That's certainly fair. I would never hop on a bike with the intention of changing the world, either, but that's just me. If I do, then it's a nice side benefit. :)

We're on the same page. :thumb:

Most liberals are environmentally conscious, so I would assume you are. So even if you ride primarily for other reasons, why aren't you also happy that it is green and that people appreciate that component? Why are you disowning that aspect of what you do? Are you concerned you will be viewed as some kind of marginalized hippy tree-hugger and perhaps not taken as seriouslY?

lol

Actually, yes it is.

Hey, we can, like, save precious resources showering together. No use wasting all that water, right? "See, Starchild, I lead a totally green lifestyle."

"I hate hippies! I mean, the way they always talk about "protectin' the earth" and then drive around in cars that get poor gas mileage and wear those stupid bracelets - I hate 'em! I wanna kick 'em in the nuts!" - E. Cartman

;)

I think that's why my coworkers are impressed by my piddly little 5-mile commute - they can't imagine willingly doing something that might make them uncomfortable. To them, a workout is something you do with your iPod in an air-conditioned gym.

I'm not trying to be "green". I can understand why it's annoying for bystanders to assume that bike commuting is done out of a desire to be in on that trend. And a trend is all it is - cosmetic surface changes that make you feel good but don't actually accomplish anything.

If you really want to make a difference, you have to sacrifice something. I'm not sacrificing anything - I bike commute out of necessity.

I didn't say they were.

You can see the confusion there, you told me the planet you were from was warming up and then provide me that list.

BTW, where you going with that anyways?

You were the first to say I was from another planet which was a stupid comment. I just went with the along with it. Who cares?

What are you talking about? Obviously I showed other planets, a moon, "a dwarf planet" is experiencing global warming showing the phenomenon is not caused only by people.

Lets do some math - if I were to drive six miles (round trip) at 26mpg, then I would've used 0.23 gallons of gasoline.

If I were to bike the distance, approximately...20 cars would slow to 15mph and accelerate hard back to ~45. Pulling numbers out of my ..., let's say the typical car cruises at 25mpg, takes 1/4 mile to accelerate, and accelerates at 15mpg. Thus, each car uses an additional ~0.006666 gallons of gas when they accelerate past me. Multiplied by 20... makes 0.13 gallons. Man, what a waste of time.

I thought the stupid comment was other planets are warming up. I was just wondering which one you're from, that might make it relevant.

Every additional cyclist means one less motorist accelerating past you, but one additional cyclist for the remaining motorists to accelerate past. You can't win! But seriously, I think you need to rethink your calculations. At any rate, the fuel spent because of you cycling doesn't come out of your pocket, so its not exactly a waste of time.

Yeah, we short-circuited our university doing something equally stupid by starting a bicycle-recycling program for 1/20th the cost and 20x the effect. When you hire the same management culture that drove our economy into the ground to run our universities, you get the same result.

Jesus Christ people, learn how to think. Whether or not the sun is contributing to global warming, CO2 is a greenhouse gas...this is not debatable. What is debatable is the magnitude of effect fossil fuel consumption will have on Earth's climate in addition to whatever other factors cause natural global change. The earth has been changing and will continue long after people are gone. Large fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 levels have had dramatic effects on climate in the past (for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoce...hermal_Maximum), more so than solar fluctuations. There is no reason to believe that increases in CO2 levels will not contribute to warming today. Based on what we know of Earth's history, I'm betting on anthropogenic warming being reality. Note however, that magnitude of the effects are uncertain and the way we will feel these effects may not be obvious. For instance, the ocean is a giant heat sink and is absorbing most of the additional heat, which means seas level will rise due to thermal expansion. If current trends in sea level continue, we are looking at a couple meters of sea level rise in the next hundred years or so, but air temperatures might be roughly the same.

I assume OP hates the green label because it's the refuge of hypocrites. Fakers with Prius cars and cloth shopping bags buying over-priced products at the co-op are not green, they're fools with more money than sense.

For crying out loud! Did bother doing anything but read that article and deciding it suited your viewpoint and thus, must be right?

The article on Jupiter mentions "Red Spot Junior" further research finds that astronomers say the increase in redness probably has nothing to do with increase in temperature at that spot.

From the item on Triton.

"The moon is approaching an extreme southern summer, a season that occurs every few hundred years. During this special time, the moon's southern hemisphere receives more direct sunlight. The equivalent on Earth would be having the sun directly overhead at noon north of Lake Superior during a northern summer."

From the item on Pluto. ( This one's a doozy! )

Jay Pasachoff, an astronomy professor at Williams College, said that Pluto's global warming was "likely not connected with that of the Earth. The major way they could be connected is if the warming was caused by a large increase in sunlight. But the solar constant--the amount of sunlight received each second--is carefully monitored by spacecraft, and we know the sun's output is much too steady to be changing the temperature of Pluto."

Global Climate change is not, yet, totally proven. The evidence has got so strong, however, that to say it is impossible is ridiculous. I didn't start riding for green reasons, I started for my health. I still drive occasionally, ( don't own a car ) but stepping outside the whole car ownership thing, has given me a clearer perspective on the costs, hidden and direct, to individuals and the world at large.

I hate it when people argue just for argument's sake. Just sayin.

I think we can agree that people making false assumptions about your values can be annoying.

About the whole "green" thing. I started commuting back in the 80's before I'd ever heard of global warming. I did hear on a newscast about how much gas could be saved if everyone one were to find a different way to get to work 1 day a week. It was a huge number and that had something to do with why I started.

It's worth remembering that back in the 70's and into the 80's saving gas was more a of National Security thing than a green thing. The federal and state governments reduced freeway speed limits to 55, implemented some limited rationing and other stuff far more draconian than we see from the government now. And it was the Republicans in charge back in the mid 70's. We were afraid that if the supply of foreign oil were cut off it could impact our ability to fight a large scale war. Since then a strategic oil reserve has been created and maintained.

It seems I've lived my whole life under the threat of one doomsday scenario or another. Whether it's nuclear annihilation, Y2K, global warming, peak oil, or world wide economic collapse. So I am a little skeptical about some of the more dire predictions related to global warming. I do believe it's real and the impacts for some people will be severe. I think that humanity will go on and that some changes will be necessary.

Y2K is probably a good example. The dire predictions didn't pan out but it's worth noting that a lot of money was spent averting tragedy. Along with that, the economy didn't crumble and companies weathered the storm in spite of having to spend money on upgrading computers and software. Actually, the economy was booming. Likewise, retooling businesses and homes to run greener doesn't necessarily they're going to go broke.

not to mention that electrics and hybrids can be some of the most dangerous cars for bikes because you can't hear them coming at low speeds.

You'll note that by my "calculations", I saved 0.23 gallons by not driving and wasted 0.13 gallons by forcing people to pass. Its the calculation that was a waste of time, because it went against my initial argument.

OK, I didn't get that fully. I still think 0.13 gallons is an overestimate.

This "green" debate cannot be settled on BF for obvious reasons. So let's look at it from a different frame of reference. A certain percentage of the population (it does not matter what that percentage is at this point) believes that being "green" is important with the other percentage believing that it is not important or a fad. Of course this equation is based on a common definition of "green". Pop quiz: What is the definition of "green" as used on this thread?

Let's say 60% of the population believes that "green" is important and 40% do not. These are not researched percentages but only used for the purpose of illustration, although legislatively speaking, the percentages are significant (filibuster). I am going to venture to say that cyclists fit within the same percentages as the general population.

So once again I will say that cycling to me is fun, great exercise and unintended, coming in third as icing on the cake, is the "green" thing, however is it defined.

Now excuse me as I need to install lights on my bike for tomorrow morning's commute.

It's not proven for those planets which is the same with earth. Can't see the irony? Read about Al Gore and the hoax that shows it's all for political intentions.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.