schlimmI 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?
schlimm,
Have you, or will you ever, believe that others than your so pompusly expoused academics have the ability to read both sides of the debate and draw their own conclusions? Given your egotistical postings that seriously demean those who disagree with your opinion with which many would disagree. I am not saying that AGW is not a fact. It may well be but those on the left (yourself included) are only inclined to have a "discussion" only as long as their opinion agrees with yours.
Regarding your level of education. I commend you for pursuing that, but I am friends with two PHD,s who never brag about their level of education. One of them was once Dean of Science at a university. Neither will reveal their qualifications unless they are prodded to do so.
So, what gives you the right to have a "holier than though" attitude toward the rest of us? I think it is nothing more than your being egotistical and self-serving and following your need to put others with less education than you in their place. You continually parrott the liberal mantra and demean those who disagree with you.
Some of us are old enough to remember Paul Harvey ans his famous "The rest of the story". He did explain both sides. While you leftists may have valid points your constantly pounding down the throats of those who doubt the credibility of scientists who depend on grants to put food on their table. They will, at all costs, try to keep those grants coming.
It is rare that Euclid an I agree on something but conspiracy theories aside I agree with him that the Obama fed us a line of BS that was intended to make America just another third world country. Believe what you wish but I am not onboard the same train as you. Please tell us again how stupid those of us who do not meet your expectation of "educated" are. Saturnalia has you pegged as an egotist.
Norm
schlimmVolker, Given Euclid's obsessive style of argument coupled with a strong and rigidly-held contention of a vast academic and left-political conspiracy, you won't ever be able to penetrate his belief system.
You are right but sometimes you need to learn yourself the hard way.
If understood Euclid's response to my last post correctly everybody acknowledging a manmade part of global warming is a leftist automatically independent of his other political opinions. So a number of Republican senators and members of Congress and thePope, to name a few, must be leftists according to Euclid.
I know the exception proves the ruleRegards, Volker
FINALLY! A completely unbiased report!
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Here is an interesting piece about how regulations affect the economics of coal.
https://www.coloradomining.org/2016/11/denying-the-costs-of-coal-regulation/
“But like a Formula One driver veering from a collision, McCarthy quickly dodged responsibility for this “trouble” by blaming market competition. “Frankly, the coal industry has been going downhill since the 1980s,” she told Mashable.
This is nonsense. Coal production rose steadily from 1980 until 2009. Production in 1980 was 830 million tons and in 2008 it was 1.2 billion tons. Coal employment climbed from 2000 through 2011, reaching a level not seen since 1994. And so, before the Obama Administration decided to destroy it, coal’s share of the nation’s power generation market hit 51 percent—higher by far than competing fuels. Coal also broke records for exports and drove increasing high-wage employment, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs paying an average of $84,000 per year with great benefits.”
Zugmann- I'm currently travelling. Next time I check in to a place I will ask if they have wi-fi....if they say "of course" I will have to say "no thanks"! Just can't get away from it these days...maybe someone should open a chain of motels that specifically offer no service!
...although there are many dead spots in Northern Ontario and for very long stretches at that. When my phone says "no service" I actually think "oh-oh" now what do I do? ...as if the 40 years of never having it on route didn't exist. Times have changed.
Of course I love contributing with picture essays and such, especially on the Classic Forum and String Lining in the Train Forum.
Any ragging and lamenting, which I do frequently enough, is about how much we have lost and how it could have turned out differently...and reminisces when things on the railroad were so spectacular, important and seemed so permanent.
Made some great friends here and I would rather keep it that way!
Where I live in Northern Saskatchewan, less than one mile out of town going North, thats it for any kind of internet or cell service with the exception of very small settlements hundreds of miles up and the Mine sites. There is no service all the way on the road to Flin Flon going due East either, which is 4.5 hours with nothing. Just blueberries and bears.
zugmann Euclid Whatever consensus there is in science is always beside the point. So if many, many, many scientists are able to reach the same conclusion with theri own data and experiments (forming a consensus) - it is meaningless in your eyes? Seems kind of silly.
Euclid Whatever consensus there is in science is always beside the point.
So if many, many, many scientists are able to reach the same conclusion with theri own data and experiments (forming a consensus) - it is meaningless in your eyes?
Seems kind of silly.
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.
MidlandMike Shadow the Cats owner ... Also in the 1100's during the dark ages and the height of the Vikings Greenland was clear of ice entirely. ... You lost all credibility with that whopper. https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-data-peers-into-greenlands-ice-sheet
Shadow the Cats owner ... Also in the 1100's during the dark ages and the height of the Vikings Greenland was clear of ice entirely. ...
... Also in the 1100's during the dark ages and the height of the Vikings Greenland was clear of ice entirely.
...
You lost all credibility with that whopper.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-data-peers-into-greenlands-ice-sheet
Depends on what she meant by "clear of ice entirely". If she meant the coast was clear of ice, that may not be too far off the mark. The pile of ice in central Greenland has been there for a long time.
There are sites of Viking farms on what is now permafrost, though a new hypothesis is that the Viking settlers of Greenland were there to gather walrus tusks for the ivory.
EuclidWhatever consensus there is in science is always beside the point.
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
Science does not depend on consensus. Consensus is the backbone of politics. So the constant crowing about the consensus of climate change scientists does not prove anything. If they happen to agree, then fine. That is a consensus, but the consensus alone does not mean that their conclusion is some fortified and bonded truth that must never be questioned again. Yet that is precisely what the proponents claim. I do not know that the scientists themselves say their consensus proves the theory. Maybe some do, but the non-scientist proponents sure do say that the consensus is all that is needed to make the theory true.
True science puts forth scientific theories that are always open to criticism and revision. Science is never “settled” meaning permanently settled. If every scientist just happens to agree on something, it is just happenstance and nothing more. Consensus alone does not reinforce a scientific theory. They don’t vote on the answer. Voting and consensus is for politics. Whatever consensus there is in science is always beside the point.
MiningmanI just knew I should have stayed out of this!!
Come, stay, have some fun.
Schlimm- If that was not your quote then I sincerely apologize. It appears I was in error.
I just knew I should have stayed out of this!!
Saturnalia A curious thing happens when you write somebody off as just "ignorant", or moreover, something like a "deplorable". You forget and ignore why they think what they do. People don't just think things randomly. There are reasons for things. And when you just write off people who don't to conform to your worldview, you lock out understanding, which, when played right, gives you a broader view of the world, and even a greater chance to change their minds in the long run. Meanwhile, writing them off as unredeemable, ignorant, even deplorable, makes them repel from you, and as Hillary found out, vote for the shockingly repulsive guy who now occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Bringing it back in, if you're going to run around a forum with the attitude that your view is the holiest...that nothing except your enlightened view can be truth, then you're going to run into problems with other people who think different from you.
A curious thing happens when you write somebody off as just "ignorant", or moreover, something like a "deplorable".
You forget and ignore why they think what they do.
People don't just think things randomly. There are reasons for things.
And when you just write off people who don't to conform to your worldview, you lock out understanding, which, when played right, gives you a broader view of the world, and even a greater chance to change their minds in the long run.
Meanwhile, writing them off as unredeemable, ignorant, even deplorable, makes them repel from you, and as Hillary found out, vote for the shockingly repulsive guy who now occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Bringing it back in, if you're going to run around a forum with the attitude that your view is the holiest...that nothing except your enlightened view can be truth, then you're going to run into problems with other people who think different from you.
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?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
The problem isn't that people are ignorant (we're all ignorant at many things), it's the general attitude where people take pride in their ignorance. Wear it as a badge of honor. I just can't understand why.
Miningman Schlimm- ""It Pays To Be Ignorant" comes to mind for them. "There is a culture war right now in this country, with acedamia and the left on one side, and the "lesser-educated joes" and right-wingers on the other." - Saturnalia Were you the guy that came up with "basket of deplorables"? Good Grief!
Schlimm- ""It Pays To Be Ignorant" comes to mind for them.
"There is a culture war right now in this country, with acedamia and the left on one side, and the "lesser-educated joes" and right-wingers on the other." - Saturnalia
Were you the guy that came up with "basket of deplorables"?
Good Grief!
Why must you, of all people, side with people who insist on making a matter of science into something political/ideological? You realize it was Mr. Saturnalia, aka Christmas whom the quote is from? Ridiculous.
"There is a culture war right now in this country, with acedamia and the left on one side, and the "lesser-educated joes" and right-wingers on the other."
zugmann Paul of Covington I've been enjoying just reading this thread so far. Why is it that many people today seem to be proud to assert that they don't think? By being proud of their ignorance, it makes them feel better about being ignorant in the first place? You got me.
Paul of Covington I've been enjoying just reading this thread so far. Why is it that many people today seem to be proud to assert that they don't think?
By being proud of their ignorance, it makes them feel better about being ignorant in the first place? You got me.
The old TV show (based on a radio show by the same name),
"It Pays To Be Ignorant" comes to mind for them.
"There is a culture war right now in this country, with acedamia and the left on one side, and the "lesser-educated joes" and right-wingers on the other." - Saturalia
Seeing the US divided into lefties and academics vs themselves (ironically fans of a POTUS who seems enthralled with the 'former' communist KGB crowd) is the epitome of distorted thinking. No wonder they have been "left behind."
What is sad is seeing an area of important science research, climate change, turned into a political football by the Koch Bros. and others with a vested money interest and some folks don't even know how they are being conned and used.
I've been enjoying just reading this thread so far. Why is it that many people today seem to be proud to assert that they don't think?
VOLKER LANDWEHR Euclid You are missing my point. I am not talking about what is or is not a conspiracy. I am talking about one person labeling another person’s viewpoint as a conspiracy for the purpose of discrediting it. Instead of debating the merit of the other person’s viewpoint on the substance, the opposing person will label the idea as being a conspiracy. I debated the merit of your “leftist agenda": This seems to be quite a constricted view. I don't believe it is right for the USA and it is for sure not true for Germany. Here it is common understanding among the political camp. The governing CDU/CSU is everything but left. The CSU belongs to the far right of the spectrum, the CDU is more in the middle. I’m sure your leftists agenda isn’t true for the USA either. When President Trump announced the USA’s withdrawal from the Paris there were a lot of CEO of large American companies asking the President to change his position. Do you really think all these CEOs are leftists? So I think that the commented part of your posts fits the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of "conspiracy theory" quite well: A theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspiratorsRegards, Volker
Euclid You are missing my point. I am not talking about what is or is not a conspiracy. I am talking about one person labeling another person’s viewpoint as a conspiracy for the purpose of discrediting it. Instead of debating the merit of the other person’s viewpoint on the substance, the opposing person will label the idea as being a conspiracy.
Well my use of the term “leftist” is only to indicate left leaning as opposed to right leaning. The term might sound like hard left or extreme left, but I did not intend it to mean that. In that context, yes I do believe that many CEOs of corporations are left leaning in their political views. That may come as a surprise to some because a large proportion of leftists hate corporations, so one might expect most corporate management to be right leaning.
But it is small business that most feels oppressed by taxes and regulations, so they tend to be for less government, which is political conservatism. So I would expect the CEOs of most small business to be conservative and few to be liberal. But it is different with CEOs and policy of large corporations.
As to your quoted definition of conspiracy theory, it does not in any way fit my idea of explaining the push to end manmade climate change. Of course it is not a “secret plot by powerful conspirators,” as your dictionary defines conspiracy theory. Where did I say anything like that? For one thing, the push to end manmade climate change is far larger than any conceivable “secret plot” could ever be. And for another thing, it does not require a secrete plot.
In any case, the issue does divide along political lines between the right and left. I don’t know if you would agree with that. But in the U.S., I think it is quite clearly true.
Saturnaliawho, failure or not, isn't from academia or the establishment.
Yeah, who'd want a smart person running the free world?
Although I laugh at the notion that Trump isn't from the "establishment".
schlimm Volker, Given Euclid's obsessive style of argument coupled with a strong and rigidly-held contention of a vast academic and left-political conspiracy, you won't ever be able to penetrate his belief system.
Volker,
Given Euclid's obsessive style of argument coupled with a strong and rigidly-held contention of a vast academic and left-political conspiracy, you won't ever be able to penetrate his belief system.
Oh bother, somebody isn't bending to your acedemic, leftist (some might say establishment) arguments...they must be...wait for it...DEPLORABLES!
There is a culture war right now in this country, with acedamia and the left on one side, and the "lesser-educated joes" and right-wingers on the other.
As a conservative, I can tell you that when leftists and acedemics proclaim to know the answers to our problems, that they can socially engineer them away thanks to their "studies" and good intentions, and the other side is full of "deplorables," we collectively roll our eyes and check the box for Trump, the anti-acedemic, anti-establishment guy, who, failure or not, isn't from academia or the establishment.
...And we are really piling up now, but nobody ever said disucssions stay on the same track ;)
EuclidYou are missing my point. I am not talking about what is or is not a conspiracy. I am talking about one person labeling another person’s viewpoint as a conspiracy for the purpose of discrediting it. Instead of debating the merit of the other person’s viewpoint on the substance, the opposing person will label the idea as being a conspiracy.
Ah, climate change (formerly known as global warning).
The climate has been changing since Day 1.
There's no question that mankind has had an effect - the argument is how much. Krakatoa dropped the temperature of the whole world 1.2 degrees Celsius in the course of a day. It took five years for temperatures to return to "normal."
There are people out to make money on the whole thing. Their political affiliation is of little consequence. Of course, they are out to push any information that pads their pockets.
There have been indications that someone has "cooked the books" - that the warming isn't as great as has been reported.
It wasn't that long ago that there were headlines about how the climate was cooling....
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...
VOLKER LANDWEHR Euclid No, there is a leftist agenda alright. It just so happens that their warning of manmade climate change gives the left everything they have always longed for. This seems to be quite a constricted view. I don't believe it is right for the USA and it is for sure not true for Germany. Here it is common understanding among the political camp. The governing CDU/CSU is everything but left. The CSU belongs to the far right of the spectrum, the CDU is more in the middle. Claiming to see through political agendas and observe a leftist agenda regarding global warming is a conspiracy at least for Germany and most of Europe. Everything else Mr. Schlimm already said.Regards, Volker
Euclid No, there is a leftist agenda alright. It just so happens that their warning of manmade climate change gives the left everything they have always longed for.
This seems to be quite a constricted view. I don't believe it is right for the USA and it is for sure not true for Germany. Here it is common understanding among the political camp. The governing CDU/CSU is everything but left. The CSU belongs to the far right of the spectrum, the CDU is more in the middle.
Claiming to see through political agendas and observe a leftist agenda regarding global warming is a conspiracy at least for Germany and most of Europe.
Everything else Mr. Schlimm already said.Regards, Volker
You are missing my point. I am not talking about what is or is not a conspiracy. I am talking about one person labeling another person’s viewpoint as a conspiracy for the purpose of discrediting it. Instead of debating the merit of the other person’s viewpoint on the substance, the opposing person will label the idea as being a conspiracy.
The idea is that conspiracies are imagined by certain people as a belief that is unsubstantiated. So, labeling a person’s viewpoint as a conspiracy is a way dismissing their viewpoint as nothing more than an imagined conspiracy. You have done the exact same thing when you say this:
“Claiming to see through political agendas and observe a leftist agenda regarding global warming is a conspiracy at least for Germany and most of Europe.”
It is either true or it isn’t, but instead of debating that point, you dismiss it as a conspiracy. That is what I am talking about, so you make my point.
Miningman SD70M-2Dude--- Nice try with the re-railing but it keeps derailing instantly. I'm having a thick slice of pan fried baloney for lunch, had a sudden craving.
SD70M-2Dude--- Nice try with the re-railing but it keeps derailing instantly.
I'm having a thick slice of pan fried baloney for lunch, had a sudden craving.
I tried using rerailers, but obviously needed the hook instead. Oh bother, may as well sit back and watch the pile-up get worse.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
EuclidNo, there is a leftist agenda alright. It just so happens that their warning of manmade climate change gives the left everything they have always longed for.
VOLKER LANDWEHR erikem Warming seems to come as fast as cooling, but temperatures seem to bump up against a strong limiting effect most likely due to large tropical thundershowers (tops on the order of 60,000' or so). The latter is important as water vapor is a much larger source of the "greenhouse effect" than CO2, in part because it is a polar molecule. The greenhouse effect of water vapor as a natural phenomena is limited as the atmosphere accumulates only a limited amount depending on temperature.
erikem Warming seems to come as fast as cooling, but temperatures seem to bump up against a strong limiting effect most likely due to large tropical thundershowers (tops on the order of 60,000' or so). The latter is important as water vapor is a much larger source of the "greenhouse effect" than CO2, in part because it is a polar molecule.
The greenhouse effect of water vapor as a natural phenomena is limited as the atmosphere accumulates only a limited amount depending on temperature.
Which can be 50,000ppm for water vapor versus the current 400ppm for CO2.
On the other hand the CO2 content in the atmosphere has risen by 35% since industrialization began.
The primary absorption bands for CO2 are saturated with a mean free path on the order of 100m for IR photons at the absorption peaks. A doubling of CO2 concentration is calculated to increase the radiative forcing by 3W/m2. A quadrupling of CO2 would give a radiative forcing of about 6W/m2 as the forcing is proportional to the logarithm of CO2 concentration. From that, a gray body model indicates about a 1.2C rise in temperature.
Water vapor plays a role in manmade warming too as higher temperatures allow higher amounts to be accumulated in the atmosphere strengthening global warming.
An increase in water vapor may also lead to an increase in cloud cover, which may or may not weaken warming. The weakening/strengthening effect depends in part on the altitude at which the clouds form.
These effects are included in the climate prognose models.
The models don't do a very good job of simulating cumulus or cumulonimbus clouds as these require much finer grid scales then what are practical with global climate simulations. In addition, the tropical upper troposphere hot spot forecast by the models is not showing up in either radiosonde or satellite measurements.
FWIW, while I don't have a formal education in meteorology, I do have formal education in electromagnetics and radiation transport along with fluid flow, heat transfer and thermodynamics along with a smattering of meteorology in the process of getting a pilot's license.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.