Here's an article from The Atlantic which I'm sure many here will at the least find interesting and probably enraging:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/12/freight-railroads-funded-climate-denial-decades/603559/?utm_medium=offsite&utm_source=yahoo&utm_campaign=yahoo-non-hosted&yptr=yahoo
Uh-huh.
OK, let me say this. There's so much climate change hysteria going on I can't help but think someone, somewhere, is making money on it.
Yes, I'm that much of a cynic. I've been around too long and seen too much to think otherwise.
Ain't I a stinker?
You notice that the images are of steam locomotives. An article like this won't bother mentioning the billions the railroads have spent on reducing emissions from their locomotives.
I'm not going to deny that the climate is changing. It's been doing that since this planet was still a ball of lava. My usual reply to those hyping climate change is "one Krakatoa..."
As Flintlock points out - follow the money. Carbon credits, anyone?
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...
Remember - the planet will survive whatever kinds of stresses that humans apply to it.
Humans on the other hand ??????
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I find "climate denial" to be an offsensive pejorative.
FWIW, I am very aware of the resonance absorption peaks of various gas molecules as a function of frequency/wavelength for electromagnetic radiation - which includes CO2 around 10um. The baseline warming from radiative heat transfer for a doubling of CO2 is about 1.1C. Note that the atmosphere of Mars has about 25 times the amount of CO2 per given area than the earth, but is a very cold place (albeit further from the sun).
A couple of related items: One problem from my engineering heat transfer course was to calculate the warmest air temperature under which radiative freezing could occur, answer was around 41F. Another was that there was quite a bit of research in the early 1960's to develop a spectrally selective coating for the B-70, with low emissivity in the atmospheric IR windows and high emissivity in the IR absorption windows to allow radiative cooling and not look like a target for long range IR sensors.
Also note that the temperature of the earth has gone through some major swings over the last couple of million years, with the switch between glacial and interglacial periods not completely understood. Yes the primary driver appears to be the tilt of the eath's rotational axis coupled with variations of orbital eccentricity, but the glacial/interglacial transitions don't always happen when the simple theory says they should. The other aspect of the million year temperature record is that there seems to be a much harder limit on maximum temperatures than minimum temperatures.
NKP guywhich I'm sure many here will at the least find interesting and probably enraging:
Railroads have never impressed me as being particularly responsible shepards of our ecology. Walk along their right-of-ways and you see piles of rotting used ties, buckets of used railroad spikes, discarded circuit boards from locomotive field repairs.
In a very real way I read many laments from T&E crews complaining about how PSR is costing the company it's future in exchange for short term growth, and I realize that the railroads have always been that way, the difference now being that they have simply turned their singlemindedness inward
BaltACD Remember - the planet will survive whatever kinds of stresses that humans apply to it. Humans on the other hand ??????
+1.....our extinction could be the cure which the planet benefits from most.
Erik Mag +1
In addition, I think it's detestable the way these people are exploiting Greta for their purposes. Now they're using her as a "human shield" to fend off opposing views.
If you think CO2 is a problem, plant a trillion trees.
What's so enraging about that article? The major point it tries to make is that railroads (while themselves touting their 'climate friendliness' or 'carbon saving over trucks' or whatever) have been corporate supporters of anti-AGW lobbying for over 30 years, and that this is unsurprising "because" railroads do quite a bit of business hauling fossil fuels.
Aside from the amusing implication that the UN Intergovernmental Panel is a 'scientific' organization, this isn't particularly radical news. The interesting thing to consider is whether, now that coal is representing a shrinking part of rail traffic and, apparently, the Bakken boom (no pun intended, but it is amusing) seems to have died back, and as the whole hedge-fund revenue-maximization thing has accelerated (with, let's face it, not much place in the budget for expensive lobbying for someone else's interest), have the railroads in question cut back on their 'pro-denier bias'?
I agree with Erik that disparaging someone merely as a 'climate change denier' is a bit like the whole 'birther' scam: give it a semantically disfavorable name and most of the battle is already won, regardless of the actual evidence or discussions. (Which is not to say there aren't actual knee-jerk deniers out there, or that their influence hasn't been significant.)
My problem is, in part, that as a student of the history and philosophy of science, the "science" being used by a great many of these soi-disant climate scientists is much more the kind of statistical shell-game people at NIH used to love to play, or an exercise in academic politics in the way linguistic philosophy became, rather than objective exploration. It is perhaps understandable that, in the face of so much organized and institutional resistance to the idea first of AGW and then to climatic effects that may come, quickly or slowly, from anthropogenically-influenced causes, European climate scientists push political agendas with more than due enthusiasm. And build up organizations with careful checks and balances to keep the official pravda from being derailed. Those things became established in American 'big science' and technology in the Grant Swing years, and we should remember that Eisenhower's warning about the 'military-industrial complex' doesn't apply only to money. I would argue that pejorative manipulation of the scientific method doesn't count as 'science', and you aren't as much a 'science denier' if you disagree with the perversions as you might be if you simply dismissed the possibility of AGW or its seemingly-logical sequelae out of hand.
Rotting ties? Well, they are bio-degradable, they will return to the earth from which they came, although there's no arguing with the eyesore aspect.
Used spikes? Eventually they'll return to iron oxide, if they don't become railfan souvenirs.
The circuit boards? No argument there, they should be disposed of properly.
Flintlock76Rotting ties? Well, they are bio-degradable, they will return to the earth from which they came...
And the creosote, and perhaps copper salts or pentachlorophenol whatever with which they pressure treated the wood? The dribbled lube oil and grease?
On the bright side there's supposed to be less bad stuff in those scam ties that were colored with Rit, old tea, shoe polish or whatever and supposed involved in the original topic...
Flintlock76No argument there,
Really Flintlock, I'm surprised you didn't just respond "well the right of ways belong to them, what business is it of yours how they litter them?"
But then I guess in a way, you did.
Who, me?
Seriously though, a good friend of mine belongs to the Hackensack River Keepers Association, and on occasion they do clean-ups on sections of not just the Hackensack, but other rivers in the area like the Passaic, and the stuff they pull out of the riverbanks would make your hair stand on end and would make the railroads look like the most responsible custodians of the environment that ever existed! They'd be relieved if old wood and steel was all they found!
No bodies yet though. Although there have been times...
Norfolk Southern buisness was not just moving coal but mining it and selling it as they also owned half the mines in Appalachia and Virgina Highlands in its Pochantis Sub http://www.nscorp.com/content/nscorp/en/about-ns/subsidiaries/pocahontas-land-corporation.html
So you are saying that the big asteroid that's coming makes climate change a non-issue?
deleted
Flintlock76 Rotting ties? Well, they are bio-degradable, they will return to the earth from which they came, although there's no arguing with the eyesore aspect. Used spikes? Eventually they'll return to iron oxide, if they don't become railfan souvenirs. The circuit boards? No argument there, they should be disposed of properly.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Overmod What's so enraging about that article? The major point it tries to make is that railroads (while themselves touting their 'climate friendliness' or 'carbon saving over trucks' or whatever) have been corporate supporters of anti-AGW lobbying for over 30 years, and that this is unsurprising "because" railroads do quite a bit of business hauling fossil fuels. Aside from the amusing implication that the UN Intergovernmental Panel is a 'scientific' organization, this isn't particularly radical news. The interesting thing to consider is whether, now that coal is representing a shrinking part of rail traffic and, apparently, the Bakken boom (no pun intended, but it is amusing) seems to have died back, and as the whole hedge-fund revenue-maximization thing has accelerated (with, let's face it, not much place in the budget for expensive lobbying for someone else's interest), have the railroads in question cut back on their 'pro-denier bias'? I agree with Erik that disparaging someone merely as a 'climate change denier' is a bit like the whole 'birther' scam: give it a semantically disfavorable name and most of the battle is already won, regardless of the actual evidence or discussions. (Which is not to say there aren't actual knee-jerk deniers out there, or that their influence hasn't been significant.) My problem is, in part, that as a student of the history and philosophy of science, the "science" being used by a great many of these soi-disant climate scientists is much more the kind of statistical shell-game people at NIH used to love to play, or an exercise in academic politics in the way linguistic philosophy became, rather than objective exploration. It is perhaps understandable that, in the face of so much organized and institutional resistance to the idea first of AGW and then to climatic effects that may come, quickly or slowly, from anthropogenically-influenced causes, European climate scientists push political agendas with more than due enthusiasm. And build up organizations with careful checks and balances to keep the official pravda from being derailed. Those things became established in American 'big science' and technology in the Grant Swing years, and we should remember that Eisenhower's warning about the 'military-industrial complex' doesn't apply only to money. I would argue that pejorative manipulation of the scientific method doesn't count as 'science', and you aren't as much a 'science denier' if you disagree with the perversions as you might be if you simply dismissed the possibility of AGW or its seemingly-logical sequelae out of hand.
Well, well. NKP really got the people who object to the reality of climate change to come out foaming.
The UN intergovernmental panel is backed by scientists familiar with the field. Neither you or Erik are specialists in climatology or meteorology. Neither of you have the educational background or credentials to sit back and take snide pot shots.
The analogy with birtherism is flawed and frankly ridiculous.
The remarks by "Gramps" about Ms Thurnberg are offensively contemptuous.
Gramp If you think CO2 is a problem, plant a trillion trees.
That's actually a pretty good idea!
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/planting-a-trillion-trees-could-be-the-most-effective-solution-to-climate-change/
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Convicted One Railroads have never impressed me as being particularly responsible shepards of our ecology. Walk along their right-of-ways and you see piles of rotting used ties, buckets of used railroad spikes, discarded circuit boards from locomotive field repairs.
What you don't see is the mercury (from coal ash) and hexavalent chromium (diesel engine coolant corrosion inhibitors).
For those reasons we should be very cautious when redeveloping old engine terminals.
Luckily, in this age of alternative facts, we have a choice. We can listen to scientists who are out to make big bucks from the climate-warming scare, or we can listen to the energy companies for the unbiased truth.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of Covington Luckily, in this age of alternative facts, we have a choice. We can listen to scientists who are out to make big bucks from the climate-warming scare, or we can listen to the energy companies for the unbiased truth.
+1
And don't forget the railroads. They have our best interests at heart.
How long before someone claims that PSR will solve global warming?
"IF" This report is true can it be that lack of transparency of the donations are a result of the SCOTUS "Citizens United "decision ?
The truth, of course, is somewhere in the middle.
It is a conceit of humankind to think their what they do makes a difference. Fact is, we don't have enough qualitative climatological data to really understand what's going on. When the age of this planet is measured in millions of years, even the five thousand or so years we have any sort of written record of is a mere flash.
As for cause and effect, I'm sure I could come up with something that linked the length of women's skirts and the climate if I tried hard enough.
For that reason, we don't really know if mankind is truly having a deleterious effect on the earth's climate or not. This could be a very natural cycle.
There's no question that man has had an ill effect on the environment. Much of the early damage was out of ignorance, and perhaps a bit of selfishness (Why not dump our garbage into the sea? Out of sight, out of mind!)
Fortunately, we've recognized that and today we put our milk bottle into the recycle bin instead of the trash. Etc and so on.
I do agree with Paul on the whole money thing. People saw a way to cash in on "climate change," and some did.
tree68I do agree with Paul on the whole money thing. People saw a way to cash in on "climate change," and some did
Wait a minute. When I said "scientists who are out to make big bucks", I was being facetious. How are they going to get rich? How does whatever they might gain compare with the profits of the energy and transportation companies?
charlie hebdoThe UN intergovernmental panel is backed by scientists familiar with the field. Neither you or Erik are specialists in climatology or meteorology. Neither of you have the educational background or credentials to sit back and take snide pot shots.
I have the educational background and knowledge to criticize the format of the UN body, in particular some of its published policies and procedures. That is the gist of my criticism, and frankly, my lack of enthusiasm for the veracity, of that organization.
About the credentials of the scientists involved with it there can be little question.
charlie hebdoThe analogy with birtherism is flawed and frankly ridiculous.
Until you have the educational background or credentials to assess scanned image files forensically, your opinion on this matter is worse than useless. I saw the original files from the downloaded White House copy of the 'long form' certificate, and the obvious tampering with the text there. None of the mealymouthed excuses about 'rotating' some kind of intermediate file during the scanning process could honestly explain such artifacts.
Whether the original birth certificate is legitimate or not isn't the proper question here, and of course is moot at this point anyway. Saying that anything connected with the question is only to be disparaged, though, is part of any Big Lie strategy, and it is a highly conserved tactic among those AGW 'specialists' who take the easy way out of coherent scientific discussion on the merits.
As I said, I do think there are effects of AGW in 'climate change', and I do think some intervention with additional carbon emissions is justified. That has to be done in a coherent manner worldwide, however, and no international body has so far engaged in doing that.
I agree that disparaging Greta Thurnberg is uncalled for in any discussion of the scientific merits ... but that's not exactly what he did. And of course he's free to express his opinion just as we are, and shouldn't be criticized personally for having done so.
Overmod charlie hebdo The UN intergovernmental panel is backed by scientists familiar with the field. Neither you or Erik are specialists in climatology or meteorology. Neither of you have the educational background or credentials to sit back and take snide pot shots. I have the educational background and knowledge to criticize the format of the UN body, in particular some of its published policies and procedures. That is the gist of my criticism, and frankly, my lack of enthusiasm for the veracity, of that organization. About the credentials of the scientists involved with it there can be little question. charlie hebdo The analogy with birtherism is flawed and frankly ridiculous. Until you have the educational background or credentials to assess scanned image files forensically, your opinion on this matter is worse than useless. I saw the original files from the downloaded White House copy of the 'long form' certificate, and the obvious tampering with the text there. None of the mealymouthed excuses about 'rotating' some kind of intermediate file during the scanning process could honestly explain such artifacts. Whether the original birth certificate is legitimate or not isn't the proper question here, and of course is moot at this point anyway. Saying that anything connected with the question is only to be disparaged, though, is part of any Big Lie strategy, and it is a highly conserved tactic among those AGW 'specialists' who take the easy way out of coherent scientific discussion on the merits. As I said, I do think there are effects of AGW in 'climate change', and I do think some intervention with additional carbon emissions is justified. That has to be done in a coherent manner worldwide, however, and no international body has so far engaged in doing that. I agree that disparaging Greta Thurnberg is uncalled for in any discussion of the scientific merits ... and not particularly chivalrous either.
charlie hebdo The UN intergovernmental panel is backed by scientists familiar with the field. Neither you or Erik are specialists in climatology or meteorology. Neither of you have the educational background or credentials to sit back and take snide pot shots.
charlie hebdo The analogy with birtherism is flawed and frankly ridiculous.
I agree that disparaging Greta Thurnberg is uncalled for in any discussion of the scientific merits ... and not particularly chivalrous either.
Really!? Don't tell me YOU of all people are a Birther!
But since you're awake, and I'm curious, where exactly is the tampering, or has it been fixed in this scan?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/President_Barack_Obama%27s_long_form_birth_certificate.jpg
It does not appear to be in dispute that the last President's father was born in Kenya, and he had the same name as his son.
As for effects, could the potential illegitimacy of a past President call into dispute the legitimacy of legislation they signed?
On reflection, this line of discussion is better handled via PM. Let me know. It has nothing to do with railroads.
I also think that the discussion about the topic of this thread, while it does revolve around politics of a particular sort, doesn't involve the truth, falsity, or manipulation of the actual climate science involved -- it is about the perceived presence of an organized interest on the part of railroad management to advance the cause that global climate change, or AGW contributing to it, are to be opposed with resources and support. I wish we'd continue discussing that aspect; I hope it isn't so but am too much of a realist to think particularly otherwise.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.