The real problem with Mikey's arguement is that the answer is yes, but
pretty much everyone contributes to global warming. So what's Mike to
do now, say he contributes less? That arguement doesn't work either to
my thinking.
Huge amounts of the Amazon have been cut, same goes for forests in
the US. All that exists is pretty much young trees. All these trees
were critical to transforming greenhouse gases to oxygen and other
less harmful chemicals. The point is the stage for global warming has
been set, the only thing I believe is going to stop is some
technological marvel that can reverse it.
Already the polar ice cap is melting and cooling the Atlantic ocean
around Greenland where the Atlantic Current detours from it's trip
north to funnel beneath the ocean on a reverse trip. As more ice melts
the water will become as cold on top as it is near the ocean depths
which will shut down the cooling effect that runs the current. When
this happens, which is predicted to be in 100 years or less, it will
make global warming look like a good thing because we will suddenly be
immersed in another ice age. So the party is already be set to end,
we're just waiting for the time to arrive.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I predict it will take
huge amounts of resources to revamp existing infrastructures to handle
the colder weather. Power lines will break up from ice sheets on them
and highways will freeze and split apart faster. All our effort, money
and taxes will go to surviving, there won't be anyone selling mountain
bikes, ski boats, snowboards or much of any luxery item. We'll be busy
insulating and building warmer structures, finding crops that survive
in the colder weather.
I bet some of the more primative cultures will disappear and others
will adapt and cope. It will be interesting how technology develops to
cope. Eskimoes in high tech kayaks with harpoons that are shot from
some kind of high powered launchers. Vitamin suppliments to make up
for the lack of Vitiamin D from the sun as well as other suppliments
that replace other minerals that are not abundant because of the loss
of crop growing areas.
Anyway, Mike's arguement is lame because it applies to everyone, yet
he singles out a few groups, he has other newsgroups he haunts you
know, we aren't even 'special'. When you don't have any friends you
have to take desperate measures to get some attention, you know.
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 20:03:04 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 08:10:52 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>>
>> Juts as YOU are ignoring mountain bikers' contribution to global warming.
>>
>
>
>
>Am I reading this right? Mike is saying that mountain bikes contribute to
>global warming! How? Do bike riders fart more than everybody else?
>
