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."
Were you the guy that came up with "basket of deplorables"?
Good Grief!
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!
"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
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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!!
MiningmanI just knew I should have stayed out of this!!
Come, stay, have some fun.
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.
EuclidWhatever 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
FINALLY! A completely unbiased report!
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
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
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
EuclidIt 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.
Though it is hard for me, here you are right. That is how science works.
EuclidBut 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.
And here you are wrong. It is not you or me who can challenge the theory. We don't have the substantial knowledge of climate models to do so. I think there are not many outside the science able to challenge. Challenging doesn't mean to say I don't believe but to show and prove were a theory might be wrong.
If you and me are in consensus is as important as a bag of rice toppling in China.
It is the same in most sciences or engineering sciences. Or could a layman really challenge the safety factors in construction industry?Regards, Volker
I would opine that we can challenge the scientists. There have been indications that the "evidence" on which they have based their conclusions has been wrong, possibly even doctored.
Based on the information they have been provided (and likely not measured themselves) their conclusions may be accurate. But it that information is wrong, well....
Consider, too, that we have a limited amount of hard data regarding the climate. We can only guess what may have happened in centuries past, based on limited historical information and other indications, like tree rings of really old trees.
And, with that limited historical background, we can only guess what will happen in the future. Models are only as good as the people who create them. Even today, when we compare various weather forecast models, we get different results. How many forecast tracks do we usually see for a major hurricane?
A major issue is the politicization of the issue. People have set out to push forward agendas, many of which we may only be vaguely aware of. That is unlike "carbon credits" which so far have only benefitted their creators.
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...
Norm48327Regarding 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.
I'm posting for a short time only but have read this forum for few years. There was period here when everybody's credentials were asked for especialle when members didn't with the opinions od railroaders. If I remember correctly he gave his credentials when discussing a medical issue.Regards, Volker
Norm48327 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.
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 more education than you in their place. You continually parrott the liberal conservative mantra and demean those who disagree with you.
Just sayin'.
VOLKER LANDWEHRIf 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.
Volker,
You misunderstand me.
I am using this definition: Leftist-- A person with left-wing political views.
I would add to the definition that such a person has more left-wing views than right-wing views.
It is not intended to be a derogatory label. I intend it to mean liberal as opposed to conservative. Liberalism refers to quantity; and advocates more government as in a liberal quantity of government. Conservative does the opposite in advocating minimal government.
As you know, generally the home of conservatism is the Republican Party and that of liberalism is the Democrat Party. But of course there are exceptions. So, yes, there are many Republicans who are more liberal than conservative. Our current president is one of them.
Of course not everybody accepting the complete position of manmade global warming is a leftist. I never said that to be the case. But the position of MMGW is supported or rejected largely along the conservative/liberal lines of governing philosophy. Even then, I am sure there are staunch conservatives who completely support government action to end climate change for all the reasons given by the position.
The reason that the theory of manmade climate change is opposed by a majority of conservatives is that it requires massive expansion of government and corresponding massive taxes and expenditures of public money to pay for the action of stopping manmade climate change. So for those who advocate limited government, this proposed action to stop manmade climate change looks like a ruse; a made-up crisis; a false pretext empowering government to build the largest possible empire for itself with unlimited power to tax and regulate every facet of human activity on the premise that it is somehow linked to stopping climate change.
tree68I would opine that we can challenge the scientists. There have been indications that the "evidence" on which they have based their conclusions has been wrong, possibly even doctored.
How can you challenge with hearsay? That we know of mistakes, inconsistencies etc. is because peers have already challenged the theory with these arguments.
What we do, we decide for ourselves whom we believe more. As far as I know the above problems are already corrected.
Climate research is by far an exact science. There are a number of climate software models. Each gets tested against the hard known weather data. Results are quite different ranging from 2°K to 6°K temperature rise for the same time frame as far as I have read.
tree68A major issue is the politicization of the issue. People have set out to push forward agendas, many of which we may only be vaguely aware of.
When there is a problem like this looming someone with power has to take the lead. The scientist just can provide the evidence. In this case polititians have taken the lead. And now there is the fear they might profit or ask for higher taxes. On the other hand the industry might have taken the lead. Better? I don't think so but that is up to you to judge.
BTW I think the industry wouldn't have taken the lead. They would have protected their vested rights.
Perhaps it is time to push the politics aside and judge the issue without this filter.
In Germany the government doesn't pay any subsidies, the energy change is payed by the consumers through their energy bill. Yes, it costs but there is no money the government can spend otherwise. And we have as many employees in reneable energy industry as in coal mining and coal power generation in 1980.
I admit it is a bit easier here. Our hard coal is too expensive to recover from a depth of 5,000 ft so the last mine will close in 2018. Now we have to get it of the dirty lignite coal. But their power plants are the only economical ones with occasional abundance of power and the renewable preference.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHR Norm48327 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. I'm posting for a short time only but have read this forum for few years. There was period here when everybody's credentials were asked for especialle when members didn't with the opinions od railroaders. If I remember correctly he gave his credentials when discussing a medical issue.Regards, Volker
Norm48327 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.
True. I have never "bragged" about educational credentials nor belittled those with less. I only believe that evidence, such as credentials, of a degree of expert knowledge in a given field should be respected by outsiders. As a clinical psychologist and a professor emeritus, the doctorate was simply a requirement for both licensing and hiring. That does not make me an expert on climate and I have never pretended that I am. Instead, I defer to the credentialed experts on that issue. I guess Norm seems to have some problem with that when those opinions are not congruent with his.
EuclidIt is not intended to be a derogatory label. I intend it to mean liberal as opposed to conservative. Liberalism refers to quantity; and advocates more government as in a liberal quantity of government. Conservative does the opposite in advocating minimal government.
That sounds derogative to me, but perhaps I don't understand English good enough for such fineness.
To put as you call the more liberal Republicans into the left-wing (see your own definition) is quite a stretch.
Well, I see it differently. On last sunday you posted the following:
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.Lets stop this discussion here. I fear I'll never understand your thoughts and feelings for central government.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHR Pope
Pope
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBabKvqUAAAchSb.jpg
EuclidThe reason that the theory of manmade climate change is opposed by a majority of conservatives is that it requires massive expansion of government and corresponding massive taxes and expenditures of public money to pay for the action of stopping manmade climate change.
As I laid out in my response to Tree68's post there is no need for an enlarged government. You pay anyway trough taxes ot through your bill.
In all these posts I realize that we have completely different view of our government in Germany. We don't like everything they but somehow things need to be done. And problems seldom go away on their own.regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHR Euclid It is not intended to be a derogatory label. I intend it to mean liberal as opposed to conservative. Liberalism refers to quantity; and advocates more government as in a liberal quantity of government. Conservative does the opposite in advocating minimal government. That sounds derogative to me, but perhaps I don't understand English good enough for such fineness. To put as you call the more liberal Republicans into the left-wing (see your own definition) is quite a stretch. Well, I see it differently. On last sunday you posted the following: 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.
Euclid It is not intended to be a derogatory label. I intend it to mean liberal as opposed to conservative. Liberalism refers to quantity; and advocates more government as in a liberal quantity of government. Conservative does the opposite in advocating minimal government.
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.
It seems to me that you inerpret both the terms Left Wing and Right Wing as extremists, unreasonable, rigid, etc. I think they are used so often as a put-down to label people as being unreasonable and rigid, that a person might regard that to be their true meaning.
I only use the terms to differentiate the opposing two philosophies as the terms were originally intended. In terms of that definition, the "Left Wing" is completely liberal, and the "Right Wing" is completely conservative. But individuals can be part liberal and part conservative. That is all I am referring to when I say that some Republicans are partly liberal or "left leaning." I do not mean that they are Republicans "in the left wing" which implies that they are solidly 100% liberal.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.