Miningman The Ontario Northland Railway had a magnificient plan in place to haul the garbage to Kirkland Lake at the old Adams Mine open pit site. It was all worked out and ready to go with everyone on board with the plan except of course the few loud anti everything folks who got it kiboshed. Stupid. By the way the ONR is now on it's deathbed.
The Ontario Northland Railway had a magnificient plan in place to haul the garbage to Kirkland Lake at the old Adams Mine open pit site.
It was all worked out and ready to go with everyone on board with the plan except of course the few loud anti everything folks who got it kiboshed. Stupid.
By the way the ONR is now on it's deathbed.
The ONR is on its deathbed? Please elaborate..
The Wynne Government in Ontario has made it abundantly clear that it wants out of the Ontario Northland ownership. They have publicly stated they will continue to support Cochrane to Moosonee but that's it.
CN and CP have their own routes in place and need not interchange freight with the ONR. The Railroad is for sale with no takers.
I believe they are down to one interchange freight a day in each direction and on line traffic has diminished greatly especially in the mining, smelting and forestry sectors.
Another major blow was the forestalling of The Ring of Fire one trillion dollar Chromite deposit, with an excellent plan in place by the ONR that was quickly shot down after the government hired endless line of consultants provided to them exactly what they wanted to hear.
Sorry I am travelling on an extended trip thru the USA but you can find many links via Google, try Financial Post et al.
Thanks Miningman, wasn't aware of that. That's big news and sad too. Hopefully someone like maybe G&W expresses an interest.
Ulrich BaltACD Ulrich We truck our garbage to Michigan! Thereby compounding the pollution problem while also contributing to highway congestion.. and the folks at the border don't like those stinky trucks either.Our neighbors in Michigan are also less than thrilled about being the recipients of our garbage (can't say I blame them). I wonder what failed economics major came up with that idea. Who in Guelph has a suitable location and finances to handle the local garbage situation. The transport of 'local garbage' to distant locations has been created by the lack of suitable solutions closer to home. Still.. trucking it to Michigan doesn't sound like the best possible solution. I was asked to bid on that about 10 years ago.. but I will not haul garbage or livestock.. two things I won't do. Funny they wouldn't at least put it on the rail. Oh well, I'm doing my part by sorting my garbage.. every bit helps!
BaltACD Ulrich We truck our garbage to Michigan! Thereby compounding the pollution problem while also contributing to highway congestion.. and the folks at the border don't like those stinky trucks either.Our neighbors in Michigan are also less than thrilled about being the recipients of our garbage (can't say I blame them). I wonder what failed economics major came up with that idea. Who in Guelph has a suitable location and finances to handle the local garbage situation. The transport of 'local garbage' to distant locations has been created by the lack of suitable solutions closer to home.
Ulrich We truck our garbage to Michigan! Thereby compounding the pollution problem while also contributing to highway congestion.. and the folks at the border don't like those stinky trucks either.Our neighbors in Michigan are also less than thrilled about being the recipients of our garbage (can't say I blame them). I wonder what failed economics major came up with that idea.
Who in Guelph has a suitable location and finances to handle the local garbage situation. The transport of 'local garbage' to distant locations has been created by the lack of suitable solutions closer to home.
Still.. trucking it to Michigan doesn't sound like the best possible solution. I was asked to bid on that about 10 years ago.. but I will not haul garbage or livestock.. two things I won't do. Funny they wouldn't at least put it on the rail. Oh well, I'm doing my part by sorting my garbage.. every bit helps!
I always have found it odd that Toronto continues to truck garbage and that the Adams mine/Railcycle North plan failed, although some arguments against it were well-played and entertaining (a certain city councillor played a Simpsons episode to the others at city hall).
But recycling is a viable option. Would you believe that Edmonton, the centre of Alberta's industrial heartland (and its associated emissions) has led North America in waste management for many years? The recycling program started in the late 1980s (an industrial-sized composter was added later), not as a purely green initiative but because of a different harsh reality: the landfill was filling up and every time the city tried to find a new site the NIMBYs rose up and killed it (not that I blame them, I wouldn't want a dump opening up next door either). The recycling and composting programs extended that landfill's life by 20 years, and it finally closed in 2009.
Today Edmonton diverts nearly 90% of its municipal garbage from landfills, the remainder is hauled to a small rural site east of the city, which has many years of life remaining. The old landfill has also been drilled for methane, which fuels a small nearby power plant.
Toronto has a recycling program now, but it took quite a while for them to follow Edmonton's lead. At one time Toronto's mayor (Mel Lastman I think) said that recycling would be too expensive, and would never work in a city of Toronto's size.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Ulrich and all- regarding the Ontario Northland Railway and what I wrote and also including SD70M-2 Dudes comment.. it all goes to a (deliberate) total lack of vision and pyramid of extortion making big big bucks for politicians and their chosen few buddies at the expense of the base people. There is no nation building or a long term view but it is passed of as such.
How on earth a mineral and resource rich province like Ontario can turn their back on their own heritage and write off the North as unsustainable is beyond the beyond. Their own published nonsense identifies only Sudbury and Thunder Bay as viable.
There are not enough folks in the North to fight this stupidity, greed and nonsense. It's a tragedy.
Michigan DEQ landfill regulators tried to limit where refuse could be hauled from, but the landfill operators got them overruled for restraint of trade.
Trucking garbage to anywhere is a very poor use of scarce resources. The highways are already overcrowded... drivers who are willing to run shorthop loads cross border are in desperate short supply..and the tax dollars to pay for it all.. don't even get me started on that. Like SD70 stated, the problem has been mitigated to some degree through increased recycling.. and I believe Edmonton has indeed lead the way on that, a tip of the hat to our western Canadian brothers and sisters. And to the politicians: a pox on all your houses!! No wonder we have the highest property taxes in the land.
Miningman How on earth a mineral and resource rich province like Ontario can turn their back on their own heritage and write off the North as unsustainable is beyond the beyond. Their own published nonsense identifies only Sudbury and Thunder Bay as viable.
It sounds like that he feels that the natural resources of sub-arctic Ontario should be extracted at any cost. He should look at Butte, Montana to see what gets left behind when the mines play out.
The county where I live in at in IL Livingston county has a Landfill in it that is 4 square miles in size. Guess which city is the largest customer for it. If you say Chicago your right. On a normal day they get close to 500 tons a day from Chicago of garbage that needs to be dumped. For that we get lower taxes on our property in my county. I pay half of what I would just 1/2 of a mile north of here for the same property value.
Shadow the Cats owner The county where I live in at in IL Livingston county has a Landfill in it that is 4 square miles in size. Guess which city is the largest customer for it. If you say Chicago your right. On a normal day they get close to 500 tons a day from Chicago of garbage that needs to be dumped. For that we get lower taxes on our property in my county. I pay half of what I would just 1/2 of a mile north of here for the same property value.
In fact 5000 tons of Chicago's garbage is dumped there daily, but fortunately for you (even though you think global warming is a hoax) it is in a landfill developed under the EPA's methane program. All methane and most CO2 is captured and the former is used to generate enough energy for 10,000 homes.
Property taxes are based on assessed value which is influenced by market value. Thanks and enjoy, Nancy Benton.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Pontiac also has to deal with Chicago and Cook county's other largest state export convicted felons with the prison there. Schlimm it is August 11th and this morning I had to run my heater in my minivan on my way to work as it was 49 degrees this morning. 49 freaking degrees in the middle of August even my MIL can't remember it being this cold in August or anyone of her friends at her retirement home. Also remember this about Global warming the scientists that all swear by it all of them refuse to release any of the data they are using what models they are using and how they are coming to their conclusions. Sorry if my 8th grade son ran his science project he has to do this year like they did he would flunk science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-change-whistleblower-alleges-noaa-manipula/
When the head guy and record keeper at NOAA says they are not following a sound scientific method then someone is screwing up.
To inject a brief note here: the chief weather effect of AGW will be in weather patterns or increased storm formation or intensity, NOT in any perceptible "change" in climatic temperature that means anything scientifically. Any 'theory' that purports to demonstrate AGW with hotter weather is unscientific or worse, unless the models have become both much more sophisticated and properly nondeterministic -- neither of which have characterized most of the European crap science that has driven the push to carbon caps, cap-and-trade, and the other feelgood approaches that make money for folks behind the curtain.
That doesn't change any of the other science that examines other issues of concern with increased anthropogenic contributions to the environment, most notably (with respect to CO2) oceanic effects including effective acidification, and metastability of things like Arctic ice formations. Those alone are reasonably 'establishable' as reasons to control CO2 levels -- but to control them actively and effectively (see some of the Intellectual Ventures work on the subject, for example) rather than the ridiculous political activity we have seen so far.
In good conventional science, ALL the data, ALL the methodology, and ALL the assumptions are supposed to be fully documented, and the results fully reproduceable given the assumptions (and therefore intercomparable when different assumptions are made.) A traditional 'red flag' for crap science has been the technique of belittling opponents; another has been using 'consensus' arguments to stifle legitimate paradigm change. We can get into outright fabrication and lying, either for academic or greater credit, but no theory of science actively condones these things, at least outside the Science and Society world.
However, the point to remember is that just because a bunch of people are conniving and fibbing, it doesn't mean anthropogenic carbon-dioxide release or even AGW aren't real -- I happen to think, and have thought for nearly 50 years now, that both are. It is as easy to cherry-pick a few relatively worthless examples from 'climate scientists' and then try to dismiss the whole theory as it is to cherry-pick things like exaggerated hockey-stick extrapolations of obsolescent data and claim massive intervention ... by economies dumb enough to cripple themselves while others better at political manipulation go right ahead and keep the problem 'in being' ... is necessary starting yesterday.
It may not be easy to untangle the science, and the true effects and appropriate models, from the web of fabrication and wishful thinking of manipulators on various 'sides' of the issue, but I think each of us should at least try to do it. And then vote accordingly when the time comes.
Shadow the Cats ownerAugust 11th and this morning I had to run my heater in my minivan on my way to work as it was 49 degrees this morning
Really? The NWS official site at Pontiac Muni Airport shows the lowest temperature there was 66 overnight, currently 71. So either you live in a cold cave in Livingstone county, your thermometer is miscalibrated or this example is similar to your whopper on here a year or so ago on underground storage.
RME Any 'theory' that purports to demonstrate AGW with hotter weather is unscientific or worse, unless the models have become both much more sophisticated and properly nondeterministic -- neither of which have characterized most of the European crap science that has driven the push to carbon caps, cap-and-trade, and the other feelgood approaches that make money for folks behind the curtain.
I am not sure of your background or current area of work/research, but is that not an example of the hyperbole you rightly take issue with? I am relieved to see that you broadly agree with the concept of AGW, but am mystified by your contempt for so much research by the specialists. Are you an expert in climate science? I am not, obviously, so I tend to respect the work of researchers in that field, as I would do in any field.
RMEIn good conventional science, ALL the data, ALL the methodology, and ALL the assumptions are supposed to be fully documented, and the results fully reproduceable given the assumptions (and therefore intercomparable when different assumptions are made.) A traditional 'red flag' for crap science has been the technique of belittling opponents; another has been using 'consensus' arguments to stifle legitimate paradigm change.
Yes.
I dunno...saw that Global Swarming flick...those Sharks look pretty real to me. Ski slopes in Switzerland, Buckingham Palace, Australian cities, it doesn't matter ...the effects of Global Swarming are everywhere. Best get a helmet.
schlimmAre you an expert in climate science? I am not, obviously, so I tend to respect the work of researchers in that field, as I would do in any field.
I am not a nominal expert in 'climate science' (and make no pretension to be) but I have considerable experience over the years in climate dynamics, model generation and testing, and nondeterministic logic (and its implementations on finite-state-machine systems). That ... in my opinion, of course ... qualifies me to investigate, assess, and where necessary criticize the counterparts of things in my experience that are being used, or abused, by people purporting to develop theories of climate dynamics. I may well not be correct in my own theories, but I can certainly determine the poverty of mistaken ones. And also, in my opinion, it does not take distinctive competence in general systems theory to figure out when mistakes or manipulation takes place in parts of systems; the issue then becomes determining whether error in one part of an analysis taints either the validity or the effective fair reproduceability of the results.
Yes, the comments I made represent hyperbole, but it is not "an example of the hyperbole I ... take issue with" -- although I agree that were I not to divulge that those comments are opinion, and the result in large part of personal bias from 'other data', it might well be perceived by others in that way. What I am disparaging is not the science behind anthropogenic change, it's the forms of distortion, collusion, and other things that have typified so much "research" and soi-disant "settled" science in these areas, and by extension the kinds of people and motivations that would engage in such behavior.
I would like to respect the work of researchers in any field, and of course I tend to do so 'until proven otherwise' in most cases, even in areas like linguistic psychology where I tend to have to fight down very strong initial biases and some otherwise common-sense BS detector reflexes to do so. Believe me when I say that it has taken a very long time, across a very wide range of events, for me to have arrived at the positions I hold today, and the opinions I express today. However, I do remain open to arguments even from sources I no longer particularly trust, as even partial truths can come out of almost any research if you care to look with proper care.
Sorry but calling serious research with which you find some alleged flaws 'crap science' is hyperbole of the worst sort and similar to the political rants of the likes of Limbaugh. It sure does not sound like the words of someone in a field of academic science. Once again you present yourself as a polymath, uniquely qualified to harshly criticize published scientific works outside your own area, whatever that is. Not the way most scientists speak. My daughter is a noted researcher in nanotechnology and folks in that field don't make comments as you do. I would never attempt to make such remarks on linguistic psychology (far outside my field) because it is simply unethical and would smack of grandiosity. We all can have our personal opinions on matters beyond our specialization, of course, but it is important to present them as such and avoid cloaking such opinions in a jargon which lends a false, ex cathedra type of validity to them.
schlimm Sorry but calling serious research with which you find some alleged flaws 'crap science' is hyperbole of the worst sort and similar to the political rants of the likes of Limbaugh. It sure does not sound like the words of someone in a field of academic science. Once again you present yourself as a polymath, uniquely qualified to harshly criticize published scientific works outside your own area, whatever that is. Not the way most scientists speak. My daughter is a noted researcher in nanotechnology and folks in that field don't make comments as you do. I would never attempt to make such remarks on linguistic psychology (far outside my field) because it is simply unethical and would smack of grandiosity. We all can have our personal opinions on matters beyond our specialization, of course, but it is important to present them as such and avoid cloaking such opinions in a jargon which lends a false, ex cathedra type of validity to them.
schlimm,
Your ego precedes you and is currently showing. Once again you feel the need to put down someone with whom you disagree, in this case another academic. Who died and gave you the right to appoint yourself lord and master of the universe? If you are indeed a clinical psychologist it, based on your always confrontational attitude, is not evident here on the forum.
None of us give a rat's what your daughter is, (except for possibly being female, in this day and age who knows which gender she aligns with) how smart she is, or how much money she makes. You are using her as a crutch in your post to support your own shortcomings.
You state you would never comment about something in your daughter's field but not being trained in climate science present yourself to be an expert in such and demean those who challenge your opinion. You demean and pan the political side with which you disagree. You are entitled to those privileges and to develop your own opinion. Please tell us what right you have to tell us we should fall in line with your opinion or be called names such as deniers. If we are not entitled to our own opinions the facism liberal so decry is in your hands. Conservatives want to see America thrive. Not so sure about the rest of you. Constantly inserting your political beliefs is your shortcoming.
Norm
schlimmSorry but calling serious research with which you find some alleged flaws 'crap science' is hyperbole of the worst sort and similar to the political rants of the likes of Limbaugh....
Except that what I'm doing is a bit different: it is not so much the research that is the 'crap' but the ways it is being spun and (again, in my opinion) often mispresented as precisely the ex cathedra and appeal-to-authority methods you are (also rightly) disparaging.
It sure does not sound like the words of someone in a field of academic science.
You must not have much experience with physicists!
Even in disciplines where the language is more reserved, I have found the use of disparaging remarks about 'colleagues' who are disagreed with to be remarkably frequent and often far more intolerant and personally insulting than anything I express on technical topics. If you prefer that I use the veiled language of insult that is so common in academe, yes, I can speak and write it.
Once again you present yourself as a polymath, uniquely qualified to harshly criticize published scientific works outside your own area, whatever that is.
I fail to see why someone who comments in other areas as arrogantly as you've done so often finds it appropriate to make a comment of this sort. I don't criticize anything that I have not studied or read on, and comprehended reasonably well rather than just swallowed material or paradigms as presented. You are always welcome to criticize based on the facts of a particular argument or controversy. You are of course completely welcome to destroy my whole line of argument if it fails to accord with sensible scientific principles -- which it really doesn't take a lifetime of specialized study in a specific discipline either to comprehend or to follow -- or if I should become carried away and claim something that you know to be mistaken. In fact, I see you do this often to many laymen posting on the forum who use or abuse terms or concepts pertaining to your field, and I also see you carrying the tone and some of the castigation over to concepts that I don't believe pertain to your field. Are you claiming that I should not express opinions merely because I don't hold degrees in the relevant fields, whether or not the opinions are in fact cogent, relevant, and properly informed?
Not the way most scientists speak.
Not the way I speak, either, when discussing academic subjects either in technical groups or at conferences. Here on this forum, I confess to being a bit more emotional and, yes, it is sometimes for the same reasons Rush does it (although I hope it is clear that I don't engage in the sort of half-informed or one-sided ideological ranting that he so often does... at least I hope so! ...) I can easily refrain from using that kind of language, or that tone, if it is causing difficulties; I would only request that other posters do so as well, in respective ways.
My daughter is a noted researcher in nanotechnology and folks in that field don't make comments as you do.
I wonder whether there is, somewhere, the same kind of controversy in the nano field (which, by the way, I have followed intensively in some respects since reading the first edition of "Engines of Creation" the first week it was published, so don't dust off the 'polymath' again as if it were a codeword epithet) that there was over cold fusion, and if so, if at least some people in 'that field' might express stronger opinions than those in sequential exchanges of letters in journals. Not to excuse it by any means.
I would never attempt to make such remarks on linguistic psychology (far outside my field) because it is simply unethical and would smack of grandiosity. We all can have our personal opinions on matters beyond our specialization, of course, but it is important to present them as such and avoid cloaking such opinions in a jargon which lends a false, ex cathedra type of validity to them.
I am sorry -- in fact, very sorry in context -- because I mistyped the subject and completely destroyed the point of what I was commenting on in so doing. What I meant to write was "linguistic philosophy" and if after this correction I have left even a shred of sense of objection to psycholinguistics, or the broader field of psychology and linguistics as a formal discipline itself, I will actively work to correct it. I would further note that I was not intending the comment containing that reference to apply in any way to schlimm's field of specialization or his participation in it.
I don't think I'll go into an extensive discussion of why I dislike linguistic philosophy, in part because it's utterly irrelevant on a railroad forum, except to note that almost the whole of that 'field' depends on precisely the clever use of "jargon which lends a false, ex cathedra type of validity" to its structure, discussions, and publications.
Yes, we can all do with less emotion, more civility, and greater respect in disagreement. I will take those points to heart.
As the song GRANDMA GOT RUN OVER BY A REINDEER, goes, "As for me and Greandma, we believe. Having been to Alaska and Canada and other locations and seen the glaicers melting back up their canyons. And the increase in storms with higher amounts of precipitation while not necessarily a proof, lends credence to the extremes we are experiencing. Big Corporations don't want their actions to be curtailed and just as the tobaco industry worked hard to "prove" cigarettes were NOT addictive and didn't cause cancer, poluters don't want to change and so will try to spread disinformation. And sorry Steve, Fake NEWS is messing with facts and while Trains tells it like it is, I believe that those who don't want to accecpt global warming are being denyers. Coastal areas will see the effects on their low lying areas and New York City has already experienced flooding of tunnels during a huricane. While the next huricane may not occur during a high tide, I believe that a future storm will reek more damage. Also New Oleans has experienced a ten inch rain storm recently and reflooded many areas. How many extremes does it take to convince denyers?
I am reminded of the tale of the man that climbs on his roof during a flood and after having many rescuers try to get him to get off the roof and into boats etc, each time saying GOD WILL PROTECT ME, finally starts to drown, and says, "God, why have you failed me?" And god replies , "Who do you think sent all those rescuers to you!"
I think we need to stop denying global warming and try harder to understand the resulting weather extremes it is causing.
RME,
I'm in agreement.
Obama, who schlimm seems to worship, only lied when his lips were moving. Should he choose to believe lies that's his prerogative.
IMO schlimm has discredited himself by dismissing other opinions that disagree with him as heresy.
Norm48327Obama
Russell
RME: "Brevity is the soul of wit" perhaps applies and, as a comic metaphor only, I say with caution, Occam's Razor as well.
I am sure among other physicists in her field (which I might add is well-established), disputes are quite harsh. They certainly are in my fields, clinical psychology and (neuro)psychological assessment. But I refrain from speaking as anything other than a (sometimes well-read) layperson in most fields, even in other fields of psychology. The areas I feel like a fairly knowledgable amateur in are in history, but I would not presum to b more knowledgable than an actual historian. You doubtless have more well-deserved confidence in yourself to speak in public forums about fields beyond your own. I'm not sure why you should take 'polymath' as a pejorative, as it puts you in pretty respected and rarified company, Leonardo, Galileo and Alberti, to name three. Would Renaissance Man go down better? Just because I studied and have used stats does not qualify me, IMO, to critique the research designs of climatologists but I accept your choice. So what is your degree in and current field of research?
Electroliner 1935I think we need to stop denying global warming and try harder to understand the resulting weather extremes it is causing.
In my opinion, the whole idea of “extreme weather” is a false concept recently created for the sole purpose of selling the theory of destructive manmade climate change.
Extremes have always been a part of weather, but somehow, we have suddenly been led to believe that there is normal weather and abnormal weather. And “normal” weather is now being defined as equaling average weather. So now, any departure from average is considered abnormal or extreme.
While it’s true that the average itself can be said to be normal, that does not mean that the variations that make up the average are abnormal.
If the average daytime high temperature in Minneapolis on 6/21 is 78 degrees F., that does not mean that that if it actually measures 79 degrees, something is wrong. Yet that is clearly the message of the newly minted, “Extreme Weather” mantra that is everywhere in media and pop culture.
I don’t think any weather or climate event can possibly be valid evidence of climate change no matter how far out of average it is. Yet that is the way it is being packaged and sold.
We are told climate change is causing the glaciers to melt and the water to rise. So the cameras show us melting glaciers and flooded waters. It is always treated as being unpresented to drive home the idea that things used to be normal before man began destroying the planet by causing climate change. The fact is that the glaciers have always been melting. That is one of the things that glaciers do. They are either forming or melting. So we are told that they are all melting, and one that happens to be in the melting stage is shown to us as the evidence. As such, there is a theatrical production of climate change that is now part of the culture.
I think there is plenty to doubt before you even get to the science.
Please, can we not go 'knee-jerk political' or 'ad hominem' in posts here?
The last thing we need is a reductionist argument between extreme views that reduces complex scientific work to whether proponents are lying or not. My complaints with AGW science are grounded in ways it is being used, or abused, for fairly overt political or economic advantage, not in the underlying concepts or their potentially very great importance, and should not be understood as saying either that anthropogenic carbon emissions are insignificant or that we should take reasonable (which might quite easily be radically serious, if warranted) action to reduce them.
One problem is that the usual range of 'feel-good' carbon-emission reduction methods don't really address, let alone solve, the real problems that are likely to exist or that are developing. That distinction is, in my opinion, frequently going unrecognized, and 'solutions' right up to international treaties and agreements are, again in my opinion, being made that are based on incomplete and perhaps aberrant scientific theorization but that certainly have temporal consequences benefiting 'insiders' in ways that don't serve either democratic institutions or enlightened public policies.
Perhaps I'm still prickling at the abuses of science back in the days of the 'neutron bomb' debate and then issues of 'nuclear winter'. I didn't much care for the whole ecosystem of Grant Swing in the '50s, but I care far less for a situation in which expedient political stuff might be masquerading disguised as objective world necessity.
With EHH's operational performance to date - there won't be money in the coffers or a credit rating that will permit buying engines and cars for any commodity.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD With EHH's operational performance to date - there won't be money in the coffers or a credit rating that will permit buying engines and cars for any commodity.
Johnny
Euclid ... We are told climate change is causing the glaciers to melt and the water to rise. So the cameras show us melting glaciers and flooded waters. It is always treated as being unpresented to drive home the idea that things used to be normal before man began destroying the planet by causing climate change. The fact is that the glaciers have always been melting. That is one of the things that glaciers do. They are either forming or melting. So we are told that they are all melting, and one that happens to be in the melting stage is shown to us as the evidence. As such, there is a theatrical production of climate change that is now part of the culture. I think there is plenty to doubt before you even get to the science.
...
Glaciers are dynamic moving things. They form where there is a net accumulation of snow, then spread out until they meet melting conditions. The melting front of the glacier can advance, retreat, or remain static. Glaciers virtually worldwide have been in accelerated retreat in the last half century.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-glaciers
MidlandMike Euclid ... We are told climate change is causing the glaciers to melt and the water to rise. So the cameras show us melting glaciers and flooded waters. It is always treated as being unpresented to drive home the idea that things used to be normal before man began destroying the planet by causing climate change. The fact is that the glaciers have always been melting. That is one of the things that glaciers do. They are either forming or melting. So we are told that they are all melting, and one that happens to be in the melting stage is shown to us as the evidence. As such, there is a theatrical production of climate change that is now part of the culture. I think there is plenty to doubt before you even get to the science. Glaciers are dynamic moving things. They form where there is a net accumulation of snow, then spread out until they meet melting conditions. The melting front of the glacier can advance, retreat, or remain static. Glaciers virtually worldwide have been in accelerated retreat in the last half century. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-glaciers
So there must be a temporary warming trend.
What I am actually talking about in the full context of what you quoted is the media and political promotion of the idea that we are facing a dire crisis due to manmade climate change.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.