Euclid VOLKER LANDWEHR At least the proposed Clean Power Plan had no influence as it hasn't been implemented yet. Here is the case against the Clean Power Plan:
I just stated that the Clean Power Act had no influence on the demise of coal as it isn't implemented yet and perhaps won't under the current President.
That the CEI is challenging the CPA in court is their right. If the President doesn't stop it we'll see how the courts will rule.
Everything else I read with caution, given the history of the CEI.
VOLKER LANDWEHRAt least the proposed Clean Power Plan had no influence as it hasn't been implemented yet.
Here is the case against the Clean Power Plan:
https://cei.org/cleanpowerplan?utm_source=Google&utm_medium=CPC&utm_term=CPP&utm_content=Google%20Grants&gclid=Cj0KCQjw8b_MBRDcARIsAKJE7lncir1o6VERFcqr6oJx42tRmtdp6rnqIzdmuKspugC9jt7_1lOSEnIaAu3jEALw_wcB
"The EPA’s so-called Clean Power Plan is President Obama’s marquee climate change initiative. Finalized by the administration on August 3, 2015, the Clean Power Plan would expand the Environmental Protection Agency’s power beyond the Clean Air Act, allowing the agency unprecedented authority to centrally plan the electric system as a whole: generation, transmission, distribution, and consumption. This regulation will have a devastating effect on America’s electricity industry, consumers, and the U.S. economy."
Norm48327 BaltACD One thing I have never heard discussed about pipelines is the rate structure in transporting a particular shipment. Pipeline, in many cases, are considered 'common carriers' just like railroads and other forms of transportation. Chuck, Is it the actual cost of transportation or the market price when the product is produced or delivered? My understanding of pipelines is that gas is placed in a pipeline with the expectation of a price paid by the end user. I believe it can vary from the date of insertion to the time it is accepted by the utility which is the intended recipient and it may vary from day to day. Are plugs placed into pipelines that denote which supplier nis supplying gas to each generating plant? I am not privy to that information.
BaltACD One thing I have never heard discussed about pipelines is the rate structure in transporting a particular shipment. Pipeline, in many cases, are considered 'common carriers' just like railroads and other forms of transportation.
Chuck,
Is it the actual cost of transportation or the market price when the product is produced or delivered?
My understanding of pipelines is that gas is placed in a pipeline with the expectation of a price paid by the end user. I believe it can vary from the date of insertion to the time it is accepted by the utility which is the intended recipient and it may vary from day to day.
Are plugs placed into pipelines that denote which supplier nis supplying gas to each generating plant? I am not privy to that information.
I was involved in the exploration end of the oil&gas industry so my understanding of the natural gas distribution end is more chit-chat over coffee cup type info with those guys. First, pipeline companies announce their new pipeline plans to guage interest, and not a spade of dirt is turned over until they have "take-or-pay" contracts that bind the gas buyers to take at least a certain volume of gas or pay anyway. Gas producers have to process the gas so that it is "pipeline grade" before they put it into a sales line. The price they pay producers varies, sometimes there are allowances for BTU content, sometimes not. Gas going into the pipeline is metered, as is gas going out at the end user. With the complex gathering and distribution system, my guess is that the only pigs sent thru the lines are for cleanout/inspection.
Paul_D_North_JrFor what it's worth, in case no one mentioned it in this thread ( I know I have in others): Coal: going, going, gone How coal railroads can run downhill at a profit by Kneiling, John G. from Trains October 1967 p. 37 coal Studying and thinking through the diagrams and graphs in this article taught me a lot about how to do that and understand the facts presented and conclusions that John was reaching. - PDN.
Studying and thinking through the diagrams and graphs in this article taught me a lot about how to do that and understand the facts presented and conclusions that John was reaching.
- PDN.
Despite the fact that the article is 50 years old and coal is still a commodity that has to be accounted for.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
For what it's worth, in case no one mentioned it in this thread ( I know I have in others):
RMEIn particular I would like to hear opinions on the division between coal use 'dying off' for financial or operational reasons and coal use being killed off by effective political actions.
I think in the end economical reasons will accelerate the demise of coal. But included are cost caused by regulation starting in the 1970s with the Clean Air Act.
Here is an interesting read about the development of coal including the influence of Clean Air Act regulations.https://siepr.stanford.edu/research/publications/what-killing-us-coal-industryThe Mercury and and Air Toxic Rule of 2011 was already required in 1990 Amendments of the Clean Air Act. At least the proposed Clean Power Plan had no influence as it hasn't been implemented yet.
It is at least one perspective.Regards, Volker
Norm48327I have been told (anecdotally) that the major cost of coal is the transportation via rail to the generating plants. I don't know if the source was accurate but it said the cost of transporting one hundredd tons of coal was one thousand dollars per 100 ton car.
Here is a link to railroad transportation cost from coal basin to state:https://www.eia.gov/coal/transportationrates/pdf/table3cn.pdf it is from this website: https://www.eia.gov/coal/transportationrates/
And here is a link to current coal prices that shows why Powder River Basin coal is economical even at the East Coast: https://www.eia.gov/coal/markets/Regards, Volker
Norm48327 BaltACD Chuck, Is it the actual cost of transportation or the market price when the product is produced or delivered? My understanding of pipelines is that gas is placed in a pipeline with the expectation of a price paid by the end user. I believe it can vary from the date of insertion to the time it is accepted by the utility which is the intended recipient and it may vary from day to day. Are plugs placed into pipelines that denote which supplier nis supplying gas to each generating plant? I am not privy to that information.
BaltACD
I know nothing about the operation of pipelines, beyond the knowledge that my father-in-law worked at a Sun Oil distribution center and his work schedule was dependent upon when shipments for his center were due to arrive. What he had to do to take delivery of the shipment and how the transportation costs were allocated and collected is beyond my knowledge.
The NTSB has a section on pipeline accidents - I have never read through any of the reports.
BaltACDOne thing I have never heard discussed about pipelines is the rate structure in transporting a particular shipment. Pipeline, in many cases, are considered 'common carriers' just like railroads and other forms of transportation.
Norm
[quote user="Norm48327"]Euclid
Another way of shifting blame for coal’s demise onto its own reputation is to say that coal cannot compete with natural gas, leaving the impression that coal cannot lower its price sufficiently. Yet part of the reason for coal’s higher price is the growing burden of regulations on coal, which is exactly what Obama promised us near the beginning of his term when he vowed to kill coal.[quote user="Norm48327"] Euclid Another way of shifting blame for coal’s demise onto its own reputation is to say that coal cannot compete with natural gas, leaving the impression that coal cannot lower its price sufficiently. Yet part of the reason for coal’s higher price is the growing burden of regulations on coal, which is exactly what Obama promised us near the beginning of his term when he vowed to kill coal. Euclid, I have been told (anecdotally) that the major cost of coal is the transportation via rail to the generating plants. I don't know if the source was accurate but it said the cost of transporting one hundredd tons of coal was one thousand dollars per 100 ton car. Pipelines appear to have the advantage in that once the line is in place (at great expense of construction) transporting gas via pipeline is much more cost efficient than transporting coal by rail. Were the generating stations near the source of coal that cost would be far less and of lesser value to the railroads. [/quote]
Euclid Another way of shifting blame for coal’s demise onto its own reputation is to say that coal cannot compete with natural gas, leaving the impression that coal cannot lower its price sufficiently. Yet part of the reason for coal’s higher price is the growing burden of regulations on coal, which is exactly what Obama promised us near the beginning of his term when he vowed to kill coal.
Euclid,
I have been told (anecdotally) that the major cost of coal is the transportation via rail to the generating plants. I don't know if the source was accurate but it said the cost of transporting one hundredd tons of coal was one thousand dollars per 100 ton car.
Pipelines appear to have the advantage in that once the line is in place (at great expense of construction) transporting gas via pipeline is much more cost efficient than transporting coal by rail. Were the generating stations near the source of coal that cost would be far less and of lesser value to the railroads.
One thing I have never heard discussed about pipelines is the rate structure in transporting a particular shipment. Pipeline, in many cases, are considered 'common carriers' just like railroads and other forms of transportation.
EuclidAnother way of shifting blame for coal’s demise onto its own reputation is to say that coal cannot compete with natural gas, leaving the impression that coal cannot lower its price sufficiently. Yet part of the reason for coal’s higher price is the growing burden of regulations on coal, which is exactly what Obama promised us near the beginning of his term when he vowed to kill coal.
Unfortunately, generating electricity require copious amounts of water for steam production that is not available in most areas of coal production. Were there sufficient water near the coal fields of Wyoming it would make sense to build generating plants there and transmit electricity on very high voltage lines to the areas that require and are the heaviest users of the electric energy.
One poster here consistantly pans Trump for his policies yet refuses to acknowledge that Obama had an agenda that was indeed a 'war on coal' that was intended to reverse course toward renewable energy sources that was, from the outset, intended to raise the price of the energy source (electricity) that keeps America on the move and in the process lower our standard of living to that of a third world country.
Could civilised America survive on Obama's plan? Doubtful in my mind. Our society, and that of most of the world is now dependent on the internet where ideas and information, (some of which are questionable) spread rapidly amongst the populace whether true or not.
I read a variety of news sites and wonder which is posting facts or feeding the mushrooms their natural diet. In my opinion the 'Forth Estate' has sold their readers down the river, disregarding the duties they were charged with in the beginning. Their purpose under the constitution was to challenge government and expose truth. I firmly believe they have forsaken thier mission and have become political in their endeavor to support candidates of their choice. I no longer trust any media to be truthful and I'm willing to research everything I can find to determine which sites are lying to the public.
RMEIn particular I would like to hear opinions on the division between coal use 'dying off' for financial or operational reasons and coal use being killed off by effective political actions. I, personally, think there is little if any doubt that there was a concerted effort to 'kill coal' in the Obama administrations. I fail to see why this is somehow a 'conspiracy' --
Killing coal requires the entire destruction of coal’s reputation, so it must be shown that the evils of coal alone are sufficient to cause its demise. If it is known that coal is also being actively being killed by regulation and politics, then that weakens the case for coal’s bad reputation. That is why the media is saturated with complete denial that Obama had anything to do with coal’s demise.
Yet, the truth is that whenever a powerful, influential person such as a president of this country begins talking down coal; that alone begins the process of killing coal because the talk alone creates the expectation of a higher price in the future.
Another way of shifting blame for coal’s demise onto its own reputation is to say that coal cannot compete with natural gas, leaving the impression that coal cannot lower its price sufficiently. Yet part of the reason for coal’s higher price is the growing burden of regulations on coal, which is exactly what Obama promised us near the beginning of his term when he vowed to kill coal.
RME/Overmod: I will leave it at that, except your Ivy League background seems to have left you with a blind spot in regard to expert specialization.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Euclid Electroliner 1935 I think we need to stop denying global warming and try harder to understand the resulting weather extremes it is causing. In my opinion, the whole idea of “extreme weather” is a false concept recently created for the sole purpose of selling the theory of destructive manmade climate change. Extremes have always been a part of weather, but somehow, we have suddenly been led to believe that there is normal weather and abnormal weather. And “normal” weather is now being defined as equaling average weather. So now, any departure from average is considered abnormal or extreme. While it’s true that the average itself can be said to be normal, that does not mean that the variations that make up the average are abnormal. If the average daytime high temperature in Minneapolis on 6/21 is 78 degrees F., that does not mean that that if it actually measures 79 degrees, something is wrong. Yet that is clearly the message of the newly minted, “Extreme Weather” mantra that is everywhere in media and pop culture. I don’t think any weather or climate event can possibly be valid evidence of climate change no matter how far out of average it is. Yet that is the way it is being packaged and sold. We are told climate change is causing the glaciers to melt and the water to rise. So the cameras show us melting glaciers and flooded waters. It is always treated as being unpresented to drive home the idea that things used to be normal before man began destroying the planet by causing climate change. The fact is that the glaciers have always been melting. That is one of the things that glaciers do. They are either forming or melting. So we are told that they are all melting, and one that happens to be in the melting stage is shown to us as the evidence. As such, there is a theatrical production of climate change that is now part of the culture. I think there is plenty to doubt before you even get to the science.
Electroliner 1935 I think we need to stop denying global warming and try harder to understand the resulting weather extremes it is causing.
In my opinion, the whole idea of “extreme weather” is a false concept recently created for the sole purpose of selling the theory of destructive manmade climate change.
Extremes have always been a part of weather, but somehow, we have suddenly been led to believe that there is normal weather and abnormal weather. And “normal” weather is now being defined as equaling average weather. So now, any departure from average is considered abnormal or extreme.
While it’s true that the average itself can be said to be normal, that does not mean that the variations that make up the average are abnormal.
If the average daytime high temperature in Minneapolis on 6/21 is 78 degrees F., that does not mean that that if it actually measures 79 degrees, something is wrong. Yet that is clearly the message of the newly minted, “Extreme Weather” mantra that is everywhere in media and pop culture.
I don’t think any weather or climate event can possibly be valid evidence of climate change no matter how far out of average it is. Yet that is the way it is being packaged and sold.
We are told climate change is causing the glaciers to melt and the water to rise. So the cameras show us melting glaciers and flooded waters. It is always treated as being unpresented to drive home the idea that things used to be normal before man began destroying the planet by causing climate change. The fact is that the glaciers have always been melting. That is one of the things that glaciers do. They are either forming or melting. So we are told that they are all melting, and one that happens to be in the melting stage is shown to us as the evidence. As such, there is a theatrical production of climate change that is now part of the culture.
I think there is plenty to doubt before you even get to the science.
I wonder if some of the new weather facts are coming to light simply because the world is much better connected than ever before?
We're hearing more stories about floods, extreme temperature etc, that is pretty undeniable. But is it because these things are getting more common or just that we can spread the word faster and farther?
100 years ago (heck even 30 years ago) a flood in Tennessee would have made the local news, but unlikely that anyone in California would have known, even Ohio would have been a stretch. Today though, folks in Australia know about it the same day. What were things like 200 to 2000 years ago?
Note, this doesn't just apply to global warming, it's evident in many other things,
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
Just for the sake of response, not rejoinder:
schlimmI am sure among other physicists in her field (which I might add is well-established), disputes are quite harsh. They certainly are in my fields, clinical psychology and (neuro)psychological assessment. But I refrain from speaking as anything other than a (sometimes well-read) layperson in most fields, even in other fields of psychology.
I think the issue is more in the way you express the 'speaking ... as a layperson' in ways that arrogantly presume your opinion is not only correct but that opinions that run counter to yours can be belittled. At least that is the perception a fairly significant number of other posters on this forum seem to have derived over time. But I would be hypocritical to claim I hadn't done just the same thing, perhaps even more frequently, from time to time in similar circumstances here. There appear to be differences, however, in how we respond when challenged on that point.
The areas I feel like a fairly knowledgeable amateur in are in history, but I would not presume to be more knowledgeable than an actual historian.
Speaking as someone with some actual training in academic history, you do pretty well, particularly in those areas you have addressed with particular 'rigor' (WW1 aircraft being one area that comes promptly to mind). What I would observe is this: in your areas of 'specialization' you know more than many "professional" historians who haven't studied that material, and in my opinion you are fully qualified to discuss those subjects, and in fact dispute them, without having to resort to false modesty or 'deference to authority'. (If there are lacunae due to autodidacticism or other reasons, the reasonable historians I have known would 'bring you up to speed' on what you didn't know rather than cut you off for not being degreed in the specialty. But perhaps the academics I know aren't representative of the ones you know.)
You doubtless have more well-deserved confidence in yourself to speak in public forums about fields beyond your own.
I was educated in the Western liberal-arts tradition, but right at the tail end of the way it 'used' to be practiced in 'East Coast establishment' universities. By the time I attended college, things were well into the 'high-school-plus-two-years' followed by 'grad-school-minus-two-years' situation that I think still applies in many colleges; I was lucky enough to work with a number of senior professors who still understood the desirability of giving students a framework of thought and understanding rather than a bundle of doctrine of one sort or another.
One thing valuable about my education is that it specialized, in part, in precisely the genesis and management of various kinds of intellectual study, including as a particular interest the ways in which science can become used for false purposes. So yes, I don't think it is inappropriate for me to speak 'in public forums' about aspects of 'fields beyond my own' if I have taken reasonable care to understand them. There are of course very strict limits to which I would criticize the actual work of primary researchers in those fields, let alone consider my opinions 'superior' to theirs; in any case, I have repeatedly pointed out that anything I say is "opinion" subject to individual independent reproduction or confirmation 'on the facts', and I have (repeatedly!) corrected both opinion and attitude when there is indication I have been mistaken.
I'm not sure why you should take 'polymath' as a pejorative ...
Because, in my opinion, you have repeatedly used it as such. I am not such a fool as to misunderstand the art of insult in academe; please do not assume that because I don't frequent faculty studies any more I have forgotten the give and take in them.
Any, and all, of my arguments do not stand or fall merely because I express them, or even believe them. As you have noted, I can certainly do better in expressing them so they are less likely to be interpreted by the unwary as ex cathedra. But there are, in fact, people who take a wide interest in multiple fields and are at least conversant with their scope and practice, and I consider myself one of those.
Just because I studied and have used stats does not qualify me, IMO, to critique the research designs of climatologists but I accept your choice.
That is not exactly what I said, is it? If I have studied and have used computer modeling, I think it does, in fact, qualify me to critique the parts of research designs of climatologists that involve modeling or assumptions used in generating models -- particularly if they can be easily demonstrated to contain problematic assumptions or data by the standards of those skilled in the art of modeling. You can choose to further dispute this, but I think you will not come off well in the attempt.
So what is your degree in and current field of research?
Undergraduate: AB, history and philosophy of science. (I have reasons not to apologize for early specialization in a 'harder' field)
Graduate: joint MBA/SIA (program primarily intended to facilitate international business, but I specialized in aspects of foreign and defense policy instead for personal reasons).
I considered a DBA but I had no interest in academic teaching at that time so did not pursue it. For personal reasons, I saw little sense in acquiring or stacking other doctoral qualifications, which was probably a mistake in some circles.
I am not doing formal academic research of any kind, and at present am not affiliated with an academic institution. On the other hand, I am actively involved in a number of private initiatives as a consultant, and oversee others as a director. If it matters to you, I will be a named PI in a number of upcoming grant proposals, in a range of fields (that probably wouldn't be possible outside a company specializing in technical and management consulting).
If at all possible, I would like to redirect this thread away from this whole faux-news hole it's fallen into, and get back onto schlimm's original topic, which is less concerned with climate science than with the 'bleeding-edge' consequences for coal consumption and hence coal transportation on the railroads. In particular I would like to hear opinions on the division between coal use 'dying off' for financial or operational reasons and coal use being killed off by effective political actions.
I, personally, think there is little if any doubt that there was a concerted effort to 'kill coal' in the Obama administrations. I fail to see why this is somehow a 'conspiracy' -- it is an appropriate priority for a political organization to take, as are the evolved techniques of 'community organizing' that Obama's administration employed, and that Organizing for Action almost certainly continues to use. Much of the problem for 'opponents' including those on the right appears to be that they are not competent to build and run comparable organizations, and therefore fall back on the 'shadow government conspiracy' sort of rhetoric -- I see no reason to discuss those responses either in careful detail or some kind of taxonomic precision; they all come more or less under the sour-grapes category.
I do draw the line somewhere before the George Soros - Peabody caper, although that might have been intended to be part of the same sort of strategy as buying up gun manufacturers to close them down or change their operations, in order to further effective gun control. But again, that's purely my own opinion on political morality, and shouldn't be taken as even particularly critical.
The great unanswered question here is "how much of the anticipated decline in coal transport demand is related to political action or mandates vs. economics." It will be interesting to see in particular how Trump's version of the EPA affects coal demand over the next three years or so, as that gives us an interesting view of policy change while renewables and alternative fuels continue their existing progression into fossil fuels, and presumably demand for metallurgical coal continues to respond primarily to market forces over that interval.
I wonder if part of the decision Hunter announced involves the idea that private companies should buy and perhaps maintain any physical equipment used for coal transportation to replace the existing coal gons and hoppers when their time comes? One of the next 'logical' steps toward making CSX 'lean' might be an increased use of outsourcing for capital-intensive or stranded items, just as Amtrak has states financing the cost of some corridor trainsets...
Norm48327 IMO schlimm has discredited himself by dismissing other opinions that disagree with him as heresy.
IMO schlimm has discredited himself by dismissing other opinions that disagree with him as heresy.
Norm.
I think he isn't saying anything about heresy, he's saying (in a bunch of almost polite ways) you're full of it.
And you're saying he and me and anyone else who speaks up here concerned about climate change--we're full of it.
OK. Got it. You are not changing your mind. Got it. You don't have to do a darn thing to take care of the planet. Gun that diesel down the interstate.
We'll do what we can as you sit on the sidelines and toss in stuff that maybe you heard on Fox News...or worse.
Electroliner 1935 As the song GRANDMA GOT RUN OVER BY A REINDEER, goes, "As for me and Greandma, we believe. Having been to Alaska and Canada and other locations and seen the glaicers melting back up their canyons.
As the song GRANDMA GOT RUN OVER BY A REINDEER, goes, "As for me and Greandma, we believe. Having been to Alaska and Canada and other locations and seen the glaicers melting back up their canyons.
Having been to Glacier Bay and getting the NPS brochure for that park:
Back about 1600AD, what is now Glacier Bay was dry land. The glaciers started advancing about 1600, reached their maximum extant about 1800 and have been retreating since. Same with the glaciers near Juneau, maximum extant around 1800 and retreating since. CO2 levels were not rising significantly before 1950, so something else is primarily responsible for the retreat of the glaciers.
To make things even more interesting, the retreat of the glaciers near Juneau are uncovering tree stumps and these stumps are only a few hundred years old.
Some of the tide gauge data I've seen shows sea levels dropping from the early 19th century to around 1880 and rising since then.
I have no doubt that some of the warming is due to CO2 and other gases with large IR cross sections, but have little doubt that some of the warming is natural variations.
As for New Orleans, 10 inches of rain is a lot and unusual, but not unprecedented. I was also surprised to hear that a large number of the flood control pumps require 25Hz power, and unfortunately all of the 25Hz generators are off line for one reason or another.
MidlandMike Euclid ... We are told climate change is causing the glaciers to melt and the water to rise. So the cameras show us melting glaciers and flooded waters. It is always treated as being unpresented to drive home the idea that things used to be normal before man began destroying the planet by causing climate change. The fact is that the glaciers have always been melting. That is one of the things that glaciers do. They are either forming or melting. So we are told that they are all melting, and one that happens to be in the melting stage is shown to us as the evidence. As such, there is a theatrical production of climate change that is now part of the culture. I think there is plenty to doubt before you even get to the science. Glaciers are dynamic moving things. They form where there is a net accumulation of snow, then spread out until they meet melting conditions. The melting front of the glacier can advance, retreat, or remain static. Glaciers virtually worldwide have been in accelerated retreat in the last half century. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-glaciers
Euclid ... We are told climate change is causing the glaciers to melt and the water to rise. So the cameras show us melting glaciers and flooded waters. It is always treated as being unpresented to drive home the idea that things used to be normal before man began destroying the planet by causing climate change. The fact is that the glaciers have always been melting. That is one of the things that glaciers do. They are either forming or melting. So we are told that they are all melting, and one that happens to be in the melting stage is shown to us as the evidence. As such, there is a theatrical production of climate change that is now part of the culture. I think there is plenty to doubt before you even get to the science.
...
Glaciers are dynamic moving things. They form where there is a net accumulation of snow, then spread out until they meet melting conditions. The melting front of the glacier can advance, retreat, or remain static. Glaciers virtually worldwide have been in accelerated retreat in the last half century.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-glaciers
So there must be a temporary warming trend.
What I am actually talking about in the full context of what you quoted is the media and political promotion of the idea that we are facing a dire crisis due to manmade climate change.
BaltACD With EHH's operational performance to date - there won't be money in the coffers or a credit rating that will permit buying engines and cars for any commodity.
With EHH's operational performance to date - there won't be money in the coffers or a credit rating that will permit buying engines and cars for any commodity.
Johnny
Please, can we not go 'knee-jerk political' or 'ad hominem' in posts here?
The last thing we need is a reductionist argument between extreme views that reduces complex scientific work to whether proponents are lying or not. My complaints with AGW science are grounded in ways it is being used, or abused, for fairly overt political or economic advantage, not in the underlying concepts or their potentially very great importance, and should not be understood as saying either that anthropogenic carbon emissions are insignificant or that we should take reasonable (which might quite easily be radically serious, if warranted) action to reduce them.
One problem is that the usual range of 'feel-good' carbon-emission reduction methods don't really address, let alone solve, the real problems that are likely to exist or that are developing. That distinction is, in my opinion, frequently going unrecognized, and 'solutions' right up to international treaties and agreements are, again in my opinion, being made that are based on incomplete and perhaps aberrant scientific theorization but that certainly have temporal consequences benefiting 'insiders' in ways that don't serve either democratic institutions or enlightened public policies.
Perhaps I'm still prickling at the abuses of science back in the days of the 'neutron bomb' debate and then issues of 'nuclear winter'. I didn't much care for the whole ecosystem of Grant Swing in the '50s, but I care far less for a situation in which expedient political stuff might be masquerading disguised as objective world necessity.
Electroliner 1935I think we need to stop denying global warming and try harder to understand the resulting weather extremes it is causing.
RME: "Brevity is the soul of wit" perhaps applies and, as a comic metaphor only, I say with caution, Occam's Razor as well.
I am sure among other physicists in her field (which I might add is well-established), disputes are quite harsh. They certainly are in my fields, clinical psychology and (neuro)psychological assessment. But I refrain from speaking as anything other than a (sometimes well-read) layperson in most fields, even in other fields of psychology. The areas I feel like a fairly knowledgable amateur in are in history, but I would not presum to b more knowledgable than an actual historian. You doubtless have more well-deserved confidence in yourself to speak in public forums about fields beyond your own. I'm not sure why you should take 'polymath' as a pejorative, as it puts you in pretty respected and rarified company, Leonardo, Galileo and Alberti, to name three. Would Renaissance Man go down better? Just because I studied and have used stats does not qualify me, IMO, to critique the research designs of climatologists but I accept your choice. So what is your degree in and current field of research?
Norm48327Obama
Russell
RME,
I'm in agreement.
Obama, who schlimm seems to worship, only lied when his lips were moving. Should he choose to believe lies that's his prerogative.
As the song GRANDMA GOT RUN OVER BY A REINDEER, goes, "As for me and Greandma, we believe. Having been to Alaska and Canada and other locations and seen the glaicers melting back up their canyons. And the increase in storms with higher amounts of precipitation while not necessarily a proof, lends credence to the extremes we are experiencing. Big Corporations don't want their actions to be curtailed and just as the tobaco industry worked hard to "prove" cigarettes were NOT addictive and didn't cause cancer, poluters don't want to change and so will try to spread disinformation. And sorry Steve, Fake NEWS is messing with facts and while Trains tells it like it is, I believe that those who don't want to accecpt global warming are being denyers. Coastal areas will see the effects on their low lying areas and New York City has already experienced flooding of tunnels during a huricane. While the next huricane may not occur during a high tide, I believe that a future storm will reek more damage. Also New Oleans has experienced a ten inch rain storm recently and reflooded many areas. How many extremes does it take to convince denyers?
I am reminded of the tale of the man that climbs on his roof during a flood and after having many rescuers try to get him to get off the roof and into boats etc, each time saying GOD WILL PROTECT ME, finally starts to drown, and says, "God, why have you failed me?" And god replies , "Who do you think sent all those rescuers to you!"
I think we need to stop denying global warming and try harder to understand the resulting weather extremes it is causing.
schlimmSorry but calling serious research with which you find some alleged flaws 'crap science' is hyperbole of the worst sort and similar to the political rants of the likes of Limbaugh....
Except that what I'm doing is a bit different: it is not so much the research that is the 'crap' but the ways it is being spun and (again, in my opinion) often mispresented as precisely the ex cathedra and appeal-to-authority methods you are (also rightly) disparaging.
It sure does not sound like the words of someone in a field of academic science.
You must not have much experience with physicists!
Even in disciplines where the language is more reserved, I have found the use of disparaging remarks about 'colleagues' who are disagreed with to be remarkably frequent and often far more intolerant and personally insulting than anything I express on technical topics. If you prefer that I use the veiled language of insult that is so common in academe, yes, I can speak and write it.
Once again you present yourself as a polymath, uniquely qualified to harshly criticize published scientific works outside your own area, whatever that is.
I fail to see why someone who comments in other areas as arrogantly as you've done so often finds it appropriate to make a comment of this sort. I don't criticize anything that I have not studied or read on, and comprehended reasonably well rather than just swallowed material or paradigms as presented. You are always welcome to criticize based on the facts of a particular argument or controversy. You are of course completely welcome to destroy my whole line of argument if it fails to accord with sensible scientific principles -- which it really doesn't take a lifetime of specialized study in a specific discipline either to comprehend or to follow -- or if I should become carried away and claim something that you know to be mistaken. In fact, I see you do this often to many laymen posting on the forum who use or abuse terms or concepts pertaining to your field, and I also see you carrying the tone and some of the castigation over to concepts that I don't believe pertain to your field. Are you claiming that I should not express opinions merely because I don't hold degrees in the relevant fields, whether or not the opinions are in fact cogent, relevant, and properly informed?
Not the way most scientists speak.
Not the way I speak, either, when discussing academic subjects either in technical groups or at conferences. Here on this forum, I confess to being a bit more emotional and, yes, it is sometimes for the same reasons Rush does it (although I hope it is clear that I don't engage in the sort of half-informed or one-sided ideological ranting that he so often does... at least I hope so! ...) I can easily refrain from using that kind of language, or that tone, if it is causing difficulties; I would only request that other posters do so as well, in respective ways.
My daughter is a noted researcher in nanotechnology and folks in that field don't make comments as you do.
I wonder whether there is, somewhere, the same kind of controversy in the nano field (which, by the way, I have followed intensively in some respects since reading the first edition of "Engines of Creation" the first week it was published, so don't dust off the 'polymath' again as if it were a codeword epithet) that there was over cold fusion, and if so, if at least some people in 'that field' might express stronger opinions than those in sequential exchanges of letters in journals. Not to excuse it by any means.
I would never attempt to make such remarks on linguistic psychology (far outside my field) because it is simply unethical and would smack of grandiosity. We all can have our personal opinions on matters beyond our specialization, of course, but it is important to present them as such and avoid cloaking such opinions in a jargon which lends a false, ex cathedra type of validity to them.
I am sorry -- in fact, very sorry in context -- because I mistyped the subject and completely destroyed the point of what I was commenting on in so doing. What I meant to write was "linguistic philosophy" and if after this correction I have left even a shred of sense of objection to psycholinguistics, or the broader field of psychology and linguistics as a formal discipline itself, I will actively work to correct it. I would further note that I was not intending the comment containing that reference to apply in any way to schlimm's field of specialization or his participation in it.
I don't think I'll go into an extensive discussion of why I dislike linguistic philosophy, in part because it's utterly irrelevant on a railroad forum, except to note that almost the whole of that 'field' depends on precisely the clever use of "jargon which lends a false, ex cathedra type of validity" to its structure, discussions, and publications.
Yes, we can all do with less emotion, more civility, and greater respect in disagreement. I will take those points to heart.
schlimm Sorry but calling serious research with which you find some alleged flaws 'crap science' is hyperbole of the worst sort and similar to the political rants of the likes of Limbaugh. It sure does not sound like the words of someone in a field of academic science. Once again you present yourself as a polymath, uniquely qualified to harshly criticize published scientific works outside your own area, whatever that is. Not the way most scientists speak. My daughter is a noted researcher in nanotechnology and folks in that field don't make comments as you do. I would never attempt to make such remarks on linguistic psychology (far outside my field) because it is simply unethical and would smack of grandiosity. We all can have our personal opinions on matters beyond our specialization, of course, but it is important to present them as such and avoid cloaking such opinions in a jargon which lends a false, ex cathedra type of validity to them.
Sorry but calling serious research with which you find some alleged flaws 'crap science' is hyperbole of the worst sort and similar to the political rants of the likes of Limbaugh. It sure does not sound like the words of someone in a field of academic science. Once again you present yourself as a polymath, uniquely qualified to harshly criticize published scientific works outside your own area, whatever that is. Not the way most scientists speak. My daughter is a noted researcher in nanotechnology and folks in that field don't make comments as you do. I would never attempt to make such remarks on linguistic psychology (far outside my field) because it is simply unethical and would smack of grandiosity. We all can have our personal opinions on matters beyond our specialization, of course, but it is important to present them as such and avoid cloaking such opinions in a jargon which lends a false, ex cathedra type of validity to them.
schlimm,
Your ego precedes you and is currently showing. Once again you feel the need to put down someone with whom you disagree, in this case another academic. Who died and gave you the right to appoint yourself lord and master of the universe? If you are indeed a clinical psychologist it, based on your always confrontational attitude, is not evident here on the forum.
None of us give a rat's what your daughter is, (except for possibly being female, in this day and age who knows which gender she aligns with) how smart she is, or how much money she makes. You are using her as a crutch in your post to support your own shortcomings.
You state you would never comment about something in your daughter's field but not being trained in climate science present yourself to be an expert in such and demean those who challenge your opinion. You demean and pan the political side with which you disagree. You are entitled to those privileges and to develop your own opinion. Please tell us what right you have to tell us we should fall in line with your opinion or be called names such as deniers. If we are not entitled to our own opinions the facism liberal so decry is in your hands. Conservatives want to see America thrive. Not so sure about the rest of you. Constantly inserting your political beliefs is your shortcoming.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.