Well I will say this, it has taken nearly 60 replies before someone attacked my home town of San Francisco or Al Gore’s house. I thought it would have come a lot sooner.
I find it a sad commentary that someone would confine their scientific research to the likes of Limbaugh, O’Reilly or Savage. I look at these individuals as entertainers, they are paid advocates for a specific political agenda. They are similar to a criminal defense attorney representing a guilty client, who will look a jury in the eye and insist that his (or her) client is innocent of the accused crime. Knowing full well that his client is as guilty as sin.
I have personally witnessed everyone of these individuals tell an outright lie on the air. Please remember, that unless one is under oath or committing slander, it is not illegal to lie. If you choose to trust them and rely on them for your information then there is nothing I can do or say that will persuade you otherwise. It is my opinion that you like these individuals because they tell you what you want to hear, not what you need to hear. They are playing to your fears and
I am so sick and tired of the whole Global Warming crap, it’s not even funny.
Bottom line is, it’s political, always has been. 30 years ago, we advancing toward a “new ice age”. Now, it’s “global warming”…
I have been informed on the subject, because it irritates me to no end. However, I have done my research, and I have looked at the motivations behind those who push the whole movement, and I have to respectfully disagree with those who say man made global warming is happening.
I can remember many mild and many cold winters in my 42 years, same goes summers. I remember plenty of hot ones and mild ones… The storms and flooding in Iowa and other places has happened before, it’s nothing new… Chicago had just over 60" of snow this year, I still remember 77-78 and 78-79 where we had over 80" of snow.
Wayne The trouble is there is no real debate. Too many say it is a fact and anyone that does not think global warming is real is a Rush Limbaugh ditto head. The radical left has taken this issue way too far.
I too would like to see less coal plants and more nuclear power plants. Nuclear has come a long way with safe opperation than it was thirty years ago. Not much for trains to haul with nuclear.
[quote user=“sfcouple”]
Well I will say this, it has taken nearly 60 replies before someone attacked my home town of San Francisco or Al Gore’s house. I thought it would have come a lot sooner.
I find it a sad commentary that someone would confine their scientific research to the likes of Limbaugh, O’Reilly or Savage. I look at these individuals as entertainers, they are paid advocates for a specific political agenda. They are similar to a criminal defense attorney representing a guilty client, who will look a jury in the eye and insist that his (or her) client is innocent of the accused crime. Knowing full well that his client is as guilty as sin.
By the above and other comments, you seem to be starting from the premise that anybody who disbelieves MMGW has not done enough fact checking, does not have an open mind, or has an agenda to oppose it. However, if you think MMGW is only science without any agenda, I believe you should do a little more fact checking. A really open mind will see that there is a huge agenda behind MMGW that has nothing to do with weather, climate, or science. And that agenda is bitter medicine being sugar coated and sold as the one cause that rings everybody’s chimes; the cause of saving nature. This is about much more than just feeling good about being a believer, and saying you care about the planet. There is going to be heavy lifting required once everybody is onboard this happy bandwagon. These cap and trade schemes that are sprouting like mushrooms will have the government imposing new rules, regulations, limits, and fees on all activities that use energy. And that’s just for starters.
I love it when folks like Wayne walk right into it…
Wayne, there are thousands of peer-reviewed articles that refute the notion of anthropogenic climate change. Rather than list them all, here’s just a few for starters. PS - When you’re done reading these, I’ll link up some more!
In regard to the existence, cause, and effects of global warming, I am comfortable that the science is good enough. While some within the scientific community might have a political or social agenda that blinds them to truth and causes them to report fake results, in my experience the scientific community is far too individualistic and viciously competitive for that to persist for more than about a week until someone exposes the fraud. These deficiencies in human nature do not in my opinion cast sufficient doubt on the validity of the scientific process. But who cares what I think? I don’t come to this thread to engage in political discussions nor is it important to me to convince anyone of anything. If I look at this thread tomorrow and see that the ratio of those who think I’m dumb to those who agree is 1000:1, I will go to work at the railroad tomorrow just like I did today.
The only place this entire thread MIGHT have in a forum discussing railroads is the effect on railroads of the policies that might stem from national acceptance of the existence and cause of global warming. And there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the political question is already decided: the U.S. government, in response to public pressure at the polling place, will press forward with policies designed to limit CO2 emissions and that will have a definite effect on railroads. At some point in the future the government will require coal combustion to either capture CO2 or cease. Having some experience with power plant permitting, nuclear permitting, and the economics of the power industry, at this point I think the electrical power industry will find it more economical and lower risk to capture CO2 than replace all that coal plant capacity with nuclear or any other source. The cheap coal, by the way, is rapidly being used up, and prob
In regard to the existence, cause, and effects of global warming, I am comfortable that the science is good enough. While some within the scientific community might have a political or social agenda that blinds them to truth and causes them to report fake results, in my experience the scientific community is far too individualistic and viciously competitive for that to persist for more than about a week until someone exposes the fraud. These deficiencies in human nature do not in my opinion cast sufficient doubt on the validity of the scientific process. But who cares what I think? I don’t come to this thread to engage in political discussions nor is it important to me to convince anyone of anything. If I look at this thread tomorrow and see that the ratio of those who think I’m dumb to those who agree is 1000:1, I will go to work at the railroad tomorrow just like I did today.
The only place this entire thread MIGHT have in a forum discussing railroads is the effect on railroads of the policies that might stem from national acceptance of the existence and cause of global warming. And there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the political question is already decided: the U.S. government, in response to public pressure at the polling place, will press forward with policies designed to limit CO2 emissions and that will have a definite effect on railroads. At some point in the future the government will require coal combustion to either capture CO2 or cease. Having some experience with power plant permitting, nuclear permitting, and the economics of the power industry, at this point I think the electrical power industry will find it more economical and lower risk to capture CO2 than replace all that coal plant capacity with nuclear or any other source. The cheap coal, by the way, is rapid
No I can’t give you a reference that is going to prove to you that there is an agenda. You are better off looking for evidence rather than a reference. If you look for references, you’re liable to miss the big picture. When I say it is an agenda, it is not as if a bunch of world leaders got together and hatched a plan.
You mentioned not taking extreme positions on both sides. Why not? The issue has two sides, and they are a long, long way apart. I don’t see how a person could be in the middle.
We are debating MMGW, but suddenly I am not really sure what the concept means to you in terms of the both the problem and its solution. It seems that we disagree on it, but we might not even be seeing the same thing. I’d be interested in your thoughts on this.
Thanks for your answer. I understand your point about compromise. It seems to me that there are two issues concerning emissions. One is he issue of emitting poison, which will cause death if it’s emitted in high enough concentrations and quantities. The other is the issue of emitting non-poisonous gases that will cause death because they will induce rising sea levels, and other climatic disruptions. The first one is easy to understand, while the second is not so clear.
I know this is confusing and there is a lot of room for misunderstanding. Actually in this particular case, normal levels of CO2 are not harmful. In fact, as was pointed out in others posts, green plants require CO2 in order to survive. They take in CO2 and expel oxygen. We humans take in oxygen and expel CO2. So why is CO2 so important?
Under normal circumstances some of the sun’s heat is absorbed by the earth and some of the heat is then reflected back into space. If there was something in our atmosphere blocking this escape than one might conclude that global temperature might rise. And this something is generally referred to as “greenhouse gas” because it sort of acts like a greenhouse used to grow plants in cool climates. In this case, gas is used as an substitute for the glass structure of a greenhouse.
CO2 is considered a green house gas because it has the potential to block thermal radiation into space with a subsequent heating of the atmosphere. Actually, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas in our atmosphere: others include water vapor and methane. But CO2 is in the news a lot and is certainly a problem so let’s take a quick look at it. There are natural emissions of CO2 that take place on a daily basis. The normal life cycle of plants and animals on both land and sea, account for some of the natural sources of CO2. As do eruptions o
That last exchange just proved how intellectually bankrupt global warming advocates really are.
If you can’t defend your global warming position on the Trains Forum, I pity your real life experiences.
There are many scientists out there who do not buy into global warming, not because of religious reasons but because it is based on junk science. It amazes me that the biggest proponents of global warming are politicians in lieu of scientists (Big Al even turns a healthy profit from the hype, I’ve read).
The sooner the green movment burns itself out the sooner we can get on with reality.