Schlimm, I was only joking, and I think quite obviously. Thanks for sharing about Steve Goodman.
SaturnaliaMany people don't like the government jacking up gas prices, taxing plastic bags, and eliminating entire industires just because one segment of the population (in this case the establishment liberals) think that is the correct answer.
My state has some of the (if not the) highest gas taxes of the country. All led and signed off by a very conservative (previous) governor. So I get tired of people saying it's always the liberals or always the conservatives for every issue.
The world isn't as simple as the people in their little facebook bubbles would like to believe.
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
schlimm 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?
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?
You obviously hugely underestimate the amount of emotion that goes into the ballot box, and into political debates.
And the debate about AGW is political, both because the pundits have made it so, and because it deals with governance.
Many people don't like the government jacking up gas prices, taxing plastic bags, and eliminating entire industires just because one segment of the population (in this case the establishment liberals) think that is the correct answer.
I forget who mentioned it above, but absolutely the underlying question is over how the government should govern is a key player in this. I take it that you're the sort of person convinced that if you combine enough govnerment laws, rules and regulations, you can solve any problem. And of course, those law, rules and regulations should come out of the acedemic wing, full of people destined to make huge sums of money brankrupting today's college students, and then turn around to proclaim that somehow, college became too expensive. But again, the government can solve that problem...and the cycle continues.
There are different perspectives in this world, schlimm. Perhaps it is time you take a moment to understand where conseravtives are coming from, instead of berating us for "ignorance" because we refuse to tow the liberal line.
Oh, and consensus has not a damn thing to do with science. Science is the laws of nature, the ways of the universe. It matters not what humans think of the situation.
In all reality, anybody who claims to know what exactly is going on with the climate is full of crap. Why? Because if we knew for certain like we know the chemical composition of water, we wouldn't be here fighting over this, and we wouldn't be spending billions in more research.
95% of climate scientists agree that climate change may be caused by humans, but can't prove it.
Science is fact. Research is theories, which can lead to facts.
Alpocalyptic climate change is a theory of intense debate, and nothing firmer than that.
SD70M-2Dude Euclid I understand that the flat earth was consensus at the time, and it was socially unacceptable to question it. So actually it was the “deniers” of that era who pressed ahead with the courage to challenge the flat earth consensus and introduce the round earth. I thought that the leading scientists of the era (like Pythagoras or Aristotle) advanced the spherical theory, and it gradually spread as open-minded people realized that their old deeply-held beliefs might not be right.
Euclid I understand that the flat earth was consensus at the time, and it was socially unacceptable to question it. So actually it was the “deniers” of that era who pressed ahead with the courage to challenge the flat earth consensus and introduce the round earth.
I understand that the flat earth was consensus at the time, and it was socially unacceptable to question it. So actually it was the “deniers” of that era who pressed ahead with the courage to challenge the flat earth consensus and introduce the round earth.
I thought that the leading scientists of the era (like Pythagoras or Aristotle) advanced the spherical theory, and it gradually spread as open-minded people realized that their old deeply-held beliefs might not be right.
They did do that, but the flat earth was entrenched belief proven and accepted by whatever they considered to be science at the time. So the open-minded agents of changing to round earth had to buck the system of scientific consensus for flat earth. So those open-mined people were the deniers of their time fighting against the consensus which ultimately proved to be wrong.
*
I'm amazed this thread still exists this late on a Monday...
schlimmWanswheel thinks that is 'bragging about education credentials' in some way? If so, he should be ashamed of himself.
I somtimes think Wanswheel is just an automated bot that posts photos based on keywords.
A more accurate analogy would be how our society once did not consider the possibility that humans could do something that would affect temperature on a global scale, during the 19th century multiple scientists proposed that Earth's climate had changed over time naturally, but this was largely ignored. A few even suggested that human actions could affect local or global climates, notably that increased atmospheric CO2 levels would have a warming effect on the planet.
But it took until the 1960s and 70s for that idea to be taken seriously by the wider scientific community, instead of being rather dismissed rather easily. Is this a similar path to what you believe will happen with climate change denial in the future?
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
BLS53 Deggesty If the CEO thinks that his company has been buying the cars that carry the coal, he is obviously unaware of what his company has been doing. That's what I was thinking. Most of the coal cars I see have either power company or leasing company reporting marks.
Deggesty If the CEO thinks that his company has been buying the cars that carry the coal, he is obviously unaware of what his company has been doing.
If the CEO thinks that his company has been buying the cars that carry the coal, he is obviously unaware of what his company has been doing.
That's what I was thinking. Most of the coal cars I see have either power company or leasing company reporting marks.
That seems to be a running disconnect - he's trying to manage what he thinks CSX is doing. Unfortunately, it isn't what CSX is actually doing....
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...
schlimm Euclid 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. True. But a consensus of experts in a field using empirical data is a very strong indication of validity. Long ago, experts proposed evidence that the earth was actually round, challenging earlier, non-science based concepts. Most astronomers (a consensus) came around to that theory, which was only 'proven' by Magellan and definitively in the space age. Of course there have been 'flat earth society' folks who have refused to accept the obvious over the last ~2200 years.
Euclid 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.
True. But a consensus of experts in a field using empirical data is a very strong indication of validity.
Long ago, experts proposed evidence that the earth was actually round, challenging earlier, non-science based concepts. Most astronomers (a consensus) came around to that theory, which was only 'proven' by Magellan and definitively in the space age. Of course there have been 'flat earth society' folks who have refused to accept the obvious over the last ~2200 years.
schlimm Of course there have been 'flat earth society' folks who have refused to accept the obvious over the last ~2200 years.
Of course there have been 'flat earth society' folks who have refused to accept the obvious over the last ~2200 years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCA8HofWsxc
C'mon, where ma conspiracy theorists at!?
RE: Trump, here's how those who do not support him see what has happened in the U.S. over the past year. I find it very hard to disagree.
wanswheel schlimm I have never "bragged" about educational credentials https://www.murfie.com/albums/steve-goodman-steve-goodman-at-the-university-of-illinois-auditorium-november-10-1969 schlimm Steve Goodman was my roommate for one semester in Urbana before he dropped out (and prior to writing "CNO"). He was a warm, funny and very generous guy as well as a talented musician. However, as I recall, he was a wee bit careless about details.
schlimm I have never "bragged" about educational credentials
I have never "bragged" about educational credentials
https://www.murfie.com/albums/steve-goodman-steve-goodman-at-the-university-of-illinois-auditorium-november-10-1969
schlimm Steve Goodman was my roommate for one semester in Urbana before he dropped out (and prior to writing "CNO"). He was a warm, funny and very generous guy as well as a talented musician. However, as I recall, he was a wee bit careless about details.
Steve Goodman was my roommate for one semester in Urbana before he dropped out (and prior to writing "CNO"). He was a warm, funny and very generous guy as well as a talented musician. However, as I recall, he was a wee bit careless about details.
I am not sure what your point is. I was blessed to know Steve, even if for only one semester. He dropped out in the spring of 1967 to head to Greenwich Village briefly. He returned to Urbana and performed on campus and off (and where he met his wife), but mostly was back performing in Chicago's Old Town and trying to finish his degree at Lake Forest College. I think City of New Orleans was written in 1970, recorded by Steve in 1971, Arlo Guthrie in 1972.
The context of my mention of Steve Goodman was only after someone else had mentioned him or CNO in a post quite contrary to Goodman's politically liberal and generous mindset. I count myself as lucky to have known some fine people over the years, some of whom became famous. But I guess in Wanswheel's world, that is bragging. So be it.
Wanswheel thinks that is 'bragging about education credentials' in some way? If so, he should be ashamed of himself.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
@wanswheel: It would have been nice if you had given a link to the post you seem to judge as bragging
Only the context of the thread shows if someone braggs. So it could just be a description.Regards, Voker
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. 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.
VOLKER LANDWEHR Euclid 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.
Euclid 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.
Well, higher taxes is the way that enlarging goverment manifests itself to the citizen. It does not make any difference whether government spends the money directly or mandates the citizen to spend it. Either way the citizens pay the bill. And government also has a self-interest in expanding its empire for the personal benefit of all its members just as corporations want to grow and make money. So there is a natural motive for government to take on missions that are not actually necessary.
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.
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.
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.
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 Pope
Pope
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBabKvqUAAAchSb.jpg
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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 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.
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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.