Cycling not related to global warming

[Simon Brooke]

It being Sunday, and morning, and my brain not being full into gear yet, I
was idly playing with data visualisation tools, as you do, getting ideas
for the design of something I'm trying to make...

Try this:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=bicycle,+cycling,+global+warming

That really surprised me.

Firstly, both the 'bicycle' and 'cycling' graphs peak sharply in July,
indicating to me that interest in the TdF, by itself, outstrips interest
in all other cycling activities put together (this is more true if you
look at the data from just the US, slightly less true if you look at the
data from just the UK).

But secondly, even ignoring the July anomaly, I can see no correlation
whatever in that graph between 'cycling' and 'global warming'. For the
average person in the UK, private car usage accounts for 21% of their
personal carbon footprint, second only to domestic heat and power. So for
the average person, switching journeys from car to bike would be one of
the most significant ways they could reduce their carbon footprint. We
seem to have completely failed to get that message across.

By contrast, there's vastly better match in the UK between 'bicycle'
and 'congestion charge', but that could be coincidental because for some
reason 'congestion charge' also seems to peak annually in July.

http://www.google.com/trends?q=bicycle,+congestion+charge&ctab=0&geo=GB

Conclusions:

We haven't got the message across about cycling as an ecologically
responsible choice (or people just don't care).

Taxes do far more to encourage interest in cycling than social
responsibility.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; lovely alternative to rice.

 

[Mark McNeill]

Response to Simon Brooke:


The best laugh that the Reith Lectures ever gave me - and there's been
some stiff competition, I can tell you - was from Lord Broers a couple
of years ago: remember the online poll to find the Bestest Invention,
which was won by the bicycle?


I quote from Message-ID: <[email protected]>

> Apparently they were
> disappointed with such an 'unimaginative' result.

That was Lord Broers' opinion of the previous survey, in the first of
his Reith Lectures. According to Sue Lawley's introduction to the last
of them last night, such a choice was - in his opinion - as much a
failure of the scientific community as of public ignorance.

She went on to express his hope that technology could help to solve such
pressing problems as, um, road congestion, pollution, disease, and
global warming. ;-)

endquote


> Firstly, both the 'bicycle' and 'cycling' graphs peak sharply in July,
> indicating to me that interest in the TdF, by itself, outstrips interest
> in all other cycling activities put together (this is more true if you
> look at the data from just the US, slightly less true if you look at the
> data from just the UK).

For the US it's a Lance/Landis thang, isn't it, to a great degree.


> Taxes do far more to encourage interest in cycling than social
> responsibility.

After thinking of Lance, IRTA "Texans do far more...". I wish.


--
Mark, UK
"Without the aid of prejudice and custom, I should not be able to find
my way across the room."

 

[Paul Rudin]

Simon Brooke <[email protected]> writes:

> It being Sunday, and morning, and my brain not being full into gear yet, I
> was idly playing with data visualisation tools, as you do, getting ideas
> for the design of something I'm trying to make...
>
> Try this:
>
> http://www.google.com/trends?q=bicycle,+cycling,+global+warming
>
> That really surprised me.
>
> Firstly, both the 'bicycle' and 'cycling' graphs peak sharply in July,
> indicating to me that interest in the TdF, by itself, outstrips interest
> in all other cycling activities put together (this is more true if you
> look at the data from just the US, slightly less true if you look at the
> data from just the UK).
>

OTOH maybe it's because July is when the school holidays start and all
the SUV owners do their once a year "oh we should go for a bike ride
with the kids" thing?

> ... because for some reason 'congestion charge' also seems to peak
> annually in July.

Maybe it's because July is when the school holidays start and all the
SUV owners do their once a year "oh we should to go to
$London-attraction with the kids - gosh look we have to pay to drive
there" thing?

 

[Adam Lea]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> It being Sunday, and morning, and my brain not being full into gear yet, I
> was idly playing with data visualisation tools, as you do, getting ideas
> for the design of something I'm trying to make...
>
> Try this:
>
> http://www.google.com/trends?q=bicycle,+cycling,+global+warming
>
> That really surprised me.
>
> Firstly, both the 'bicycle' and 'cycling' graphs peak sharply in July,
> indicating to me that interest in the TdF, by itself, outstrips interest
> in all other cycling activities put together (this is more true if you
> look at the data from just the US, slightly less true if you look at the
> data from just the UK).
>
> But secondly, even ignoring the July anomaly, I can see no correlation
> whatever in that graph between 'cycling' and 'global warming'. For the
> average person in the UK, private car usage accounts for 21% of their
> personal carbon footprint, second only to domestic heat and power. So for
> the average person, switching journeys from car to bike would be one of
> the most significant ways they could reduce their carbon footprint. We
> seem to have completely failed to get that message across.
>
> By contrast, there's vastly better match in the UK between 'bicycle'
> and 'congestion charge', but that could be coincidental because for some
> reason 'congestion charge' also seems to peak annually in July.
>
> http://www.google.com/trends?q=bicycle,+congestion+charge&ctab=0&geo=GB
>
> Conclusions:
>
> We haven't got the message across about cycling as an ecologically
> responsible choice (or people just don't care).
>
> Taxes do far more to encourage interest in cycling than social
> responsibility.
>

It is difficult to persuade people to take up utility cycling if they have
no interest in it whatsoever. It would be like me trying to persuade you to
take up bridge on the basis that it may help delay the onset of alzheimers.

Regarding GW some people can't make the connection between personal
lifestyle choices and the wider implications, or (Matt B) refuse to believe
that mass car use has any appreciable effects whatsoever, or play the "but
but China" card, or just trot out the tired old skeptic arguments. Airing
**** channel 4 "documentaries" doesn't help either.

If you want to reduce your carbon footprint, substituting car mileage for
bicycle mileage is one way but ideally you need to do other things as well
(e.g. insulate homes properly, buy locally sourced food etc).

 

[raisethe]

On 13 May, 12:39, "Adam Lea" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "> Regarding GW some people can't make the connection between personal
> lifestyle choices and the wider implications, or (Matt B) refuse to believe
> that mass car use has any appreciable effects whatsoever, or play the "but
> but China" card, or just trot out the tired old skeptic arguments. Airing
> **** channel 4 "documentaries" doesn't help either.
>

It has not been shown conclusively that GW is caused by humans. Some
scientists say it has, some say it hasn't. GW has become like racism,
where if you do not take the PC view you are immediately dismissed as
a racist. Like many in GB, you have fallen into the same trap with
regard to GW.

Try and look at the problem with an open mind.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, raisethe
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On 13 May, 12:39, "Adam Lea" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "> Regarding GW some people can't make the connection between personal
>> lifestyle choices and the wider implications, or (Matt B) refuse to
>> believe that mass car use has any appreciable effects whatsoever, or
>> play the "but but China" card, or just trot out the tired old skeptic
>> arguments. Airing **** channel 4 "documentaries" doesn't help either.
>
> It has not been shown conclusively that GW is caused by humans. Some
> scientists say it has, some say it hasn't.

Yes, but under those circumstances you look at who, and what their
reputations are, and how many, and who they're being paid by. You can find
some professional historians who are willing to deny the holocaust
happened, if you pay them enough.

And, frankly, even if global warming isn't being caused by humans (and
personally I'm not making the case either way), it's still going to wipe
out a big chunk of the world's population and completely wreck the global
economy unless we start doing something about it urgently.

> Try and look at the problem with an open mind.

Exactly.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; I'll have a proper rant later, when I get the time.

 

[Tony Raven]

Simon Brooke wrote on 13/05/2007 15:02 +0100:
>
> Yes, but under those circumstances you look at who, and what their
> reputations are, and how many, and who they're being paid by.
>

That's what people said about Warren and Marshall who became pariahs in
the scientific community for their theories of h. pylori and stomach
ulcers. Now their theories are accepted as right and the rest of the
community was wrong. That's not to say that this is the case here but
science is based on continuous testing and challenging of ideas.
Suppressing or ridiculing opposing views is usually reserved for
politics or religion and has no place in science.


--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

 

[raisethe]

On 13 May, 15:17, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> Simon Brooke wrote on 13/05/2007 15:02 +0100:
>
>
>
> > Yes, but under those circumstances you look at who, and what their
> > reputations are, and how many, and who they're being paid by.
>
> That's what people said about Warren and Marshall who became pariahs in
> the scientific community for their theories of h. pylori and stomach
> ulcers. Now their theories are accepted as right and the rest of the
> community was wrong. That's not to say that this is the case here but
> science is based on continuous testing and challenging of ideas.
> Suppressing or ridiculing opposing views is usually reserved for
> politics or religion and has no place in science.
>
> --
> Tony
>
> "

Absolutely, and it is definitely the case that there are some
scientists who hold anti PC GW views who are getting smeared in the
way Simon is doing.

Personally I wouldn't give myself a stomach ulcer to prove that the
rest of the world is wrong, but W & M are proof that in many cases the
majority are wrong. I would also argue that suppressing and ridiculing
opposing views should have no place in politics or religion either.

Surely understanding the causes of GW is vital in the effort to deal
with it?

Sigh, waiting for the Giro to start.

 

[Tony Raven]

raisethe wrote on 13/05/2007 15:38 +0100:
>
> Absolutely, and it is definitely the case that there are some
> scientists who hold anti PC GW views who are getting smeared in the
> way Simon is doing.
>

There's a list of some of them and their credentials here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

 

[Nick Kew]

On Sun, 13 May 2007 10:52:55 +0100
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> Conclusions:
>
> We haven't got the message across about cycling as an ecologically
> responsible choice (or people just don't care).

Primarily the latter. People who care enough to do something
(about any issue) will always be a fringe group.

> Taxes do far more to encourage interest in cycling than social
> responsibility.

Of course! That's the lesson of history, again and again and again.
The kind of schemes they talk about now for getting people to
reduce consumption are social engineering, and that always fails.
What we need is real economic incentives.

My proposal would be a very large reduction in direct taxation,
both on individuals and businesses, and a shift of that burden
to environmentally damaging and unsustainable activities and
use of scarce resources. A nice medium-term target would be
complete elimination of the portion of our tax known as
"national insurance".

http://bahumbug.wordpress.com/2006/10/30/green-taxes/

--
not me guv

 

[raisethe]

On 13 May, 15:51, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> There's a list of some of them and their credentials here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warmi...
>
>

I think its hard to ignore these scientists as a random bunch of
nutters on the payroll of the oil companies.

In case GW turns into a passing fad, or is shown to be outside human
control, cycling advocates might do better to not focus on this area
too much. The more tangible environmental benefits of cycling, such as
reducing pollution and congestion in built up areas, and using less
fossil fuels (gr?) are probably better areas to concentrate on.

 

[raisethe]

On 13 May, 16:47, Nick Kew <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2007 10:52:55 +0100
>
> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Conclusions:
>
> > We haven't got the message across about cycling as an ecologically
> > responsible choice (or people just don't care).
>
> Primarily the latter. People who care enough to do something
> (about any issue) will always be a fringe group.
>
> > Taxes do far more to encourage interest in cycling than social
> > responsibility.
>
> Of course! That's the lesson of history, again and again and again.
> The kind of schemes they talk about now for getting people to
> reduce consumption are social engineering, and that always fails.
> What we need is real economic incentives.
>
> My proposal would be a very large reduction in direct taxation,
> both on individuals and businesses, and a shift of that burden
> to environmentally damaging and unsustainable activities and
> use of scarce resources. A nice medium-term target would be
> complete elimination of the portion of our tax known as
> "national insurance".
>
> http://bahumbug.wordpress.com/2006/10/30/green-taxes/
>
> --
> not me guv

Two more reasons why environmental taxes are the way to go:

1. They are fair. If you pollute, cause congestion, whatever, you pay
for it. If you don't, you are better off. Tax rates can be set at such
a level that pollution etc is at a level deemed acceptable. If you
purchase an environmentally unsound product, you do not need to feel
guilt because you know that in total environmental harm is at a
socially acceptable level.

2. Many people who voluntarily 'do their bit' for the environment are
pretty stupid and ineffectual. For example, they get obsessed by
recycling but drive cars. Most of the goods they buy are manufactured
in dirty Chinese factories and have to be transported RTW. They buy
tasteless processed foods assembled with ingredients sourced
worldwide. When you challenge them on it they go quiet and look hurt
but close their minds to their ludicrous behaviour. Relying on
benevolent individuals to contain their own dirty purchasing decisions
is not an option, and the best way to ration environmental damage is
by price, ie taxation.

 

[Adam Lea]

"raisethe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 13 May, 12:39, "Adam Lea" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "> Regarding GW some people can't make the connection between personal
>> lifestyle choices and the wider implications, or (Matt B) refuse to
>> believe
>> that mass car use has any appreciable effects whatsoever, or play the
>> "but
>> but China" card, or just trot out the tired old skeptic arguments. Airing
>> **** channel 4 "documentaries" doesn't help either.
>>
>
> It has not been shown conclusively that GW is caused by humans.

You can't "prove" anything in science, what you have is observations and
then try to formulate a theory to explain those observations. As time goes
on an dnew observations are made the theory gets altered and improved. That
is how science works.

> Some
> scientists say it has, some say it hasn't

The majority view is that is has. The ones that claim it hasn't are
dwindling in number.

> GW has become like racism,
> where if you do not take the PC view you are immediately dismissed as
> a racist.

This is merely your opinion.

> Like many in GB, you have fallen into the same trap with
> regard to GW.

That is an interesting ad hominen attack. My stance is based on study as I
work in a similar field. If you knew me you would realise that I don't
accept all the "doom and gloom" predictions.

>
> Try and look at the problem with an open mind.
>

You say this but at the same time state that GW has become like racism. That
does not sound like an open minded view to me.

 

[Adam Lea]

"raisethe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 13 May, 15:17, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> Personally I wouldn't give myself a stomach ulcer to prove that the
> rest of the world is wrong, but W & M are proof that in many cases the
> majority are wrong.

No they are proof that it is merely possible for the majority to be wrong.
How can one example possibly prove "many cases"?

 

[mb]

On Sun, 13 May 2007 19:00:26 +0100, Adam Lea wrote:

>
> You can't "prove" anything in science, what you have is observations and
> then try to formulate a theory to explain those observations. As time goes
> on an dnew observations are made the theory gets altered and improved. That
> is how science works.
>

How would your theory work with, say, Newtons Laws?

--
Mike
Van Tuyl titanium Dura Ace 10
Fausto Coppi aluminium Ultegra 10
Raleigh Record Sprint mongrel

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

raisethe wrote:
> Absolutely, and it is definitely the case that there are some
> scientists who hold anti PC GW views who are getting smeared in the
> way Simon is doing.
>
> Personally I wouldn't give myself a stomach ulcer to prove that the
> rest of the world is wrong, but W & M are proof that in many cases the
> majority are wrong. I would also argue that suppressing and ridiculing
> opposing views should have no place in politics or religion either.
>
> Surely understanding the causes of GW is vital in the effort to deal
> with it?
>
I don't understand what you're talking about but the quantity of
acronyms suggests you're well-informed.
--
A

 

[Danny Colyer]

Adam Lea wrote:
>>You can't "prove" anything in science, what you have is observations and
>>then try to formulate a theory to explain those observations. As time goes
>>on an dnew observations are made the theory gets altered and improved. That
>>is how science works.

and mb wondered:
> How would your theory work with, say, Newtons Laws?

MOND, anybody?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics>

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down.
Daddy, why did you put that down?" - Charlie Colyer, age 2

 

[raisethe]

On 13 May, 19:00, "Adam Lea" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> > You can't "prove" anything in science, what you have is observations and
> then try to formulate a theory to explain those observations. As time goes
> on an dnew observations are made the theory gets altered and improved. That
> is how science works.


Sorry, but this is absolute rubbish. Have a look at this if you wish
to understand about how scientists work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

>
> > Some
> > scientists say it has, some say it hasn't
>
> The majority view is that is has. The ones that claim it hasn't are
> dwindling in number.

So what?


>
> > GW has become like racism,
> > where if you do not take the PC view you are immediately dismissed as
> > a racist.
>
> This is merely your opinion.

Why is it that whenever young people lose an argument they often say
'but that is just your opinion' or something similar? What does it
mean?




>
> > Like many in GB, you have fallen into the same trap with
> > regard to GW.
>
> That is an interesting ad hominen attack. My stance is based on study as I
> work in a similar field. If you knew me you would realise that I don't
> accept all the "doom and gloom" predictions.
>
>

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...+hominem&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

If you are going to use obscure expressions, don't use them out of
context!

>
> > Try and look at the problem with an open mind.
>
> You say this but at the same time state that GW has become like racism. That
> does not sound like an open minded view to me.

Why not? Please expand.

 

[raisethe]

On 13 May, 19:03, "Adam Lea" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "raisethe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On 13 May, 15:17, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Personally I wouldn't give myself a stomach ulcer to prove that the
> > rest of the world is wrong, but W & M are proof that in many cases the
> > majority are wrong.
>
> No they are proof that it is merely possible for the majority to be wrong.
> How can one example possibly prove "many cases"?

fairy nuff, substitute 'are proof that' for 'illustrate how' and my
point stands.

 

[raisethe]

On 13 May, 19:26, Ambrose Nankivell <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I don't understand what you're talking about but the quantity of
> acronyms suggests you're well-informed.
> --
> A

Or lazy?