mmmppppfffHAHAHahahahahahhhh....

this cant be true.... hahaha

the link to download the entrire show does not work... please fix it, i want to see the rest...thank you.

Sorry about that. I've fixed the link it is currently the third one down.

I'm convinced - I had no idea how much pollution I was spewing riding my bike everywhere. I'm finally going to have the courage to get that yellow Hummer I've been eyeing all these years! I'll attach a fish symbol to its back, and ride that Hummer straight to heaven!

I hear the sound but the video wont play; also my browser froze the first time trying to play.

So he's basically saying that four people breathing (heavily) more CO2 than one car being driven - where four people in one car would be producing a lesser amount of oxygen - thank goodness those people aren't exerting themselves.

Is he utterly mad?

What really impresses me though is it seems like the norm is four-person car pool cars...

Wow. I had never thought about that. He's so right. Global warming is a bunch of BS. I can't wait to go out tomorrow and buy my new Hummer H2.

Sorry - I didn't read your whole post first...you called out the madness I mentioned - that's what I get for clicking on the link first to see what's up......

Der-HEY!!!!

and I like how he assume everyone carpools (4 people to one car?!) That never happens!!

WWJD? (what would Jesus drive)

i hope nobody keys my bike after they realize how stinky my farts can be.

while we're at it, all form of exercise should be outlawed. especially runners. where do these people get off breathing my oxygen for such useless activity?

Here are some figures for energy efficiency of different forms of transportation. Notice how a bicycle uses only 1.9% of the energy that riding your car would take -- energy which it would be necessary to expend in any case to stay healthy.

It's almost worth downloading the full episode just to see what a credulous dingbat the interviewer is. Not that you'd expect anything else.

topomodesto - I was going to mention that, the fact that we as organic machines use less energy to push forward than a car does

I love that the Creation Research has a link on their About Us page to Brian Teasers(sic). I didn't click the link but presumably the page describes ways you can tease any of your friends named Brian.

http://www.creationresearch.net/team/About%20Us.htm

Exhibit A for why we shouldn't take any notice of the opinion of religious folk on matters of public importance.

Let's just pat them on the head and get on with our lives.

Even if the premise of his argument wasn't so ridiculous, his entire argument is shattered with one very simple observation: people in cars breathe too.

amazing that he is that stupid. But then I guess there is no shortage of stupidity with the christian right.

Let’s work this out:

To give the nutjob the benefit of the doubt, let’s suppose that the car we’re driving gets 34 mpg (my Honda Civic). With 4 people in the car, that’s 136 passenger-miles per gallon. Assuming, for simplicity, the car burns pure octane, C8H18, which has a density of 0.86 kg/liter (there are 3.79 liters/gallon).

Then my Honda civic will yield (136)(1/3.79)(1/0.86) = 42.2 passenger-miles/kg octane.

When combusted, 1 mole of octane yields 8 moles of CO2, and the molar mass of octane is 0.114 kg.

Therefore, one would get (42.2)(0.114)(1/8) = 0.60 passenger-miles per mole of CO2 produced from combustion of octane.

Now, according to treehugger.com, a bicyclist uses only 35 “calories” per passenger-mile. However, these are really kilocalories – there is, for example, no way one can ride 100 miles and use only 3.5 kcal of one’s ~2,000 daily intake of “calories” (kilocalories).

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/07/worldmostener.php

Let’s assume for simplicity that the bicyclist uses glucose for energy – and therefore generates 6 moles of CO2 per mole of glucose consumed. The enthalpy (heat evolved) of glucose conversion to CO2 and water -671.1 kcal/mol of glucose, or since 6 moles of CO2 are generated per mole of glucose, s/he generates one mole of CO2 when s/he uses enough glucose to yield 111.9 (= 671.1/6) kcals of energy.

Therefore, the bicyclist gets (111.9/35) = 3.19 passenger-miles per mole of CO2 produced from metabolism of glucose.

Frankly, I was surprised that the 3.19:0.60 ratio was not as large as I would have intuitively expected.

Sure, carpooling is not generally practiced and we need exercise anyway, but the creationist’s claim is not off by the many orders of magnitude that I (and most of the posters here – I think) expected. (Also, I think it is reasonable to assume that the ‘calories’ expended by bicycling in treehuggers’ estimates are in addition to those which the bicyclist would have expended by sitting in the car breathing anyway.)

[Note, treehugger.com claims that a car expends a whopping 1,860 calories per passenger mile. They are correct, but they make a huge mistake in describing the bicyclist’s energy usage – dietetic “calories” are really kilocalories .]

I haven't checked susceptor's analysis - but assuming it is correct it still ignores a VERY important difference between cornflake-based CO2 and gasoline-based CO2. The former is primarily associated with a closed loop in the atmosphere (corn extracts carbon from CO2 in the atmosphere through photosynthesis to produce the carbohydrates that we use for fuel) thus generating, in the long run, NO NET INCREASE in atmospheric CO2, whereas the gasoline is introducing NEW carbon into the atmosphere from reservoirs (oil fields) where it is has been sequestered from the atmosphere for eons.

I haven't checked susceptor's analysis - but assuming it is correct it still ignores a VERY important difference between cornflake-based CO2 and gasoline-based CO2. The former is primarily associated with a closed loop in the atmosphere (corn extracts carbon from CO2 in the atmosphere through photosynthesis to produce the carbohydrates that we use for fuel) thus generating, in the long run, NO NET INCREASE in atmospheric CO2, whereas the gasoline is introducing NEW carbon into the atmosphere from reservoirs (oil fields) where it is has been sequestered from the atmosphere for eons.

I haven't checked susceptor's analysis - but assuming it is correct it still ignores a VERY important difference between cornflake-based CO2 and gasoline-based CO2. The former is primarily associated with a closed loop in the atmosphere (corn extracts carbon from CO2 in the atmosphere through photosynthesis to produce the carbohydrates that we use for fuel) thus generating, in the long run, NO NET INCREASE in atmospheric CO2, whereas the gasoline is introducing NEW carbon into the atmosphere from reservoirs (oil fields) where it is has been sequestered from the atmosphere for eons.

He has a good point. On my 15 drive to work I don't breathe the entire time. Also, since I drive I don't have to eat because I'm superman.

Can fundies possibly get dumber than this?

Is there some sort of mental illness that affects particularly Australians, like MacKay, Ham, and Murdoch?

I haven't checked susceptor's analysis - but assuming it is correct it still ignores a VERY important difference between cornflake-based CO2 and gasoline-based CO2. The former is primarily associated with a closed loop in the atmosphere (corn extracts carbon from CO2 in the atmosphere through photosynthesis to produce the carbohydrates that we use for fuel) thus generating, in the long run, NO NET INCREASE in atmospheric CO2,...

I'm not defending the the nutjob, but you don't think that the corn - as actually produced in modern agriculture, with fertilizers, tractors, etc. - really ends up "fixing" much CO2 do you?

WTF. Why hasn't anyone brought up the fact that my conflakes covered in sugar will be eaten regardless of whether or not I drive a car? I do have to BREATHE EVEN WHEN I DRIVE MY GODDAMNED CAR. It is not A vs. B. It's A+B vs. B.

Tim-

Well, yes, the carbohydrates in corn ARE almost exclusively carbon "fixation" from atmospheric CO2 as a consequence of photosynthesis. The principle soil nutrients needed by corn are N, P, K, Mg and S - no carbon! All that carbon really is fixed from atmospheric CO2 - the beauty of photosynthesis! Now, admittedly, there is a significant secondary fossil fuel dependent carbon budget associated with current agricultural methods used in growing, harvesting, processing and distributing corn flakes as food. I think that would be an interesting calculation. Some folks have certainly done some portion of this calculation in the context of methanol fuel production. But don't forget that there is also a significant secondary carbon budget in the extraction, refining, and distribution of fossil fuel based gasoline. I might have said, before your interesting and counter-intuitive driving/cycling CO2 budget analysis [*], that the secondary budgets are surely a wash in comparing driving to bicycling, but I'm much more cautious about my intuition on this now, as it appears that the cycling and driving CO2 budgets for a single person using an efficient automobile are only an order of magnitude different (though, of course, cycling still wins handily, an order of magnitude difference being nothing to sneeze at). But I maintain that the bottom line is that my argument still stands for the primary carbon budgets - the corn flakes carbon is "old" carbon that was already in the atmosphere and the gasoline carbon is "new" carbon that had been sequestered.

[*]I did a quick check, using Gibbs free energy rather than enthalpy for the glucose metabolism reaction - Gibbs free energy seems more relevant in calculating the useful work that could be done by the reaction - and got results consistent with yours. I want to double check this before I flat out commit that it is the correct result. I'd anticipated at least two orders of magnitude difference (and leaned toward three orders of magnitude) in CO2 budgets. Very curious.

By the way, I also think that the 1860 "calories" expended per car-mile as reported by treehugger are actually kilocalories so the comparison 35 "calories"/mile for bicycling versus 1860 "calories"/mile for driving DOES scale correctly. I obtained this result by considering the energy content of gasoline ~ 130 MJ/gallon, and applying an admittedly stingy mileage of ~17 mpg for the automobile and finally converting units to kilocalories obtaining ~1860 kilocalories/mile. This result compared to the carbon budget analysis suggests why we're not running Toyotas on cornflakes - that octane molecule really does pack a huge energy density wallop. I wonder if Lance Armstrong's doctors ever considered how to get him to metabolize gasoline - now THAT would be a doping scandal!

Finally, I almost exclusively walk or bicycle to my place of work as a consequence of very conscious decisions and some sacrifices I made about where and how I live, but I live in a community where some individuals make what I consider to be simply insane 200+ mile daily roundtrip automobile commutes. It's pretty straightforward to recognize that commitment to bicycles for some non-vanishing portion of transportation needs (I won't hold my breath - pun somewhat intended) would preclude an individual from such utter profligacy in their carbon budget.

And now I'll slink back to my virtual hole, apologizing profusely for my abject triple post above and for incorrectly identifying the author of the carbon budget analysis. Lesson: don't blogment while outraged. Oopsie!

Is there some sort of mental illness that affects particularly Australians, like MacKay, Ham, and Murdoch?

Oi! You forgot Gibson. Tho neither he nor Murdoch was born in Australia.McKay was complaining about all the bike paths being created in his area. So Australia's actually becoming more bike friendly.

And here's just a few famous Aussies who have made great contributions in the sciences: Fred Hollows, John Eccles, and Elizabeth Blackburn. And let's not forget luminaries in the arts like Clive James and Thomans Keneally, and Peter Carey.

Get know know 'em, mate!

To be fair, our latest Census statistics show that there are nearly a million more atheists in Australia in the last 6 years and the rate of those who follow Christianity and other religions is declining (Sorry I don't have a link to the stats on hand). These guys are really a tiny laughed at majority and no one here has heard of Ken Ham or this other guy.....

Sorry about Murdoch though.

OZ's are the new Americans

I live in the Washington D.C. Metro area, and we have the worst traffic in the country. As I do my daily commute, the vast majority of the vehicles are carrying a single passenger.

Even after reading the above arguments, you guys are being generous enough to give him his 4 passengers and are assuming they are driving a very efficent car.

Those assumptions are insane, and he should not be granted them. Do some real world calculations.

Are you serious? How does the interviewer let this guy get away with making such a retarded statement?

Maybe the truth is that crazy Aussies like Hamm and this guy have to move to the US for anyone to pay attention to them.

Here's a clip which clearly shows what average Aussies think of the Creation Museum for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ8BEbQMrCI&NR=1

No wonder Hamm had to come over here to get an audience.