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 17
    More: Fail, Northwest, bike shop, cultural bias, KGW  
•       •       •

8997 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-03 06:58:00 AM  
5 votes:
This guy is a loon but a bike tax used to build better bike lanes would probably be supported by bikers.
2013-03-03 09:56:24 AM  
2 votes:
So they don't believe in it, but they think cyclists are causing it?
2013-03-03 07:54:13 AM  
2 votes:
With that kind of keen analytical insight I'm shocked the GOP hasn't named him Chairman of the Education Committee.
2013-03-03 07:19:15 AM  
2 votes:

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 03:41:17 AM  
2 votes:
Looks like someone else wanted attention..
2013-03-03 05:18:04 PM  
1 votes:
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 11:14:07 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:09:55 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:03:18 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:42:31 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:36:27 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:08:20 AM  
1 votes:
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 08:48:57 AM  
1 votes:
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 08:41:12 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:05:30 AM  
1 votes:
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 08:02:11 AM  
1 votes:
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 08:01:50 AM  
1 votes:
If it keeps the Rs from talking about rape, it may be worth it.
 
Displayed 17 of 17 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report