Cabrinha: Implementation of Bio-Based Dyneema

[Rickshawjimmy]

I think it's a really positive move from Cab. Of course kitesurfing isn't a 'green' manufacturing process but it's obvious they are looking at this and making steps to limit their footprint where they can. A 90% reduction in a footprint is a big deal, that's x9 times less and if the performance isn't affected then that's a huge move. I wouldn't be surprised to see other brands trying to follow this in the future.

[Onda]

Every little bit counts! There are no silver bullets. A good move of Cabrinha!

[Matteo V]

Nothing to draw out the anti-science lunies on KF like a post about the environment. Good on Cab. one step in the right direction.

I think it's a really positive move from Cab. Of course kitesurfing isn't a 'green' manufacturing process but it's obvious they are looking at this and making steps to limit their footprint where they can. A 90% reduction in a footprint is a big deal, that's x9 times less and if the performance isn't affected then that's a huge move. I wouldn't be surprised to see other brands trying to follow this in the future.

Every little bit counts! There are no silver bullets. A good move of Cabrinha!

Yes, math is definetly anti-science. What feels good is real science. (Sarcasm)

If we put 90% of our efforts into solving 0.001% of our problems, have we solved most of our problems? Or have we just wasted nearly all of our capacity for concern and ability to fix things, for a "self pat on the back", while we sink deeper and deeper into the abyss?

Our problems have become unsolvable because the public gives approval to effort with no effectual results. The real "first little step" toward solving our problems is to admit that our efforts to solve are problems ARE bigger problems than what they are supposed to solve.

[Faxie]

Nothing to draw out the anti-science lunies on KF like a post about the environment. Good on Cab. one step in the right direction.

I think it's a really positive move from Cab. Of course kitesurfing isn't a 'green' manufacturing process but it's obvious they are looking at this and making steps to limit their footprint where they can. A 90% reduction in a footprint is a big deal, that's x9 times less and if the performance isn't affected then that's a huge move. I wouldn't be surprised to see other brands trying to follow this in the future.

Every little bit counts! There are no silver bullets. A good move of Cabrinha!

Yes, math is definetly anti-science. What feels good is real science. (Sarcasm)

If we put 90% of our efforts into solving 0.001% of our problems, have we solved most of our problems? Or have we just wasted nearly all of our capacity for concern and ability to fix things, for a "self pat on the back", while we sink deeper and deeper into the abyss?

Our problems have become unsolvable because the public gives approval to effort with no effectual results. The real "first little step" toward solving our problems is to admit that our efforts to solve are problems ARE bigger problems than what they are supposed to solve.

What about solving non existing problems with not working solutions that create even bigger problems in the long run?

Calling people names is apparently a better argument than posting actual scientific papers and articles about the subjects, or even attempting to debate. Just trust the marketing, not the science! And then they get angry because the rainforests are getting chopped down, or when a windmill is placed in their backyard

Reminds me why I stop bothering most of the time. Had too many instances where I posted data, graphs and papers from official institutes like NASA, NOAA, the EU, BOM etc, only to be called names without any counterarguments and got my replies removed on top of it. These people are beyond help.

[Matteo V]

Reminds me why I stop bothering most of the time. Had too many instances where I posted data, graphs and papers from official institutes like NASA, NOAA, the EU, BOM etc, only to be called names without any counterarguments and got my replies removed on top of it. These people are beyond help.

So just go to the other planet with all the sensible and rational people. (Again, sarcasm)

Bitching about idiots does not make them smarter. Nor does it seem to be a solution to the issues at hand. And just to be clear, you know that "NASA, NOAA, the EU, BOM etc," have demonstrated bias that kind of eliminates any instant credibility you may think they have? Right?

I'm not saying they never make true statements, but they do fall in line with certain narratives thier own data has shown to disprove.

[Faxie]

Reminds me why I stop bothering most of the time. Had too many instances where I posted data, graphs and papers from official institutes like NASA, NOAA, the EU, BOM etc, only to be called names without any counterarguments and got my replies removed on top of it. These people are beyond help.

So just go to the other planet with all the sensible and rational people. (Again, sarcasm)

Bitching about idiots does not make them smarter. Nor does it seem to be a solution to the issues at hand. And just to be clear, you know that "NASA, NOAA, the EU, BOM etc," have demonstrated bias that kind of eliminates any instant credibility you may think they have? Right?

I'm not saying they never make true statements, but they do fall in line with certain narratives thier own data has shown to disprove.

I'm fully aware of that (especially regarding questionable homogenisations of data), but they are the sources people would normally not question. Other sources are normally disregarded immediately without any sound arguments, so it's the best tactic. They won't defy their own gods.

[tautologies]

Calling people names is apparently a better argument than posting actual scientific papers and articles about the subjects, or even attempting to debate. Just trust the marketing, not the science! And then they get angry because the rainforests are getting chopped down, or when a windmill is placed in their backyard

Reminds me why I stop bothering most of the time. Had too many instances where I posted data, graphs and papers from official institutes like NASA, NOAA, the EU, BOM etc, only to be called names without any counterarguments and got my replies removed on top of it. These people are beyond help.

Let me respond to this. I wasn't primarily talking to you regarding the anti-science. Note that calling someone who for every argument goes against conventional science and argues the falsified margins as if they are correct and that everything else is just conspiracies from some greedy big money academics is by definition anti-science...you know because they aren't arguing in science. I did go to your links, and read some of their conclusions, perhaps different from you.

That said, I do think your argument fails to include the social aspects of making changes and focusing on the environment. You can argue that isolated it will not do much, but the bar has to be moved somewhere. Clearly starting talking and thinking about environmental impacts is a good thing. Then comes doing, then comes doing more. I think criticizing everything because more could be done or one could start in a different end is not helpful in that process.

[tegirinenashi]

You "anti-science" label is quite naïve and arrogant. Here is little more sophisticated discussion:



His father was Berkeley(!) professor. The vocabulary is impressive by itself:
"research cartel"
"monopoly of knowledge"
"failures of institutional knowledge"
"moral authority"
"arrival of Greta Thumberg into the climate space"
"victimology joining hands with scientism"

[alkiter]

While brainwashed gullible humans believe they can change global climate, we're one volcanic eruption that will destroy civilization as we know it.

[elguapo]

wait.

this is a real thing?


i thought this was a "late" april fool joke from cabrinha....