Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
STB Slideshow: Deep Water Ahead for Railroads
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="gabe"] <p>(1) If leaning to the left means I am not to the right of Attilla the Hunn, I plead guilty.</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>Wasn't Attila the Hun considered a precursor of Adolf Hitler, the most notorius socialist that ever existed? (Hint: "Nazi" is code for National Socialist)</p><p>[quote]</p><p>(2) How is it that you are so sure of my political leanings? (for the record, I am neither a republican or a democrat, I am a monarchist--I should be King).</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>An educated guess - a recent poll of Republican votes revealed that 90ish% of them reject the notion of man caused global warming. The whole MMGW debate has become starkly partisanized, with most conservatives rejecting this MMGW nonsense, while most liberals whole-heartedly embrace the notion. As of yet there is no record of how monarchists generally feel about the whole debate (probably too busy flogging the servants!)<span class="smiley">[;)]</span></p><p>It would be statistically unlikely that you do not lean to the left in your heart of hearts, given the sincerely frightened tone of your original post. And I do believe your concern over man caused global warming is sincere. Misplaced but sincere. Al Gore owes you an apology for causing such pericombobulation.</p><p>[quote]</p><p>(3) My biggest disagreement with your sylogism is that gradually moving our economy away from fossil fuels will result in an economic disaster. This is far from obvious to me, as it will keep more of our dollars in the hands of Americans rather than Middle Eastern Oil Moguls.</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>Oil was the primary cause of the 1970's recession. Or at least the way Nixon/Ford/Carter reacted to oil problems. And that's where the economic disaster looms - not necessarily in the price shock of disrupted energy supplies, but in the way our government tends to try to *fix* the problem instead of letting the market take care of things. Back then, oil imports were roughly 40% of our supply. Today, oil imports represent nearly 70% of our total supply. And the kicker is this - the one way, indeed the only way we can reduce our dependence on foreign energy supplies (as it relates to our transportation and home heating markets) to to develop our own, and that means COAL via liquification. COAL is also 60% of our electricity supply.</p><p>At least back then the problem was tangible, unlike today's GW "problem".</p><p>Now, why would we want to take legislative action that would inject disincentives in developing our 200+ year supply of coal to make us energy independent? A CO2 tax and/or cap would be the thing prevents us from making this internal adjustment to long term energy security.</p><p>For what it's worth, the best way to keep US dollars in the US and maintain the value of those dollars is to develop our coal supplies. Forcing the adoption of more expensive alternatives will have the effect of reducing the value of those dollars - no point in keeping US dollars in the US if those dollars aren't worth Confederate money in the long run.</p><p>BTW - weren't you one of the folks complaining about rising electricity costs? Why do you think your energy bills are rising? And if such is a problem for you now, how much more will it be a problem if we cap coal development in favor of the more expensive (and less reliable) alternatives such as wind/solar/renewables?</p><p>I will ask you this: How do you envision "gradually" replacing so-called fossil fuels in our transportation network? (I say "so-called fossil fuels" because of the evidence of abiotic origins of hydrocarbons.) And if we indeed have 200+ years of coal in the ground under our soil, why do you deem it not-so-disadvantageous to forbid developing that coal under the phony guise of saving Planet Earth from global warming? The coal is there. If we don't develop it it will just sit there unused. There is really no competing use for it other than for energy, unlike corn (for ethanol) which is usually something we eat. What is happening right now to our food prices due to the recent ethanol mandates? Don't you think that problem of our basic food costs will be exponentially worsened if we start mandating greater quantities of ethanol at the pump? </p><p>Ethanol from biomass? Same problem - biomass has to be grown somewhere. So we just replace our wheat fields and corn fields with sawgrass and poplars - now we have less ground under food production, food prices go up, people starve.</p><p>Government mandated conservation? What is conservation? It is in it's simplest terms a reduction of economic activity to *save* energy- and what do we call a large scale reduction in economic activity? A recession, or worse a depression. </p><p>Is that what you want for your daughter?</p><p>As I see it, the *cure* (as promoted by GW advocates) is megatimes worse than the ostensible disease.</p><p>[quote]</p><p>(4) When it is 60 degrees in January for three days in a row, in the middle of Indiana, I am not going to appologize for getting a little concerned for thinking that it is certainly possible that the burning of fossil fuels is exacerbating global warming. </p><p>[/quote]</p><p><span class="smiley">[banghead]</span></p><p>It's as if you haven't heard a word we've said. The Middle Ages were much warmer than we are today. This current climate trend is naturally cyclical as have all the warming periods prior. And for the record, the burning of so-called fossil fuels over the last few centuris has contributed less than 1/10 of 1% of total atmospheric CO2. 1/10 of 1% is hardly an "exacerbating" factor in total atmospheric CO2.</p><p>In other words, you have to be able to separate the surface temperature readings you get from this Dark Ages mentality of cherry-picked cause and effect variables.</p><p>You see higher than normal temperatures in January, you see exhaust coming out of the tailpipes of passing SUV's, you make a connection between the two which leads you to conclude that eliminating the emissions will eliminate the warming. The simplest conclusion.</p><p>Middle Age folk saw the bubonic plague as being caused by cats and dogs, since incidents of plague were higher in areas populated by cats and dogs. They concluded that getting rid of the cats and dogs would eliminate the cause of the plague. The simplest conclusion.</p><p>Wrong on both counts.</p>
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy