Denier Comment of the Day March 6, 2013

Ok…headgear on people.

Those crazy Republicans in the United States have some pretty stupid people representing their party and I feel sorry for their constituents. Today I am featuring Ed Orcutt. Ed in an email exchange between himself and the owner of a bike shop who was protesting a tax on bicycles, came up with a new hypothesis to explain rising emissions…

“You claim that it is environmentally friendly to ride a bike. But if I am not mistaken, a cyclists [sic] has an increased heart rate and respiration. That means that 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.”

Yes you read that correctly. Apparently it isn’t environmentally friendly to ride a bike. We should probably all drive. So, just how much CO2 is produced by a huffing and puffing cyclist? Well, according to a report from the European Cyclists Federation, a cyclist produces 21 grams of CO2 per kilometer travelled, and that includes the CO2 emissions from the production of the food to fuel the cyclist, where as a car produces on average 271 grams per kilometer “based on short trips similar to those a bicycle could make”.

I think if anyone is making unnecessary pollution when they open their mouths it might be Ed. Here is a screenshot of the original email…

Damn those environmentally unfriendly cyclists.

Damn those environmentally unfriendly cyclists.



Filed under Classic denier comments, idiot politicians

11 responses to “Denier Comment of the Day March 6, 2013

  1. Wow, man, that’s so far out there that I’m quite sure they can’t breathe without special equipment.

    • john byatt

      lucky he did not say it in Finnish we would all need breathing equipment

      good blog

      NASAn vanha, vuonna 1991 laukaistu yläilmakehän tutkimukseen käytetty UARS-

  2. George Montgomery

    This is in the same ballpark as Codling aka Nova thinking that coal is carbon neutral.

  3. You seem to miss the point that Orcutt is/was being sarcastic. This was just his way repeating the lie that “CO2 is plant food”. I am quite sure he is well aware that cars produce more of it; what he is/was disputing is that CO2 should be regarded as a pollutant (if derived from outside of the biosphere – as it is from fossil fuels).

    • I am trying to find the original report about this. He was interviewed and he doubled down on it. Even if he was being sarcastic, he is still an idiot for trying to portray sarcasm in the written word. As a representative of the people who elected him, he should jsut make his statement without rying to be funny about it. There are plenty of Republicans over there who have said far more stupid things.

  4. Michael

    …the obvious difference being respiration vs combustion. The same sarcastic argument can be made about plants during the decay (part of the Carbon) cycle. Ride a bike!

  5. Pingback: Another Week of GW News, March 10. 2013 – A Few Things Ill Considered