Re: Climate Denier-in-Chief [Runguy] [ In reply to ]

Oct 16, 18 9:09

Post #51 of 108 (1358 views)

Runguy wrote:

I guess I fall into the "denier" label. From all the stuff I have read the problem (if there is one) are in the climate models that are used to project 100 years into the future. They seem weighted heavy in terms of CO2 impact and less so for clouds , solar flare, earth's position, etc. Not to mention how the historical data has been revised to the point the "pause" has now been corrected to a slight uptick in temps for the past 20 years or so.

I just think there is more for us to learn and that as Duffy said spending lots of money that may not even address the problem is just wrong headed. Not to mention the increased cost of living if we try to artificially introduce more expensive alternate energy (sun, wind) in lieu of the economy will naturally do in time.

The above indicates that you have not made an effort to learn about the actual science behind the consensus on man-made climate change. Pretty much everything you say above is wrong.

You can start here for a layman's description. If you want to understand why your arguments are wrong, you can try here. I commend you on your journey to learn more.

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Re: Climate Denier-in-Chief [satanellus] [ In reply to ]

Oct 16, 18 9:09

Post #52 of 108 (1357 views)

satanellus wrote:

Runguy wrote:

I guess I fall into the "denier" label. From all the stuff I have read the problem (if there is one) are in the climate models that are used to project 100 years into the future. .

Out of curiosity, of the stuff you have read to establish your opinion, how much have read from the IPCC?

Some for sure (& they can been seen as part of the problem, too). Science to me is constantly being poked and prodded and the IPCC seems to dig their heels in way to hard to me. They seem unable or unwilling to admit that there could be other major contributors to climate change other than CO2.

Re: Climate Denier-in-Chief [tgrunnin] [ In reply to ]

Oct 16, 18 9:10

Post #53 of 108 (1351 views)

tgrunnin wrote:

I am a Carolinian. Are you referencing hurricanes? The storms we get summer-fall? The same type storm that wiped out Galveston in 1900? Or the one that slammed New Jersey in 1903? Hazel in NC in 1954? Hugo in SC and NC in 1989? Hurricane Andrew in 1992?

Frequency and severity of hurricanes are influenced by increases in sea surface temperatures. Rising sea surface temperatures are well documented globally. There is solid science behind this knowledge.

Ignore it, refute it, cherry-pick data as much as you wish, you can't change facts.

Re: Climate Denier-in-Chief [tigermilk] [ In reply to ]

Oct 16, 18 9:12

Post #54 of 108 (1349 views)

tigermilk wrote:

BarryP wrote:

Just because you don't know or understand something doesn't mean that no one does.

I work in a world with some pretty complicated problems. Often we deal with nonlinear systems and invariably folks will do a couple of tests, correlate their models to those tests, and claim they have a validated model. Sure it is validated for those inputs you have tested, but it is a far stretch to claim the model accurately predicts the response for any input. Correlation is not causation. The climate models are complicated and imperfect. It is a continual process to inform those models, and we must better understand the limitations of those models.

I take it you haven't dealt with the modeling of complicated systems before.

My stance is neither pro/anti climate change, only understand the limits of the models and don't use them to make low confidence claims.

What can you say when multiple models, created by different groups, using different data sets across multiple scientific fields, all point to the same conclusion? And when many of these models are used to make predictions that have, in fact, already proven out? Does that increase your confidence in these models?

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Re: Climate Denier-in-Chief [klehner] [ In reply to ]

Oct 16, 18 9:27

Post #55 of 108 (1329 views)

klehner wrote:

Runguy wrote:

I guess I fall into the "denier" label. From all the stuff I have read the problem (if there is one) are in the climate models that are used to project 100 years into the future. They seem weighted heavy in terms of CO2 impact and less so for clouds , solar flare, earth's position, etc. Not to mention how the historical data has been revised to the point the "pause" has now been corrected to a slight uptick in temps for the past 20 years or so.

I just think there is more for us to learn and that as Duffy said spending lots of money that may not even address the problem is just wrong headed. Not to mention the increased cost of living if we try to artificially introduce more expensive alternate energy (sun, wind) in lieu of the economy will naturally do in time.

The above indicates that you have not made an effort to learn about the actual science behind the consensus on man-made climate change. Pretty much everything you say above is wrong.

You can start here for a layman's description. If you want to understand why your arguments are wrong, you can try here. I commend you on your journey to learn more.

Of course I'm not denying that these things are happening, just that there are other significant contributors to climate besides CO2.

Also, please tell me what the "normal" temp for the earth is based on either your links or your own understanding. I suspect that the earth's temp. millions of years ago may have been higher than today as there was flora fossils found in Antarctica a few years ago.

In addition, let's say that drastic measures are put in place and there are major reductions in temp could there be unintended consequences where temps are driven down to where the climate gets too cold?

Listen, all I'm saying tying climate change to a political agenda (either way) is not a good idea.

Re: Climate Denier-in-Chief [Runguy] [ In reply to ]

Oct 16, 18 9:34

Post #56 of 108 (1311 views)

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Re: Climate Denier-in-Chief [ThisIsIt] [ In reply to ]

Oct 16, 18 9:35

Post #57 of 108 (1311 views)

Then you have most people who are just talking out of their asses.

Thank goodness you don't see any of that around here.

Re: Climate Denier-in-Chief [Runguy] [ In reply to ]

Oct 16, 18 9:38

Post #58 of 108 (1307 views)

Runguy wrote:

I guess I fall into the "denier" label. From all the stuff I have read the problem (if there is one) are in the climate models that are used to project 100 years into the future. They seem weighted heavy in terms of CO2 impact and less so for clouds , solar flare, earth's position, etc. Not to mention how the historical data has been revised to the point the "pause" has now been corrected to a slight uptick in temps for the past 20 years or so.

I just think there is more for us to learn and that as Duffy said spending lots of money that may not even address the problem is just wrong headed. Not to mention the increased cost of living if we try to artificially introduce more expensive alternate energy (sun, wind) in lieu of the economy will naturally do in time.

Really??
Where do you get your information about the models from?
You are SO wrong. Not just a little wrong.
Do you know how science is done?
I am talking about science, not blog writing.

But I am guessing that you have done your research.
Can you please post any links to your sources?

Last edited by: Halvard: Oct 16, 18 9:39

Re: Climate Denier-in-Chief [len] [ In reply to ]

Oct 16, 18 9:38

Post #59 of 108 (1307 views)

It is partly because people are being asked to change their behavior.

I think that is exactly why so many don't want to admit it, the fear they might have to change their lifestyle. It's the same when people are told the best way to eat. What they really want is to lose weight while doing exactly what they are doing now...

Re: Climate Denier-in-Chief [tigermilk] [ In reply to ]

Oct 16, 18 9:41

Post #60 of 108 (1299 views)

"I take it you haven't dealt with the modeling of complicated systems before. "

I have degrees in math education and mechanical engineering. I've worked the last 9 years of my career in data science, including predictive modeling.

"Often we deal with nonlinear systems and invariably folks will do a couple of tests, correlate their models to those tests, and claim they have a validated model. "

And the entire problem rests on this straw man. If what you just wrote resembled climate science, then you'd have a point.

Climate models are a single piece of a field of study that 1000s of scientists have done countless of experiments on, approaching it from a large variety of different angles over the last several decades, and they all point to the same answer. This isn't "folks doing a couple of tests and finding a correlation."

"I work in a world with some pretty complicated problems. "

I find it hard to believe that you can have a successful career if you apply the same, "meh.....these people say that, those people say this......the truth probably lies in the middle" approach that you are using in this thread.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Re: Climate Denier-in-Chief [Runguy] [ In reply to ]

Oct 16, 18 9:45

Post #61 of 108 (1292 views)

Runguy wrote:

klehner wrote:

Runguy wrote:

I guess I fall into the "denier" label. From all the stuff I have read the problem (if there is one) are in the climate models that are used to project 100 years into the future. They seem weighted heavy in terms of CO2 impact and less so for clouds , solar flare, earth's position, etc. Not to mention how the historical data has been revised to the point the "pause" has now been corrected to a slight uptick in temps for the past 20 years or so.

I just think there is more for us to learn and that as Duffy said spending lots of money that may not even address the problem is just wrong headed. Not to mention the increased cost of living if we try to artificially introduce more expensive alternate energy (sun, wind) in lieu of the economy will naturally do in time.

The above indicates that you have not made an effort to learn about the actual science behind the consensus on man-made climate change. Pretty much everything you say above is wrong.

You can start here for a layman's description. If you want to understand why your arguments are wrong, you can try here. I commend you on your journey to learn more.

Of course I'm not denying that these things are happening, just that there are other significant contributors to climate besides CO2.

Also, please tell me what the "normal" temp for the earth is based on either your links or your own understanding. I suspect that the earth's temp. millions of years ago may have been higher than today as there was flora fossils found in Antarctica a few years ago.

In addition, let's say that drastic measures are put in place and there are major reductions in temp could there be unintended consequences where temps are driven down to where the climate gets too cold?

Listen, all I'm saying tying climate change to a political agenda (either way) is not a good idea.

Things change. (Antarctica not always at south pole) To think human caused climate change are catastrophic is just fear mongering.

watch here for some fun plate tectonics (only 540 million years worth). Go back even farther if you want to see it get REALLY wacky

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjCcJtnbg_A

Re: Climate Denier-in-Chief [Runguy] [ In reply to ]

Oct 16, 18 9:55

Post #62 of 108 (1279 views)

Runguy wrote:

satanellus wrote:

Runguy wrote:

I guess I fall into the "denier" label. From all the stuff I have read the problem (if there is one) are in the climate models that are used to project 100 years into the future. .

Out of curiosity, of the stuff you have read to establish your opinion, how much have read from the IPCC?

Some for sure (& they can been seen as part of the problem, too). Science to me is constantly being poked and prodded and the IPCC seems to dig their heels in way to hard to me. They seem unable or unwilling to admit that there could be other major contributors to climate change other than CO2.

So you consider the most authoritative, widely representative and respected body on the subject, supported by the most knowledgeable scientists who have attained consensus via study in multiple disciplines, making the most comprehensive analysis conceivably possibly to subsequently formulate the best-informed recommendations, to "seem to be" not quite to you liking, so you dismiss the sum knowledge in preference to.....what?

If you required an appendectomy would you distrust reputable medical knowledge and ask your local fishmonger to perform the surgery?

This is exactly the bewildering thought process that prompted my initial post.

Re: Climate Denier-in-Chief [Runguy] [ In reply to ]

Oct 16, 18 10:03

Post #63 of 108 (1269 views)

Runguy wrote:

klehner wrote:

Runguy wrote:

I guess I fall into the "denier" label. From all the stuff I have read the problem (if there is one) are in the climate models that are used to project 100 years into the future. They seem weighted heavy in terms of CO2 impact and less so for clouds , solar flare, earth's position, etc. Not to mention how the historical data has been revised to the point the "pause" has now been corrected to a slight uptick in temps for the past 20 years or so.

I just think there is more for us to learn and that as Duffy said spending lots of money that may not even address the problem is just wrong headed. Not to mention the increased cost of living if we try to artificially introduce more expensive alternate energy (sun, wind) in lieu of the economy will naturally do in time.

The above indicates that you have not made an effort to learn about the actual science behind the consensus on man-made climate change. Pretty much everything you say above is wrong.

You can start here for a layman's description. If you want to understand why your arguments are wrong, you can try here. I commend you on your journey to learn more.

Of course I'm not denying that these things are happening, just that there are other significant contributors to climate besides CO2.

Also, please tell me what the "normal" temp for the earth is based on either your links or your own understanding. I suspect that the earth's temp. millions of years ago may have been higher than today as there was flora fossils found in Antarctica a few years ago.

In addition, let's say that drastic measures are put in place and there are major reductions in temp could there be unintended consequences where temps are driven down to where the climate gets too cold?

Listen, all I'm saying tying climate change to a political agenda (either way) is not a good idea.

You really haven't paid the least bit of attention to the latest IPCC released this past week have you?

Re: Climate Denier-in-Chief [satanellus] [ In reply to ]

Oct 16, 18 10:08

Post #64 of 108 (1265 views)

satanellus wrote:

Runguy wrote:

satanellus wrote:

Runguy wrote:

I guess I fall into the "denier" label. From all the stuff I have read the problem (if there is one) are in the climate models that are used to project 100 years into the future. .

Out of curiosity, of the stuff you have read to establish your opinion, how much have read from the IPCC?

Some for sure (& they can been seen as part of the problem, too). Science to me is constantly being poked and prodded and the IPCC seems to dig their heels in way to hard to me. They seem unable or unwilling to admit that there could be other major contributors to climate change other than CO2.

So you consider the most authoritative, widely representative and respected body on the subject, supported by the most knowledgeable scientists who have attained consensus via study in multiple disciplines, making the most comprehensive analysis conceivably possibly to subsequently formulate the best-informed recommendations, to "seem to be" not quite to you liking, so you dismiss the sum knowledge in preference to.....what?

If you required an appendectomy would you distrust reputable medical knowledge and ask your local fishmonger to perform the surgery?

This is exactly the bewildering thought process that prompted my initial post.

what I find interesting is thinking like a socialist where the collective we "think" that government can come up with a good , workable solution(s). I mean that is what we are talking about here, really. Hell, we can't really predict the weather out a few months accurately but we can predict how 'ole mother earth's climate will be out 20-100 years?

Re: Climate Denier-in-Chief [Runguy] [ In reply to ]

Oct 16, 18 10:21

Post #65 of 108 (1257 views)

Runguy wrote:

satanellus wrote:

Runguy wrote:

satanellus wrote:

Runguy wrote:

I guess I fall into the "denier" label. From all the stuff I have read the problem (if there is one) are in the climate models that are used to project 100 years into the future. .

Out of curiosity, of the stuff you have read to establish your opinion, how much have read from the IPCC?

Some for sure (& they can been seen as part of the problem, too). Science to me is constantly being poked and prodded and the IPCC seems to dig their heels in way to hard to me. They seem unable or unwilling to admit that there could be other major contributors to climate change other than CO2.

So you consider the most authoritative, widely representative and respected body on the subject, supported by the most knowledgeable scientists who have attained consensus via study in multiple disciplines, making the most comprehensive analysis conceivably possibly to subsequently formulate the best-informed recommendations, to "seem to be" not quite to you liking, so you dismiss the sum knowledge in preference to.....what?

If you required an appendectomy would you distrust reputable medical knowledge and ask your local fishmonger to perform the surgery?

This is exactly the bewildering thought process that prompted my initial post.

what I find interesting is thinking like a socialist where the collective we "think" that government can come up with a good , workable solution(s). I mean that is what we are talking about here, really. Hell, we can't really predict the weather out a few months accurately but we can predict how 'ole mother earth's climate will be out 20-100 years?

OK, that point is just so banal, facile and exhibits such a lack of understanding of the topic that I might as well spend my time trying to play chess with a frog.

Re: Climate Denier-in-Chief [Runguy] [ In reply to ]

Oct 16, 18 10:27

Post #66 of 108 (1254 views)

Runguy wrote:

klehner wrote:

Runguy wrote:

I guess I fall into the "denier" label. From all the stuff I have read the problem (if there is one) are in the climate models that are used to project 100 years into the future. They seem weighted heavy in terms of CO2 impact and less so for clouds , solar flare, earth's position, etc. Not to mention how the historical data has been revised to the point the "pause" has now been corrected to a slight uptick in temps for the past 20 years or so.

I just think there is more for us to learn and that as Duffy said spending lots of money that may not even address the problem is just wrong headed. Not to mention the increased cost of living if we try to artificially introduce more expensive alternate energy (sun, wind) in lieu of the economy will naturally do in time.

The above indicates that you have not made an effort to learn about the actual science behind the consensus on man-made climate change. Pretty much everything you say above is wrong.

You can start here for a layman's description. If you want to understand why your arguments are wrong, you can try here. I commend you on your journey to learn more.

Of course I'm not denying that these things are happening, just that there are other significant contributors to climate besides CO2.

Also, please tell me what the "normal" temp for the earth is based on either your links or your own understanding. I suspect that the earth's temp. millions of years ago may have been higher than today as there was flora fossils found in Antarctica a few years ago.

In addition, let's say that drastic measures are put in place and there are major reductions in temp could there be unintended consequences where temps are driven down to where the climate gets too cold?

Listen, all I'm saying tying climate change to a political agenda (either way) is not a good idea.

Except that claiming that there are other "significant contributors" you are using a common denialist argument.

Then you use the common denialist argument about "what is the normal temperature", as if that has anything to do with whether we are responsible for climate change. It's just deflection.

Then you go on to more deflection into the realm of what to do about it.

You still sound like a denialist. You can't agree that man-made effects are driving climate change.

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Re: Climate Denier-in-Chief [knewbike] [ In reply to ]

Oct 16, 18 10:47

Post #67 of 108 (1237 views)

"Things change. (Antarctica not always at south pole) To think human caused climate change are catastrophic is just fear mongering.

watch here for some fun plate tectonics (only 540 million years worth). Go back even farther if you want to see it get REALLY wacky

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjCcJtnbg_A "

1,000 scientists walk into a lab and say, "hey, look at all this research we've done over the last 30 years. Looks like climate change is a pretty big deal."

Knewbike looks at the pile of research, looks back up and says, "Nuh uh."

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Re: Climate Denier-in-Chief [Runguy] [ In reply to ]

Oct 16, 18 10:49

Post #68 of 108 (1235 views)

"Also, please tell me what the "normal" temp for the earth is based on either your links or your own understanding."

What's the normal temperature of a preheated oven? What temperature should it be if your head was inside of it?

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Re: Climate Denier-in-Chief [BarryP] [ In reply to ]

Oct 16, 18 11:03

Post #69 of 108 (1221 views)

BarryP wrote:

"Also, please tell me what the "normal" temp for the earth is based on either your links or your own understanding."

What's the normal temperature of a preheated oven? What temperature should it be if your head was inside of it?

you just made my point, thanks!

Re: Climate Denier-in-Chief [BarryP] [ In reply to ]

Oct 16, 18 11:04

Post #70 of 108 (1217 views)

BarryP wrote:

"Things change. (Antarctica not always at south pole) To think human caused climate change are catastrophic is just fear mongering.

watch here for some fun plate tectonics (only 540 million years worth). Go back even farther if you want to see it get REALLY wacky

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjCcJtnbg_A "

1,000 scientists walk into a lab and say, "hey, look at all this research we've done over the last 30 years. Looks like climate change is a pretty big deal."

Knewbike looks at the pile of research, looks back up and says, "Nuh uh."

To the contrary. It's a big deal to us at this time. Just a deal that is futile to fix. No chance in hell that you change all of human behavior to even make a dent in the inevitable outcome. Also. there was plenty of life when it was 10 degrees hotter on this planet let alone 4. Adaptation will happen.

Re: Climate Denier-in-Chief [Duffy] [ In reply to ]

Oct 16, 18 11:06

Post #71 of 108 (1213 views)

Duffy wrote:

Quote:

there’s a long history of “support among people of all partisan backgrounds for regulating pollution – basic things like clean water and clean air,”

And herein lies my biggest beef with “climate change”.

As someone who’s boots are on the ground in the pollution prevention business I have seen resources shifted away from protection of the air and water (protections that have proven measurable results) to “combating climate change” with no evidence at all of doing any good.

A perfect example of this is the best, most efficient system for handling gasoline storage tank overpressure issues (that cause VOCs to be realeased) is system that burns off the vapors.

In many jurisdictions they are not allowed because they create CO2. The average daily amount of CO2 that these systems produce is equivalent to 3 people breathing.

Another stupid fucking thing that California did was require new Diesel engines to use Diesel Exhaust Fliud (DEF) to combat global warming and reduce particulates (based on a proven to be fraudulent study, btw). Well this DEF mostly comes in plastic containers (1 or 5 gallon) that cannot be recycled.

I service one site that is a truck stop and they fill a dumpster every singe day with discarded DEF containers.

Straight to the landfill.

I agree with you that this is the biggest issue with making "climate change" a political issue. If we could stop having the debates on the merits of the science we could start having debates on the appropriate response. Right now the opposition to extremest who say "stop all CO2 emissions at all cost" is saying "there isn't climate change". It is sort of the "nah, nah, nah, I am not listing to you" counter argument. We need a strong voice that says "balance the impact of reducing CO2 emissions with impacts on quality of life", or the "Paris Accord is not the best way to invest in reducing the global impact."

I think I hear that start to change in Trump's interview. He is no longer deny, deny, deny. He is arguing about the cost of dealing with the issues. That is a start. I look forward to a time when he says, "I accept the mainstream science, but I think we can solve the problem in a different way."

Re: Climate Denier-in-Chief [Runguy] [ In reply to ]

Oct 16, 18 11:26

Post #72 of 108 (1193 views)

"you just made my point, thanks! "

Um, pretty sure I didn't.

It might be "normal" for you oven to be 350 degrees. However, YOU can't survive at that temperature.

Likewise, it might be normal for the Earth to be 5 degrees warmer, but that would put a large part of our population under water, along with a whole host of other problems that humans are not well suited for.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Re: Climate Denier-in-Chief [knewbike] [ In reply to ]

Oct 16, 18 11:29

Post #73 of 108 (1189 views)

"No chance in hell that you change all of human behavior to even make a dent in the inevitable outcome. "

I think that's a horrible excuse for the people who are blocking progress. I don't think its a reasonable argument to be the worst western country with regard to climate change because no one else will be good enough.

I think that's referred to the Nirvana fallacy.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Re: Climate Denier-in-Chief [knewbike] [ In reply to ]

Oct 16, 18 11:46

Post #74 of 108 (1180 views)

knewbike wrote:

BarryP wrote:

"Things change. (Antarctica not always at south pole) To think human caused climate change are catastrophic is just fear mongering.

watch here for some fun plate tectonics (only 540 million years worth). Go back even farther if you want to see it get REALLY wacky

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjCcJtnbg_A "

1,000 scientists walk into a lab and say, "hey, look at all this research we've done over the last 30 years. Looks like climate change is a pretty big deal."

Knewbike looks at the pile of research, looks back up and says, "Nuh uh."

To the contrary. It's a big deal to us at this time. Just a deal that is futile to fix. No chance in hell that you change all of human behavior to even make a dent in the inevitable outcome. Also. there was plenty of life when it was 10 degrees hotter on this planet let alone 4. Adaptation will happen.

Who is talking about fixing things?

Proposed strategies generally revolve around strategies of amelioration, limitation, reducing rates of temperature increases, etc.

Citing past differentials in the earth's temperatures that preceded human evolution hardly supports a "she'll be right" argument for the future, particularly when predicted the rates of change far outstrip historical precedents.

Just because we can't change all of human behaviour does not mean we cannot make significant changes that will lead to better outcomes. Just as past and current human activity has had profound impact on the current climate, likewise the nature of our future activities will continue to influence environmental outcomes.

Some adaptation will happen, much will not, whether that be demographically, socially or environmentally. This is currently evident with the devastation of our largest coral reef ecosystems.

From a personal standpoint, I don't think it is ethically justifiable to drive species (let alone entire ecosystems) to extinction when we have a capacity to effectively conserve them.

Or we can just teach our kids to throw their rubbish out of the car window, because hey, we're all fucked anyway and it doesn't matter.

Re: Climate Denier-in-Chief [BarryP] [ In reply to ]

Oct 16, 18 11:49

Post #75 of 108 (1178 views)

BarryP wrote:

"you just made my point, thanks! "

Um, pretty sure I didn't.

It might be "normal" for you oven to be 350 degrees. However, YOU can't survive at that temperature.

Likewise, it might be normal for the Earth to be 5 degrees warmer, but that would put a large part of our population under water, along with a whole host of other problems that humans are not well suited for.

In addition to the human population, I think the bigger concern is regarding the other species' populations. What happens when the chemical makeup and temperature of the environment is not conducive to the survival of pollinators? Are they even more sensitive to environmental changes than we are?

Travis Rassat
Vector Cycle Works
Noblesville, IN
BikeFit Instructor | FMS | F.I.S.T. | IBFI
Toughman Triathlon Series Ambassador

Our Partners

transition-DOT-area-AT-slowtwitch-DOT-com

Advertise with us

©1999-2024 Slowtwitch, Inc., and Slowtwitch.com
Reproduction of material from any Slowtwitch.com page
without written permission is strictly prohibited.