tree68 charlie hebdo You seem to have made that claim. Documentation? I was talking more about the folks who did make money off the phenomenon, but we all know that all scientific research is altruistic [/sarcasm]. You're good at challenging people on stuff like this, but never provide any substance. How about you prove that no climate scientists have benefitted financially from the results of their research?
charlie hebdo You seem to have made that claim. Documentation?
You seem to have made that claim. Documentation?
I was talking more about the folks who did make money off the phenomenon, but we all know that all scientific research is altruistic [/sarcasm].
You're good at challenging people on stuff like this, but never provide any substance. How about you prove that no climate scientists have benefitted financially from the results of their research?
You are the guy who made the claim. Thus it is on you to show some evidence not for me to prove the negative. I await your documentation but I doubt if you have anything reputable.
charlie hebdoWhen you have evaluated and treated patients
Are you claiming that you treat patients? What is your specialty?
charlie hebdoYou seem to have made that claim. Documentation?
Documentation on your counterclaim?
Dueling Documents at the OK Corral, High Noon!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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...
charlie hebdoCarbon credits are not to the benefit of research scientists in climatology.
Are you sure about that?
Wow. So no one here wants to discuss the contents of the article at all?
The fact that railroads are members of, and helping to fund, a major climate change denial organization - the ACCCE?
Instead, we have duh-niers posting long debunked nonsense about conspiracy theories. Very disappointing.
Gramp: When you have evaluated and treated patients all over the spectrum for ~30 years plus seen a close friend's son grow up from birth to 18. then tell me about no need for credentialed expertise.
tree68 Paul of Covington When I said "scientists who are out to make big bucks", I was being facetious. Look up "carbon credits..." They are traded like other commodities... And they didn't exist until 2005-ish. Somebody has to handle the transactions, and someone has to set the price.
Paul of Covington When I said "scientists who are out to make big bucks", I was being facetious.
Look up "carbon credits..." They are traded like other commodities... And they didn't exist until 2005-ish. Somebody has to handle the transactions, and someone has to set the price.
Irrelevant. Carbon credits are not to the benefit of research scientists in climatology.
Do you think the Pentagon was not struck by a hijacked airliner on 9-11?
Sheldon, your home looks striking. I've always admired people with craftsman skills. So much of life is dumbed down today.
I understand your interest in returning to the use of returnable bottles and such. I had extensive experience in working with and around them. I grew up in the grocery biz, worked for a pop and beer wholesaler, and my dad later worked for a local pop bottler. We have a local dairy here that has successfully reintroduced milk in returnable glass to our area, the milk being from local cows (family-owned dairy farms). It's been interesting because the big grocers have been forced by demand to carry them. It runs counter to the way they want to do things today. Efficient use of space and labor is so important to them.
As far as the climate stuff, the conclusion I've found believable is that there's too much noise in the data at the present time to know whether we are impacting climate beyond "normal" change. I am concerned. At the same time I am aghast at the spector of "central planning" that so many people (in my book) unthinkingly jump to.
I think we as railfans can just look to the history of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and its destructive impact on transportation here in the US. I recall that there was a Chicago zone (there may have been others elsewhere) that it chose to not rate-regulate because it found it to be too complex to control. (Others here no doubt know more than I). If the ICC only had thought more wisely about its own effect everywhere else, but that gets lost in that dynamic.
Charlie, I've lived next door to a family for 20 years with a son on the spectrum who is now 22. Credentials are important in some ways and not in others.
Charlie, not sure where you are, I've heard of that sort of thing, but does not go on much around here. This market seldom supports teardowns.
But we still have lots of suburban sprawl.......
Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRAL charlie hebdo Sheldon: I agree with much of what you say except I believe change starts with each of us. One of my pet peeves is the building of poorly-constructed housing that falls apart in a generation, looks crappy, is energy inefficient but is in the short-term cheaper. Well, on that we agree completely. As a restoration and construction professional, I rail against current popular materials and methods all the time. But is there any noise from the climate change crowd to build more sustainable buildings? to be less "frivolous" about remoding?, build more "timeless" quality buildings? Not really. Not near as much as the finger pointing at my F250 truck I need for wok. As for it starting with each of us, I described above some of my planet friendly choices. I bought one garden tractor that cost $10,000 rather than put four $2,500 ones in junk piles. I saved a beautiful home, made it more energy friendly, and preserved the Architectural history of a neighborhood: But I need my big gas guzzling F250 pickup to get my construction tools to your house, I don't think I can carry them on the light rail or the trolley bus on my lap.......... And I have no interest in living in 1200 sq ft in an urban setting......... And I'm not sure I buy into that second 4 mpg trash truck coming down the block to pick up the "recycling"......... Again, how about returnable bottles? I have to go to the grocery anyway, I can carry them back. The truck that brings my Dr Pepper to the store has to go back to the bottling plant for more? Seems that was a good system? Back to houses for a minute - we frame modern houses better than we ever have, then we finish them with the cheapest finishes we have ever used. Why, because we know that some spoiled 30 something is going to get "tired" of the flooring or the kitchen cabinets or the interior trim, and rip it out in 18 years............. Glad I don't do that sort of work...... Sheldon
charlie hebdo Sheldon: I agree with much of what you say except I believe change starts with each of us. One of my pet peeves is the building of poorly-constructed housing that falls apart in a generation, looks crappy, is energy inefficient but is in the short-term cheaper.
Sheldon: I agree with much of what you say except I believe change starts with each of us. One of my pet peeves is the building of poorly-constructed housing that falls apart in a generation, looks crappy, is energy inefficient but is in the short-term cheaper.
Well, on that we agree completely. As a restoration and construction professional, I rail against current popular materials and methods all the time.
But is there any noise from the climate change crowd to build more sustainable buildings? to be less "frivolous" about remoding?, build more "timeless" quality buildings? Not really. Not near as much as the finger pointing at my F250 truck I need for wok.
As for it starting with each of us, I described above some of my planet friendly choices.
I bought one garden tractor that cost $10,000 rather than put four $2,500 ones in junk piles.
I saved a beautiful home, made it more energy friendly, and preserved the Architectural history of a neighborhood:
But I need my big gas guzzling F250 pickup to get my construction tools to your house, I don't think I can carry them on the light rail or the trolley bus on my lap..........
And I have no interest in living in 1200 sq ft in an urban setting.........
And I'm not sure I buy into that second 4 mpg trash truck coming down the block to pick up the "recycling".........
Again, how about returnable bottles? I have to go to the grocery anyway, I can carry them back. The truck that brings my Dr Pepper to the store has to go back to the bottling plant for more? Seems that was a good system?
Back to houses for a minute - we frame modern houses better than we ever have, then we finish them with the cheapest finishes we have ever used. Why, because we know that some spoiled 30 something is going to get "tired" of the flooring or the kitchen cabinets or the interior trim, and rip it out in 18 years.............
Glad I don't do that sort of work......
Sheldon: It's a beautiful restoration of an authentic 19th century American gem, not some extravagent reproduction of a French chateau for nouveau riche clients.
In the suburbs I see a lot of scrapers. These are smaller ranch style houses thrown up post war (WWII) using cheap materials, but on large lots. They get replaced with McMansions.
There are some moves by architects toward sustainable housing using more contemporary designs even steel framing.
The Chi-Coms who can polute with imunity using American Appalacian coal by the shipload and there own dirty coal and any effort that cripples American heavy industry to compete with them on a fair leval.[quote user="Paul of Covington"]
ATLANTIC CENTRAL People on both sides of this issue will manipulate information and emotions to their benefit........
[
Flintlock76 Uh-huh. OK, let me say this. There's so much climate change hysteria going on I can't help but think someone, somewhere, is making money on it. Yes, I'm that much of a cynic. I've been around too long and seen too much to think otherwise. Ain't I a stinker?
Uh-huh.
OK, let me say this. There's so much climate change hysteria going on I can't help but think someone, somewhere, is making money on it.
Yes, I'm that much of a cynic. I've been around too long and seen too much to think otherwise.
Ain't I a stinker?
The best way to control a populaces actions are through hysteria.. Information can be destructive or beneficial to the mind based on indoctrination..
Gramp Erik Mag +1 In addition, I think it's detestable the way these people are exploiting Greta for their purposes. Now they're using her as a "human shield" to fend off opposing views. If you think CO2 is a problem, plant a trillion trees.
Erik Mag +1
In addition, I think it's detestable the way these people are exploiting Greta for their purposes. Now they're using her as a "human shield" to fend off opposing views.
If you think CO2 is a problem, plant a trillion trees.
I agree with you Gramps.. Plaster a child at the forefront of a movement and you can sway thought due to a child representing innocence. Yet know one pays attention to detail... Why did they thrust her into the spotlight? That should be the first question in anyone's mind..
While there are those with the "credentials" who's research says we are the major cause of "AGW". Not one person has been around long enough to witness full climatic cycles.
God put all the resources here on and in Earth for a reason.. If he knew we would be so destructive to our environment with said resources. I believe the deposits of; oil, coal, gas, etc.. would have no reason to be.... I guess the Smoky Mountains should be quarantined off .. Right?......
Convicted One Paul of Covington I'm still trying to figure out what the benefit is for those concerned with climate change effects caused by humans. I think we all know what motivates the deniers. Since you continue to press, I caught your intent to be facetious in your initial post....thought it was rather clever. But at the same time can understand how those who might be a little paranoid might have misconstrued your use of the term scientists so as to be a part of a bigger conspiracy to hijack science as part of a political agenda, the main goal being to tax them. So(in this frame of reference) it's not the scientists who profit, but the evil politicians anxious to launch stratgies such as "carbon credits" and the like who might in some way profit. Actually, I think that most of the deniers are actually cognizant of the problem of climate change, and even the likelihood that mankind contributes to the problem. Their denial is just posturing in opposition to the tax algoreisms they feel threatened by. And, I suspect the railroads fear these same tax algoreisms both in context with their own operations, as well as vicariously on behalf of their energy linked customers. It's time we started looking for everything we can, within reason, do to make a difference, instead of hiding behind reasons why we shouldn't.
Paul of Covington I'm still trying to figure out what the benefit is for those concerned with climate change effects caused by humans. I think we all know what motivates the deniers.
Since you continue to press, I caught your intent to be facetious in your initial post....thought it was rather clever.
But at the same time can understand how those who might be a little paranoid might have misconstrued your use of the term scientists so as to be a part of a bigger conspiracy to hijack science as part of a political agenda, the main goal being to tax them. So(in this frame of reference) it's not the scientists who profit, but the evil politicians anxious to launch stratgies such as "carbon credits" and the like who might in some way profit.
Actually, I think that most of the deniers are actually cognizant of the problem of climate change, and even the likelihood that mankind contributes to the problem. Their denial is just posturing in opposition to the tax algoreisms they feel threatened by.
And, I suspect the railroads fear these same tax algoreisms both in context with their own operations, as well as vicariously on behalf of their energy linked customers.
It's time we started looking for everything we can, within reason, do to make a difference, instead of hiding behind reasons why we shouldn't.
Agreed, but the question remains, how much are we contributing to the problem, and how effectively can we change that?
How about we go back to returnable bottles, stop tearing down perfecly good buildings, stop remodeling building interiors on the whim of trendy style, stop making junky products that are not serviceable long term, stop using vinyl siding and asphalt shingles that only last 25 years and choke land fills.
How about we compel a more coordinated freight transportation system and get more trailers on flat cars, and fewer trucks on highways - "just in time" be damned, get it there the most fuel efficent way.
How about we all stop being a bunch of spoiled little techno brats with the latest toys.
How about cars being required to be not only crash safe and fuel efficent, how about we require them to be practical in shape and utility, like a Checker Marathon or a Ford Flex?
How about all those who "know better" what is good for us picking out our clothes, our tooth brush and our menu?
Where does it stop?
I have had only one garden tractor in my lifetime, because I invested in a good one that is serviceable. How many of those have you sent to the scrap pile?
I lived 25 years in a house that is now 120 years old and has never put a roof in a land fill. It will likely last another 100 years without putting a roof in a land fill with proper care.
Rather than tax me and/or tell me what to do, create a culture that prompts me to do the best things...........
charlie hebdo Sheldon: Your superficial comment is that of someone who has no credentials and is not even somewhat read on the topic. I know I would prefer to consult with heart specialist if I were having any problems in that regard, not some "I know nothing and I'm proud of it " man on the street, but to each his own.
Sheldon: Your superficial comment is that of someone who has no credentials and is not even somewhat read on the topic. I know I would prefer to consult with heart specialist if I were having any problems in that regard, not some "I know nothing and I'm proud of it " man on the street, but to each his own.
You are correct, I'm not overly well read on the subject, just enough to know that I likely cannot effect the situation, and that neither "side" is "completely" correct.
Even if I live another 30 years past my current age of 62, this is not something that is likely to have a large effect on me - unless the "believers" are left unchecked to steal everything I have worked for in the name of "saving the planet".
Otherwise, I have much more pressing matters that I can actually effect the outcome of, for my own benefit and the benefit of others.
The government big enough to give you everything you want (or what they think you need), is powerful enough to take everything you have.
You are also right, I'm not highly formally educated (although some who are have called me an autodidact), I'm just guy who studies history and architecture on his own, restores historic homes, has been self employed most of his life, and has made his own way in the world, and has never worked for a big corporation.
I can build you a house, I'm proficient in nearly every building trade, I've been designing houses since age 14.
I can fix your car, your frig, your heat, your A/C and your washing machine. I can wire the controls for your factory, I programed some of the first PLC's back in the 80's.
I've designed HiFi speakers for $300 that sound like ones people pay $10,000 for.
And none that makes me overly special, but all those things are useful for the needs of others..........right now, today.
Doctors.....with all we have learned there are reasons why we still call it "practicing" medicine......
Paul of Covington ATLANTIC CENTRAL People on both sides of this issue will manipulate information and emotions to their benefit........ I'm still trying to figure out what the benefit is for those concerned with climate change effects caused by humans. I think we all know what motivates the deniers.
I'm still trying to figure out what the benefit is for those concerned with climate change effects caused by humans. I think we all know what motivates the deniers.
Folks like Sheldon believe a ludicrous conspiracy theory that the scientists collude with each other so they can get tons of grant money. In fact some oil companies and the Kochs were subsidizing scientists to deny climate change, until one of them reversed his opinion in light of the overwhelming evidence for AGW.
ATLANTIC CENTRALPeople on both sides of this issue will manipulate information and emotions to their benefit........
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
I don't think you need a PhD in anything, or even be overly well read on the subject to observe the following:
The climate is changing, it has always changed, it is likely largely out of our control.
We may be having some small effect, and we should make REASONABLE efforts to be good stewards of the planet - just like I went to extra effort to be a good steward of my 120 year old house with its slate roof, that has never put an asphalt shingle roof in a land fill..., I preserved the house for history, and saved a great percentage of the resources that would have built its replacement, while also bringing it up to reasonable standards of function and enery use.
People on both sides of this issue will manipulate information and emotions to their benefit........
Others with no real concern for the issue, will use it to manipulate and control resources and human behavior to their benefit.......
Sure, the climate has changed through cycles but are you welcoming the sort of climates of the ages of dinosaurs or wooly mammoths?
Geology is not climatology or meteorology. I defer to the years of research of folks with doctorates in that field. And any notion of some conspiracy or echo chamber effect is as absurd as conspiracy theories about lunar walks.
Is it unrealistic to expect an industry that has a lot of financial interest in hauling coal to not be too hip on anything or anybody that wants that to change? Remember- they are businesses. Their whole reason to exist is to make profits. Consequently they are, by nature, against anything that curtails those profits. Right or wrong, that's kind of how it goes.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
I seriously doubt if your degree in geology qualifies you to intelligently and facthally comment on the ability of a 16year old with a Spectrum Disorder
I was in accord with Erik's comments. I majored in Geology in college, and have a continued interest. It's been a long time. What I recall is around 3 million yrs. ago, continental ice sheets formed in the north. It was thought they started to be affected by astronomical variations, and began to ebb and flow so to speak. We hadn't been able to verify the fluctuations all the way back, but cycles of around 100,000 41,000 and 22,000 yrs. in the climate record could be...over the last half million yrs. or so. These cycles are explained by the astronomical ice age theory. 20,000 some years ago, the Pacific Northwest, Upper Midwest, southern Ontario and New England along with northern Europe and the Alps were under a mile's worth of ice. Sea level was 250 feet lower, opening the land bridge for migration. The study of geology gave me a perspective that's a little longer than the main stream media's. In the media's hyper competitive environment, I think they will grab onto almost anything that draws eyeballs. Catamaraning for 3 weeks across the Atlantic from major political event to event isn't something a 16 year old with Asperger's does of her own accord. She's got handlers. I think she's being used. PR used to be defined as "Doing good things, and telling people about it". It's become de rigueur now.
On reflection, this line of discussion is better handled via PM. Let me know. It has nothing to do with railroads.
I also think that the discussion about the topic of this thread, while it does revolve around politics of a particular sort, doesn't involve the truth, falsity, or manipulation of the actual climate science involved -- it is about the perceived presence of an organized interest on the part of railroad management to advance the cause that global climate change, or AGW contributing to it, are to be opposed with resources and support. I wish we'd continue discussing that aspect; I hope it isn't so but am too much of a realist to think particularly otherwise.
Overmod charlie hebdo The UN intergovernmental panel is backed by scientists familiar with the field. Neither you or Erik are specialists in climatology or meteorology. Neither of you have the educational background or credentials to sit back and take snide pot shots. I have the educational background and knowledge to criticize the format of the UN body, in particular some of its published policies and procedures. That is the gist of my criticism, and frankly, my lack of enthusiasm for the veracity, of that organization. About the credentials of the scientists involved with it there can be little question. charlie hebdo The analogy with birtherism is flawed and frankly ridiculous. Until you have the educational background or credentials to assess scanned image files forensically, your opinion on this matter is worse than useless. I saw the original files from the downloaded White House copy of the 'long form' certificate, and the obvious tampering with the text there. None of the mealymouthed excuses about 'rotating' some kind of intermediate file during the scanning process could honestly explain such artifacts. Whether the original birth certificate is legitimate or not isn't the proper question here, and of course is moot at this point anyway. Saying that anything connected with the question is only to be disparaged, though, is part of any Big Lie strategy, and it is a highly conserved tactic among those AGW 'specialists' who take the easy way out of coherent scientific discussion on the merits. As I said, I do think there are effects of AGW in 'climate change', and I do think some intervention with additional carbon emissions is justified. That has to be done in a coherent manner worldwide, however, and no international body has so far engaged in doing that. I agree that disparaging Greta Thurnberg is uncalled for in any discussion of the scientific merits ... and not particularly chivalrous either.
charlie hebdo The UN intergovernmental panel is backed by scientists familiar with the field. Neither you or Erik are specialists in climatology or meteorology. Neither of you have the educational background or credentials to sit back and take snide pot shots.
I have the educational background and knowledge to criticize the format of the UN body, in particular some of its published policies and procedures. That is the gist of my criticism, and frankly, my lack of enthusiasm for the veracity, of that organization.
About the credentials of the scientists involved with it there can be little question.
charlie hebdo The analogy with birtherism is flawed and frankly ridiculous.
Until you have the educational background or credentials to assess scanned image files forensically, your opinion on this matter is worse than useless. I saw the original files from the downloaded White House copy of the 'long form' certificate, and the obvious tampering with the text there. None of the mealymouthed excuses about 'rotating' some kind of intermediate file during the scanning process could honestly explain such artifacts.
Whether the original birth certificate is legitimate or not isn't the proper question here, and of course is moot at this point anyway. Saying that anything connected with the question is only to be disparaged, though, is part of any Big Lie strategy, and it is a highly conserved tactic among those AGW 'specialists' who take the easy way out of coherent scientific discussion on the merits.
As I said, I do think there are effects of AGW in 'climate change', and I do think some intervention with additional carbon emissions is justified. That has to be done in a coherent manner worldwide, however, and no international body has so far engaged in doing that.
I agree that disparaging Greta Thurnberg is uncalled for in any discussion of the scientific merits ... and not particularly chivalrous either.
Really!? Don't tell me YOU of all people are a Birther!
But since you're awake, and I'm curious, where exactly is the tampering, or has it been fixed in this scan?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/President_Barack_Obama%27s_long_form_birth_certificate.jpg
It does not appear to be in dispute that the last President's father was born in Kenya, and he had the same name as his son.
As for effects, could the potential illegitimacy of a past President call into dispute the legitimacy of legislation they signed?
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.