicians talking that does it. They're responsible for 83.47% of all hot air on the planet.

/you can't argue with science.
 
2013-03-03 08:02:12 AM
There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.
 
2013-03-03 08:04:43 AM

amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.


That's why I drive my Hummer to the gym, do stationary for an hour, shower, then drive to the office
 
2013-03-03 08:05:23 AM
and cyclists eat more food too
which increases the production of beef = methane
 
2013-03-03 08:05:28 AM
Ah, warmers wanting it both ways. Imagine that.
 
2013-03-03 08:05:30 AM
First thing I saw looking at this clown, this guy  has discreet case of the Bachmann crazy eye.

/Can someone confirm he has his own little safe Republican enclave that he is trolling for their support.
 
2013-03-03 08:06:55 AM
EPIC TROLL!!!
 
2013-03-03 08:09:19 AM
We clearly need fewer cyclists out there and more pirates.
 
2013-03-03 08:09:41 AM
What can people from Washington state  tell me about his district?

http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/default.aspx?District=20
 
2013-03-03 08:14:38 AM
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas also. What can we do about that?

Raise water rates
Tax swimming pools
Drain the oceans
Yell at clouds
 
2013-03-03 08:17:24 AM
The other activity that promotes global warming is masturbation.

This practice clearly needs to be regulated and taxed.....
 
2013-03-03 08:18:30 AM
But I thought Reoublicans were against new taxes?
 
2013-03-03 08:19:05 AM
Er, Republicans.
 
2013-03-03 08:19:28 AM

edmo: Water vapor is a greenhouse gas also. What can we do about that?

Raise water rates
Tax swimming pools
Drain the oceans
Yell at clouds


by quitting drugs (such as caffeine)
 
2013-03-03 08:20:07 AM

Headline:  Republican goes full sciencetard
Difficulty:  

The $25 bike fee in question was announced by House Democrats two weeks ago as part of an overall package that would raise a reported $9.8 billion over the next decade.
 
2013-03-03 08:21:20 AM
This guy is gunning for a spot on the Republican science committee
 
2013-03-03 08:22:50 AM

SpdrJay: The other activity that promotes global warming is masturbation.

This practice clearly needs to be regulated and taxed.....


You beat me to it, no pun intended.
 
2013-03-03 08:25:02 AM
Cute troll but don't give the warmtards any ideas. They will soon want everyone to to breathing.
 
2013-03-03 08:26:05 AM
This guy might be onto something here.

There are way too many humans producing carbon dioxide. We should cut down on that.

And we could start with him.
 
2013-03-03 08:26:22 AM

badhatharry: Cute troll but don't give the warmtards any ideas. They will soon want everyone to stop breathing.

 
2013-03-03 08:30:31 AM

badhatharry: Cute troll but don't give the warmtards any ideas. They will soon want everyone to to breathing.


their theme song is "every breath" by the police
 
2013-03-03 08:32:54 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: their theme song is "every breath" by the police


I'll be watching warming you..
 
2013-03-03 08:34:25 AM
Lots of people missed the point here.
 
2013-03-03 08:37:11 AM
What the hell? He can't possibly be that dumb, can he? I prefer to think that he is greedy, spiteful, and just thinks his constituents are dumb enough to believe that bullshiat.
 
2013-03-03 08:37:30 AM

ComicBookGuy: But I thought Reoublicans were against new taxes?


This is not a tax on billionaires and on the odd chance there is a billionaire cyclist, a one-time twenty-five buck tax is both inconsequential for billionaires and regressive.
 
2013-03-03 08:39:52 AM
There's a whole lotta stupid in here today. All the denialist points made have been stomped into the ground over and over, but it's like an endless game of whack-a-tard.
 
2013-03-03 08:40:03 AM
birthers, preppers, fundies.....and now, breathers?

Maybe the government is putting something other than fluoride in the water in certain places? It seems like ever few days brings some published story of yet another quack science theory spelling gloom, doom and the only way to fix it is by stupid governmental decisions and/or a campaign contribution.
 
2013-03-03 08:41:12 AM

benbenbenbenben: This guy is gunning for a spot on the Republican science committee


An ignorant comment about evolution could put him over the top.
 
2013-03-03 08:42:06 AM

heypete: johnryan51: This guy is a loon but a bike tax used to build better bike lanes would probably be supported by bikers.

Exactly. I'd have no problem with a bike tax that'd add or improve bike lanes, trails, bike racks, etc. so long as the money really went to those things.

Claiming that people breathing is somehow polluting (particularly when compared to a car) is both silly and stupid.


Says the taxpayer who helped fund the national study on bovine ructation.
 
2013-03-03 08:42:16 AM

TheMysteriousStranger: ComicBookGuy: But I thought Reoublicans were against new taxes?

This is not a tax on billionaires and on the odd chance there is a billionaire cyclist, a one-time twenty-five buck tax is both inconsequential for billionaires and regressive.


A $25 tax on a $500 bike is not going to burden the poor. Except the guys that build $500 bikes.
 
2013-03-03 08:48:57 AM
Of course the carbon dioxide that is breathed out  humans and other animals is NOT the cause of the increased amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.    The problem is that we are taking carbon that was buried for millions of years and putting it into the atmosphere.    Animals ultimately get their carbon from plants and other photosynthetic organisms.  Plants really  can handle keep carbon dioxide emitted from animals in check.   Or at least they could if humans were not so damn busy cutting down forests, poisoning the oceans, etc.
 
2013-03-03 08:52:09 AM

badhatharry: TheMysteriousStranger: ComicBookGuy: But I thought Reoublicans were against new taxes?

This is not a tax on billionaires and on the odd chance there is a billionaire cyclist, a one-time twenty-five buck tax is both inconsequential for billionaires and regressive.

A $25 tax on a $500 bike is not going to burden the poor. Except the guys that build $500 bikes.


Most of the $500 bikes will be bought by the middle class (with a predominance by the upper middle class). 
A billionaire will pay $25.  A middle-class person will pay $25.  The tax is regressive.
 
2013-03-03 08:55:01 AM

TheMysteriousStranger: badhatharry: TheMysteriousStranger: ComicBookGuy: But I thought Reoublicans were against new taxes?

This is not a tax on billionaires and on the odd chance there is a billionaire cyclist, a one-time twenty-five buck tax is both inconsequential for billionaires and regressive.

A $25 tax on a $500 bike is not going to burden the poor. Except the guys that build $500 bikes.

Most of the $500 bikes will be bought by the middle class (with a predominance by the upper middle class). 
A billionaire will pay $25.  A middle-class person will pay $25.  The tax is regressive.


Ok sure. It's a regressive luxury tax.
 
2013-03-03 08:58:26 AM
To all the Repubs trying to jump in on this, I live in DC, and we have tons of cyclists all over the place. And yet it's cold here now, how can you explain that, huh?!
 
2013-03-03 09:05:18 AM
www.beloblog.com
 
2013-03-03 09:06:52 AM
Thunderboy * * Smartest * Funniest 2013-03-03 08:20:07 AM Headline: Republican goes full sciencetard Difficulty: The $25 bike fee in question was announced by House Democrats two weeks ago as part of an overall package that would raise a reported $9.8 billion over the next decade.
---------------------------------------------------------------

It's probably for bike lanes and so forth. We don't know as the article doesn't say. I am curious as to what it would be used for, if it's just adding to the gas tax revenue, I would be angry at the dems too.

The republican they found said something royally retarded (probably the republican thinks this is why the dems are doing it or he's just an idiot) and so they printed it.
 
2013-03-03 09:08:20 AM
This makes sense. And it is not just CO2, what about methane? All of those tree hugging, vegan cyclists produce a lot of methane. What about all of the petro products that go into making those goofy helmets? Most of those $500 bike owners have half a dozen color coordinated helemts. Don't you people care about the children? Their future is doomed if we keep expending our natural resources for cyclists.
 
2013-03-03 09:10:19 AM
$500 bikes? That's not exactly a fancy bike! ... Oh never mind, this one is just for mocking.
 
2013-03-03 09:13:29 AM
You can't even get a decent bike for less than a grand.
 
2013-03-03 09:16:26 AM

amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.


except that it didn't

http://www.ecf.com/wp-content/uploads/ECF_CO2_WEB.pdf  if you want to read it
 
2013-03-03 09:22:00 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: With that kind of keen analytical insight I'm shocked the GOP hasn't named him Chairman of the Education Committee.


He'll be promoted to the Science committee in a few days.
 
2013-03-03 09:30:45 AM

madcan34: Why not just have them pay a smaller excise tax like car owners do?


Because proportionately we already pay more taxes to maintain roads than motorists do.
 
2013-03-03 09:35:16 AM
FTFA: "The statement is based on a general cultural bias that people have about bicycling."

lol, cyclists don't really believe that do they?
 
2013-03-03 09:36:27 AM

amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.


And idiots like you don't understand that the car is doing all the work. Of course the lazy assed driver isn't giving off as much CO2 as the cyclist, but the automobile carting his fat ass around is giving off more exponentially.
 
2013-03-03 09:38:38 AM

Bontesla: Mr. Coffee Nerves: With that kind of keen analytical insight I'm shocked the GOP hasn't named him Chairman of the Education Committee.

He'll be promoted to the Science committee in a few days.


Outside of the military a few emergency services type and NASA/DARPA our best and brightest are not in government. We certainly don't elect them:


thenewschronicle.com

fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com


He is a graduate of the District of Columbia Public Schools, Clark College in Atlanta and the Thurgood Marshall School of Law at Texas Southern University

Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary - chaired the Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy

House Committees on Armed Services and Transportation and Infrastructure.

He was elected by his colleagues to serve in the House Leadership as Southeast Regional Whip in 2009. In that capacity, he has played a key role in garnering support for key priorities such as health care reform, the Recovery Act, and legislation to reduce carbon emissions to slow climate change. One of the earliest congressional supporters of President Barack Obama, Rep. Johnson served as co-Chair of the Obama Campaign in Georgia.
 
2013-03-03 09:41:54 AM

badhatharry: Cute troll but don't give the warmtards any ideas. They will soon want everyone to to breathing.


Aren't we all breathing already?
 
2013-03-03 09:42:29 AM
This makes perfect sense to me as I never breath while driving my car.....
 
2013-03-03 09:46:21 AM

TwowheelinTim: amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.

And idiots like you don't understand that the car is doing all the work. Of course the lazy assed driver isn't giving off as much CO2 as the cyclist, but the automobile carting his fat ass around is giving off more exponentially.


Cars give off CO2 now?
 
2013-03-03 09:48:50 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: Ah, the "Bicycles are a Mooslin Kenyan Conspiracy to Take Our Freedom!" thing again.
They have a deep well of mental illness from which to draw the derp.


Dude, what article did you read and were you snorting bath salts againi?
 
2013-03-03 09:48:52 AM

JonPace: TwowheelinTim: amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.

And idiots like you don't understand that the car is doing all the work. Of course the lazy assed driver isn't giving off as much CO2 as the cyclist, but the automobile carting his fat ass around is giving off more exponentially.

Cars give off CO2 now?


It's a major combustion product.
 
2013-03-03 09:55:13 AM

JonPace: TwowheelinTim: amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.

And idiots like you don't understand that the car is doing all the work. Of course the lazy assed driver isn't giving off as much CO2 as the cyclist, but the automobile carting his fat ass around is giving off more exponentially.

Cars give off CO2 now?



About 14% of the total .amount of auto exhaust is carbon dioxide
If you discout the nitrogen (not a pollutant), then it is the largest somponent of auto exhaust.
 
2013-03-03 09:56:24 AM
So they don't believe in it, but they think cyclists are causing it?
 
2013-03-03 09:56:32 AM

JonPace: Cars give off CO2 now?


A lot:

2 C8H18 (octane) + 25 O2 --> 16 CO2 + 18 H2O
 
2013-03-03 09:57:41 AM
This doesn't surprise me. This is the same legislature that said "We need to encourage people to buy electric cars... let's give EVs a complete exemption from the state sales tax", followed by "Wait, EVs don't pay the gas tax... we need to charge a special yearly registration tax so they don't wear out the roads."
 
2013-03-03 10:01:35 AM

Billy Bathsalt: If it keeps the Rs from talking about rape, it may be worth it.


i915.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-03 10:02:23 AM

johnryan51: This guy is a loon but a bike tax used to build better bike lanes would probably be supported by bikers.


I already pay tons of money that goes towards roads, why is it that none of that money could be used towards something that I would use?
 
2013-03-03 10:02:25 AM

heypete: johnryan51: This guy is a loon but a bike tax used to build better bike lanes would probably be supported by bikers.

Exactly. I'd have no problem with a bike tax that'd add or improve bike lanes, trails, bike racks, etc. so long as the money really went to those things.

Claiming that people breathing is somehow polluting (particularly when compared to a car) is both silly and stupid.


He should know that every turn of the pedal cleans the air.
 
2013-03-03 10:02:49 AM

JonPace: Cars give off CO2 now?


Point at it and laugh.
 
2013-03-03 10:06:54 AM

JonPace: TwowheelinTim: amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.

And idiots like you don't understand that the car is doing all the work. Of course the lazy assed driver isn't giving off as much CO2 as the cyclist, but the automobile carting his fat ass around is giving off more exponentially.

Cars give off CO2 now?


Pretty much all combustion of hydrocarbons ends up with CO2 and H2O as the main products. This isn't a *now* thing... it has always been that way, and you have always failed chemistry class.
 
2013-03-03 10:11:10 AM

MBooda: We clearly need fewer cyclists out there and more pirates.


www.newmilfordbike.com
What about pirates on bicycles, though?
 
2013-03-03 10:16:43 AM

badhatharry: Cute troll but don't give the warmtards any ideas. They will soon want everyone to to breathing.


... as opposed to people who DON'T want everyone to be breathing?
 
2013-03-03 10:16:47 AM
Billions of year of changing climate, weather data collected for a hundred years and the ivory tower wonks think "we got this down, man." Local still weather reports can't forecast 6 days out accurately.

Common sense vs billionaires really interested in taxing us for breathing and farting is the argument of our time. Hilarious. What will they do with more money from our paychecks to control the weather?

Goggle terms for fun. "Maunders Minimum" "Medieval warming period" "University of East Anglia email scandal" "Sun spot cycles" "Plants and CO2"  "Russian weather station cherry picking" "Carbon tax" "Lord Mockton looks like Marty Feldman"

If I am not censored again, let the establishment derp fest begin!
 
2013-03-03 10:19:45 AM
More than seven billion people breathing out CO2, maybe he's on to something. We need a nice genocidal war to thin out the population some.
 
2013-03-03 10:20:04 AM

firefly212: johnryan51: This guy is a loon but a bike tax used to build better bike lanes would probably be supported by bikers.

I already pay tons of money that goes towards roads, why is it that none of that money could be used towards something that I would use?


One of the major sources of road funds is gas taxes. If you aren't driving you aren't paying gas taxes.

So now they are just asking you to pay a small fraction of what you would pay in gas taxes to build things that you would use.
 
2013-03-03 10:21:24 AM

badhatharry: TheMysteriousStranger: badhatharry: TheMysteriousStranger: ComicBookGuy: But I thought Reoublicans were against new taxes?

This is not a tax on billionaires and on the odd chance there is a billionaire cyclist, a one-time twenty-five buck tax is both inconsequential for billionaires and regressive.

A $25 tax on a $500 bike is not going to burden the poor. Except the guys that build $500 bikes.

Most of the $500 bikes will be bought by the middle class (with a predominance by the upper middle class).
A billionaire will pay $25.  A middle-class person will pay $25.  The tax is regressive.

Ok sure. It's a regressive luxury tax.




You consider a $500.00 bicycle a luxury? How many decades has it been since you've shopped for a bicycle?
 
2013-03-03 10:23:08 AM
As a supporter of both bicycling and global warming, I have to say that this is wonderful news!
 
2013-03-03 10:23:13 AM

flypusher713: benbenbenbenben: This guy is gunning for a spot on the Republican science committee

An ignorant comment about evolution could put him over the top.


That or a comment about how women's bodies shut down when raped.
 
2013-03-03 10:24:00 AM

Krieghund: firefly212: johnryan51: This guy is a loon but a bike tax used to build better bike lanes would probably be supported by bikers.

I already pay tons of money that goes towards roads, why is it that none of that money could be used towards something that I would use?

One of the major sources of road funds is gas taxes. If you aren't driving you aren't paying gas taxes.

So now they are just asking you to pay a small fraction of what you would pay in gas taxes to build things that you would use.


Only a tiny percentage of cyclists don't own/use autos. By far, most of us are paying those taxes just like everyone else.
 
2013-03-03 10:25:53 AM
How about a tax on extra large chain flails locks
www.hollywoodreporter.com
 
2013-03-03 10:28:12 AM

ciberido: flypusher713: benbenbenbenben: This guy is gunning for a spot on the Republican science committee

An ignorant comment about evolution could put him over the top.

That or a comment about how women's bodies shut down when raped.


But if they shut down, how will they pee on the attacker to get them to stop? Would this shut down also negate the vomiting?
 
2013-03-03 10:35:19 AM

badhatharry: TheMysteriousStranger: ComicBookGuy: But I thought Reoublicans were against new taxes?

This is not a tax on billionaires and on the odd chance there is a billionaire cyclist, a one-time twenty-five buck tax is both inconsequential for billionaires and regressive.

A $25 tax on a $500 bike is not going to burden the poor. Except the guys that build $500 bikes.


That's the war cry of regressionists. Nickle and dime the poor to death.
 
2013-03-03 10:36:28 AM

badhatharry: TheMysteriousStranger: badhatharry: TheMysteriousStranger: ComicBookGuy: But I thought Reoublicans were against new taxes?

This is not a tax on billionaires and on the odd chance there is a billionaire cyclist, a one-time twenty-five buck tax is both inconsequential for billionaires and regressive.

A $25 tax on a $500 bike is not going to burden the poor. Except the guys that build $500 bikes.

Most of the $500 bikes will be bought by the middle class (with a predominance by the upper middle class). 
A billionaire will pay $25.  A middle-class person will pay $25.  The tax is regressive.

Ok sure. It's a regressive luxury tax.


Ummm, it's primary transportation for a lot of people.
 
2013-03-03 10:38:59 AM
People who are reasonably intelligent can fall for this one, because if you took biology you know that CO2 is a product of respiration. Because it's based on a grain of truth it has a lot more staying power than hockey sticks or bling-ed out climate scientists rolling in grant money. It's particularly insidious. You get this idea in someone's head and then suddenly fighting climate change is pointless. We all breathe, we're all destroying the environment. We can't change it. May as well blow the top off another mountain.

It can't be repeated often enough. CO2 from breathing, bonfires, and biodiesel is 100% carbon neutral. That carbon came out of the air; we're returning it to the air. Coal, oil, and gas, however, came out of the ground. Burning it introduces new carbon into out biosphere, and will change the climate.

Fossil-fuel carbon was once part of the biosphere. The Earth was much warmer back then. We had two-foot-long bugs too. We have a totally different set of species living here now, and what lives on Earth now wouldn't be able to tolerate the conditions back then. That's why we need to leave as much of that carbon buried in the Earth as possible.
 
2013-03-03 10:39:15 AM

give me doughnuts: JonPace: TwowheelinTim: amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.

And idiots like you don't understand that the car is doing all the work. Of course the lazy assed driver isn't giving off as much CO2 as the cyclist, but the automobile carting his fat ass around is giving off more exponentially.

Cars give off CO2 now?


About 14% of the total .amount of auto exhaust is carbon dioxide
If you discout the nitrogen (not a pollutant), then it is the largest somponent of auto exhaust.


Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
 
2013-03-03 10:39:19 AM

Krieghund: firefly212: johnryan51: This guy is a loon but a bike tax used to build better bike lanes would probably be supported by bikers.

I already pay tons of money that goes towards roads, why is it that none of that money could be used towards something that I would use?

One of the major sources of road funds is gas taxes. If you aren't driving you aren't paying gas taxes.

So now they are just asking you to pay a small fraction of what you would pay in gas taxes to build things that you would use.


This has been thoroughly debunked, especially when you factor in wear of bikes vs cars.
 
2013-03-03 10:42:31 AM
Hes wrong, since man made global warming does not exist.  That said, if the idea that increased C02 in the atmosphere is causing global warming were correct, he would be spot on.  Heavier breathing would cause the bicyclists to expel more C02 relative to just sitting around and relaxing.
 
2013-03-03 10:45:05 AM

badhatharry: give me doughnuts: JonPace: TwowheelinTim: amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.

And idiots like you don't understand that the car is doing all the work. Of course the lazy assed driver isn't giving off as much CO2 as the cyclist, but the automobile carting his fat ass around is giving off more exponentially.

Cars give off CO2 now?


About 14% of the total .amount of auto exhaust is carbon dioxide
If you discout the nitrogen (not a pollutant), then it is the largest somponent of auto exhaust.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.


It magically became one when the EPA said as much
 
2013-03-03 10:45:55 AM

gilgamesh23: It can't be repeated often enough. CO2 from breathing, bonfires, and biodiesel is 100% carbon neutral


Please repeat it all you want. Maybe you'll realize it doesn't make sense. Burning fossil fuels is just as "carbon neutral" as your breath.
 
2013-03-03 10:52:14 AM

amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.


I ride my bike 25 miles a day and I don't eat any extra calories.
 
2013-03-03 11:03:18 AM
So just to keep those people who did not read the article up to speed...

Dumbocrats propose a $25 fee on bikes.
A Republitard points out the stupidity of it with sarcasm.
Bike snobs go full retard saying the Republitards be taxin our stuff!
 
2013-03-03 11:05:20 AM

madcan34: Why not just have them pay a smaller excise tax like car owners do?


They already do. It's called sales tax.

/in states that have a sales tax
 
2013-03-03 11:09:55 AM

badhatharry: gilgamesh23: It can't be repeated often enough. CO2 from breathing, bonfires, and biodiesel is 100% carbon neutral

Please repeat it all you want. Maybe you'll realize it doesn't make sense. Burning fossil fuels is just as "carbon neutral" as your breath.


You evidently don't understand how the carbon cycle works. Allow me to explain.
Carbon dioxide in your breath is produced from the food you eat - i.e. plants and/or animals that have fed on plants. Said plants get their carbon from CO₂ in the air. Normally the sum total of carbon in the air and living things would remain more or less unchanged, as it continues to cycle from one to the other and back; burning plant matter - such as wood or biodiesel - doesn't affect this, since it's effectively the same, from the cycle's point of view, as eating it. This is what "carbon neutral" means - it doesn't change the amount of carbon in the cycle.
There are two ways this can be changed, however. The amount of carbon in the cycle can go down if some of it is converted into a non-edible, non-biodegradable form - like coal or oil. There used to be way, way more carbon in the atmosphere than there is now; life as we know it would not have been able to exist under those conditions. The fact that so much has been removed over millennia is why the planet currently has an atmosphere - and a climate - we can tolerate. Burning fossil fuels dumps that extra carbon back into the cycle.
 
2013-03-03 11:10:51 AM

jaytkay: I ride my bike 25 miles a day and I don't eat any extra calories.



What? How do you know you're not eating more than if you weren't riding 25mi a day?

/work, effort, fuel, consumption, weight, calories, error error
 
2013-03-03 11:12:09 AM

Rich Cream: jaytkay: I ride my bike 25 miles a day and I don't eat any extra calories.


What? How do you know you're not eating more than if you weren't riding 25mi a day?

/work, effort, fuel, consumption, weight, calories, error error


he could be doing amphetamines to stunt the hunger
 
2013-03-03 11:13:46 AM

shotglasss: Lots of people missed the point here.


The Rapeublican is an idiot?  We knew that before he derped
 
2013-03-03 11:14:02 AM

ComicBookGuy: But I thought Reoublicans were against new taxes?


They are against science and environmentalism more so have no problem with this reasoning which is somewhat ironic since being a Republican means he probably does not believe in climate change let alone change caused by humans. Next up I understand is a new tax on sneakers because runners are using the streets and sidewalks.  Following that will be a tax on suits because most politicians wear them and are known to blow enormous amounts of hot air contributing greatly to global warming.
 
2013-03-03 11:14:03 AM

I Ate Shergar: badhatharry: gilgamesh23: It can't be repeated often enough. CO2 from breathing, bonfires, and biodiesel is 100% carbon neutral

Please repeat it all you want. Maybe you'll realize it doesn't make sense. Burning fossil fuels is just as "carbon neutral" as your breath.

You evidently don't understand how the carbon cycle works. Allow me to explain.
Carbon dioxide in your breath is produced from the food you eat - i.e. plants and/or animals that have fed on plants. Said plants get their carbon from CO₂ in the air. Normally the sum total of carbon in the air and living things would remain more or less unchanged, as it continues to cycle from one to the other and back; burning plant matter - such as wood or biodiesel - doesn't affect this, since it's effectively the same, from the cycle's point of view, as eating it. This is what "carbon neutral" means - it doesn't change the amount of carbon in the cycle.
There are two ways this can be changed, however. The amount of carbon in the cycle can go down if some of it is converted into a non-edible, non-biodegradable form - like coal or oil. There used to be way, way more carbon in the atmosphere than there is now; life as we know it would not have been able to exist under those conditions. The fact that so much has been removed over millennia is why the planet currently has an atmosphere - and a climate - we can tolerate. Burning fossil fuels dumps that extra carbon back into the cycle.


so at what % of atmosphere does co2 have to be befaore we all die?
 
2013-03-03 11:14:07 AM

badhatharry: gilgamesh23: It can't be repeated often enough. CO2 from breathing, bonfires, and biodiesel is 100% carbon neutral

Please repeat it all you want. Maybe you'll realize it doesn't make sense. Burning fossil fuels is just as "carbon neutral" as your breath.


Here is the difference: the carbon dioxide I exhale may have come from a steak or a salad, but either way the carbon came out of the atmosphere. I'm just putting it back into circulation. The fossil fuels we burn release carbon that came out of the ground, and hasn't been a part of the biosphere for millions of years. The species that currently live on this planet have adapted to cooler temperatures than were around those millions of years ago, because as carbon has been fossilized the temperatures have become cooler. The planet is no longer a humid, fern-covered world populated with giant lizards and dragonflies the size of your arm. It's now a world of mammals and trees with ice-covered poles and varied climates.

If this doesn't make sense, that's more on you than me.
 
2013-03-03 11:19:21 AM

Smeggy Smurf: shotglasss: Lots of people missed the point here.

The Rapeublican is an idiot?  We knew that before he derped


No, dummy....

Benjimin_Dover: So just to keep those people who did not read the article up to speed...

Dumbocrats propose a $25 fee on bikes.
A Republitard points out the stupidity of it with sarcasm.
Bike snobs go full retard saying the Republitards be taxin our stuff!


Get it?
 
2013-03-03 11:19:23 AM

gilgamesh23: badhatharry: gilgamesh23: It can't be repeated often enough. CO2 from breathing, bonfires, and biodiesel is 100% carbon neutral

Please repeat it all you want. Maybe you'll realize it doesn't make sense. Burning fossil fuels is just as "carbon neutral" as your breath.

Here is the difference: the carbon dioxide I exhale may have come from a steak or a salad, but either way the carbon came out of the atmosphere. I'm just putting it back into circulation. The fossil fuels we burn release carbon that came out of the ground, and hasn't been a part of the biosphere for millions of years. The species that currently live on this planet have adapted to cooler temperatures than were around those millions of years ago, because as carbon has been fossilized the temperatures have become cooler. The planet is no longer a humid, fern-covered world populated with giant lizards and dragonflies the size of your arm. It's now a world of mammals and trees with ice-covered poles and varied climates.

If this doesn't make sense, that's more on you than me.


So if we do this we can burn all we want?
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-03-03 11:23:04 AM

amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.


What studies like that conveniently leave out is the fact that cycling, especially for commuting, can replace other forms of exercise. Which you should be doing anyway.
 
2013-03-03 11:24:49 AM

workaholicandy: amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.

except that it didn't

http://www.ecf.com/wp-content/uploads/ECF_CO2_WEB.pdf  if you want to read it


It doesn't if you're by yourself.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/mpg-of-a-human/

But if you are talking about MPG per person, a car or bus that's loaded to capacity actually is more efficient.
 
2013-03-03 11:24:54 AM

badhatharry: gilgamesh23: It can't be repeated often enough. CO2 from breathing, bonfires, and biodiesel is 100% carbon neutral

Please repeat it all you want. Maybe you'll realize it doesn't make sense. Burning fossil fuels is just as "carbon neutral" as your breath.


Before the Industrial Revolution, there was carbon in the biosphere, and there was carbon locked away in fossil fuel reserves.  There was very little movement of carbon between these two reserves (the odd rock oil spring, and a lagoon getting buried in mud once in a while).  The level of CO2 in the atmosphere was stable, and the climate was at equilibrium.  Our society was adapted to the conditions then.  Everything we breathed out, and every campfire we lit produced CO2 that ultimately came from the biosphere.  That's was carbon neutral means.  Our fuel source had to take CO2 out of the atmosphere and turn it into an organism of some sort (trees, grain, cows, etc).

Then we started digging up coal and oil and burning that instead.  All that carbon, which had been sequestered from the biosphere for millions of years, suddenly ended up in the atmosphere, and the equilibrium was disturbed.  This is a real phenomenon.  This is not a conspiracy of scientists trying desperately to hold onto their grant money.  Anyone who could possibly think that has never actually met a scientist.

Climate change will not kill the planet.  The biosphere will survive and adapt like it always does.  However, disruptions to our food supply will have massive consequences to society.  It's very much a case of not shiatting where we eat.  If we as a civilisation can't act responsibly and look farther ahead than the next commercial break, maybe we deserve to regress to barbarism.
 
2013-03-03 11:27:08 AM

JonPace: TwowheelinTim: amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.

And idiots like you don't understand that the car is doing all the work. Of course the lazy assed driver isn't giving off as much CO2 as the cyclist, but the automobile carting his fat ass around is giving off more exponentially.

Cars give off CO2 now?

yep. Chemical reactions How do they work?
 
2013-03-03 11:30:09 AM

Joe Blowme: I Ate Shergar: badhatharry: gilgamesh23: It can't be repeated often enough. CO2 from breathing, bonfires, and biodiesel is 100% carbon neutral

Please repeat it all you want. Maybe you'll realize it doesn't make sense. Burning fossil fuels is just as "carbon neutral" as your breath.

You evidently don't understand how the carbon cycle works. Allow me to explain.
Carbon dioxide in your breath is produced from the food you eat - i.e. plants and/or animals that have fed on plants. Said plants get their carbon from CO₂ in the air. Normally the sum total of carbon in the air and living things would remain more or less unchanged, as it continues to cycle from one to the other and back; burning plant matter - such as wood or biodiesel - doesn't affect this, since it's effectively the same, from the cycle's point of view, as eating it. This is what "carbon neutral" means - it doesn't change the amount of carbon in the cycle.
There are two ways this can be changed, however. The amount of carbon in the cycle can go down if some of it is converted into a non-edible, non-biodegradable form - like coal or oil. There used to be way, way more carbon in the atmosphere than there is now; life as we know it would not have been able to exist under those conditions. The fact that so much has been removed over millennia is why the planet currently has an atmosphere - and a climate - we can tolerate. Burning fossil fuels dumps that extra carbon back into the cycle.

so at what % of atmosphere does co2 have to be befaore we all die?


Well, if you're really interested,  here are a few figures, along with the symptoms. (Don't worry, though, it's not going to happen yet.)
 
2013-03-03 11:34:14 AM

Joe Blowme: gilgamesh23: badhatharry: gilgamesh23: It can't be repeated often enough. CO2 from breathing, bonfires, and biodiesel is 100% carbon neutral

Please repeat it all you want. Maybe you'll realize it doesn't make sense. Burning fossil fuels is just as "carbon neutral" as your breath.

Here is the difference: the carbon dioxide I exhale may have come from a steak or a salad, but either way the carbon came out of the atmosphere. I'm just putting it back into circulation. The fossil fuels we burn release carbon that came out of the ground, and hasn't been a part of the biosphere for millions of years. The species that currently live on this planet have adapted to cooler temperatures than were around those millions of years ago, because as carbon has been fossilized the temperatures have become cooler. The planet is no longer a humid, fern-covered world populated with giant lizards and dragonflies the size of your arm. It's now a world of mammals and trees with ice-covered poles and varied climates.

If this doesn't make sense, that's more on you than me.

So if we do this we can burn all we want?
[upload.wikimedia.org image 350x277]


Ideal answer: yes.

Real answer: Waaaaaaaay too complicated to be feasible.  The amount of CO2 released per day vastly outstrips what we can sequester with tree-planting and smokestack capture, plus there's the fact we need to be taking out excess carbon dioxide to bring the levels back to what they were before everything started going tits-up.
 
2013-03-03 11:35:18 AM

Joe Blowme: So if we do this we can burn all we want?


I'm not completely certain what's going on in that infographic. Where is the fuel coming from?

If carbon capture and sequestration is done correctly, then yes, we can burn all the fossil fuels that we want. But the carbon needs to be in a form and in a place where it will not leak out into the environment ever, until plate tectonics pulls the crust it is stored in down into the mantle -- in other words, millions of years. Something like buried limestone would work. I'm leery of those proposals where we're just going to inject CO2 gas into the ground. That doesn't sound like a long-term solution to me.
 
2013-03-03 11:36:58 AM

Enemabag Jones: What can people from Washington state  tell me about his district?

http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/default.aspx?District=20


I'm from BC, so most of what I know about Washington state comes from late-night sketch comedy shows, but the impression I get is that if it's not the Sea-Tac-Olympia corridor, it's darkest pigfarker country.

(I was gonna make a smart-assed remark about coal mine fires, but that's the wrong Centralia.  Washington's the wrong geology for coal, anyway.)
 
2013-03-03 11:39:51 AM
It's just a thinly veiled attempt to draw money from people who aren't getting shafted by state taxes related to automotive use.  The absurd pseudo-scientific justification is just a cover.  Cyclists aren't paying taxes on gasoline, aren't getting ticketed for speeding or parking for too long in a 2-hour space, aren't paying to register vehicles, etc.  The state wants a slice of the action from these people.
 
2013-03-03 11:40:27 AM

edmo: Water vapor is a greenhouse gas also. What can we do about that?

Raise water rates
Tax swimming pools
Drain the oceans

Yell at clouds


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-03 11:59:34 AM

Krieghund: firefly212: johnryan51: This guy is a loon but a bike tax used to build better bike lanes would probably be supported by bikers. I already pay tons of money that goes towards roads, why is it that none of that money could be used towards something that I would use? One of the major sources of road funds is gas taxes. If you aren't driving you aren't paying gas taxes. So now they are just asking you to pay a small fraction of what you would pay in gas taxes to build things that you would use.


www.bigbrownboxblog.com.au

From another redlit article on this tard.

"That people who bike don't pay for roads is demonstrably untrue. Most roads people bike on are paid for by counties and municipalities. In Seattle, gas taxes pay just four percent of the SDOT budget (as of 2009). Most of the rest comes from sources everybody pays, no matter how they get around. On a state level, gas taxes only pay for one quarter of the WSDOT budget. "
 
2013-03-03 12:08:29 PM
Republican?

/Like I had to ask
 
2013-03-03 12:23:39 PM
Any douche who pays $500 or more for a bicycle is truly a douche and needs to pay his fair share of the douche tax.

/Bi cyclists are such a road hazard, they should be required to wear flashing yellow lights and a large license plate to help identify him when the rescue service is scraping him off the pavement after he cuts off a few cars.

These are what we call bikers, so quit being a douche sympathizer by calling bicyclists that.
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-03 12:26:55 PM

Krieghund: firefly212: johnryan51: This guy is a loon but a bike tax used to build better bike lanes would probably be supported by bikers.

I already pay tons of money that goes towards roads, why is it that none of that money could be used towards something that I would use?

One of the major sources of road funds is gas taxes. If you aren't driving you aren't paying gas taxes.

So now they are just asking you to pay a small fraction of what you would pay in gas taxes to build things that you would use.


NO your wrong. Gas taxes pay ONLY for about 25% of ONLY the interstate highway system which comprises ONLY about 1.2% of the roads in the USA.

The more you know!
 
2013-03-03 12:27:55 PM

sheep snorter: These are what we call bikers


Yes,but this thread isn't about dirty meth-addled criminals, it's about cyclists.
 
2013-03-03 12:29:32 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: It's just a thinly veiled attempt to draw money from people who aren't getting shafted by state taxes related to automotive use.  The absurd pseudo-scientific justification is just a cover.  Cyclists aren't paying taxes on gasoline, aren't getting ticketed for speeding or parking for too long in a 2-hour space, aren't paying to register vehicles, etc.  The state wants a slice of the action from these people.


Cycling requires calories, so the city/county/state gets their cut when the cyclist has to buy food.
 
2013-03-03 12:29:39 PM

gilgamesh23: Joe Blowme: So if we do this we can burn all we want?

I'm not completely certain what's going on in that infographic. Where is the fuel coming from?

If carbon capture and sequestration is done correctly, then yes, we can burn all the fossil fuels that we want. But the carbon needs to be in a form and in a place where it will not leak out into the environment ever, until plate tectonics pulls the crust it is stored in down into the mantle -- in other words, millions of years. Something like buried limestone would work. I'm leery of those proposals where we're just going to inject CO2 gas into the ground. That doesn't sound like a long-term solution to me.


Let's bury it in the marianas trench subduction zone.
 
2013-03-03 12:35:23 PM

sheep snorter: These are what we call bikers, so quit being a douche sympathizer by calling bicyclists that.
i.imgur.com


Now I'm confused.  Which ones are the non-douches?
 
2013-03-03 12:37:20 PM

dv-ous: workaholicandy: amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.

except that it didn't

http://www.ecf.com/wp-content/uploads/ECF_CO2_WEB.pdf  if you want to read it

It doesn't if you're by yourself.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/mpg-of-a-human/

But if you are talking about MPG per person, a car or bus that's loaded to capacity actually is more efficient.


Another fail. The ignorance in this thread runs deep. I'm sure you have sources to counter mine on this right?
 
2013-03-03 12:49:09 PM
Some days I feel like I'm talking to kindergarteners.

/No, Jimmy, that's not how climate change works. Let me take out the maps  again and explain...
 
2013-03-03 12:50:25 PM

Enemabag Jones: What can people from Washington state  tell me about his district?

http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/default.aspx?District=20


This billboard is along the side of I-5.

i105.photobucket.com
i105.photobucket.com
i105.photobucket.com

They ain't gonna make the cover of Sanity Fair.
 
2013-03-03 12:54:26 PM
i105.photobucket.com

What the hell?
 
2013-03-03 12:55:24 PM

SpdrJay: The other activity that promotes global warming is masturbation.

This practice clearly needs to be regulated and taxed.....


"...from my cold, dead hands!"
 
2013-03-03 12:59:50 PM

amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.


I saw the same study and the maths only works out if the cyclist eats beef or similar `high co2` food and the car driver is alone in the vehicle, if they are vegetarian or the car has multiple occupants then less co2 is produced.
 
2013-03-03 01:01:57 PM

Enemabag Jones: What can people from Washington state  tell me about his district?

http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/default.aspx?District=20


It's a part of Alabama that you pass through driving between Seattle and Portland.
 
2013-03-03 01:02:50 PM
On another point though, they want to tax co2 at the rate of x per ton, well a person puts that out in a year so should people be taxed at x per year each?

can`t remember the value of x right now...

/maybe the politician thinks he is proposing something to tax the carbon dioxide cycle? BAdum TISH
 
2013-03-03 01:08:51 PM

thamike: [i105.photobucket.com image 350x241]

What the hell?


Not kidding.  Google "Alfred Hamilton Billboard" or "Chehalis Billboard" for more interesting examples.
 
2013-03-03 01:12:07 PM

FloydA: thamike: [i105.photobucket.com image 350x241]

What the hell?

Not kidding.  Google "Alfred Hamilton Billboard" or "Chehalis Billboard" for more interesting examples.


It wasn't the hatred that was shocking so much as the assumption that Mexico doesn't compete in the Olympics.
 
2013-03-03 01:12:37 PM

Eapoe6: Billions of year of changing climate, weather data collected for a hundred years and the ivory tower wonks think "we got this down, man." Local still weather reports can't forecast 6 days out accurately.

Common sense vs billionaires really interested in taxing us for breathing and farting is the argument of our time. Hilarious. What will they do with more money from our paychecks to control the weather?

Goggle terms for fun. "Maunders Minimum" "Medieval warming period" "University of East Anglia email scandal" "Sun spot cycles" "Plants and CO2"  "Russian weather station cherry picking" "Carbon tax" "Lord Mockton looks like Marty Feldman"


Please do tell us, Eapoe6, what you have to say on any of the above that has not already been comprehensively debunked.
 
2013-03-03 01:31:19 PM

Bondith: Climate change will not kill the planet.  The biosphere will survive and adapt like it always does.  However, disruptions to our food supply will have massive consequences to society.  It's very much a case of not shiatting where we eat.  If we as a civilisation can't act responsibly and look farther ahead than the next commercial break, maybe we deserve to regress to barbarism.


"The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are farked....the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!" -- St. Carlin of Morningside
 
2013-03-03 01:32:59 PM

Kensey: Eapoe6: Billions of year of changing climate, weather data collected for a hundred years and the ivory tower wonks think "we got this down, man." Local still weather reports can't forecast 6 days out accurately.

Common sense vs billionaires really interested in taxing us for breathing and farting is the argument of our time. Hilarious. What will they do with more money from our paychecks to control the weather?

Goggle terms for fun. "Maunders Minimum" "Medieval warming period" "University of East Anglia email scandal" "Sun spot cycles" "Plants and CO2"  "Russian weather station cherry picking" "Carbon tax" "Lord Mockton looks like Marty Feldman"

Please do tell us, Eapoe6, what you have to say on any of the above that has not already been comprehensively debunked.


Here's a pro tip for you. When you see the word "debunked" in reference to an idea, pay more attention to that idea. Shut off your TV and think for yourself. Ask who the peers are reviewing the journals. They are not gods in lab coats. I will continue to hold out hope for you.  You're better than a media parrot.  Have some confidence in yourself.
 
2013-03-03 01:33:51 PM

amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.


True, but this is an argument against our globalized food economy, not against bicycling. The exact same effect is caused by literally any calorie-burning activity, and many times over by the obese, who then add to those emissions by driving everywhere they go.
 
2013-03-03 01:35:48 PM

Eapoe6: Kensey: Eapoe6: Billions of year of changing climate, weather data collected for a hundred years and the ivory tower wonks think "we got this down, man." Local still weather reports can't forecast 6 days out accurately.

Common sense vs billionaires really interested in taxing us for breathing and farting is the argument of our time. Hilarious. What will they do with more money from our paychecks to control the weather?

Goggle terms for fun. "Maunders Minimum" "Medieval warming period" "University of East Anglia email scandal" "Sun spot cycles" "Plants and CO2"  "Russian weather station cherry picking" "Carbon tax" "Lord Mockton looks like Marty Feldman"

Please do tell us, Eapoe6, what you have to say on any of the above that has not already been comprehensively debunked.

Here's a pro tip for you. When you see the word "debunked" in reference to an idea, pay more attention to that idea. Shut off your TV and think for yourself. Ask who the peers are reviewing the journals. They are not gods in lab coats. I will continue to hold out hope for you.  You're better than a media parrot.  Have some confidence in yourself.


Ah, here we have a wild specimen of the genus Retardus Paranoius.

Hint: Scientists aren't the comic book supervillians you think they are.
 
2013-03-03 01:38:00 PM

Eapoe6: Kensey: Eapoe6: Billions of year of changing climate, weather data collected for a hundred years and the ivory tower wonks think "we got this down, man." Local still weather reports can't forecast 6 days out accurately.

Common sense vs billionaires really interested in taxing us for breathing and farting is the argument of our time. Hilarious. What will they do with more money from our paychecks to control the weather?

Goggle terms for fun. "Maunders Minimum" "Medieval warming period" "University of East Anglia email scandal" "Sun spot cycles" "Plants and CO2"  "Russian weather station cherry picking" "Carbon tax" "Lord Mockton looks like Marty Feldman"

Please do tell us, Eapoe6, what you have to say on any of the above that has not already been comprehensively debunked.

Here's a pro tip for you. When you see the word "debunked" in reference to an idea, pay more attention to that idea. Shut off your TV and think for yourself. Ask who the peers are reviewing the journals. They are not gods in lab coats. I will continue to hold out hope for you.  You're better than a media parrot.  Have some confidence in yourself.


So the answer to my question is "nothing"?
 
2013-03-03 01:43:43 PM
Republicans. They strain gnats out of their wine and swallow camels (stuffed turducken style).

One, humans produce about 300kg of CO2 a year by breathing. This is well under the limit that humans can produce without causing global warming. Also, like the use of wood, this is part of the natural cycle of oxygen and carbon dioxide and is compensated by the intake of carbon dioxide by the plants we eat and the animals that eat them. It is not adding to the CO2 in the atmosphere the same way that releasing buried CO2 from fossil fuels does, or the way that destroying carbon sinks such as forests and coral reefs does. Humans do many things to alter the natural balance of CO2 release and sequestration but this is not one of them.

Two, bicycles are not something to be encouraged by TAX INCREASES. This kind of TAX INCREASE is not productive. After all, by using less GASOLINE, bicyclists help to keep the PRICE OF GASOLINE down. Clearly, REPUBLCANS ARE FOR HIGHER TAXES AND HIGHER GASOLINE PRICES AND TAXING MORE PEOPLE MORE TO KEEP UP THE PRICE OF GASOLINE.

Three, this guy looks like a douche, talks like a douche and associates with douches, therefor he must be a douche.

I am OK with higher taxes (if they are fair and needed) and with higher gasoline prices (it's very foolish to subsidize gasoline consumption like they do in Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.--even the USA and Canada, which are relatively small producers do this to the tune of $620 billion a year in supports to the fossil fuel industries which is at least six times as much as the governments in questons extract from your pockets to support alternative, clean, green power and fuels.

But this is sheer foolishness. Even though gas taxes are not paid by people who are not using gas (except indirectly in the cost of every good and service we buy, which makes them highly regressive, like sales taxes and excise taxes and even, oddly enough, property taxes) this seems fair, just, correct, and moral to me. You should be rewarded for doing good and punished for harming the environment and society. We may need transportation but we don't need to be wasteful or distort consumption through foolish taxes or laws.

It is foolish, injust and just plain crazy to ask cyclists or pedestrians or electric car drivers to shoulder the burden of fossil fuel subsidies when they are peddling their little feet as hard as they can to make the world clean, safe, happy and properous by using less fuel, thus leaving more fuel for OUR EVIL REPTILIAN ALIEN OVERLORDS AND OTHER REPUBLICANS to buy at lower prices.

In other words, we gave our share of the gas taxes on our way to the office, home, shopping, etc. Charging cyclists and pedestrians more for their bikes and shoes and non-use of fuel would be a kind of DOUBLE TAXATION ON THE MIDDLE CLASSES AND WORKING PEOPLE, which is of course quite natural, because REPUBLICANS ARE FOR HIGHER TAXES FOR THE MIDDLE CLASSES AND WORKING PEOPLE. They just don't want to do their patriotic duty themselves by paying taxes or serving their nation. As the suburbanites say, that's for THOSE OTHER PEOPLE, NOT PEOPLE LIKE US.

Which is why Michael Moore was being really mean when he went around asking PEOPLE LIKE US in Congress how many children they had fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, he also asked Democrats. Damn few congress critters are paying for their wars and their dictator oil with their own blood or the blood of their children and grandchildren. That's somebody else's patriotic duty, not the duty of PEOPLE LIKE US.

Pharisees, Sadducees, Douche Bags, White-Washed Tombs, Hypocrites. What would Jesus call Republicans?
 
2013-03-03 01:48:16 PM

Eapoe6: Here's a pro tip for you. When you see the word "debunked" in reference to an idea, pay more attention to that idea.


If you mean start looking at which other dubious ideas are affected by the debunking of the first idea, that's a good pro-tip.  If you mean that debunked ideas are the best kind of ideas in disguise, I don't think I want to be whatever kind of professional you are.
 
2013-03-03 01:53:02 PM

Joe Blowme: I Ate Shergar: badhatharry: gilgamesh23: It can't be repeated often enough. CO2 from breathing, bonfires, and biodiesel is 100% carbon neutral

Please repeat it all you want. Maybe you'll realize it doesn't make sense. Burning fossil fuels is just as "carbon neutral" as your breath.

You evidently don't understand how the carbon cycle works. Allow me to explain.
Carbon dioxide in your breath is produced from the food you eat - i.e. plants and/or animals that have fed on plants. Said plants get their carbon from CO₂ in the air. Normally the sum total of carbon in the air and living things would remain more or less unchanged, as it continues to cycle from one to the other and back; burning plant matter - such as wood or biodiesel - doesn't affect this, since it's effectively the same, from the cycle's point of view, as eating it. This is what "carbon neutral" means - it doesn't change the amount of carbon in the cycle.
There are two ways this can be changed, however. The amount of carbon in the cycle can go down if some of it is converted into a non-edible, non-biodegradable form - like coal or oil. There used to be way, way more carbon in the atmosphere than there is now; life as we know it would not have been able to exist under those conditions. The fact that so much has been removed over millennia is why the planet currently has an atmosphere - and a climate - we can tolerate. Burning fossil fuels dumps that extra carbon back into the cycle.

so at what % of atmosphere does co2 have to be befaore we all die?


Well, there was something called the Permian Extinction. Prior to this there were a ton of mammal-like reptiles roaming around. The O2 levels decreased, the CO2 and methane increased. Vulcanism raised the temperature. The Siberian Traps, for example, release a very high percent of CO2 compared to other volcanic areas because of the rocks around there. As the ocean temps rose, methane normally trapped along the banks of deep-sea continental shelves escaped. The only land animals of consequence to survive were from very high altitudes, with huge lung capacities adapted to low oxygen content. There were a LOT of them, so it kind of throws people off. 76% of land vertebrate species died but there's all these big reptiles all over the damned place. 90% of them were one type of reptile.

The book Gorgon! is a fantastic look into it and easily accessible to many readers, if you can find a copy.  There's still people looking for some sort of positive evidence of an impactor because it makes extinctions so obvious but the stuff I've read and the geologists I've talked with have pointed primarily at changes in methane, CO2 and oxygen levels in the atmosphere as the primary culprits, accompanied by increases in global temperature (about 6 degrees C at the equator, more at higher lattitudes, iirc). So at least one big extinction event is thought to be the result of shifts. It's been several years since I read that book but the major themes from it stick with me because it is one of the few that actually shows the type of thing that other scientists see happening around us today.
 
2013-03-03 01:55:31 PM

stirfrybry: gilgamesh23: Joe Blowme: So if we do this we can burn all we want?

I'm not completely certain what's going on in that infographic. Where is the fuel coming from?

If carbon capture and sequestration is done correctly, then yes, we can burn all the fossil fuels that we want. But the carbon needs to be in a form and in a place where it will not leak out into the environment ever, until plate tectonics pulls the crust it is stored in down into the mantle -- in other words, millions of years. Something like buried limestone would work. I'm leery of those proposals where we're just going to inject CO2 gas into the ground. That doesn't sound like a long-term solution to me.

Let's bury it in the marianas trench subduction zone.


Yes, that sounds easy, cheap, and not prone to any major catastrophes.
 
2013-03-03 02:09:27 PM

gilgamesh23: Joe Blowme: So if we do this we can burn all we want?

I'm not completely certain what's going on in that infographic. Where is the fuel coming from?

If carbon capture and sequestration is done correctly, then yes, we can burn all the fossil fuels that we want. But the carbon needs to be in a form and in a place where it will not leak out into the environment ever, until plate tectonics pulls the crust it is stored in down into the mantle -- in other words, millions of years. Something like buried limestone would work. I'm leery of those proposals where we're just going to inject CO2 gas into the ground. That doesn't sound like a long-term solution to me.


You know, there is actually a much simpler solution. It's not quite as long term - you'd have to keep doing it for longer.

Grow and bury trees. Trees suck up a lot of carbon, and if you ensure the tree doesn't rot or burn above ground, CO2 sequestered. Obviously some will seep out, but that's why you just keep doing it. It's not like trees are a finite resource - you can just keep growing 'em.
 
2013-03-03 02:15:27 PM

LavenderWolf: Grow and bury trees. Trees suck up a lot of carbon, and if you ensure the tree doesn't rot or burn above ground, CO2 sequestered. Obviously some will seep out, but that's why you just keep doing it. It's not like trees are a finite resource - you can just keep growing 'em.


I had an idea to take all the carbon-offset taxes the hippies were paying and use them to pay Chinese peasants to grow and harvest bamboo by hand, and then bury it in abandoned coal mines.  Bamboo grows stupidly fast, you can use treated sewage from any of Chinas innumerable cities to avoid depleting the soil, and China has both the raw manpower and utter disregard for workers' rights that this scheme requires to be effective.
 
2013-03-03 02:22:10 PM
So people who ride bikes that cost over $500, breathe more?
 
2013-03-03 02:26:23 PM

bratface: So people who ride bikes that cost over $500, breathe more?


Must be draining.
 
2013-03-03 02:26:25 PM

thamike: FloydA: thamike: [i105.photobucket.com image 350x241]

What the hell?

Not kidding.  Google "Alfred Hamilton Billboard" or "Chehalis Billboard" for more interesting examples.

It wasn't the hatred that was shocking so much as the assumption that Mexico doesn't compete in the Olympics.



Ah, yes, well... the gentleman in question is not on particularly intimate terms with facts and reality.
 
2013-03-03 02:28:22 PM
Condoms, vibrators, and other accoutrements of sex should be taxed too since sex, heavy breathing and global warming all go together
 
2013-03-03 02:42:25 PM

sheep snorter: Any douche who pays $500 or more for a bicycle is truly a douche and needs to pay his fair share of the douche tax.


3/10 but I fear you are serious. If so, make a list of all of the things you've ever purchased over $500. In someone's opinion, you are a douche for 90% of those purchases, and that someone's opinion is worth just as much as yours.
 
2013-03-03 03:09:04 PM

LavenderWolf: gilgamesh23: Joe Blowme: So if we do this we can burn all we want?

I'm not completely certain what's going on in that infographic. Where is the fuel coming from?

If carbon capture and sequestration is done correctly, then yes, we can burn all the fossil fuels that we want. But the carbon needs to be in a form and in a place where it will not leak out into the environment ever, until plate tectonics pulls the crust it is stored in down into the mantle -- in other words, millions of years. Something like buried limestone would work. I'm leery of those proposals where we're just going to inject CO2 gas into the ground. That doesn't sound like a long-term solution to me.

You know, there is actually a much simpler solution. It's not quite as long term - you'd have to keep doing it for longer.

Grow and bury trees. Trees suck up a lot of carbon, and if you ensure the tree doesn't rot or burn above ground, CO2 sequestered. Obviously some will seep out, but that's why you just keep doing it. It's not like trees are a finite resource - you can just keep growing 'em.


Yes, this is a great idea. I'll tell you what, get out your shovel and start digging, because if you use heavy equipment to perform this task you'll surely discharge more CO2 than what you're burying.

NEXT!
 
2013-03-03 03:09:47 PM

Repo Man: You consider a $500.00 bicycle a luxury? How many decades has it been since you've shopped for a bicycle?


Back in 1994 I bought an 18-speed mountain bike for $300.  It looks like new mountain bikes are still around that same 1994 price point with some inflation (high $300s looking at the website of the shop I bought from in '94).  Looks to me like a $500 bike has about $100 worth of luxury built in.
 
2013-03-03 03:12:33 PM

Kensey: Repo Man: You consider a $500.00 bicycle a luxury? How many decades has it been since you've shopped for a bicycle?

Back in 1994 I bought an 18-speed mountain bike for $300.  It looks like new mountain bikes are still around that same 1994 price point with some inflation (high $300s looking at the website of the shop I bought from in '94).  Looks to me like a $500 bike has about $100 worth of luxury built in.


This only shows how little you know about bicycles. Well done.
 
2013-03-03 03:16:17 PM
Global warming is caused by feeding mongo beans
 
2013-03-03 03:45:03 PM

TwowheelinTim: Kensey: Repo Man: You consider a $500.00 bicycle a luxury? How many decades has it been since you've shopped for a bicycle?

Back in 1994 I bought an 18-speed mountain bike for $300.  It looks like new mountain bikes are still around that same 1994 price point with some inflation (high $300s looking at the website of the shop I bought from in '94).  Looks to me like a $500 bike has about $100 worth of luxury built in.

This only shows how little you know about bicycles. Well done.


I got around Charlottesville with a bike much like the one linked for several years, because I had no car.  I'm certainly not a bike hipster, I guess you got me there, but I'm not sure what your actual point is.
 
2013-03-03 03:49:49 PM

badhatharry: Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.


Yes it is.

If one vastly increases the amount of a chemical into the environment which indisputably results in harm, then clearly it is pollution.

1) Most of the extra carbon dioxide ends up in the oceans where some of it by normal chemical equilibrium gets turned into carbonic acid.    This has had a profound effect and it is killing the coral and other organisms.

2) The carbon dioxide that is retained in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas that MUST increase the temperature if one believes the laws of physics (unless one also does something else that causes lowered temperatures).  This is a very undesirable for human civilization which has a HUGE vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

And yes human activity has vastly increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

/Again, animals breathing does not result in extra CO2 in the atmosphere.
 
2013-03-03 04:05:27 PM

badhatharry: TheMysteriousStranger: ComicBookGuy: But I thought Reoublicans were against new taxes?

This is not a tax on billionaires and on the odd chance there is a billionaire cyclist, a one-time twenty-five buck tax is both inconsequential for billionaires and regressive.

A $25 tax on a $500 bike is not going to burden the poor. Except the guys that build $500 bikes.


You make the assumption that poor people don't buy $500 bikes but your wrong. I know plenty of poor people with $500 bikes. Spending $500 to buy a nice solid bike, that may need $50 per year in upkeep as opposed to the thousands in upkeep and gas one might dump into a $500 car, is often the wisest financial move anyone could ever make.
 
2013-03-03 04:08:10 PM

LavenderWolf: Grow and bury trees. Trees suck up a lot of carbon, and if you ensure the tree doesn't rot or burn above ground, CO2 sequestered. Obviously some will seep out, but that's why you just keep doing it. It's not like trees are a finite resource - you can just keep growing 'em.


It has the potential to work, although it sounds like an energy-intensive solution to me. Has the benefit that you can do it anywhere -- you're not limited to capturing CO2 at its source. But you'd have to bury a LOT of trees very deep. Seems like it would involve untenable amounts of energy.
 
2013-03-03 05:18:04 PM
We had to license our bicycles in Hawaii. I'm not sure why more states don't require it. It really does make sense and it is fair for all parties.

They get a bit of revenue to help with maintenance like painting lines on bike lanes etc. The bicycles are registered so theft is easier to deal with because people actually have their serial numbers (most folks don't bother for some reason and get pissy when their shiat is unrecoverable) and gee, by insisting on licensing, you force people to acknowledge the laws regarding helmets (if there are any local ones) riding on sidewalks etc. so they can't claim ignorance and you get clean revenue.

You also mitigate some of the animosity non-cyclists and cyclists feel because things are a bit more "fair" then it comes to paying for things like road maintenance etc.

Lets just licence bikes for 10 bucks a year or even two and call it good.
 
2013-03-03 05:20:41 PM

Kensey: Repo Man: You consider a $500.00 bicycle a luxury? How many decades has it been since you've shopped for a bicycle?

Back in 1994 I bought an 18-speed mountain bike for $300.  It looks like new mountain bikes are still around that same 1994 price point with some inflation (high $300s looking at the website of the shop I bought from in '94).  Looks to me like a $500 bike has about $100 worth of luxury built in.


My Kikapu has about 1200 in Luxury built in thank you very much.
 
2013-03-03 06:05:34 PM

thamike: FloydA: thamike: [i105.photobucket.com image 350x241]

What the hell?

Not kidding.  Google "Alfred Hamilton Billboard" or "Chehalis Billboard" for more interesting examples.

It wasn't the hatred that was shocking so much as the assumption that Mexico doesn't compete in the Olympics.


Eh, 1 gold, 3 silver, 3 bronze in 2012? They DON'T compete in the Olympics. Hell, Azerbaijan creamed them. And how many Azerbaijani medalists can *you* name without the Googles?
 
2013-03-03 07:44:17 PM

amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.


Bikes take less space to drive and I couldn't imagine the amount of bike traffic you'd need to ever wear out a road. Couple this with less of a need to plan the routes due to speed limit considerations and the overall package is far in favor of bikes. Not only that, it takes far less petroleum to build and service bikes. I recall reading the same or some other study making the same claims, but there is a net positive for bikes in terms of long-term CO2 expenditures. If we really want to go with CO2 taxes (which I could go either way for non-industrial usage) cars should see a big tax, beyond the measly gasoline tax.

My city is getting more bicycle-friendly, but it's still not there. I'd be in favor of a license if I knew it was going to go toward improving and expanding the bike lanes, and I wouldn't drive it much more than just to work (next door) and to the convenience store down the street. Then again, the roads we have expanded for bike lanes are poorly done, and I don't expect the asphalt to last too long.
 
2013-03-04 12:22:22 AM
Kensey:Back in 1994 I bought an 18-speed mountain bike for $300.  It looks like new mountain bikes are still around that same 1994 price point with some inflation (high $300s looking at the website of the shop I bought from in '94).  Looks to me like a $500 bike has about $100 worth of luxury built in.

Any new bike that is going to get you any decent distance and not fall to pieces in a month or two is going to run you at least $700.
 
2013-03-04 01:36:09 AM
An indirect tax on breathing.   *blink*

i48.tinypic.com
Oh, Republicans!  Always coming up with new ways to make my head asplode.
 
2013-03-04 03:19:05 AM

amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.


What about people who consume the extra calories, then drive instead of running or bicycling?
 
2013-03-04 03:21:21 AM

pciszek: amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.

What about people who consume the extra calories, then drive instead of running or bicycling?


They're fat.
 
2013-03-04 04:38:34 AM

untaken_name: pciszek: amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.

What about people who consume the extra calories, then drive instead of running or bicycling?

They're fat.


not necessarily, they could be purging
 
2013-03-04 05:06:58 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: untaken_name: pciszek: amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.

What about people who consume the extra calories, then drive instead of running or bicycling?

They're fat.

not necessarily, they could be purging


Good point. Horrible mental image, but good point.
 
2013-03-04 07:45:58 AM
i26.photobucket.com
And its a great way to kill the planet...
 
2013-03-04 07:50:09 AM
fortunately running is ok
 
2013-03-04 01:13:36 PM

johnryan51: This guy is a loon but a bike tax used to build better bike lanes would probably be supported by bikers.


Agreed. I wouldn't mind paying taxes for better bike lanes.
 
2013-03-04 02:13:27 PM

BradleyUffner: Kensey:Back in 1994 I bought an 18-speed mountain bike for $300.  It looks like new mountain bikes are still around that same 1994 price point with some inflation (high $300s looking at the website of the shop I bought from in '94).  Looks to me like a $500 bike has about $100 worth of luxury built in.

Any new bike that is going to get you any decent distance and not fall to pieces in a month or two is going to run you at least $700.


So a $370 Trek is significantly worse quality than the $300 1994 Diamondback that I used for three years and sold for a decent price?
 
2013-03-04 02:17:56 PM

Kensey: BradleyUffner: Kensey:Back in 1994 I bought an 18-speed mountain bike for $300.  It looks like new mountain bikes are still around that same 1994 price point with some inflation (high $300s looking at the website of the shop I bought from in '94).  Looks to me like a $500 bike has about $100 worth of luxury built in.

Any new bike that is going to get you any decent distance and not fall to pieces in a month or two is going to run you at least $700.

So a $370 Trek is significantly worse quality than the $300 1994 Diamondback that I used for three years and sold for a decent price?


Oops, I linked the wrong bike up top.  This is the one I was looking at.
 
2013-03-04 02:28:56 PM
Kensey:So a $370 Trek is significantly worse quality than the $300 1994 Diamondback that I used for three years and sold for a decent price?

The first bike I bought as an adult was a $350 Diamondback mountain bike.  The rear axle broke twice and the frame was bent within 1.5 years (professionally repaired each time).  I never did anything remotely "mountain" with it; the closest being some gravel paved rail trails.  The vast majority of use was on nice paved streets.  The 3 $700+ bikes I've bought since have all seen FAR more daily use and have each been in perfect working order for at least 3 years each.
 
2013-03-04 10:10:21 PM
What a blithering dolt. Double castrate him.
 
Displayed 168 of 168 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report