greyhounds SD60MAC9500 Greyhounds did you read this article? https://www.railwayage.com/freight/class-i/stb-heed-seriously-the-yak-fat-ghost/ Well, I hadn't read that particular writing. But I knew about the "Yak Fat" case. I was 14 when it happened, but Trains wrote about it and I read Trains cover to cover. It shows the complete stupidity of transportation rate regulation. One carrier set a rate and a competing carrier could object to the rate. Then they'd argue it out before a tribunal. There is no way on This Earth for that tribunal to accurately determine what the rate should be. If the rate was too low the trucker would have pulled back quickly. Just let the market work. The railroads were just playing the game by the inane rules in force at the time. They were very stupid rules. Anyway, Trains proposed a tongue in cheeck solution. They proposed a "Yak Fat Rack" railcar (complete with drawing) that could be competitive with the truck rate.
SD60MAC9500 Greyhounds did you read this article? https://www.railwayage.com/freight/class-i/stb-heed-seriously-the-yak-fat-ghost/
Greyhounds did you read this article? https://www.railwayage.com/freight/class-i/stb-heed-seriously-the-yak-fat-ghost/
Well, I hadn't read that particular writing. But I knew about the "Yak Fat" case. I was 14 when it happened, but Trains wrote about it and I read Trains cover to cover.
It shows the complete stupidity of transportation rate regulation. One carrier set a rate and a competing carrier could object to the rate. Then they'd argue it out before a tribunal. There is no way on This Earth for that tribunal to accurately determine what the rate should be.
If the rate was too low the trucker would have pulled back quickly. Just let the market work. The railroads were just playing the game by the inane rules in force at the time. They were very stupid rules.
Anyway, Trains proposed a tongue in cheeck solution. They proposed a "Yak Fat Rack" railcar (complete with drawing) that could be competitive with the truck rate.
Indeed I got quite a laugh from reading this “case”. Makes me glad the ICC is gone.
The opinion I hear most often from the right about climate change has nothing to do with science and can essentially be boiled down to this: the left advocates measures to deal with it, and therefore they must be up to something nefarious. Seems like a really dumb reason to risk the future of the planet.
PsychotThe opinion I hear most often from the right about climate change has nothing to do with science and can essentially be boiled down to this: the left advocates measures to deal with it, and therefore they must be up to something nefarious. Seems like a really dumb reason to risk the future of the planet.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
charlie hebdo I wonder why?
I'll just bet you do.....
That's a +1 for both of you.
I don't see something nefarious. I see those on the margin getting it in the neck because of "unintended consequences".
We are all getting it in the neck and up the *** if nations and people don't start attempting a new Manhattan Project to mitigate the effects. Even then, long-lasting damage has best done.
https://www.arborday.org/
Overmod 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.
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.
Let me get this straight. Lying about Obama for years, trying to deligitimize a president by saying he was born outside the United States, is NOT a scam? But coming up with a moniker for those perpetrating this ugly scandal IS a scam? Get serious.
There is zero evidence Obama was born anywhere other than in Hawaii, and there is more than ample evidence he was born in Hawaii.
And there is also ample evidence that global warning is real.
People get to believe what they want. But facts are facts.
Lithonia Operator Overmod 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. Let me get this straight. Lying about Obama for years, trying to deligitimize a president by saying he was born outside the United States, is NOT a scam? But coming up with a moniker for those perpetrating this ugly scandal IS a scam? Get serious. There is zero evidence Obama was born anywhere other than in Hawaii, and there is more than ample evidence he was born in Hawaii. And there is also ample evidence that global warning is real. People get to believe what they want. But facts are facts.
Precisely and sadly so. We live in an era of false equivalencies and alternate facts. I am disappointed that anyone with such abilities would echo such nonsense. Birtherism was a blatantly ridiculous conspiracy theory similar to that of the nuts who continue to suggest that the moon landings never occurred with the addition of an evil, racist tone. Stating that people who say AGW is fake science cooked up by a league of greedy socialist scientists are denialists, is being charitable. In fact the entire reversal of support for carbon mitigation by the GOP got going when the Heartland Foundation was commissioned to draw up a campaign to undermine the scientific basis of AGW, not with actual contrary evidence but inunendo and questionable interpretations, etc. Precious time has been lost. And now we can witness decent people defending an imposter who attacks a teenager for being on the spectrum because she has been effective in raising awareness. Shame!!
With respect to Obama's place of birth, someone who had been critical of BHO's performance as president noted that announcment of his birth appeared in a local paper three days later. Said person thought it unlikely that the announcement would have been faked in order for him to be elected some 47 years later. The birth certificate is another matter as it comes across as a re-issue done after an adoption proceding (note that Gerald Ford's birth name was Leslie King), with the original being sealed. In light of the sensitive nature of the discussion, the records office would have been better off unsealing the original records and sending the electronic copy as a TIFF file as opposed to a PDF file.
One pre-publication webpage for one of BHO's books (way before the presidential run) stated that Obama was born in Kenya. This may have been an honest mistake on someone's part as opposed to a falsehood, but it was also fuel for the birther fire.
N.B. Barry Goldwater's place on several states' ballots was challenged on the fact he was born in the Territory of Arizona.
As for climate change, outside of the lunatic fringe (which Dr. Roy Spencer refers to as the Skydragons), there isn't much debate about increased CO2 causing warming. The question is how much warming is caused by a given increase in CO2, and how much CO2 will increase in the future. With estimates for climate sensitivity varying by more than a factor of three, I have a hard time accepting this as "settled science" when by comparison the velocity of propagation of light and gravity waves appear to agree to about 1 part per quadrillion.
The truth of the matter is that all of the bizarre "green new deal" plans would do nothing about global warming as long as China and India are not signators and not accepting Nuclear Power as an energy source.
azrailThe truth of the matter is that all of the bizarre "green new deal" plans would do nothing about global warming as long as China and India are not signators and not accepting Nuclear Power as an energy source.
Applying 'after you' logic is self defeating. Lead, follow or get the F out of the way.
Well, I've gotten tired of the dogfights on this thread, so let me leave you with the story of another time in the past when a naturally occuring phenomenon caused a bit of panic and hysteria, and some enterprising folks made a buck or two on it.
Ever hear of "cyanogen gas?"
https://www.wired.com/2015/01/fantastically-wrong-halleys-comet
Think we're wiser now? Let's not flatter ourselves. What a conceit.
And let me leave you with a thought before I sign off this thread permanantly...
Climate change is like history, it never says "goodby," it says "see you later."
Flintlock76 Well, I've gotten tired of the dogfights on this thread, so let me leave you with the story of another time in the past when a naturally occuring phenomenon caused a bit of panic and hysteria, and some enterprising folks made a buck or two on it. Ever hear of "cyanogen gas?" https://www.wired.com/2015/01/fantastically-wrong-halleys-comet Think we're wiser now? Let's not flatter ourselves. What a conceit. And let me leave you with a thought before I sign off this thread permanantly... Climate change is like history, it never says "goodby," it says "see you later."
Apples and oranges
BaltACD azrail The truth of the matter is that all of the bizarre "green new deal" plans would do nothing about global warming as long as China and India are not signators and not accepting Nuclear Power as an energy source.
azrail The truth of the matter is that all of the bizarre "green new deal" plans would do nothing about global warming as long as China and India are not signators and not accepting Nuclear Power as an energy source.
Flintlock76Ever hear of "cyanogen gas?" https://www.wired.com/2015/01/fantastically-wrong-halleys-comet Think we're wiser now? Let's not flatter ourselves. What a conceit.
Wayne, even at the time, the scientists knew the concentration of cyanogen was almost vanishingly small in the tail, far below what would cause sickness or death. On the other hand, you did have a somewhat hysterical Frenchman writing stories that got into Sunday supplements for non scientists.
So if your point was that nonscientific people can be easily buffaloed into thinking the sky is falling soon, you have an example. Both the effective concentrations of 'greenhouse gases' and the honest scientific efforts so far are of considerably more strength, and unlike some posters here I think much of the expected mechanism and modeling, and many of the assumptions, can be easily learned and understood by lay people. This is not an abstruse concept like the structure of the Higgs boson or dark matter or the evolution of superstring or quark theories. But it does require very, very careful investigation of the role of water, something that many of the 'popular' accounts of AGW have either deprecated or misunderstood.
Overmod BaltACD azrail The truth of the matter is that all of the bizarre "green new deal" plans would do nothing about global warming as long as China and India are not signators and not accepting Nuclear Power as an energy source.
Every reduction matters and the US still produces more carbon per capita.
Like I always tell them: If they don't approve of gun ownership, then don't buy a gun; if they feel guilty about low electric bills, then move to Kyoto; if they simply MUST ride a train then go hop in a boxcar....just don't mistake MY money as THEIR solution.
charlie hebdoEvery reduction matters and the US still produces more carbon per capita
Both these thoughts are valid, but of comparatively little relevance to the emergent concerns in the next couple of decades.
As I currently understand it, the concern with AGW is not with the absolute rise in atmospheric carbon (that's the driver of oceanic acidification, a subject far more important to address and solve than 'climate change', but that's not what the current round of proponents usually trot out til later) but with the speed of some changes to metastable 'new equilibrium' conditions (that are hard to "reverse" in proportion to 'the previous assumed homeostasis'). The chief problem there is that there's well over the 'critical' carbon (as compounded in effect by other greenhouse-effect contributors) driving those changes already present in or available to the atmosphere, just as there's waaaaaaay too much CFC in the atmospheric cycle. If you look very, very carefully in the EPA legislation, you will find that even with CFCs being removed from active sale and mandatory recycling imposed, the rate of INCREASE in CFCs causing an 'ozone hole' was not due to stop until something like 61 years. Meanwhile if certain nations have not changed their policies dramatically their emissions of ozone-destroying halogenated chemical release has risen with their industrialization.
I believe I have seen figures that even if the United States prioritized carbon-neutral development to the greatest feasible extent, it would not have prompt enough effect to reverse any of the actually demonstrated 'climate-change' effects, although it would certainly put a short-term cramp in many 'entitled' Anerican-voters' lifestyles.
As a question of absolute priority, in a drop-everything-to-save-the-planet crash program at any cost ... I have yet to see objective models that actually prove that need. I certainly think that virtue signaling on that financial scale is ridiculous unless all other governments responsible for carbon emissions act equally and wholly in sync ...and discipline any little pariah nations that cheat by being allowed to 'pollute' because their governments are too incompetent or criminal or opportunistic to preclude it.
I acknowledge that the United States carbon emissions are a substantial contributor to the issue. I also think it is unfair to pile on the United States for some kind of 'reparations' now that some consequences are becoming acknowledged.
If the 'world' thinks this situation needs addressing, all parts of it need to agree in sync. Absent something controlling like a 'new world order' I don't see any way to start it, let alone develop a League of Nations response to nations that violate the common response.
That does not mean we shouldn't prioritize renewables, well-to-scrap energy reduction, non combustion electrical source and storage, or a great many 'green' or 'LEED' priorities ASAP. Just don't throw money at the bankers' pockets thinking it will make any difference to the ice sheet or low-level coastal populations.
Overmod Just don't throw money at the bankers' pockets thinking it will make any difference to the ice sheet or low-level coastal populations.
But - my Ponzi scheme will collapse!
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...
Overmod charlie hebdo Every reduction matters and the US still produces more carbon per capita Both these thoughts are valid, but of comparatively little relevance to the emergent concerns in the next couple of decades. As I currently understand it, the concern with AGW is not with the absolute rise in atmospheric carbon (that's the driver of oceanic acidification, a subject far more important to address and solve than 'climate change', but that's not what the current round of proponents usually trot out til later) but with the speed of some changes to metastable 'new equilibrium' conditions (that are hard to "reverse" in proportion to 'the previous assumed homeostasis'). The chief problem there is that there's well over the 'critical' carbon (as compounded in effect by other greenhouse-effect contributors) driving those changes already present in or available to the atmosphere, just as there's waaaaaaay too much CFC in the atmospheric cycle. If you look very, very carefully in the EPA legislation, you will find that even with CFCs being removed from active sale and mandatory recycling imposed, the rate of INCREASE in CFCs causing an 'ozone hole' was not due to stop until something like 61 years. Meanwhile if certain nations have not changed their policies dramatically their emissions of ozone-destroying halogenated chemical release has risen with their industrialization. I believe I have seen figures that even if the United States prioritized carbon-neutral development to the greatest feasible extent, it would not have prompt enough effect to reverse any of the actually demonstrated 'climate-change' effects, although it would certainly put a short-term cramp in many 'entitled' Anerican-voters' lifestyles. As a question of absolute priority, in a drop-everything-to-save-the-planet crash program at any cost ... I have yet to see objective models that actually prove that need. I certainly think that virtue signaling on that financial scale is ridiculous unless all other governments responsible for carbon emissions act equally and wholly in sync ...and discipline any little pariah nations that cheat by being allowed to 'pollute' because their governments are too incompetent or criminal or opportunistic to preclude it. I acknowledge that the United States carbon emissions are a substantial contributor to the issue. I also think it is unfair to pile on the United States for some kind of 'reparations' now that some consequences are becoming acknowledged. If the 'world' thinks this situation needs addressing, all parts of it need to agree in sync. Absent something controlling like a 'new world order' I don't see any way to start it, let alone develop a League of Nations response to nations that violate the common response. That does not mean we shouldn't prioritize renewables, well-to-scrap energy reduction, non combustion electrical source and storage, or a great many 'green' or 'LEED' priorities ASAP. Just don't throw money at the bankers' pockets thinking it will make any difference to the ice sheet or low-level coastal populations.
charlie hebdo Every reduction matters and the US still produces more carbon per capita
Are you actually twinning with Euclid? These long posts...
Here's an example of an attempt by climate change deniers to influence science in a dangerous manner.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/To-Court-a-Secretive-Donor/247744?key=zSgFKKpjTaTeXAQnNXqws0y9Z-PQPPKiY1QcAeYF91FA8UPIRKPfGNV3fN8IOzypRGdoMmd2a1F4ZlF0ZWN4WmNoUV9MbEJvZHNQdURybzFCOUw5VmNpeXdtRQ
charlie hebdoHere's an example of an attempt by climate change deniers to influence science in a dangerous manner.
Gadzooks!! Thanks for sharing that. I had no idea that the "anti-denier" conspiracy was so deeply entrenched.
charlie hebdo Every reduction matters and the US still produces more carbon per capita.
Among industrialized nations, the US is #1 in 2016. Among all nations, #3 behind some Middle East countries and Saudi Arabia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Just out of curiosity (and because I'm too tied up to look for myself) is the data on carbon emissions available by country and not 'per capita'?
Both China and India are highly leveraged in terms of large numbers of inhabitants who have comparatively low personal industrially-related carbon content, so their numbers show up somewhat artificially. This is the opposite of the artifact for the Middle Eastern countries, where the relatively small number of citizens enjoy an outsized per-capita income and hence access to carbon-consuming joys of various kinds, and the local industry is highly fossil-fuel related and some sources of carbon/GHG emissions unrelated to personal consumption directly.
If 'every little bit helps' then I think we need to start by looking at the absolute generation of carbon as pollution, and if China or India is a major net polluter we should recognize the percentage of the problem which they as a nation produce.
I am still too appalled by that law-school dean's actions to comment.
Let's ask Patrick Moore, the Canadian co-founder of Greenpeace, and Frederick Seitz, formerly president of the National Academy of Sciences. How they feel about AGW data?.. I find all these articles on the theory of AGW quite funny as they're being disingenuous.. We hardly see, or don't see articles of "secret" funding to those pushing the AGW agenda. The theory of AGW reminds me of our tax structure.. The more productive you are the more taxes you pay.. The less productive your are... You get all sorts of perks: Section 8, EBT cards, You know the rest.. Better yet if these scientist who are pushing the AGW theory so concerned about their theory. Why don't they offer us a glimpse into their lifestyle? Do they drive Chevy Suburbans? Do they use NG in their homes to fire their furnaces, and stoves? Do they fly multiple times per month? I imagine so..
Overmod ....is the data on carbon emissions available by country and not 'per capita'?
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-the-worlds-carbon-emissions-in-one-chart/
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
SD60MAC9500 Let's ask Patrick Moore, the Canadian co-founder of Greenpeace, and Frederick Seitz, formerly president of the National Academy of Sciences. How they feel about AGW data?.. I find all these articles on the theory of AGW quite funny as they're being disingenuous.. We hardly see, or don't see articles of "secret" funding to those pushing the AGW agenda. The theory of AGW reminds me of our tax structure.. The more productive you are the more taxes you pay.. The less productive your are... You get all sorts of perks: Section 8, EBT cards, You know the rest.. Better yet if these scientist who are pushing the AGW theory so concerned about their theory. Why don't they offer us a glimpse into their lifestyle? Do they drive Chevy Suburbans? Do they use NG in their homes to fire their furnaces, and stoves? Do they fly multiple times per month? I imagine so..
It's a waste of time responding to the inane postings of right wingers.. You have zero facts to support your contention, just red herrings and paranoid conspiracy theories.
Overmod Just out of curiosity (and because I'm too tied up to look for myself) is the data on carbon emissions available by country and not 'per capita'? Both China and India are highly leveraged in terms of large numbers of inhabitants who have comparatively low personal industrially-related carbon content, so their numbers show up somewhat artificially. This is the opposite of the artifact for the Middle Eastern countries, where the relatively small number of citizens enjoy an outsized per-capita income and hence access to carbon-consuming joys of various kinds, and the local industry is highly fossil-fuel related and some sources of carbon/GHG emissions unrelated to personal consumption directly. If 'every little bit helps' then I think we need to start by looking at the absolute generation of carbon as pollution, and if China or India is a major net polluter we should recognize the percentage of the problem which they as a nation produce. I am still too appalled by that law-school dean's actions to comment.
The obvious point is each person needs to do his part, not just in his or her own carbon use, but to influence others, including governments and corporations to strive for mitigation.
Years ago in the pre-Nixon EPA, when water pollution was so bad that rivers foamed like old fashioned washers and we're loaded with toxic wastes from industry and sewage, a local activist, the Fox, took direct action against executives of polluting companies along the river. It worked.
The GMU law school Deans seem to be in the pocket of wealthy rightist donors and they use their positions to harass and restrict academic freedom of professors in other departments. Appalling is too mild a term.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.