Schlimm, had you read the linked RA piece, you’d see where I included the EPA sentence you present in bold, though yours is worded differently than the EPA source I quoted from.
First, if I had any agenda in writing that piece, it was to encourage the rail industry to look beyond the events of just the past few decades in their decision-making process.
Second, there’s nothing “misleading” about a quote which clearly shows the EPA recognizes that climate has changed in the past due to causes outside mankind’s control.
And third, their followup statement, which you present in bold, read as follows when I visited their site in 2014:
“Research indicates that natural causes are very unlikely to explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20th century. Rather, human activities can very likely explain most of that warming.” (Source: EPA)
Their use of terms like “very unlikely” and “can very likely” in this context leaves ample room for reasonable doubt. Even they weren’t willing to make a rock-solid, absolute claim of cause and effect.
I guess we should also cast doubt on all the science that seems to indicate that smoking is “quite likely” to be harmful to one’s health. My mother has been a two pack a day smoker for over 60 years, yet she’s going strong with no health issues at 80 years old. Scientific conclusions are based on the perponderance of the evidence. As in the case of smoking, one can’t make a rock solid determination in every case.,. i.e. if I start smoking today I WILL have a stroke at 4:55 pm, July 15 2030… CO2 pollution will cause average temperatures to rise by 1C by 2050. The statement “quite likely” infers that there are many factors at play that would make an absolute outcome impossible to determine.
So you chose to quote from 2014. This is the end of 2016. I suggest you read and quote from the current EPA article on climate change, not an outdated one. Again, why can’t you simply accept the clear current statement rather than try to find some wiggle room?
I put more faith in the science behind that conclusion than “global warming.” Science is beginning to understand why one person can smoke two packs a day for 60 years and dies after being hit by a bus, while another engages in no “risky” behaviors and dies of lung cancer. Heredity is coming under scrutiny, for one thing.
Evidence was starting to mount regarding the ill effects of cancer long before cancer treatment became big business (which business model makes me believe that “curing cancer in our lifetime” was a hollow promise).
My own father succumbed to heart issues exacerbated by his two packs of unfiltered cigarettes per day. Heredity may have been a factor, too, as his father died at 35 (mine passed at 43). The pathologist said Dad’s heart looked like that of an 80 year old man…
Once again - we need to follow the “Benjamins.” The medical community has little stake in making people well (or curing cancer) - they make too much money on sick people…
Try to find “wiggle room”? Look no further than the “updated” EPA language you posted:
“Recent climate changes, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Research indicates that natural causes do not explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20thcentury. Rather, it is extremely likely that human activities have been thedominant cause of that warming.[2]”"
Herein lies the wiggle room, in 2016:
“cannot by explained by natural causes alone” instead of saying there are no natural causes at all
“Research indicates” instead of saying research has proven
“It is extremely likely” instead of saying it is without a doubt
Even a law school undergrad could recognize the purpose of such non-definitive terminology. Please stop criticizing me for merely presenting, word-for-word, the official viewpoints of the EPA. If you don’t like what they said, whether in 2014 or 2016, take it up with them. Once that’s cleared up, try offering suggestions that might benefit railroad
Try to find “wiggle room”? Look no further than the “updated” EPA language you posted:
“Recent climate changes, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Research indicates that natural causes do not explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20thcentury. Rather, it is extremely likely that human activities have been thedominant cause of that warming.[2]”"
Herein lies the wiggle room, in 2016:
“cannot by explained by natural causes alone” instead of saying there are no natural causes at all
“Research indicates” instead of saying research has proven
“It is extremely likely” instead of saying it is without a doubt
Even a law school undergrad could recognize the purpose of such non-definitive terminology.
Your comment shows you have little understanding of scie
It’s not hard to tweak requirements and methods of a scientific test in order to meet the desired result.
Some researchers once proved that dimes cause cancer.
They inserted dimes into the the abdomens of lab mice and got results within accepted parameters that allowed them to say that dimes do, indeed, cause cancer.
The results can be whatever you interpret them to be, especially in something as imprecise as the atmosphere/environment.
“Very likely” or “extremely likely” is about as much as one can reasonably expect. "Proving"that climate change is man made without any shadow of doubt is not like proving something like Pythagoras’ Theorem. There’s always some slim possibility that other factors which we don’t understand are causing the warming. It’s also possible that smoking isn’t bad at all either… even though the perponderance of the evidence suggests otherwise. There’s nothing close to the exactness of a mathematical proof that correlates smoking with cancer. There’s no proof that you will die if you jump out of a tenth floor window and onto a concrete surface… science tells us that “very likely” you will die. Speaking for myself only, that’s good enough for me.
It appears that many if not most scientists that have studied the issue believe human activity is contributing to global warming. They are not saying, however, that human activities are the major or only cause of global warming.
Most reputable scientists are open to evidence based challenges and, if they are proven wrong, will change their understanding of the science. At least over time!
I live in a small house, drive a gas sipping small car, set the temperature in my house at 68 in the winter and 80 in the summer, recycle, etc. These little steps have not caused a serious erosion in the quality of my life.
If the scientists are right about the human impact on climate change, I am doing my part. If they are wrong I have not really lost anything. And I have been able to keep more of my money because of lower energy bills.
Most College level meterology classes teach that climate change induced by humans is a farce but that ordinary macro climate does flucuate and really cannot be influenced by humans because of the scale and size of the atmosphere.
At it’s core the humans control or influence climate has a theory that mankind controls everything that happens on the Earth. You shake that tree and you start to get into beliefs or non-beliefs of faith. Hence the human induced climate impact will always be a emotional topic because of the various other theories people have subscribed too that are wrapped around it. So by attacking it, your not just attacking one theory but an entire belief system, almost akin to attacking someones religion.
So personally I let it be. Let the fools blow hundreds of Billions of Dollars on the nonsense, there is somewhat of a silver lining in that they will cleanup the environment and in some cases impact the micro-climate, so it is not a complete waste of money.
We had this whole discussion a long time ago in the 1960’s with the experimentation of using silver nitrate to seed clouds and make it rain. The human induced climate change folks eventually lost that argument. It took some time but it happened and logic prevailed.
“Your comment shows you have little understanding of scientific methodology.”
Says the person who can’t seem to get past the non-committal statements from a government agency while ignoring centuries of historical record and scientific evidence.
Why so many folks on this forum consistently reject/ridicule the conclusions of research from experts all over the world is beyond comprehension. The reasons given beggar credibility.
The United States was born out of a revolution against, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, an “arbitrary government” that put men on trial “for pretended offences” and “abolish[ed] the Free System of English laws.” Brave men and women stood up to that oppressive government, and this, the greatest democracy of them all, one that is governed by the rule of law and not by men, is the product.
Some of our states have forgotten this founding principle and are acting less like Jefferson and Adams and more like George III. A group of Democratic attorneys general has announced it intends to criminally investigate oil and gas companies that have disputed the science behind man-made global warming. Backed by green-energy interests and environmentalist lobbying groups, the coalition has promised to use intrusive investi
So, dimes do cause cancer? Research by experts proved it!
As I’ve said before - that mankind has had an effect on the environment is unquestionable. That mankind is solely responsible for the changes in the environment (ie, climate change) is what is questioned.
And as has been noted, some folks take human-caused climate change as gospel and will accept nothing else.
Just personal opinion but I wish they would not have published that article and had more stories about trains. We get climate change stuffed down our throats daily on the news. We don’t need it in Trains. Sounds like the propaganda machine hard at work.
So at what point do we have a runaway greenhouse gas effect and our planet ends up like Venus? If the tables are tipped ever so slightley then permafrost melting emits biomass and our soil starts emiting greenhouses gases that are then a runaway effect. Same effect for Mars as well-
Rail is the most eco friendly of all transportation modes…With so many shippers wanting to get onto the green bandwagon, railroads might want to highlight that aspect of their service.
That’s a straw man argument. AFAIK, no researchers are now saying or have ever said climate change is solely caused by mankind.
Acceptance, for now, a clear consensus of actual researchers of the science is what rational people like yourself generally do. You certainly do not believe the sun revolves around Mama Earth, yet no one would accuse your acceptance the heliocentric theory as merely faith-based.