Mountain Bikers STILL Don't Get It!



J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 10:41:08 +0100, "Shaun aRe"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Am I reading this right? Mike is saying that mountain bikes contribute to
>> global warming! How? Do bike riders fart more than everybody else?


>Manufacture of plastics, rubber, refined oils and greases, the smelting of
>steel and aluminium, etc. etc. etc. Sorry Jeff, but ya gotta accept that
>much.


Yes, it's another example of Mike employing the "insignificant cause"
logical fallacy.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
S

Shaun aRe

Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 10:41:08 +0100, "Shaun aRe"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Am I reading this right? Mike is saying that mountain bikes contribute

to
> >> global warming! How? Do bike riders fart more than everybody else?

>
> >Manufacture of plastics, rubber, refined oils and greases, the smelting

of
> >steel and aluminium, etc. etc. etc. Sorry Jeff, but ya gotta accept that
> >much.

>
> Yes, it's another example of Mike employing the "insignificant cause"
> logical fallacy.


I wouldn't deny it, but too many people make the mistake of dismissing the
actual fact itself, rather than its relevance to the argument at hand, and
of course, MV just loves that, makes him feel 'right' LMFAO!


Cheers JZG!



Shaun aRe
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 15:52:08 +0100, "Shaun aRe"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>>> Am I reading this right? Mike is saying that mountain bikes contribute
>>>> to global warming! How? Do bike riders fart more than everybody else?


>>> Manufacture of plastics, rubber, refined oils and greases, the smelting
>>> of steel and aluminium, etc. etc. etc. Sorry Jeff, but ya gotta accept
>>> that much.


>> Yes, it's another example of Mike employing the "insignificant cause"
>> logical fallacy.


>I wouldn't deny it, but too many people make the mistake of dismissing the
>actual fact itself, rather than its relevance to the argument at hand, and
>of course, MV just loves that, makes him feel 'right' LMFAO!


I think one reason Mikey's taken such a beating recently is that a lot
of people have taken on board the kinds of comments in the "Vandeman
FAQ" and now tend not to fall into his silly logical traps.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
B

Bill Sornson

Guest
Shaun aRe wrote:
> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message


>> Am I reading this right? Mike is saying that mountain bikes
>> contribute to global warming! How? Do bike riders fart more than
>> everybody else?


> Manufacture of plastics, rubber, refined oils and greases, the
> smelting of steel and aluminium, etc. etc. etc. Sorry Jeff, but ya
> gotta accept that much.


CMIIW, but I /think/ Mikie's point is that mtb-ers supposedly DRIVE to their
rides -- unlike, say...hikers? Trail runners? Horseback riders? ATV-ers?
Comic ecological conference attendees?!?

I wonder how pointy-headed Mikie got down here to San Diego to "hike"
Mission Trails Park (along with all those hard-core dog-walkers and nature
lovers). Cellular transport?!?

Hypocrisy, thy name is Wanky Mikie Vandenut... (no) BS
 
M

Mark

Guest
"Shaun aRe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 10:41:08 +0100, "Shaun aRe"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >> Am I reading this right? Mike is saying that mountain bikes

contribute
> to
> > >> global warming! How? Do bike riders fart more than everybody else?

> >
> > >Manufacture of plastics, rubber, refined oils and greases, the smelting

> of
> > >steel and aluminium, etc. etc. etc. Sorry Jeff, but ya gotta accept

that
> > >much.

> >
> > Yes, it's another example of Mike employing the "insignificant cause"
> > logical fallacy.

>
> I wouldn't deny it, but too many people make the mistake of dismissing the
> actual fact itself, rather than its relevance to the argument at hand, and
> of course, MV just loves that, makes him feel 'right' LMFAO!
>
>
> Cheers JZG!
>
>
>
> Shaun aRe
>

The whole principal of his argument relies more or less completely that
people will just deny any harm comes from biking, bike manufacture or
transport to trails instead of actually reading through his hypothesis and
commenting on that.
When people deny, they are wrong, no doubts, and as you say, he is very
vocal about the fact.

However, anyone with a modicum of education and understanding of language
who bother to dig a little into the reasoning behind Mr Vandermans theories
can easily pick huge holes in the argument, sadly all he seems to be able to
respond with is juvenile attempts to steer the discussion away from those
holes and towards the personal attacks he seems to enjoy so much.

Its quite sad really as the base cause he tries to represent is a worthwhile
one, but his object of aggression is entirely the wrong target.
While industry is pumping out pollution at the rate it is, and deforestation
and urban expansion also continue unabated, the damage caused by Bikes, or
indeed hikers or horses or other leisure acitivities is largely irrelevant,
mainly because those trails and surrounding environment will be destroyed
regardless of anything done by the leisure activities we enjoy.
With China proposing 800 new (and not environmentally efficient) power
stations to be brought online within the next 10 years, the failure by the
US and others to ratify the kyoto protocol and the continued deforestation
within the rain forest regions of the world, things are not going to improve
any time soon.

But what do I know, Im a mountain biker, the ecological devil apparently.
 
J

Jeff Strickland

Guest
"Shaun aRe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> >
> > "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?

>
> Manufacture of plastics, rubber, refined oils and greases, the smelting of
> steel and aluminium, etc. etc. etc. Sorry Jeff, but ya gotta accept that
> much.
>


But, if they - mountain bikers - bought other kinds of bikes, they would
have the same contribution to global warming, and this is much less than the
contribution of a car or a house or any of the other **** that we buy and
use everyday.

I don't know what's more absurd, Mike's suggestion that mountain bikes
contribute to global warming, or my not getting it.

And, Mike has repeatedly said in the past that it isn't mountain bikes that
he doesn't like, it's bikes on the trail. Now, he is railing against the
bikes in particular, and this is a new neurosis for him.
 
J

Jeff Strickland

Guest

> I wonder how pointy-headed Mikie got down here to San Diego to "hike"
> Mission Trails Park (along with all those hard-core dog-walkers and nature
> lovers). Cellular transport?!?
>


Cellular transport? I can't even get my cellular phone to work, I'm not
going anywhere near the transporters.
 
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?
>
 
J

Jeff Strickland

Guest
"Chris Phillipo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
> >
> >
> >
> > Am I reading this right? Mike is saying that mountain bikes contribute

to
> > global warming! How? Do bike riders fart more than everybody else?
> >
> >
> >

>
> Only when mikey is taking up the rear.



So, mountain bikers are gay? If that were true, then wouldn't gay people be
contributing to global warming?

PS
I'll be sending you my bill for the shrink to cleanse that image from my
brain.
 
S

Shaun aRe

Guest
"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Shaun aRe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> >
> > "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:sK6dn[email protected]
> > >
> > > "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?

> >
> > Manufacture of plastics, rubber, refined oils and greases, the smelting

of
> > steel and aluminium, etc. etc. etc. Sorry Jeff, but ya gotta accept that
> > much.
> >

>
> But, if they - mountain bikers - bought other kinds of bikes, they would
> have the same contribution to global warming, and this is much less than

the
> contribution of a car or a house or any of the other **** that we buy and
> use everyday.
>
> I don't know what's more absurd, Mike's suggestion that mountain bikes
> contribute to global warming, or my not getting it.
>
> And, Mike has repeatedly said in the past that it isn't mountain bikes

that
> he doesn't like, it's bikes on the trail. Now, he is railing against the
> bikes in particular, and this is a new neurosis for him.


You're reading to shallowly and obsessing too deeply - read the exchange
between Just zis guy and myself. Not many words needed to put him in a
pretty full perspective...


Shaun aRe
 
C

Coyoteboy

Guest

> BS. As I said, MOST mountain bikers drive to the trailhead. But it's typical for
> you to try to change the subject.



Actually MOST mountainbikers do drive to remote trails, but only very
occasionally - MOST of the time they train on local trails and so dont
use cars. Especially in the UK where you are never far from some
offroad fun where-ever you live.

HOWEVER, ive yet to see a hiker who didnt drive to the start of their
walks on 90% of occasions, as its usually too much to add on a few
miles to a hike when you are on foot.

J
 
F

Fole Haafstra

Guest
Creative post editing brings this topic into specific relief.....

****************************************************************************
****
Mountain bikers' contribution to global warming, Mountain bikes contribute
to global warming! How? Do bike riders fart more than manufacture of
plastics, rubber, refined oils and greases, the smelting
of steel and aluminium?

But, if mountain bikers bought other kinds of bikes, they would know what's
more absurd.

Global warming mountain bikes on the trail is a new neurosis for him.

****************************************************************************
****
 
L

lowkey

Guest
"Coyoteboy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
>> BS. As I said, MOST mountain bikers drive to the trailhead. But it's
>> typical for
>> you to try to change the subject.

>
>
> Actually MOST mountainbikers do drive to remote trails, but only very
> occasionally - MOST of the time they train on local trails and so dont
> use cars. Especially in the UK where you are never far from some
> offroad fun where-ever you live.


I certainly ride my bike to the local trails and use public transit and at
most carpooling to go to more distant trails. I choose not to own nor
operate an automobile.

But I do know some people in my town who do transport themselves and their
bikes to the trails by SUV in a trip that would take at the very most 30
minutes if the lived at the oppsite end of town. Not just mb'er but joggers,
dog walkers and what-not.

--
'Silly customer!
You cannot hurt a twinkie!'
-apu
 
L

lowkey

Guest
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Shaun aRe wrote:
>> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>
>>> Am I reading this right? Mike is saying that mountain bikes
>>> contribute to global warming! How? Do bike riders fart more than
>>> everybody else?

>
>> Manufacture of plastics, rubber, refined oils and greases, the
>> smelting of steel and aluminium, etc. etc. etc. Sorry Jeff, but ya
>> gotta accept that much.

>
> CMIIW, but I /think/ Mikie's point is that mtb-ers supposedly DRIVE to
> their rides -- unlike, say...hikers? Trail runners? Horseback riders?
> ATV-ers? Comic ecological conference attendees?!?
> I wonder how pointy-headed Mikie got down here to San Diego to "hike"
> Mission Trails Park (along with all those hard-core dog-walkers and nature
> lovers). Cellular transport?!?
>
> Hypocrisy, thy name is Wanky Mikie Vandenut... (no) BS


Far be it for me to argue against yanking Mikey's chain but seeing as he
has blessedly stopped posting his nonsense for a time, why not let sleeping
net-cranks lie?

--
'Tire spitting gravel
I commit my weekly crime'-rush
 
B

Bill Sornson

Guest
lowkey wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> Shaun aRe wrote:
>>> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>>
>>>> Am I reading this right? Mike is saying that mountain bikes
>>>> contribute to global warming! How? Do bike riders fart more than
>>>> everybody else?

>>
>>> Manufacture of plastics, rubber, refined oils and greases, the
>>> smelting of steel and aluminium, etc. etc. etc. Sorry Jeff, but ya
>>> gotta accept that much.

>>
>> CMIIW, but I /think/ Mikie's point is that mtb-ers supposedly DRIVE
>> to their rides -- unlike, say...hikers? Trail runners? Horseback
>> riders? ATV-ers? Comic ecological conference attendees?!?
>> I wonder how pointy-headed Mikie got down here to San Diego to "hike"
>> Mission Trails Park (along with all those hard-core dog-walkers and
>> nature lovers). Cellular transport?!?
>>
>> Hypocrisy, thy name is Wanky Mikie Vandenut... (no) BS

>
> Far be it for me to argue against yanking Mikey's chain but seeing as
> he has blessedly stopped posting his nonsense for a time, why not let
> sleeping net-cranks lie?


Way to come in two-three days later and argue to stop the thread!

:-D
 
L

lowkey

Guest
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> lowkey wrote:
>> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> Shaun aRe wrote:
>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> Am I reading this right? Mike is saying that mountain bikes
>>>>> contribute to global warming! How? Do bike riders fart more than
>>>>> everybody else?
>>>
>>>> Manufacture of plastics, rubber, refined oils and greases, the
>>>> smelting of steel and aluminium, etc. etc. etc. Sorry Jeff, but ya
>>>> gotta accept that much.
>>>
>>> CMIIW, but I /think/ Mikie's point is that mtb-ers supposedly DRIVE
>>> to their rides -- unlike, say...hikers? Trail runners? Horseback
>>> riders? ATV-ers? Comic ecological conference attendees?!?
>>> I wonder how pointy-headed Mikie got down here to San Diego to "hike"
>>> Mission Trails Park (along with all those hard-core dog-walkers and
>>> nature lovers). Cellular transport?!?
>>>
>>> Hypocrisy, thy name is Wanky Mikie Vandenut... (no) BS

>>
>> Far be it for me to argue against yanking Mikey's chain but seeing as
>> he has blessedly stopped posting his nonsense for a time, why not let
>> sleeping net-cranks lie?

>
> Way to come in two-three days later and argue to stop the thread!
>
> :-D


Is two days a 'long' time to you?

Regardless I was not suggesting people stop talking about MB's and the
environment, just yanking Mikey's chain while he hasn't been posting.

--
'I read the news today, oh boy
About a lucky man who made the grade
And though the news was rather sad
Well I just had to laugh' -beatles
 
C

Coyoteboy

Guest
> Average car in the US uses approx 5 gallons of gas a week, or approx 250
> gallons/yr. Which is about 1 ton of gasoline/yr.
>
> Once combustion occures, about 3 tons of CO/CO2 is released.
>
> Hardly seems insignificant.
>
>
> I ride my road bike to/from work everyday



I burn 16US gallons per week just getting to work. I couldnt get to
work without my car, not *strictly* true but an 18 mile ride in the
pouring rain and wind isnt exactly the best start to a morning, and
means i have to have a shower twice a day and wash more clothes (more
pollution), adding to the endless problem of detergent in the ocean -
the primary pollutant of the sea i might add. Its fine for those who
can to comment about how well they protect the environment, not all of
us have that option.

In comparison with the 8-10 tons of CO2 used to power your home every
year you'd be just as environmentally kind to stop heating your house
(isnt that what clothes are for?) or not use the TV/Fridge/Freezer and
buy all fresh food on the day you eat it - but thats not convenient is
it?

J
 
J

jem

Guest
Chris Foster wrote:
> I actually hate to disagree with anyone who is making fun of Mikey, but
> .....
>
>
> Average car in the US uses approx 5 gallons of gas a week, or approx 250
> gallons/yr. Which is about 1 ton of gasoline/yr.
>


Interesting statistic. Definitely not true around here. Way too low.
 
J

jem

Guest
Coyoteboy wrote:
>>Average car in the US uses approx 5 gallons of gas a week, or approx 250
>>gallons/yr. Which is about 1 ton of gasoline/yr.
>>
>>Once combustion occures, about 3 tons of CO/CO2 is released.
>>
>>Hardly seems insignificant.
>>
>>
>>I ride my road bike to/from work everyday

>
>
>
> I burn 16US gallons per week just getting to work. I couldnt get to
> work without my car, not *strictly* true but an 18 mile ride in the
> pouring rain and wind isnt exactly the best start to a morning, and
> means i have to have a shower twice a day and wash more clothes (more
> pollution), adding to the endless problem of detergent in the ocean -
> the primary pollutant of the sea i might add. Its fine for those who
> can to comment about how well they protect the environment, not all of
> us have that option.
>
> J
>


Assuming you don't come home at lunch that's 11.25 miles/gallon. Pretty bad.
 
C

Coyoteboy

Guest
Actually average 18mpg (UK mpg), i was only considering my trips to the
office, hadnt included the rest of the tips to 'satellite' work venues.

J

jem wrote:
> Coyoteboy wrote:
> >>Average car in the US uses approx 5 gallons of gas a week, or approx 250
> >>gallons/yr. Which is about 1 ton of gasoline/yr.
> >>
> >>Once combustion occures, about 3 tons of CO/CO2 is released.
> >>
> >>Hardly seems insignificant.
> >>
> >>
> >>I ride my road bike to/from work everyday

> >
> >
> >
> > I burn 16US gallons per week just getting to work. I couldnt get to
> > work without my car, not *strictly* true but an 18 mile ride in the
> > pouring rain and wind isnt exactly the best start to a morning, and
> > means i have to have a shower twice a day and wash more clothes (more
> > pollution), adding to the endless problem of detergent in the ocean -
> > the primary pollutant of the sea i might add. Its fine for those who
> > can to comment about how well they protect the environment, not all of
> > us have that option.
> >
> > J
> >

>
> Assuming you don't come home at lunch that's 11.25 miles/gallon. Pretty bad.