Nice deflection of Al's lies. Just because he voted for a Defense Department funding bill. He thinks he deserves credit for the internet. It was Al Gore who was trying to mislead.

But it saved us from the 1970s Ice Age.

I grew up in the 70's. My oldest brother was in college at the time and car free. He was probably the strongest influence that led me to bike commuting. He now lives in Hawaii.

I also remember those predictions about the coming ice age. It does cast some doubt on the accuracy of the current claims of global warming. Here's an article called "Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities" that was in Science News from 1975. I found a link to it a climate change skeptic's website. Actually he just showed a graph and didn't include any text.

It's a very interesting read and some of it does contradict what you hear today. Some of it doesn't though. They do talk about the impact of human activity on climate. They knew at the time that human CO2 production was warming the atmosphere. Some questioned whether or not that would offset the natural cycle some thought was leading us to another ice age.

You may find plenty in that article to support your current view. However, it doesn't seem like there was quite the consensus then that there is now. From the article:

"Climatology, however, is still an infant science, and its practitioners have faced their sudden popularity with the blinking uncertainty of squirrels roused from hibernation: Some have dashed forward with instant pronouncements while others have shyly retired behind the complexities of their arcane studies, refusing even to speculate about what changes may lie ahead or what action could be taken to confront them.To gain a perspective on these divergent views, SCIENCE NEWS interviewed C. C. Wallen, chief of the Special Environmental Applications Division, World Meteorological Organization, at the wmo headquarters in Geneva. The cooling trend observed since 1940 is real enough, he says, but not enough is known about the underlying causes to justify any sort of extrapolation."

Wallen goes on to say that he expects the cooling trend to continue buy my take on this is that many were reluctant to make long term predictions. Contrast that couched language with what is being said today:

US National Academy of Sciences: "...there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

In the 70's the US National Academy of science:

…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…


If you're interested in another perspective on the 1970's ice age prediction, here's a link: https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-...termediate.htm

Basically they say that while there were peer reviewed papers discussing a new ice age back then, there were actually more peer reviewed papers talking about warming.

+1
One of the most fun things about BF is that with much less effort you can annoy more people than with a rush hour bike commute.

i was going to ask what would be good Ti frame builders where, but I think Aaron answere it in the next post. Thanks!

And to all, I promise I'll ride the Ti bike, enough to offset any global warming or cooling cause by the manufacturing of Ti tubes! Double O

Al Gore should pay for your Ti bicycle as part of his carbon offset!

The list isn't comprehensive - there are other good ones as well. I know a lot of folks like Firefly.

Does being an inane obnoxious blowhard continually looking for an argument come with a retirement plan? I'm amazed people bother responding to your silliness.

So you are a global warming believer in Al Gore's church.

Your obnoxiousness and your opinions are two completely different things.

Whoa-a... this thread is getting a little warm... no pun intended

CB HI

So your a global warming believer in Al Gore's church.

INCORRECT use of "your" ^

Nick The Beard

Your obnoxiousness and your opinions are two completely different things.

^ CORRECT use of "your".

Nick The Beard FTW!

Thank you so much for the catch on my quick typing error. Good to know you are around to keep everyones typing precise.

183 post in almost 8 years. Hard to believe you have only found 183 typing errors in all that time.

Everyone's!

You're welcome! (correct use of contraction!)

Just trying to inject some humor into the thread.

Now I'm off to ride my bike home from work.

Mike

(and its posts)

Glad to get your post count up to 184.

No. It's not.

It's definitely it's. That was a gift to CB

(185 only 10,382 to catch up to CB!)

Not sure whose [<--- wrong: who's ] kidding here...
It's is the contraction of it is or it has... its is the possessive of it. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/its

Your to hilarious! Thank's for the link. I loose again!

A gift, not an error. OK, if you say so.

OK. Try the fact that a Ti frame will last a lifetime. How about the fact that a Ti frame is not painted and therefore no paint vapors and solvents needed.
Steel needs coke which is cooked carbon. Needs to be painted and replaced.
Show me the**** facts that Ti has a larger carbon footprint over it's lifetime!
And in the end of the day, what is the difference between Ti, Steel, and Carbon when everything is considered.

Three thousand years from today someone might still be riding my Ti frame- .

I choose steeltanium!

Uh, you might want to read a little more carefully before deciding to go off somebody for a month old post.

I really don't know that if when all things are considered whether making a typical Ti frame ends up being more energy intensive or not. I made no claim one way or the other. Somebody else brought it up. A different poster felt that the energy consumption issue was irrelevant. It's that point I disagreed with. Just because it may or may not a make a difference to a particular individual doesn't mean that it's irrelevant to everybody.

Dude. Who cares when you made the post. I disagree that Ti bikes are bad because of environmental impact. I didn't go off on you, I simply disageed and I answered questions you posted. Dude. Its about commuting on a bike. COMMUTING ON A BIKE. I commute 45 miles round trip. That saves a lot over time. But, really who cares. I love Ti bikes and I don't think that it is that much of an environmental issue. If you do, don't ride a Ti bike. Mine is second hand and I can tell you it will outlive me. Also, the bike exists so arguing over the environmental impact is kind of stupid. THE BIKE WAS MADE IN 1991. The deed is done.

IF you aren't religous about the issue, good for you and I apologize for this being directed at you. But it seems to be a big deal on this thread and your post seems to be the origination. I wish everyone in the US commuted on a Ti bike. Think about the environmental impact!