VOLKER LANDWEHR Euclid The reason that the theory of manmade climate change is opposed by a majority of conservatives is that it requires massive expansion of government and corresponding massive taxes and expenditures of public money to pay for the action of stopping manmade climate change.
Euclid The reason that the theory of manmade climate change is opposed by a majority of conservatives is that it requires massive expansion of government and corresponding massive taxes and expenditures of public money to pay for the action of stopping manmade climate change.
Well, higher taxes is the way that enlarging goverment manifests itself to the citizen. It does not make any difference whether government spends the money directly or mandates the citizen to spend it. Either way the citizens pay the bill. And government also has a self-interest in expanding its empire for the personal benefit of all its members just as corporations want to grow and make money. So there is a natural motive for government to take on missions that are not actually necessary.
EuclidIt means there is a consensus, but that does not prove their theory is correct. Reaching a conclusion does not prove the theory correct no matter how many scientists reach the same conclusion. Nobody can say for sure that a theory has been proven beyond a doubt, so anyone is free to challenge the theory and sometimes get it revised to a new conclusion. Each conslusion stands unless somebody finds a fault with it and gets it revised or rejected. But in this case, we are being told that scientists know more than we do, and because they all agree with each other, we must not question their conclusion.
True. But a consensus of experts in a field using empirical data is a very strong indication of validity.
Long ago, experts proposed evidence that the earth was actually round, challenging earlier, non-science based concepts. Most astronomers (a consensus) came around to that theory, which was only 'proven' by Magellan and definitively in the space age. Of course there have been 'flat earth society' folks who have refused to accept the obvious over the last ~2200 years.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm I have never "bragged" about educational credentials
I have never "bragged" about educational credentials
https://www.murfie.com/albums/steve-goodman-steve-goodman-at-the-university-of-illinois-auditorium-november-10-1969
schlimm Steve Goodman was my roommate for one semester in Urbana before he dropped out (and prior to writing "CNO"). He was a warm, funny and very generous guy as well as a talented musician. However, as I recall, he was a wee bit careless about details.
Steve Goodman was my roommate for one semester in Urbana before he dropped out (and prior to writing "CNO"). He was a warm, funny and very generous guy as well as a talented musician. However, as I recall, he was a wee bit careless about details.
@wanswheel: It would have been nice if you had given a link to the post you seem to judge as bragging
Only the context of the thread shows if someone braggs. So it could just be a description.Regards, Voker
wanswheel schlimm I have never "bragged" about educational credentials https://www.murfie.com/albums/steve-goodman-steve-goodman-at-the-university-of-illinois-auditorium-november-10-1969 schlimm Steve Goodman was my roommate for one semester in Urbana before he dropped out (and prior to writing "CNO"). He was a warm, funny and very generous guy as well as a talented musician. However, as I recall, he was a wee bit careless about details.
I am not sure what your point is. I was blessed to know Steve, even if for only one semester. He dropped out in the spring of 1967 to head to Greenwich Village briefly. He returned to Urbana and performed on campus and off (and where he met his wife), but mostly was back performing in Chicago's Old Town and trying to finish his degree at Lake Forest College. I think City of New Orleans was written in 1970, recorded by Steve in 1971, Arlo Guthrie in 1972.
The context of my mention of Steve Goodman was only after someone else had mentioned him or CNO in a post quite contrary to Goodman's politically liberal and generous mindset. I count myself as lucky to have known some fine people over the years, some of whom became famous. But I guess in Wanswheel's world, that is bragging. So be it.
Wanswheel thinks that is 'bragging about education credentials' in some way? If so, he should be ashamed of himself.
schlimm Of course there have been 'flat earth society' folks who have refused to accept the obvious over the last ~2200 years.
Of course there have been 'flat earth society' folks who have refused to accept the obvious over the last ~2200 years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCA8HofWsxc
C'mon, where ma conspiracy theorists at!?
RE: Trump, here's how those who do not support him see what has happened in the U.S. over the past year. I find it very hard to disagree.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Deggesty If the CEO thinks that his company has been buying the cars that carry the coal, he is obviously unaware of what his company has been doing.
If the CEO thinks that his company has been buying the cars that carry the coal, he is obviously unaware of what his company has been doing.
That's what I was thinking. Most of the coal cars I see have either power company or leasing company reporting marks.
schlimm Euclid It means there is a consensus, but that does not prove their theory is correct. Reaching a conclusion does not prove the theory correct no matter how many scientists reach the same conclusion. Nobody can say for sure that a theory has been proven beyond a doubt, so anyone is free to challenge the theory and sometimes get it revised to a new conclusion. Each conslusion stands unless somebody finds a fault with it and gets it revised or rejected. But in this case, we are being told that scientists know more than we do, and because they all agree with each other, we must not question their conclusion. True. But a consensus of experts in a field using empirical data is a very strong indication of validity. Long ago, experts proposed evidence that the earth was actually round, challenging earlier, non-science based concepts. Most astronomers (a consensus) came around to that theory, which was only 'proven' by Magellan and definitively in the space age. Of course there have been 'flat earth society' folks who have refused to accept the obvious over the last ~2200 years.
Euclid It means there is a consensus, but that does not prove their theory is correct. Reaching a conclusion does not prove the theory correct no matter how many scientists reach the same conclusion. Nobody can say for sure that a theory has been proven beyond a doubt, so anyone is free to challenge the theory and sometimes get it revised to a new conclusion. Each conslusion stands unless somebody finds a fault with it and gets it revised or rejected. But in this case, we are being told that scientists know more than we do, and because they all agree with each other, we must not question their conclusion.
I understand that the flat earth was consensus at the time, and it was socially unacceptable to question it. So actually it was the “deniers” of that era who pressed ahead with the courage to challenge the flat earth consensus and introduce the round earth.
BLS53 Deggesty If the CEO thinks that his company has been buying the cars that carry the coal, he is obviously unaware of what his company has been doing. That's what I was thinking. Most of the coal cars I see have either power company or leasing company reporting marks.
That seems to be a running disconnect - he's trying to manage what he thinks CSX is doing. Unfortunately, it isn't what CSX is actually doing....
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Euclid I understand that the flat earth was consensus at the time, and it was socially unacceptable to question it. So actually it was the “deniers” of that era who pressed ahead with the courage to challenge the flat earth consensus and introduce the round earth.
I thought that the leading scientists of the era (like Pythagoras or Aristotle) advanced the spherical theory, and it gradually spread as open-minded people realized that their old deeply-held beliefs might not be right.
A more accurate analogy would be how our society once did not consider the possibility that humans could do something that would affect temperature on a global scale, during the 19th century multiple scientists proposed that Earth's climate had changed over time naturally, but this was largely ignored. A few even suggested that human actions could affect local or global climates, notably that increased atmospheric CO2 levels would have a warming effect on the planet.
But it took until the 1960s and 70s for that idea to be taken seriously by the wider scientific community, instead of being rather dismissed rather easily. Is this a similar path to what you believe will happen with climate change denial in the future?
schlimmWanswheel thinks that is 'bragging about education credentials' in some way? If so, he should be ashamed of himself.
I somtimes think Wanswheel is just an automated bot that posts photos based on keywords.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
I'm amazed this thread still exists this late on a Monday...
*
SD70M-2Dude Euclid I understand that the flat earth was consensus at the time, and it was socially unacceptable to question it. So actually it was the “deniers” of that era who pressed ahead with the courage to challenge the flat earth consensus and introduce the round earth. I thought that the leading scientists of the era (like Pythagoras or Aristotle) advanced the spherical theory, and it gradually spread as open-minded people realized that their old deeply-held beliefs might not be right.
They did do that, but the flat earth was entrenched belief proven and accepted by whatever they considered to be science at the time. So the open-minded agents of changing to round earth had to buck the system of scientific consensus for flat earth. So those open-mined people were the deniers of their time fighting against the consensus which ultimately proved to be wrong.
schlimm I think you've proven zugmann's point. You rationalize your bad choices by complaining that people called you names. Do you seriously think people who are concerned about AGW can have a nuanced discussion on that with people who think this is an ideological, culture war?
I think you've proven zugmann's point.
You rationalize your bad choices by complaining that people called you names. Do you seriously think people who are concerned about AGW can have a nuanced discussion on that with people who think this is an ideological, culture war?
You obviously hugely underestimate the amount of emotion that goes into the ballot box, and into political debates.
And the debate about AGW is political, both because the pundits have made it so, and because it deals with governance.
Many people don't like the government jacking up gas prices, taxing plastic bags, and eliminating entire industires just because one segment of the population (in this case the establishment liberals) think that is the correct answer.
I forget who mentioned it above, but absolutely the underlying question is over how the government should govern is a key player in this. I take it that you're the sort of person convinced that if you combine enough govnerment laws, rules and regulations, you can solve any problem. And of course, those law, rules and regulations should come out of the acedemic wing, full of people destined to make huge sums of money brankrupting today's college students, and then turn around to proclaim that somehow, college became too expensive. But again, the government can solve that problem...and the cycle continues.
There are different perspectives in this world, schlimm. Perhaps it is time you take a moment to understand where conseravtives are coming from, instead of berating us for "ignorance" because we refuse to tow the liberal line.
Oh, and consensus has not a damn thing to do with science. Science is the laws of nature, the ways of the universe. It matters not what humans think of the situation.
In all reality, anybody who claims to know what exactly is going on with the climate is full of crap. Why? Because if we knew for certain like we know the chemical composition of water, we wouldn't be here fighting over this, and we wouldn't be spending billions in more research.
95% of climate scientists agree that climate change may be caused by humans, but can't prove it.
Science is fact. Research is theories, which can lead to facts.
Alpocalyptic climate change is a theory of intense debate, and nothing firmer than that.
SaturnaliaMany people don't like the government jacking up gas prices, taxing plastic bags, and eliminating entire industires just because one segment of the population (in this case the establishment liberals) think that is the correct answer.
My state has some of the (if not the) highest gas taxes of the country. All led and signed off by a very conservative (previous) governor. So I get tired of people saying it's always the liberals or always the conservatives for every issue.
The world isn't as simple as the people in their little facebook bubbles would like to believe.
Schlimm, I was only joking, and I think quite obviously. Thanks for sharing about Steve Goodman.
Going back to Mr. Harrison's statement that certain equipment will not be bought, whom is he trying to impress? Consider the facts that the cars that carry coal are not owned by CSX and there is plenty of power stored. Why should CSX buy cars for coal and more locomotives?
Johnny
Saturnalia95% of climate scientists agree that climate change may be caused by humans, but can't prove it. Science is fact. Research is theories, which can lead to facts. Alpocalyptic climate change is a theory of intense debate, and nothing firmer than that
There is little to say to such a polemic. Enjoy your life.
Deggesty Going back to Mr. Harrison's statement that certain equipment will not be bought, whom is he trying to impress? Consider the facts that the cars that carry coal are not owned by CSX and there is plenty of power stored. Why should CSX buy cars for coal and more locomotives?
Umm, there are a lot of "system" cars still out there. They are not that old either.
http://www.readthehook.com/103074/sleek-and-black-new-csx-coal-cars-roll-through
An "expensive model collector"
DeggestyGoing back to Mr. Harrison's statement that certain equipment will not be bought, whom is he trying to impress? Consider the facts that the cars that carry coal are not owned by CSX and there is plenty of power stored. Why should CSX buy cars for coal and more locomotives?
Cars for 'domestic' coal are nominally shipper or consignee owned. Cars for 'export' coal are nominally railroad owned. When I retired in December 2016 I know there werer system hoppers being stored - what has become of them with the uptick in coal traffic I have no idea, no longer working.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Euclid the flat earth was entrenched belief proven and accepted by whatever they considered to be science at the time. So the open-minded agents of changing to round earth had to buck the system of scientific consensus for flat earth. So those open-mined people were the deniers of their time fighting against the consensus which ultimately proved to be wrong.
Euclid SD70M-2Dude Euclid I understand that the flat earth was consensus at the time, and it was socially unacceptable to question it. So actually it was the “deniers” of that era who pressed ahead with the courage to challenge the flat earth consensus and introduce the round earth. I thought that the leading scientists of the era (like Pythagoras or Aristotle) advanced the spherical theory, and it gradually spread as open-minded people realized that their old deeply-held beliefs might not be right. They did do that, but the flat earth was entrenched belief proven and accepted by whatever they considered to be science at the time. So the open-minded agents of changing to round earth had to buck the system of scientific consensus for flat earth. So those open-mined people were the deniers of their time fighting against the consensus which ultimately proved to be wrong.
Euclid's response is a textbook example of how ludicrous a revisionist history can be when it is written by someone who knows nothing (as in the 19th C Am. political party- it's anti-immigrant p;latform seems to have made a comeback).
schlimm Long ago, experts proposed evidence that the earth was actually round, challenging earlier, non-science based concepts. Most astronomers (a consensus) came around to that theory, which was only 'proven' by Magellan and definitively in the space age. Of course there have been 'flat earth society' folks who have refused to accept the obvious over the last ~2200 years.
At least you put in the 2200 years as a hat tip to Eratosthenes, who was the first to come up with a reasonably accurate estimate for the earth's circumference. The idea of a spherical earth predates him as astronomers of the time were aware of a circular shadow on the moon doing a lunar eclipse as well as knowing the ships disappeared over the horizon (or appeared on the horizon).
Contrary to popular opinion, the learned people in Europe during the times of Columbus were very well aware that the earth was round. Their beef with Columbus was that China was too far away to be able to be reached by sailing west.
As for the original premise of the thread, coal loadings have been trending upwards and demand is likely to continue with the number of coal plants being built in China and India. In addition, the break even point for Marcellus shale has been quoted by some at about $4/mcf, which makes coal competitive especially with new "ultracritical" steam plants.
SaturnaliaScience is fact. Research is theories, which can lead to facts.
To use a dictionary definition: knowledge about or study (research) of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
So it not just knowledge to the way to achieve new knowledge too.
Saturnalia95% of climate scientists agree that climate change may be caused by humans, but can't prove it.
Nobody said that there is already proof. But the evidence is so high that it would be, at least in my opinion, grossly negligent to ignore it and do nothing while waiting for proof.
The proof will come too late to reverse the evolution and in our or our childen's generation.
Looking from the outside I recommend to take of the political filter and look at evidence and facts and consinder in what state lo leave the earth to our successors.
Who else than governments should handle such country wide or global issues?
Industry disappears for a number of reasons. I live in the city of Essen in the German Ruhr Area. We had once 460,000 people employed in coal mining. In 2018 the last mine will close. Of about 30 steel mills just one is left and it is endangered.
They got uneconomical and higher emission standards were part of it. The air was worse on a daily basis here than in LA. The emission standards had very positive effects worth the costs.Regards, Volker
erikemAt least you put in the 2200 years as a hat tip to Eratosthenes, who was the first to come up with a reasonably accurate estimate for the earth's circumference. The idea of a spherical earth predates him as astronomers of the time were aware of a circular shadow on the moon doing a lunar eclipse as well as knowing the ships disappeared over the horizon (or appeared on the horizon).
The 2200 years was only for his definitive statement. As early as 600BC, Phoenician explorers had moved away from the flat disc concept.
schlimm(as in the 19th C Am. political party- it's anti-immigrant p;latform seems to have made a comeback).
How so?
Euclid schlimm (as in the 19th C Am. political party- it's anti-immigrant p;latform seems to have made a comeback). How so?
schlimm (as in the 19th C Am. political party- it's anti-immigrant p;latform seems to have made a comeback).
VOLKER LANDWEHR Saturnalia Science is fact. Research is theories, which can lead to facts. To use a dictionary definition: knowledge about or study (research) of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation So it not just knowledge to the way to achieve new knowledge too. Saturnalia 95% of climate scientists agree that climate change may be caused by humans, but can't prove it. Nobody said that there is already proof. But the evidence is so high that it would be, at least in my opinion, grossly negligent to ignore it and do nothing while waiting for proof. The proof will come too late to reverse the evolution and in our or our childen's generation. Looking from the outside I recommend to take of the political filter and look at evidence and facts and consinder in what state lo leave the earth to our successors. Who else than governments should handle such country wide or global issues? Industry disappears for a number of reasons. I live in the city of Essen in the German Ruhr Area. We had once 460,000 people employed in coal mining. In 2018 the last mine will close. Of about 30 steel mills just one is left and it is endangered. They got uneconomical and higher emission standards were part of it. The air was worse on a daily basis here than in LA. The emission standards had very positive effects worth the costs.Regards, Volker
Saturnalia Science is fact. Research is theories, which can lead to facts.
Saturnalia 95% of climate scientists agree that climate change may be caused by humans, but can't prove it.
http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-05-14
Jeff
CSSHEGEWISCH Euclid schlimm (as in the 19th C Am. political party- it's anti-immigrant p;latform seems to have made a comeback). How so? I think that Blondie's executive order regarding refugees and his pronunciamentos regarding a wall on the southern border are sufficient evidence.
Really? Evidence of what? And how does it relate to stopping climate change?
jeffhergerthttp://dilbert.com/strip/2017-05-14 Jeff
Yes indeed.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.