PA&ERR says:
I remember reading (in Trains, I think) that back in the late 80s or early 90s a large coal mining operation was considering building a coal "pipline" through the Blue Ridge mountains. The railroads and the "environmentalists" joined forced to defeat the project. The railroads objected to it because it would mean lost revenue for them. The "environmentalist" objected because of the "damage" it would cause to the environment. As the saying goes, "politics makes strange bedfellows".
The railroads objected to it because it would mean lost revenue for them.
The "environmentalist" objected because of the "damage" it would cause to the environment.
As the saying goes, "politics makes strange bedfellows".
It wasn't politics. I worked at the time for a firm that performed part of an evaluation of the projects (there were several). As proposed, the coal was to be transported as a slurry, which would have required copious volumes of water that weren't available. In addition, treatment and disposal of the leachate (think acid mine drainage) were cost prohibitive.
jecorbett wrote:Where to begin? [snip codswallop] Sorry, but if I'm supposed to accept something without questioning it, it's going to have to come from somebody who has more credibility than the guy who invented the internet.
Where to begin?
[snip codswallop]
Sorry, but if I'm supposed to accept something without questioning it, it's going to have to come from somebody who has more credibility than the guy who invented the internet.
Start with the IPCC-AR3 (2001), which is based on research reported in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, available online at <http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/>. Pay particular attention to the resutls reported and conclusions drawn in the section prepared by Working Group I: The Scientific Basis. The full IPCC-AR4 is scheduled to be released in November 2007. Until then, you can read the Working Group I Summary for Policy Makers as an 18-page .pdf file at <http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf>. For ongoing and up to date scientific refutations of AGW denialists' assertions, see <http://www.realclimate.org>, which site also provides links to some of the the peer-reviewed literature from which the consensus view of AGW has developed.
gderem wrote:Let's see; I will be willing to consider global warming as a significant danger when someone explains how we went from the coming ice age in the 70's to global warming now
Full bibliographic reference to the peer-reviewed literature, please.
Some quick points. Progress doesn't increase birth rates it increases life expectancy (except for those millions in the tropics who die unnecessarilly from malaria due to the banning of DDT) European countries have a birth rate (among the European segment of the population) well below replacement level. They have to import workers. The US (native) birth rate is 2.1 per woman of child bearing age...exactly the replacement level. Our pop. increase is due to immigration.
Concerning predictions. Paul Erlich in his book "The Population Bomb" predicted the decade of the 90s would be marked by a world wide famine that would kill BILLIONS). That noted scientist Ted Danson (Cheers) predicted that the oceans would be dead by 1990. That "New Ice Age" predicted in the 70s (I was there and remeber it. The prediction, that is) It was going to be caused by atmospheric CO2.
We have today in the US, more forested land than 100 yrs ago, cleaner water than 50 years ago (Lake Erie for the most notable example), and cleaner air than 25 years ago. Check out "The Sceptical Envirnmentalist" by Bjorn Lumborg as cited above. All the data are from govt or recognized expert sources.
jimrice4449 wrote:...(Lake Erie for the most notable example)
I'll refute that and say the Cuyahoga River... it caught fire once!
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site
jimrice4449 wrote: Some quick points. Progress doesn't increase birth rates it increases life expectancy (except for those millions in the tropics who die unnecessarilly from malaria due to the banning of DDT)...
Some quick points. Progress doesn't increase birth rates it increases life expectancy (except for those millions in the tropics who die unnecessarilly from malaria due to the banning of DDT)...
If life expectancies rise, so does the duration over which people can procreate and nurture viable offspring = fewer neonatal deaths. In some cultures/countries/populations, that means more births, which in turn means a rise in birth rates. When we invite immigrants, we invite their culture. They may assimilate, but when their numbers reach a certain level, as they do along your southern border, you can guess how much. If their cultures historically favour large families, you can guess the outcome.
You are correct to include the increased life expectancy, but that, by itself, does not necessarily mean increased birth rates, not in all groups. But in some, whether in immigrant pops or in purely ethnic pops abroad, more births will result as a matter of human nature. More importantly, and more to my point, those offspring will be part of an ever burgeoning population that needs cooking oils, cooking fuels, transportation, more food, clothing, shelter, and so on. All of these, plus the formulation and delivery of health care products for their needs, will contribute to global warming the same way they did yesterday morning.
It seems to me to be an inescapable geometric progression that, if we N. Americans don't want to perpetuate, others are only too glad to continue.
jimrice4449 wrote:That "New Ice Age" predicted in the 70s (I was there and remeber it. The prediction, that is) It was going to be caused by atmospheric CO2.
Full bibliographic reference to the peer-reviewed literature, please. Time and Newsweek aren't technical journals.
Check out "The Sceptical Envirnmentalist" by Bjorn Lumborg as cited above. All the data are from govt or recognized expert sources.
Yes, data cherry-picked to support his agenda, while ignoring or misrepresenting data which doesn't. For debunking, see discussions at <http://www.realclimate.org>. For the current scientific view, see the aforementioned IPCC references, links provided above.
millrace wrote: The "guy who invented the internet" is backed by the vast majority of scientists. Those who have the opposite view are back by a group of talk show hosts and "think tanks" funded by Exxon.
The "guy who invented the internet" is backed by the vast majority of scientists. Those who have the opposite view are back by a group of talk show hosts and "think tanks" funded by Exxon.
This is the stock reply to when anyone points to scientists who dare to disagree with the dogma of global warming. It's a much easier tactic than actually addressing the falacies in the global warming theory that these scientists have pointed out. Of course the scientists who are onboard the global warming bandwagon are pure of spirit. I'm sure none of them are driven by the billions of dollars in grant money spent to study global warming, dollars that pay their salaries. Somebody figured out a long time ago that in order to get the government to dole out research grants, you first need to create a problem that needs to be studied. I'm sorry if I am ranting, but the heat is getting to my head. It must be the half degree rise in temperature this past century, most of which occured before I was born.
Shilshole wrote: jecorbett wrote: Where to begin? [snip codswallop] Sorry, but if I'm supposed to accept something without questioning it, it's going to have to come from somebody who has more credibility than the guy who invented the internet. Start with the IPCC-AR3 (2001), which is based on research reported in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, available online at <http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/>. Pay particular attention to the resutls reported and conclusions drawn in the section prepared by Working Group I: The Scientific Basis.The full IPCC-AR4 is scheduled to be released in November 2007. Until then, you can read the Working Group I Summary for Policy Makers as an 18-page .pdf file at <http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf>.For ongoing and up to date scientific refutations of AGW denialists' assertions, see <http://www.realclimate.org>, which site also provides links to some of the the peer-reviewed literature from which the consensus view of AGW has developed.
jecorbett wrote: Where to begin? [snip codswallop] Sorry, but if I'm supposed to accept something without questioning it, it's going to have to come from somebody who has more credibility than the guy who invented the internet.
Start with the IPCC-AR3 (2001), which is based on research reported in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, available online at <http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/>. Pay particular attention to the resutls reported and conclusions drawn in the section prepared by Working Group I: The Scientific Basis.The full IPCC-AR4 is scheduled to be released in November 2007. Until then, you can read the Working Group I Summary for Policy Makers as an 18-page .pdf file at <http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf>.For ongoing and up to date scientific refutations of AGW denialists' assertions, see <http://www.realclimate.org>, which site also provides links to some of the the peer-reviewed literature from which the consensus view of AGW has developed.
There was hardly conensus among the scientists who developed the IPCC report. The bureaucrats culled out dissenting opinions to create the illusion that there was. One of the scientists was so incensed that he threatened legal action to get his name removed from the final report, which it final was. The more one looks into the "dangers" of global warming, the more one can see it is just a house of cards. The latest in a long string of scare tactics to get the public riled up enough to support massive increases in funding of climate change research which pays the salaries of a lot of these global warming advocates.
Whirling back 'round to Appalachia for just a moment... Thoight y'all would like some graphic context to this dialogue,
It's not the Grand Canyon. It's West Virginia. Doesn't look like land destined to be a garden, eh?
Sure makes modeling Appalachia easier. Don't need the mountains. Save on the foam~!
The only reason they do this is it's cheaper. Who cares about the future of the place?
Make no mistake, I'm not against mining. I'm against mountaintop removal mining, a depradation committed largely by out-of-state corporations.inii
Again, the only reason they do this mine-and-destroy method is, very simply, it's cheaper than underground mining. That is the driving force.
It's not West Virginians making these decisions. Massey Energy, the worst offender, is based here in Virginia, Richmond, far away from the once-mountainous terrain of their mine. I'm sure the golf courses for Don Blakenship, their CEO, are pristine in Tidewater.
There's a history here, of course. West Virginia was formed for the precise reason that they were historically ignored and abused by the central gov't of Virginia.
Sorry for being so regional in my discussion.
Simon Modelling CB&Q and Wabash See my slowly evolving layout on my picturetrail site http://www.picturetrail.com/simontrains and our videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/MrCrispybake?feature=mhum
I swore up and down I'd stay outta this, but...
One thing to bear in mind. Although the future painted by many (albiet imperfect) climate models is bleak, alarmism has a point of diminishing returns. That is to say, we can yell so loudly about so much doom-and-gloom that most people will throw up their hands and say "it's too late, too big, nothing we can do, etc."
Appealing to the American sense of hope for the future requires a somewhat more positive, less scolding and apocolyptic attitude among us atmospheric scientists. Recall that we reversed the ozone hole by leading the world in the elimination of CFCs. We did it without as many doomsday screams.
Averting climate change is as much (or more) a business opportunity than a potential economic disaster. Can you imagine an America leading the world in energy production? The trains would roll with coal headed for carbon-capture power plants and tank cars of ethanol made here in the USA for export to the Middle East! The rest of the world is moving toward green energy with or without us. If we get aboard now we can beat them to the punch and sell it to them!
For those that argue against an anthropogenic influence on climate, I know I can't convince you otherwise. However, many of the same steps required to curb these effects will also lead to energy independence and national security.
I love my children and hope that I can leave them an energy-independent America. I hope and pray we are wrong about global warming, but nevertheless, even if it does pan out to be true, a world of renewable (and torrorism-free) energy is just a better world all around. All we need is to appeal to the American sense of innovation and hope to achieve it. There's money to be made in green energy -- the first one in wins!
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
When "the guy who invented the internet" takes the environment seriously enough to stop making money off it, so will I.
http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070318/NEWS01/70316074
This is your permission slip to model a mine with a clear conscience.
http://mprailway.blogspot.com
"The first transition era - wood to steel!"
Dave Vollmer wrote: I swore up and down I'd stay outta this, but...One thing to bear in mind. Although the future painted by many (albiet imperfect) climate models is bleak, alarmism has a point of diminishing returns. That is to say, we can yell so loudly about so much doom-and-gloom that most people will throw up their hands and say "it's too late, too big, nothing we can do, etc."Appealing to the American sense of hope for the future requires a somewhat more positive, less scolding and apocolyptic attitude among us atmospheric scientists. Recall that we reversed the ozone hole by leading the world in the elimination of CFCs. We did it without as many doomsday screams.Averting climate change is as much (or more) a business opportunity than a potential economic disaster. Can you imagine an America leading the world in energy production? The trains would roll with coal headed for carbon-capture power plants and tank cars of ethanol made here in the USA for export to the Middle East! The rest of the world is moving toward green energy with or without us. If we get aboard now we can beat them to the punch and sell it to them! For those that argue against an anthropogenic influence on climate, I know I can't convince you otherwise. However, many of the same steps required to curb these effects will also lead to energy independence and national security.I love my children and hope that I can leave them an energy-independent America. I hope and pray we are wrong about global warming, but nevertheless, even if it does pan out to be true, a world of renewable (and torrorism-free) energy is just a better world all around. All we need is to appeal to the American sense of innovation and hope to achieve it. There's money to be made in green energy -- the first one in wins!
If someone can come up with with a fuel that gets me from point A to point B cheaper than I can do so now without first having to pay a $5000 premium for a car that can operate on it, you won't have to convince me of the threat of global warming. I'll gladly get on board. I might even invest in such an enterprise. Just don't expect me to change my lifestyle, pay higher taxes, or sacrifice my liberty because of gloom-and-doom predictions of alarmists who have a vested interest in keeping the public alarmed. I've been around long enough to have seen plenty of these scare campaigns, overpopulation, a new ice age, nuclear winter, none of which ever panned out. Now the same crowd that was warning us of a new ice age just a generation ago is now telling us we are going to become toast if we don't change our ways. Sorry, but I'm not buying. You can only cry wolf so many times. It is amazing that in this country one can become an expert in a field without every once being right about anything. I agree with H.L. Mencken who said that saving the world is usually a front for those who want to rule it.
What does any of this have to do with Model Railroading???? I predict a swift death to this thread once Bergie sees it tomorrow....
Don Z.
Research; it's not just for geeks.
We have been busy planting trees on our layout. Will this help reduce our carbon foot print?
Larry
Anything is possible if you do not know what you are talking about.
Don Z wrote: What does any of this have to do with Model Railroading???? I predict a swift death to this thread once Bergie sees it tomorrow....Don Z.
I agree!
I guess I need to get my 2 cents in before the thread gets killed.
As others have advocated, model what you want. You can model the way you think the world should be, the way it was, or not model things of which you don't approve. Where it should end is at the point that you tell me the way I should model based on your favorite issues (global warming, world over population, etc).
With that out of the way, it's time to join in the debates with the rest.
The US has (I believe) the largest reserves of coal of any country in the world. But we don't have enough oil for even 50% of our energy needs. So it makes very good sense to use our affordable coal as compared to buying foreign oil at who knows what price. In our efforts to not pollute so badly while using coal, we have learned that it is easier to have cleaner emissions using Western low-sulfur coal instead of the traditional Appalachian coal, even though Appalachian coal has a higher energy content. To keep Appalachia coal mining viable, traditional and expensive underground mining has been giving way to the prejoratively-named (perhaps accurately?) mountain top removal mining. Not passing judgement, just saying what is. Until Appalachia has some other economically viable way to support themselves, a good many residents are willing to live with the evils of coal mining, even with mountain top removal.
The inconvenient truth for those who wish to reduce global population is that reducing birth rates is a terribly destabilizing method to achieve the desired result. Reducing birth rates reduces the proportion of young people for the first 50-70 years. Wars also kill off the young faster than the old unless you are a fan of nuclear annihilation. To reduce population evenly, and in a sustainable and orderly way, you either need to reintroduce pandemics of fatal illnesses or get a percentage of old farts to commit mass suicide. Tain't this old fart!
Take a look at countries that now have negative growth birth rates. Japan, France, and Russia come to mind. All have rapidly aging populations that are becoming unsupportable. All have major problems because of it. The usual answer (since Roman times) has been to import the young. The French have created Muslim slums that amount to 20% of their population, and are just beginning to pay the price. The Chinese "1 child" policy has created a society where 30 million young men will not be able to find wives because of the shortage of women. Hard to think of anything more destabilizing to a culture/country than 30 million young men who can't find wives/women. I would be very worried if I were living in a neighboring country with daughters. And the dirty secret in the US is that the most politically viable solution to the impending meltdown of Social Security is to open the immigration floodgates.
I tell ya, what a fine mess we got on our hands! Time to go work some model railroad projects!
Fred W
jecorbett wrote:Of course the scientists who are onboard the global warming bandwagon are pure of spirit. I'm sure none of them are driven by the billions of dollars in grant money spent to study global warming, dollars that pay their salaries. Somebody figured out a long time ago that in order to get the government to dole out research grants, you first need to create a problem that needs to be studied.
In other words, scientists can't be trusted because they are getting rich off research grants but Exxon-Mobile (the source of much of the funding for anti-global-warming groups) has no financial incentive to maintain the status quo?
A few corporations who recognize that global warming is a serious problem and have commited to reducing emissions: Alcoa, Ford Motor, General Electric, Goldman Sachs, Toyota Motor North America, Wal-Mart, Shell OIL, and many others.
And this is straight from BP's website:
"There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases."
So if you choose to ignore the consensus of every major scientific organization in the world, are you willing to ignore the opinions of leading industries as well?
This is not about alarmism or a bunch of eco-wackos trying to take your car away. It's about trying to get action taken on a problem much more pressing than phantom weapons in the Iraqi desert.
millrace wrote: jecorbett wrote:Of course the scientists who are onboard the global warming bandwagon are pure of spirit. I'm sure none of them are driven by the billions of dollars in grant money spent to study global warming, dollars that pay their salaries. Somebody figured out a long time ago that in order to get the government to dole out research grants, you first need to create a problem that needs to be studied.In other words, scientists can't be trusted because they are getting rich off research grants but Exxon-Mobile (the source of much of the funding for anti-global-warming groups) has no financial incentive to maintain the status quo?A few corporations who recognize that global warming is a serious problem and have commited to reducing emissions: Alcoa, Ford Motor, General Electric, Goldman Sachs, Toyota Motor North America, Wal-Mart, Shell OIL, and many others.And this is straight from BP's website:"There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases."So if you choose to ignore the consensus of every major scientific organization in the world, are you willing to ignore the opinions of leading industries as well?This is not about alarmism or a bunch of eco-wackos trying to take your car away. It's about trying to get action taken on a problem much more pressing than phantom weapons in the Iraqi desert.
It's called PR. Companies know there is public concern so they are more than happy to pay lip service to the issue. This says nothing about the legitimacy of the issue.
I don't put blind faith in scientists on either side of this issue. I read opinions of knowledgeable people who believe the threat of global warming is greatly exaggerated. Their arguments make sense to me. I would expect those on the other side to attempt to refute those points. Instead, all I ever see are claims that the contrarians are being bought and paid for by Big Oil. It reminds me of the line from the movie All the President's Men when Ben Bradlee refers to the White House's non-denial denial. "They question our ancestory but they don't say our story isn't right". This tactic strains the credibility of those who insist global warming is a problem. If they are so sure they are right, why are they so reluctant to engage in an honest debate with those with an opposing point of view. They don't seem to have any interest in doing that. Instead they tell us they have already settled the issue. There is no doubt that they are correct and I'm supposed to blindly accept their conclusions. Sorry, the scientific community has been wrong too many times in the past for that to happen. If those who insist global warming is a major threat want the rest of us to buy into their position, they are going to have to do a lot better job of presenting that position. So far, they have failed miserably.
Well, the thread may be killed by sunlight tomorrow, seeing as how we have veered off into global population control, y'know, important but heady stuff for a model railroad forum and all. Hope I won't be labeled on these forums simply as a left wing nut...guess I'm just a conservative, in the truest sense of that word. (don't you hate it when we say that?)
In any case, I'm just going to freelance my lil' ol railroad, a modest homage to mountain life. Life seems simple down there in my basement, anyway. I'll send a donation to Mountain Justice, write a letter or two to my congressman and be sure to turn off the lights when I come upstairs.
I'm moving in the direction of having a paper mill as my biggest layout industry. Lots of cool rail traffic, and hey, it only smells bad. In my basement, I already have a head start on that! To power it, hmmm...maybe I'll Norfolk Southern freight in a lot of sugar cane from Brazil for a nice bio-fuel. I did mention I was thinking freelance, didn't I?
As an adieu, from the responses on this thread, I'm guessing...two-thirds on this forum are operational types, one third scenickers, eh?
millrace wrote:This is not about alarmism or a bunch of eco-wackos trying to take your car away. It's about trying to get action taken on a problem much more pressing than phantom weapons in the Iraqi desert.
And not content to let this off-topic thread burn at a high level due to lack of others' agreement with one's personal opinion and cited scientists as to how much or to what degree global warming stems from man's activity and how much is natural cycles, we lob the Iraq grenade...
Way too much talking past each other with flame throwers, I'll watch from a distance.
I'm moving in the direction of having a paper mill as my biggest layout industry.
Just make sure you model the barren forests where all the trees were cut down and all the polluted lakes and streams from the mill run off.
fwright wrote: millrace wrote: This is not about alarmism or a bunch of eco-wackos trying to take your car away. It's about trying to get action taken on a problem much more pressing than phantom weapons in the Iraqi desert. And not content to let this off-topic thread burn at a high level due to lack of others' agreement with one's personal opinion and cited scientists as to how much or to what degree global warming stems from man's activity and how much is natural cycles, we lob the Iraq grenade...Way too much talking past each other with flame throwers, I'll watch from a distance.
millrace wrote: This is not about alarmism or a bunch of eco-wackos trying to take your car away. It's about trying to get action taken on a problem much more pressing than phantom weapons in the Iraqi desert.
That's the problem with any discussion on any topic in this country (the USA) these days. Sooner or later, it all distills down to politics. And when that happens, it suddenly turns into a "Red vs. Blue," "Us vs. Them" urination contest, and nobody wins. Frankly, I'm sick of it. Life is too short, and the people (all of them) of this great nation are too good for this childish bickering. Perhaps that's why there's a perception that the average American citizen is "uninformed" because they choose to watch "American Idol" instead of the news, or because they choose to read "Entertainment Weekly" instead of the newspaper. Maybe those people are smarter than they are given credit for.
As for me, on watching from a distance. I'm gonna go back to reading my MR magazines and working on my design for my next great layout.
Dan Stokes
My other car is a tunnel motor
jecorbett wrote:Sorry, the scientific community has been wrong too many times in the past for that to happen. If those who insist global warming is a major threat want the rest of us to buy into their position, they are going to have to do a lot better job of presenting that position. So far, they have failed miserably.
Ok. Scientists can't be trusted, corporations can't be trusted, and the only people you believe are those who say what you already want to hear.
Please tell me how the scientific community has "failed miserably" in presenting their opinion? Apparently, When the truth is "inconvenient" it is wrong.
My mention of Iraq is not intended as a "politcal bomb". It's an example of how we take drastic and sudden action against a problem with very little evidence to support it, yet continue to ignore even bigger problems with overwhelming amounts of data supporting it.
millrace wrote: My mention of Iraq is not intended as a "politcal bomb". It's an example of how we take drastic and sudden action against a problem with very little evidence to support it, yet continue to ignore even bigger problems with overwhelming amounts of data supporting it.
Unless you were inside the decision circle, your conclusion that sudden action was taken against a problem with very little evidence to support it may or may not be a valid conclusion. And whether your conclusion is valid or not, you deliberately chose the Iraq analogy to further flame emotions.
Returning to global warming, the evidence for the significance of man's contribution to global warming may not be quite as overwhelming as you want the rest of us to believe. How far back do world-wide, recorded, reasonably accurate temperature measurements go? A few hundred years, give or take? There is recorded anecdotal evidence that Europe was actually warmer than it is now in the 1st millenium AD. There is anecdotal evidence and some recorded evidence that the earth has been warming since 1600. There are models, some probably more accurate than others, that use the available past data to predict the climate change of the future. But we won't know for sure how accurate these models are until we have a few thousand years of data - and even that might not be enough to know that the longer change cycles have been correctly modeled.
And of course, all this predictive modeling assumes that the history stories of the Bible that indicate a God actively intervening in the affairs of man and His creation are false. Predictive modeling also assumes that the "laws" of science which govern the order of the universe do not change over time. A rather rash assumption, IMHO. Which takes the greater faith to believe in? As for me and my household.....
Fred - you are right that daily measurements only go back a few years, but there is significant evidence from ice cores about temperature, with data from the polar ice caps dating back up to 800,000 years. It's apparently all to do with how the heavier water isotopes condense. It also contains information about the atmospheric composition.
I'm not going to get involved in the rights and wrongs of climate change (I have my own definite ideas, but I notice that each side of the debate is FIRMLY entrenched), but one thing to consider is that there is a finite amount of fossil fuels. If we continue to use oil at the rate we are now, it WILL run out, sooner or later - there is evidence that oil production in non-OPEC countries has already peaked. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
It would seem sensible, to me at least, that we ought to be aggressively persuing alternative sources of energy. Ethanol seems like a good option - it is carbon neutral (i.e. the plants take in as much Carbon Dioxide as is released when the fuel is burnt), so IF climate change theory is correct, it would not be contributing. Also power sources like geothermal are worth using if available.