PDA

View Full Version : Legislator says cyclists’ heavy breathing causes pollution as they ride



Paul Girouard
03-04-2013, 10:28 PM
Talk about a nitwit Republican! :d You're right, you guys can't make up stupid $hit like this!! :d




http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/legislator-says-cyclists-heavy-breathing-causes-po/nWgk9/

SEATTLE —
A state legislator started a firestorm by claiming bicyclists add to greenhouse gas emissions by breathing heavily as they ride.


>>>>>>

The email he received back from the transportation committee’s ranking Republican, Ed Orcutt of Kalama, made an unusual claim.

“He talked about the effect on global warming we have from breathing hard,” said Carlson.
Orcutt refuted the idea that cycling is environmentally friendly by explaining that cyclists have “an increased heart rate and respiration.”
Orcutt wrote that means “the act of riding a bike results in greater emissions of carbon dioxide from the rider. Since CO2 is deemed to be a greenhouse gas and a pollutant, bicyclists are actually polluting when they ride,” the email said.

hanleyclifford
03-04-2013, 10:32 PM
Think about that when you get to the heavy breathing part...:)

Ian McColgin
03-04-2013, 10:33 PM
This is so typical. He "retracted" it but does not admit that he just made it all up. "Wasn't a strong argument" ??? Who is that jerk kidding? He makes up answers like a beauty pagent contestant.

S.V. Airlie
03-04-2013, 11:08 PM
I have no idea if the source, link, should be taken seriously either

Keith Wilson
03-04-2013, 11:17 PM
Idiot. No matter how heavily one breathes, unless the cyclist drinks gasoline or eats coal, metabolizing food from plants or animals is carbon-neutral.

George Jung
03-04-2013, 11:17 PM
You can educate, but ya can't cure stupid. How'd this yahoo get elected?

Ian McColgin
03-04-2013, 11:25 PM
"I have no idea if the source, link, should be taken seriously either" [#4]

Well, a quick google of 'washington state representative ed orcutt' reveals that he is a real guy and really has been widely reported saying just this. KIRO TV was the primary news sourse but others got hold of Rep Orcutt as well.

So, it's either real or Rep. Orcutt himself is going along with some strange fraud.

George Jung
03-04-2013, 11:27 PM
Too many examples to attribute to chance - what's with electing 'challenged' folks to the legislature? Are we really unable to convince qualified, intelligent folks to run? These seem like pretty good jobs - where's the rub?

S.V. Airlie
03-04-2013, 11:33 PM
I'm not saying the source is not possibly true. I sense something is not (info) being included.As Paul Harvey said, paraphrased, and where is the rest of the story? NO ONE CAN BE THIS DUMB!

George Jung
03-04-2013, 11:37 PM
YOu'd think - and you'd be wrong. Depressing, isn't it?

Paul Girouard
03-04-2013, 11:39 PM
Jamie , yes they can.

They want a tax on bike's that cost $500.00 or more for road repairs, anyway to get more money into the states hands.

S.V. Airlie
03-04-2013, 11:45 PM
Counts me out. The least expensive bikes I used throughout Europe were at least 500.00 bucks. Roughly 14,000 miles, 12 countries and two bikes.

Kaa
03-04-2013, 11:47 PM
But all y'all agree that CO2 is a pollutant, yes? :-D

Kaa

Ian McColgin
03-04-2013, 11:48 PM
They can be that dumb. That's why my crack about beauty pagent answer. For those things, the contestants are trained in how to simply make up answers and those fabrications win. We've even had a vice presidential candidate who displayed the fruits of that training. Some of the lesser high school debate circuits reward that sort of fabrication as well. And I've faced utility executives doing it under oath in formal hearings. The theory appears to be that if you're not called on it, it's as good as true. And if you are called, change the topic. Standard debate method in the fact-free zone.

Scott P
03-05-2013, 12:39 AM
The story is absolutely true. My representative (A democrat you know) posted a copy of the letter on facebook last week. I think Representative Orcutt should quit his day job and write for the Onion he seems to have the talent

Gerarddm
03-05-2013, 01:57 AM
O lord, they know not what they do.

Which is the problem.

S.V. Airlie
03-05-2013, 07:55 AM
I've heard that everything on the internet is true! Facebook must be a great source including the gossip mill.

bogdog
03-05-2013, 08:12 AM
The guy is from Maine, I'd say that explains it.

David W Pratt
03-05-2013, 08:20 AM
Without CO2, all the green plants would die

bogdog
03-05-2013, 09:02 AM
Without CO2, all the green plants would dieWe'd still be left with the non-photosynthetic saprophytes until they used up all the resources.

Keith Wilson
03-05-2013, 09:33 AM
But all y'all agree that CO2 is a pollutant, yes? :-D OK, I'll play the straight man, even though that's a semantic / legal quibble. If raising the concentration of a naturally occurring constituent of the atmosphere warms the climate and causes problems, then yes, additional emissions are a pollutant.

Kaa
03-05-2013, 10:28 AM
OK, I'll play the straight man, even though that's a semantic / legal quibble.

No it's not. There's been some amount of political jostling about it -- the point is that if you declare CO2 to be a "pollutant" then the EPA automatically gets full rights to regulate it. That's a big deal.


If raising the concentration of a naturally occurring constituent of the atmosphere warms the climate and causes problems, then yes, additional emissions are a pollutant.

I don't understand. Is carbon dioxide the pollutant or "additional emissions" are a pollutant? Was CO2 a pollutant a thousand years ago? Do most living things on this planet necessarily pollute the atmosphere? If the global warming stops, does CO2 stop being a pollutant as well?

I have a feeling the definition of a pollutant is a bit more narrow than "stuff we want less of".

Kaa

Peerie Maa
03-05-2013, 01:30 PM
No it's not. There's been some amount of political jostling about it -- the point is that if you declare CO2 to be a "pollutant" then the EPA automatically gets full rights to regulate it. That's a big deal.



I don't understand. Is carbon dioxide the pollutant or "additional emissions" are a pollutant? Was CO2 a pollutant a thousand years ago? Do most living things on this planet necessarily pollute the atmosphere? If the global warming stops, does CO2 stop being a pollutant as well?

I have a feeling the definition of a pollutant is a bit more narrow than "stuff we want less of".

Kaa

What do you think about nitrate fertilisers on farm land. Got to be good for the crops, yes? Put too much on so that it runs off into the rivers and lakes it definitely pollutes the water and kills the fish.
Even fresh pure water will kill you if you drink too much of it.

Keith Wilson
03-05-2013, 03:47 PM
I have a feeling the definition of a pollutant is a bit more narrow than "stuff we want less of".Not at all. A pollutant in the air is something released by human activity which causes effects we don't like. If raising the general level of CO2 makes bad things happen, it's only reasonable that that EPA would have authority to regulate it, just like SO2, for example. As I said, it's a quibble, trying to deny the EPA authority it should obviously have under existing law.

PeterSibley
03-05-2013, 06:07 PM
You can educate, but ya can't cure stupid. How'd this yahoo get elected?

A lot of VERY stupid and ill educated voters ?

Willin'
03-05-2013, 06:09 PM
By Orcutt's logic, the whole CO2 problem would go away if we just held our breath. I expect the republicans to show some leadership in this respect.

Paul Girouard
03-05-2013, 09:43 PM
By Orcutt's logic, the whole CO2 problem would go away if we just held our breath. I expect the republicans to show some leadership in this respect.

Sure would help with over population if more people could be talked into acting! Seeing there are more Progressives in the country, or seems to be based on who's winning elections , the best thing for all hands would be for Democrats / Progressives to "take one for the team/ and the world"! It's only logical!

What da ya thing there shipmate? You up for it?

Willin'
03-05-2013, 10:03 PM
Ahhh, Squidlips, so glad you rose to the bait. I was worried that you were going cyanotic with your patriotic zeal. Wouldn't want to lose you, though I might consider sacrifcing Boehner, McConnell and Cheney for the cause.

S.V. Airlie
03-05-2013, 10:10 PM
I think people should stop all sex! I mean all that heavy breathing, all that CO2. It's got to stop or at least be taxed.

Paul Girouard
03-05-2013, 10:12 PM
Ahhh, Squidlips, so glad you rose to the bait. I was worried that you were going cyanotic with your patriotic zeal. Wouldn't want to lose you, though I might consider sacrifcing Boehner, McConnell and Cheney for the cause.


Add Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, and Joe Biden to the sacrificial platter and you got a deal! Think of the savings getting rid of the life time benefit package of that group would do for the budget!

You're a thinker for a black shoe!

Phillip Allen
03-05-2013, 10:16 PM
I think people should stop all sex! I mean all that heavy breathing, all that CO2. It's got to stop or at least be taxed.

I'd bet there are some rats here that never make it as far as heaving breathing before it's all over... so to speak... the meek will inherit the earth... somehow :)

Willin'
03-05-2013, 10:24 PM
Add Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, and Joe Biden to the sacrificial platter and you got a deal! Think of the savings getting rid of the life time benefit package of that group would do for the budget!

You're a thinker for a black shoe!


You wore brown Corfams? EWE! I thought you pissed standing up!

Paul Girouard
03-05-2013, 10:28 PM
You wore brown Corfams? EWE! I thought you pissed standing up!


Technically . no. I did not make CPO, I got out after 8 years as a E-6 , AE-1. So I never did wear the brown shoes, but would be considered a brown shoe for this conversation.

CWSmith
03-05-2013, 10:47 PM
The guy is from Maine, I'd say that explains it.

That disappoints me - I generally respect Maine.

However, while some can continue to debate whether CO2 is a pollutant, can we move to the bigger question?

There is a large group of politicians (they seem to be Republican) who feel it is acceptable to make up whatever "facts" are convenient to their position and only retract them if the heat gets uncomfortable. These are the people who always point to science and claim "Scientists will find a solution to that in the future.", but they disregard the scientific predictions on climate change or any other thing that won't make them a profit. I assume you all remember phrases like "real rape" and a hundred other stupid lies from the last year.

My question is "Can any of you Republicans out there explain to me why you listen to this cr@p?"

And if you want to tell me Democrats do it, too, have the courage to cite examples. We'll count them up and see who loses.

Willin'
03-05-2013, 10:49 PM
Technically . no. I did not make CPO, I got out after 8 years as a E-6 , AE-1. So I never did wear the brown shoes, but would be considered a brown shoe for this conversation.

Then my derision is completely justified.

Anyone with any talent, motivation, confidence and drive, if they couldn't avoid the military entirely, would have gotten out ASAP.

Just to clear the air, I was only in to avoid the draft. FTN.

Paul Girouard
03-05-2013, 11:02 PM
Then my derision is completely justified.

Anyone with any talent, motivation, confidence and drive, if they couldn't avoid the military entirely, would have gotten out ASAP.

Just to clear the air, I was only in to avoid the draft. FTN.

Nice , so much for our "best and brightest"! LOL , supporting the troop with Willin , LMFAO! Maybe you should have went North? But your point is well noted, and I agree with it on many levels. I'm sure you where a joy to your LPO's LMAO!

ETA : I had many FTN moments, but a nice lil check coming in every month would have been nice, life's full of choices they say.

Paul Girouard
03-05-2013, 11:11 PM
Then my derision is completely justified.

Anyone with any talent, motivation, confidence and drive, if they couldn't avoid the military entirely, would have gotten out ASAP.

Just to clear the air, I was only in to avoid the draft. FTN.



I'd also note to all the forum members that have family in uniform currently, or in the past, that Willin's "opinion or attutude " of their service and general "metal" is what I'd say is the true underlying opinion of most Progressives. But to Willin credit at least he's willing to come out and say it.

Sailors and dogs, keep off the grass!

alvin greenwood
03-05-2013, 11:37 PM
I'd also note to all the forum members that have family in uniform currently, or in the past, that Willin's "opinion or attutude " of their serve and general "metal" is what I'd say is the true underlying opinion of most Progressives. But to Willin credit at least he's willing to come out and say it.

Sailors and dogs, keep off the grass!.

I think willin is talking about the draft so he may still be wearing bell bottoms saving up for a ford pinto with a 8 track with the 5th dimension.

alvin greenwood
03-05-2013, 11:42 PM
They can be that dumb. That's why my crack about beauty pagent answer. For those things, the contestants are trained in how to simply make up answers and those fabrications win. We've even had a vice presidential candidate who displayed the fruits of that training. Some of the lesser high school debate circuits reward that sort of fabrication as well. And I've faced utility executives doing it under oath in formal hearings. The theory appears to be that if you're not called on it, it's as good as true. And if you are called, change the topic. Standard debate method in the fact-free zone..

And Yet SP out debated JB in the VP debate........

CWSmith
03-06-2013, 12:13 AM
I'd also note to all the forum members that have family in uniform currently, or in the past, that Willin's "opinion or attutude " of their serve and general "metal" is what I'd say is the true underlying opinion of most Progressives. But to Willin credit at least he's willing to come out and say it.


One man's prejudice.

Paul Girouard
03-06-2013, 12:14 AM
.

I think willin is talking about the draft so he may still be wearing bell bottoms saving up for a ford pinto with a 8 track with the 5th dimension.


You can think what you want , I'm pretty sure his thinking is across the board / present day thinking. Liberals, in general, loath the military and it's member's.

Paul Girouard
03-06-2013, 12:15 AM
One man's prejudice.

Or honesty.

skipper68
03-06-2013, 12:32 AM
Romance makes hard breathing. :D
I;m in trouble now! Yikes!
OTOH, Repuglcants don't go that, at least with their wives! Ughhh ;)

David G
03-06-2013, 01:03 AM
You can think what you want , I'm pretty sure his thinking is across the board / present day thinking. Liberal loath the military and it's member's.

Sorry... I'm here to tell you (as a progressive with two loved ones in the Navy, and one just out) - this is more shinola-like material.

john welsford
03-06-2013, 01:50 AM
I think people should stop all sex! I mean all that heavy breathing, all that CO2. It's got to stop or at least be taxed.

Actually, I think that political speeches would be a much worse source of pollution than pretty much any other human activity.

John Welsford

skuthorp
03-06-2013, 04:56 AM
Yes, all that sex........... All that sweat................ Just think of the energy savings if we gave it up.......................

Dan McCosh
03-06-2013, 08:31 AM
OK, I'll play the straight man, even though that's a semantic / legal quibble. If raising the concentration of a naturally occurring constituent of the atmosphere warms the climate and causes problems, then yes, additional emissions are a pollutant.

Since the issue took five years of arguing that ended up with a Supreme Court ruling, it's hardly a semantic/legal quibble. The Obama administration cites the results as his major environmental accomplishment.

Keith Wilson
03-06-2013, 08:53 AM
Since the issue took five years of arguing . . . People are capable of arguing for much longer than that about stupider quibbles, and it is a real achievement. Those who are making money off the current state of affairs and don't want to stop, those who believe in the face of all the evidence that global warming is some kind of socialist-atheist plot, and those who think that all environmental regulation is theft of property, that the free market will solve all problems, and who never heard of the tragedy of the commons - these folks used a a legal/semantic quibble to argue for five years trying to prevent EPA regulation of CO2.

Dan McCosh
03-06-2013, 09:05 AM
People are capable of arguing for much longer than that about stupider quibbles, and it is a real achievement. Those who are making money off the current state of affairs and don't want to stop, those who believe in the face of all the evidence that global warming is some kind of socialist-atheist plot, and those who think that all environmental regulation is theft of property, that the free market will solve all problems, and who never heard of the tragedy of the commons - these folks used a a legal/semantic quibble to argue for five years trying to prevent EPA regulation of CO2. The issue wasn't regulation per se, but which federal agency had the authority to regulate fuel economy for light vehicles. The regulation had been handled by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration for 30 years, initially set up by Congress as an energy conservation measure. Defining fuel economy as a pollutant represented one of the strangest semantic gymnastics the Supreme Court has ever ruled on. FWIW, the EPA has had major issues handling the administration of the regulation ever since.

Keith Wilson
03-06-2013, 09:09 AM
The fuel economy standards issue was merely the test case for whether EPAs authority extends to CO2 emissions. Once again, if raising the concentration of a naturally occurring constituent of the atmosphere warms the climate and causes problems, then yes, additional CO2 emissions are a pollutant.

Dan McCosh
03-06-2013, 09:21 AM
The fuel economy standards issue was merely the test case for whether EPAs authority extends to CO2 emissions. Once again, if raising the concentration of a naturally occurring constituent of the atmosphere warms the climate and causes problems, then yes, additional CO2 emissions are a pollutant. That's quite true. The problem being that broadly controlling CO2 emissions controls most of the world's economy, starts wars, etc. A bit much for one federal agency to handle. This isn't exactly trivial. I've conducted interviews where a lawyer was brought in for the sole purpose of insisting that the agency person didn't accidentally say "fuel economy" when he was supposed to say "emissions". In other words, accidentally tell the truth.

Keith Wilson
03-06-2013, 09:25 AM
The problem being that broadly controlling CO2 emissions controls most of the world's economy, starts wars, etc.True enough, alas, It's not an easy problem; probably the hardest environmental problem we've faced since the beginning of industrial civilization, and we're not handling it very well so far.

Durnik
03-06-2013, 11:05 AM
But all y'all agree that CO2 is a pollutant, yes?

Keith's answer had the facts in it.. but left an ambiguity which our trolls jumped on,

So to clarify..

CO2 which is & has been (for the past 200 million years +/-) part of the cycle of life of plants & animals - where animals convert C & O2 to CO2 & plants convert CO2 to C & O2 - is not only not a problem, but is a 'good thing'. However, CO2 created by man mining sequestered carbon (C in the form of coal, oil, gas etc) & combining it with free oxygen (O2) is a problem.. the 'problem' being that the environment was stable with the (relatively) steady amounts of CO2 it contained _before_ man started adding from the carbon which nature had removed over the eons.

Is CO2 a 'greenhouse gas'. Yes, in that its presence has an effect on trapping of solar radiation (heat energy). Should 'it' be regulated? Yes. What needs to be understood is that 'it' refers to CO2 created by burning of previously sequestered carbon.. ie, coal, oil, gas etc.. _not_ CO2 'created' by animal respiration. Yes Virginia, man is an animal..




Liberals, in general, loath the military and it's member's.

Military, yes.. Recognizing members are all too often those with no options, no.

This is a good place to restate that the country should have a non-military service required of its youth.. _all_ its youth.

peace
bobby

wardd
03-06-2013, 11:16 AM
Jamie , yes they can.

They want a tax on bike's that cost $500.00 or more for road repairs, anyway to get more money into the states hands.

more liberals than conservatives ride bikes

wardd
03-06-2013, 11:19 AM
give it up jamie it's true, i just saw it on huffpost

ron ll
03-06-2013, 11:28 AM
Not to worry, volcanoes have been slowing down global warming according to a recent study.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/03/climate-change-volcanoes/

So bicycle all you want. :D

Durnik
03-06-2013, 12:20 PM
^ you trouble maker, you! ;-)

Bram V
03-06-2013, 02:04 PM
We should all stop having sex, it is al lot of heavy breathing with a chance of an extra breathing mouth happening (after some really heavy breathing)