The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

there is no such thing as global warming. There is climate variation, and we're well within historical avgs.

OMG, tommyboy has spoken. This changes everything! After all, for once we have here a GW skeptic who isn't an American political conservative....oh wait.

 

[Chaos Commish]

So let's see. jon_mx, Distefano, jonessed, Chaos Commish, Dr. J, Sand, all visit to mock me.

There's still the matter of what you're actually willing to do about it. So far, we've got....NADA.

I have you on ignore because your attention mongering annoys me. I have not mocked you. I'd need a higher opinion of your contribution to do so.

 

[timschochet]

When environmentalists and liberals really get behind nuclear power, I'll believe that they are serious about the problem. But when the only solutions they come up with are solar and wind, then they are playing with themselves, and trying to cash in on government grants.

I'm neither an environmentalist nor a liberal, and I am for nuclear power as a viable solution to GW (and also because it makes good sense for us to invest).

That being said, I'm not as scornful as you are of those who are afraid of nuclear power. It can be very dangerous, on a scale far beyond the other energy sources. There still has been no good solution about waste disposal. And as we saw in Japan, a natural disaster near a nuclear plant can be a pretty scary proposition. None of these problems are insolvable, and unlike the environmentalists, I don't believe that any of these problems should ultimately deter us from pursuing this energy. But let's not pretend that there are no real issues here.

 

[RCon]

So let's see. jon_mx, Distefano, jonessed, Chaos Commish, Dr. J, Sand, all visit to mock me. All of them are skeptical of global warming- not necessarily that it's happening, but how serious it is, and that man's use of fossil fuels are at the root of it.

What else do all of these guys have in common? Oh yeah- they're all American political conservatives. Gee, fancy that! Why is it that, of all the political groups around the world, only American conservatives are skeptical of this issue? Sure, there are some extremists in other countries who are probably skeptical, but all of these are a very small minority. Only in this country are a majority of a rather large and significant group, conservatives, skeptical of this issue. What to make of this? I see two possibilities:

1. American conservatives are right about this, and the rest of the world is wrong. Though this means that the majority of the worlds' scientists are deliberately lying, or that their science is simply inferior to that of American conservatives and a few hand-picked scientists that agree with them.

2. American conservatives are wrong about this, and the source of their attitudes on this issue is not based on scientific fact, but rather on political philosophy.

I know which one I choose...

I mock you on this sometimes too, simply because I find some of your arguments and positions inconsistent.

As far as AGW and political leanings, I think you're off base. I know plenty of liberals who are skeptical that AGW is significant. Sure, there's a certain subset of the "American right", the hardcore Fox News devotees, who think the Earth hasn't been warming at all, and that there's a grand conspiracy. Guess what? There's a lunatic fringe on pretty much every topic. Stop wasting your breath trying to convince that group.

Try to convince me. There are a lot of people like me; we really want to do the right thing for the country, the world, the Earth, but over-the-top rhetoric and constant gloom-and-doom simply shows us that you're not serious. Don't tell me that you're certain that 51%+ of the warming is directly attributable to CO2, or that there will be millions of climate refugees by 2020, or that Katrina was caused by AGW. You don't know that. Stating that you do makes me discount the rest of your claims. Tell me we're pretty sure that at least some portion of the warming is attributable to CO2, but you really don't know how much, or how much the sea level will rise over the next ten years, etc., and that the data you have so far is best effort but admittedly incomplete.

More importantly, tell me what you propose to DO about it. Convince me that carbon taxes won't hurt us competitively in the global market. Convince me that carbon taxes will do any good, even if India and China don't follow along. Convince me that you have a better proposal than carbon taxes.

If your only argument is "Global Warming!!!! Aaaaaggghhhhhhhh! SCARY!!!!", then I'm going to ignore you and probably make fun of you, too.

 

[timschochet]

So let's see. jon_mx, Distefano, jonessed, Chaos Commish, Dr. J, Sand, all visit to mock me. All of them are skeptical of global warming- not necessarily that it's happening, but how serious it is, and that man's use of fossil fuels are at the root of it.

What else do all of these guys have in common? Oh yeah- they're all American political conservatives. Gee, fancy that! Why is it that, of all the political groups around the world, only American conservatives are skeptical of this issue? Sure, there are some extremists in other countries who are probably skeptical, but all of these are a very small minority. Only in this country are a majority of a rather large and significant group, conservatives, skeptical of this issue. What to make of this? I see two possibilities:

1. American conservatives are right about this, and the rest of the world is wrong. Though this means that the majority of the worlds' scientists are deliberately lying, or that their science is simply inferior to that of American conservatives and a few hand-picked scientists that agree with them.

2. American conservatives are wrong about this, and the source of their attitudes on this issue is not based on scientific fact, but rather on political philosophy.

I know which one I choose...

I mock you on this sometimes too, simply because I find some of your arguments and positions inconsistent.

As far as AGW and political leanings, I think you're off base. I know plenty of liberals who are skeptical that AGW is significant. Sure, there's a certain subset of the "American right", the hardcore Fox News devotees, who think the Earth hasn't been warming at all, and that there's a grand conspiracy. Guess what? There's a lunatic fringe on pretty much every topic. Stop wasting your breath trying to convince that group.

Try to convince me. There are a lot of people like me; we really want to do the right thing for the country, the world, the Earth, but over-the-top rhetoric and constant gloom-and-doom simply shows us that you're not serious. Don't tell me that you're certain that 51%+ of the warming is directly attributable to CO2, or that there will be millions of climate refugees by 2020, or that Katrina was caused by AGW. You don't know that. Stating that you do makes me discount the rest of your claims. Tell me we're pretty sure that at least some portion of the warming is attributable to CO2, but you really don't know how much, or how much the sea level will rise over the next ten years, etc., and that the data you have so far is best effort but admittedly incomplete.

More importantly, tell me what you propose to DO about it. Convince me that carbon taxes won't hurt us competitively in the global market. Convince me that carbon taxes will do any good, even if India and China don't follow along. Convince me that you have a better proposal than carbon taxes.

If your only argument is "Global Warming!!!! Aaaaaggghhhhhhhh! SCARY!!!!", then I'm going to ignore you and probably make fun of you, too.

Well written as usual, Rich, but a bit surprising, since it appears you haven't bothered to read my posts on this matter. I do not indulge in "gloom and doom". I think GW is a serious problem, and that it's largely man-made, and we need to do something about it before it's too late. If the science is not going to convince you of that, then I wouldn't be successful at doing so.

As far as what to do about it, I made some proposals earlier today. I'm not in favor of a carbon tax. I think we need to get off of oil and coal in the next 25 years- at least that should be our goal. I want a large national investment similar to the space program. I think that nuclear energy is likely the most viable alternative, though we can look at others as well.

 

[culdeus]

My 5 point plan. Poke holes.

-Invest heavily in Nuke plants away from fault lines and oceans and where waste can be stored.

-Allow massive tax breaks for solar at the home and business level.

-Raise gas tax to the point where people would be cost neutral at 45mpg at today's rates. That's probably a buck a gallon. This would be used to invest in rail infrastructure, and large scale wind infrastructure.

-End corn subsidies and ban the practice of feeding corn to livestock.

-Begin a Manhattan project type project to capture and store CO2 underground.

Honestly, this would probably be revenue positive while reducing CO2 emissions substantially.

We already have massive tax credits for solar at the home and business level, it's still not enough.

The average car sold today is around 25 MPG, and gas is about $4 a gallon. You're talking about doubling the price of gas, not a $1 per gallon increase.

Wow, these "solutions" are just terrible.

People buy 25mpg because they want to, not because they have to. Give them enough incentive and they will migrate to higher mpg solutions and or electric.

Or I dunno, drive less.

 

[RCon]

BTW, natural gas only cuts CO2 emissions by 30% compared to petroleum. And you've got to frack to get it, releasing piles of methane into the atmosphere in the process.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/emissions-natural-gas.htm

You could just add 10 MPG to every car and have the same impact on CO2 emissions. I'm up to 132 MPG right now.

In that case it's probably not worth pursuing. The more I read about fracking, the more concerned I am about it. I know it produces lots of new jobs and that's a great thing, but people seem to want to jump right in without us really understanding the damage that is being done.

Yeah, not a fan of fracking. Seems worse than anything coal and oil will do to the earth.

I'm on board with solar, solar, solar. Let's pour money into solar from space. Don't put that research within the purview of the military. Make it a NASA effort. Pour $5B a year into it. Pay for it with an increased gas tax, which does double duty as a method of encouraging greater efficiency. Make it $10B, and pay for it with a $1 surcharge to every plane ticket. Be honest and up front about it.

Hell, this is exactly the kind of thing that's square in Obama's wheelhouse. Make a big speech, don't blame anyone, but say how it's in our long term national interests to find a safe, reliable, renewable, clean source of energy. Tell us how we need to decrease the political and economic influence of countries and groups who would do us harm. Tell us how we need to make the air and water cleaner for our children, rather than allow our children to clean up after us. Throw in some language about how smog, pollution, and national security aren't matters that affect only the rich, or the poor, or the left, or the right, or the old, or the young. Tell us that it won't be cheap, and that sacrifices are required. Explain that in order for Americans to once again seize greatness and beat other countries to this technology, we need to start now and start big. And that is why, beginning tomorrow, we'll be proposing a fifty cent increase in federal gas taxes, along with a one dollar surcharge on commercial flights.

 

[RCon]

So let's see. jon_mx, Distefano, jonessed, Chaos Commish, Dr. J, Sand, all visit to mock me. All of them are skeptical of global warming- not necessarily that it's happening, but how serious it is, and that man's use of fossil fuels are at the root of it.

What else do all of these guys have in common? Oh yeah- they're all American political conservatives. Gee, fancy that! Why is it that, of all the political groups around the world, only American conservatives are skeptical of this issue? Sure, there are some extremists in other countries who are probably skeptical, but all of these are a very small minority. Only in this country are a majority of a rather large and significant group, conservatives, skeptical of this issue. What to make of this? I see two possibilities:

1. American conservatives are right about this, and the rest of the world is wrong. Though this means that the majority of the worlds' scientists are deliberately lying, or that their science is simply inferior to that of American conservatives and a few hand-picked scientists that agree with them.

2. American conservatives are wrong about this, and the source of their attitudes on this issue is not based on scientific fact, but rather on political philosophy.

I know which one I choose...

I mock you on this sometimes too, simply because I find some of your arguments and positions inconsistent.

As far as AGW and political leanings, I think you're off base. I know plenty of liberals who are skeptical that AGW is significant. Sure, there's a certain subset of the "American right", the hardcore Fox News devotees, who think the Earth hasn't been warming at all, and that there's a grand conspiracy. Guess what? There's a lunatic fringe on pretty much every topic. Stop wasting your breath trying to convince that group.

Try to convince me. There are a lot of people like me; we really want to do the right thing for the country, the world, the Earth, but over-the-top rhetoric and constant gloom-and-doom simply shows us that you're not serious. Don't tell me that you're certain that 51%+ of the warming is directly attributable to CO2, or that there will be millions of climate refugees by 2020, or that Katrina was caused by AGW. You don't know that. Stating that you do makes me discount the rest of your claims. Tell me we're pretty sure that at least some portion of the warming is attributable to CO2, but you really don't know how much, or how much the sea level will rise over the next ten years, etc., and that the data you have so far is best effort but admittedly incomplete.

More importantly, tell me what you propose to DO about it. Convince me that carbon taxes won't hurt us competitively in the global market. Convince me that carbon taxes will do any good, even if India and China don't follow along. Convince me that you have a better proposal than carbon taxes.

If your only argument is "Global Warming!!!! Aaaaaggghhhhhhhh! SCARY!!!!", then I'm going to ignore you and probably make fun of you, too.

Well written as usual, Rich, but a bit surprising, since it appears you haven't bothered to read my posts on this matter. I do not indulge in "gloom and doom". I think GW is a serious problem, and that it's largely man-made, and we need to do something about it before it's too late. If the science is not going to convince you of that, then I wouldn't be successful at doing so.As far as what to do about it, I made some proposals earlier today. I'm not in favor of a carbon tax. I think we need to get off of oil and coal in the next 25 years- at least that should be our goal. I want a large national investment similar to the space program. I think that nuclear energy is likely the most viable alternative, though we can look at others as well.

I should note that, with the exception of the first sentence, I was referring more to the "royal you" than you, timschochet, specifically.

 

[tommyboy]

there is no such thing as global warming. There is climate variation, and we're well within historical avgs.

OMG, tommyboy has spoken. This changes everything! After all, for once we have here a GW skeptic who isn't an American political conservative....oh wait.

yeah, I'm so conservative I think we should legalize drugs, gay marriage is fine with me and am pro-amnesty. Yet I also think we should enforce our border laws, not start massive gov't wealth transfer programs and probably figure out ways to reign in our out of control gov't.

you can read up all about the natural variation of climate extremes right here though:

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017c37fa9895970b-pi

http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/14.jpg

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg707/scaled.php?server=707&filename=kirkby1.jpg&res=landing

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/Fig2color.gif

 

[datonn]

My 5 point plan. Poke holes.

-Invest heavily in Nuke plants away from fault lines and oceans and where waste can be stored.

-Allow massive tax breaks for solar at the home and business level.

-Raise gas tax to the point where people would be cost neutral at 45mpg at today's rates. That's probably a buck a gallon. This would be used to invest in rail infrastructure, and large scale wind infrastructure.

-End corn subsidies and ban the practice of feeding corn to livestock.

-Begin a Manhattan project type project to capture and store CO2 underground.

Honestly, this would probably be revenue positive while reducing CO2 emissions substantially.

I just cannot get behind the idea of nuclear. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Japan, etc. Folks can say "yabbut" or offer "unlikelihoods" all they want, but even if the chances are 1 in 100,000, when something FUBARs, it's not like cleaning up after a tornado or hurricane and getting "back to normal."

I'm all-for the ending of corn subsidies too! But good luck ever telling any "patriots" in the Bible Belt what they can and cannot feed to their livestock. Especially if what you might want to feed them will cost a lot more.

I also think it is embarrassing how limited our transit/high-speed rail service is in this country. Go to Japan? Hop on the train. Go to Europe? Hop on the train. Go to the United States? Rent a car. I get it. Freedom...don't tread on me...blah, blah, blah. But our love affair with the automobile is harming the environment. Hurting our economy. As just think if even $0.20 of every $1.00 that is spent on road construction, road maintenance, road clearing (Northern climates) were to be invested in developing a kick-### rail system instead? I could hop on the train in MSP, and be in Chicago in time for a late dinner. Or Kansas City. Or St. Louis. Or __________. With no car being necessary. And no billions needed to give me a smooth, safe ride on my way to/from.

 

[MaxThreshold]

My 5 point plan. Poke holes.

-Invest heavily in Nuke plants away from fault lines and oceans and where waste can be stored.

-Allow massive tax breaks for solar at the home and business level.

-Raise gas tax to the point where people would be cost neutral at 45mpg at today's rates. That's probably a buck a gallon. This would be used to invest in rail infrastructure, and large scale wind infrastructure.

-End corn subsidies and ban the practice of feeding corn to livestock.

-Begin a Manhattan project type project to capture and store CO2 underground.

Honestly, this would probably be revenue positive while reducing CO2 emissions substantially.

I just cannot get behind the idea of nuclear. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Japan, etc. Folks can say "yabbut" or offer "unlikelihoods" all they want, but even if the chances are 1 in 100,000, when something FUBARs, it's not like cleaning up after a tornado or hurricane and getting "back to normal."

I'm all-for the ending of corn subsidies too! But good luck ever telling any "patriots" in the Bible Belt what they can and cannot feed to their livestock. Especially if what you might want to feed them will cost a lot more.

I also think it is embarrassing how limited our transit/high-speed rail service is in this country. Go to Japan? Hop on the train. Go to Europe? Hop on the train. Go to the United States? Rent a car. I get it. Freedom...don't tread on me...blah, blah, blah. But our love affair with the automobile is harming the environment. Hurting our economy. As just think if even $0.20 of every $1.00 that is spent on road construction, road maintenance, road clearing (Northern climates) were to be invested in developing a kick-### rail system instead? I could hop on the train in MSP, and be in Chicago in time for a late dinner. Or Kansas City. Or St. Louis. Or __________. With no car being necessary. And no billions needed to give me a smooth, safe ride on my way to/from.

So...I'll still need a car to drive to the station?

Seriously, this choo-choo train stuff has got to stop. The US is 3.8 million square miles. Japan is about 145,000 square miles. Europe is packed together whereas the US is spread out.

And how the hell are people going to get to the train station? Walk? Nope. They'll probably have to take their car. But hey, if you live right next to the train station it should work out great. And how about when the trains stop? They'll probably have to rent a car. So now not only are you STILL spending money on a car, you still have to buy train tickets and maybe parking fees for the car you took to the train station. How is this economical?

Let's not forget that just about EVERY....SINGLE...train and rail project ALWAYS goes way over budget and ends up becoming a monetary black hole.

Our previous Governor wanted to put, quote "HIGH SPEED RAIL" from Milwaukee to Madison. You want to take a stab at the definition of what they thought HIGH SPEED was? 75 miles per hour. yep, you read the right. 75 miles per hour. Now take a stab at what the posted speed is from Milwaukee to Madison by car? 70 mph.

Train/Rail is nothing but a loser unless you're shipping product.

 

[DrJ]

My 5 point plan. Poke holes.

-Invest heavily in Nuke plants away from fault lines and oceans and where waste can be stored.

-Allow massive tax breaks for solar at the home and business level.

-Raise gas tax to the point where people would be cost neutral at 45mpg at today's rates. That's probably a buck a gallon. This would be used to invest in rail infrastructure, and large scale wind infrastructure.

-End corn subsidies and ban the practice of feeding corn to livestock.

-Begin a Manhattan project type project to capture and store CO2 underground.

Honestly, this would probably be revenue positive while reducing CO2 emissions substantially.

We already have massive tax credits for solar at the home and business level, it's still not enough.

The average car sold today is around 25 MPG, and gas is about $4 a gallon. You're talking about doubling the price of gas, not a $1 per gallon increase.

Wow, these "solutions" are just terrible.

People buy 25mpg because they want to, not because they have to. Give them enough incentive and they will migrate to higher mpg solutions and or electric.

Or I dunno, drive less.

Regardless of why they make the choice, the point was that the mathematics you used to come up with a tax that is cost neutral to the consumer at 45 MPG while only amounting to $1 a gallon is entirely flawed. In fact, it doesn't seem you put any thought into this other than to just toss out some random numbers with no basis in reality whatsoever.

 

[DrJ]

So let's see. jon_mx, Distefano, jonessed, Chaos Commish, Dr. J, Sand, all visit to mock me. All of them are skeptical of global warming- not necessarily that it's happening, but how serious it is, and that man's use of fossil fuels are at the root of it.

What else do all of these guys have in common? Oh yeah- they're all American political conservatives. Gee, fancy that! Why is it that, of all the political groups around the world, only American conservatives are skeptical of this issue? Sure, there are some extremists in other countries who are probably skeptical, but all of these are a very small minority. Only in this country are a majority of a rather large and significant group, conservatives, skeptical of this issue. What to make of this? I see two possibilities:

1. American conservatives are right about this, and the rest of the world is wrong. Though this means that the majority of the worlds' scientists are deliberately lying, or that their science is simply inferior to that of American conservatives and a few hand-picked scientists that agree with them.

2. American conservatives are wrong about this, and the source of their attitudes on this issue is not based on scientific fact, but rather on political philosophy.

I know which one I choose...

I mock you on this sometimes too, simply because I find some of your arguments and positions inconsistent.

As far as AGW and political leanings, I think you're off base. I know plenty of liberals who are skeptical that AGW is significant. Sure, there's a certain subset of the "American right", the hardcore Fox News devotees, who think the Earth hasn't been warming at all, and that there's a grand conspiracy. Guess what? There's a lunatic fringe on pretty much every topic. Stop wasting your breath trying to convince that group.

Try to convince me. There are a lot of people like me; we really want to do the right thing for the country, the world, the Earth, but over-the-top rhetoric and constant gloom-and-doom simply shows us that you're not serious. Don't tell me that you're certain that 51%+ of the warming is directly attributable to CO2, or that there will be millions of climate refugees by 2020, or that Katrina was caused by AGW. You don't know that. Stating that you do makes me discount the rest of your claims. Tell me we're pretty sure that at least some portion of the warming is attributable to CO2, but you really don't know how much, or how much the sea level will rise over the next ten years, etc., and that the data you have so far is best effort but admittedly incomplete.

More importantly, tell me what you propose to DO about it. Convince me that carbon taxes won't hurt us competitively in the global market. Convince me that carbon taxes will do any good, even if India and China don't follow along. Convince me that you have a better proposal than carbon taxes.

If your only argument is "Global Warming!!!! Aaaaaggghhhhhhhh! SCARY!!!!", then I'm going to ignore you and probably make fun of you, too.

Well written as usual, Rich, but a bit surprising, since it appears you haven't bothered to read my posts on this matter. I do not indulge in "gloom and doom". I think GW is a serious problem, and that it's largely man-made, and we need to do something about it before it's too late. If the science is not going to convince you of that, then I wouldn't be successful at doing so.

As far as what to do about it, I made some proposals earlier today. I'm not in favor of a carbon tax. I think we need to get off of oil and coal in the next 25 years- at least that should be our goal. I want a large national investment similar to the space program. I think that nuclear energy is likely the most viable alternative, though we can look at others as well.

No you didn't. You threw a bunch of random crap out there that didn't include cost, expected returns, any of that. Same crap we've been getting from everyone on the alarmist side, which is one of the main reasons that nothing's actually been done.

 

[DrJ]

But as a consolation tim, 1.25 gallons of gas and 105 lbs of CO2 savings were dedicated in your honor today. Tomorrow I might plant a tree and name it tim. So there's that.

 

[timschochet]

Max, I disagree with you on so many things, but you're dead on about high speed rail. It's a complete boondoggle, a total waste of government money. Burn it down.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

My 5 point plan. Poke holes.

-Invest heavily in Nuke plants away from fault lines and oceans and where waste can be stored.

-Allow massive tax breaks for solar at the home and business level.

-Raise gas tax to the point where people would be cost neutral at 45mpg at today's rates. That's probably a buck a gallon. This would be used to invest in rail infrastructure, and large scale wind infrastructure.

-End corn subsidies and ban the practice of feeding corn to livestock.

-Begin a Manhattan project type project to capture and store CO2 underground.

Honestly, this would probably be revenue positive while reducing CO2 emissions substantially.

Revenue positive for whom?The best place for a nuclear power plant is a mile or two offshore, but NIMBYism would likely be difficult to overcome in areas where it would be most beneficial.

Environmentalists are their own worst enemy when it comes to climate change.

The lack of nuclear power construction since the '70s has little to do with environmentalism but instead the lack of willing investors. A decade ago there was a resurgence in investor interest as some plants that were supposed to be at end of life were relicensed for another 20 years - essentially "free money". But a lott of that interest was washed away with Fukushima (all over the world),

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Hell, this is exactly the kind of thing that's square in Obama's wheelhouse. Make a big speech, don't blame anyone, but say how it's in our long term national interests to find a safe, reliable, renewable, clean source of energy. Tell us how we need to decrease the political and economic influence of countries and groups who would do us harm. Tell us how we need to make the air and water cleaner for our children, rather than allow our children to clean up after us. Throw in some language about how smog, pollution, and national security aren't matters that affect only the rich, or the poor, or the left, or the right, or the old, or the young. Tell us that it won't be cheap, and that sacrifices are required. Explain that in order for Americans to once again seize greatness and beat other countries to this technology, we need to start now and start big. And that is why, beginning tomorrow, we'll be proposing a fifty cent increase in federal gas taxes, along with a one dollar surcharge on commercial flights.

That worked well for Carter.

 

[Josie Maran]

But as a consolation tim, 1.25 gallons of gas and 105 lbs of CO2 savings were dedicated in your honor today. Tomorrow I might plant a tree and name it tim. So there's that.

Congrats on becoming more annoying than Tim.

 

[DrJ]

But as a consolation tim, 1.25 gallons of gas and 105 lbs of CO2 savings were dedicated in your honor today. Tomorrow I might plant a tree and name it tim. So there's that.

Congrats on becoming more annoying than Tim.

I'm glad this annoys you. Again, one of the giant pluses of my investment.

 

[Josie Maran]

But as a consolation tim, 1.25 gallons of gas and 105 lbs of CO2 savings were dedicated in your honor today. Tomorrow I might plant a tree and name it tim. So there's that.

Congrats on becoming more annoying than Tim.

I'm glad this annoys you. Again, one of the giant pluses of my investment.

 

[timschochet]

But as a consolation tim, 1.25 gallons of gas and 105 lbs of CO2 savings were dedicated in your honor today. Tomorrow I might plant a tree and name it tim. So there's that.

Congrats on becoming more annoying than Tim.

That's not difficult.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

As for solutions I still like Newt's idea of establishing prizes for goals and pay the first group that reaches that goal the prize. If those goals are not achievable in the near term we spend nothing. (Was it Romney or McCain that wanted something similar for batteries?) The goals should be generic enough that it doesn't specify technology. The prize of course needs to be big enough to kick start the process, but the real prize for investors would be the technology that comes out of the process, even for those that come in second or even fail. What exactly should those goals be? That is a bit harder.

(Newt suggested this for Climate, but we also should listen to him to use this for space objectives such as high profile mission to Mars, or more profitable mission to mine an asteroid. We should do that too.)

 

[DrJ]

As for solutions I still like Newt's idea of establishing prizes for goals and pay the first group that reaches that goal the prize. If those goals are not achievable in the near term we spend nothing. (Was it Romney or McCain that wanted something similar for batteries?) The goals should be generic enough that it doesn't specify technology. The prize of course needs to be big enough to kick start the process, but the real prize for investors would be the technology that comes out of the process, even for those that come in second or even fail. What exactly should those goals be? That is a bit harder.

(Newt suggested this for Climate, but we also should listen to him to use this for space objectives such as high profile mission to Mars, or more profitable mission to mine an asteroid. We should do that too.)

Now this sounds like something that could be worth investing in. Now we have some tangible results to show for our money rather than something whose success can really only be measured politically.

 

[timschochet]

I guess you chose to delete your post DW. I did read it though. I'm saddened that you feel that way. I try not to judge my own intellect except in jest, but I have judged yours, and it's very impressive. I hope you will reconsider your opinion about me over time. If not, too bad.

 

[joffer]

Some excellent examples of science. The thing about the sun rising in the east, scientist can tell us exactly what time it will rise everyday to the nanosecond and be absolutely correct day after day after day. In the global warming debate, they tell us how much they expect the temperature to rise because of the increase in CO2, and their numbers are no where near accurate. When they start telling us even somewhat accurately how the climate will behave, I will have faith they really understand everything going on and have eliminated the unknown variables.

I think you're talking about two different things

1. correlating past and present temperature rise to hypothesized causes

2. computer modeling to predict future events

just because we haven't mastered #2 yet, doesn't mean #1 is useless.

Coming up with rationale explanations to explain past data is a great start, but hindsight is always 20/20. It is when you are able to understand all the interactions between the variables which impact climate and you can predict with confidence future climate will be, that is when you can say the science is settled. Right now we are in the infancy stages of understanding all the factors which impact climate change. When the IPCC says authoritatively that they are 95 percent certain that man is the primary contributor to global warming, they are not speaking with numbers which can be back up by math and science. They are throwing out numbers to instill public confidence that they know what they speak of, yet if you look at their rather large uncertainties and even those uncertainties are based on models which have proven inaccurate, it is insane to assign such a large confidence level to such. I am sure the science knows the greenhouse gases as CFC did in the past do impact climate, but there is no definitive quantification of how much of an impact it will be or what kind of positive or negative feedback other variables the earth will throw at us.

I'm wondering what makes you say the bolded above. And again, you can't use the failure of computer modeling to accurately predict the future to discredit the science done to correlate cause and effect in the past/present.

bump, or are you just going to keep repeating "future models have been inaccurate!!!!" over and over again.

 

[DiStefano]

Max, I disagree with you on so many things, but you're dead on about high speed rail. It's a complete boondoggle, a total waste of government money. Burn it down.

And I am with you on this one, Tim. It works in Europe, in fact, I will be taking the train from Paris to London in a few days. But you need a high population density to support it.

Population density per square mile:

Netherlands 1,259

Belgium 889

UK 650

Germany 609

Italy 512

France 289

Spain 210

USA 84

 

[DocHolliday]

Trying to force change is always controversial since there are always winners and losers.

I will never understand why the US moved away from rail and towards trucking to move cargo. Seems like there could be a place for more passenger trains but it has to be done wisely, not politically.

Banning the feeding of corn to livestock is a ridiculous idea. Do a little research on just how much corn is used to feed livestock in the US.

 

[jon_mx]

Can't we just stick a cork up those cow's asses?

 

[culdeus]

Trying to force change is always controversial since there are always winners and losers.

I will never understand why the US moved away from rail and towards trucking to move cargo. Seems like there could be a place for more passenger trains but it has to be done wisely, not politically.

Banning the feeding of corn to livestock is a ridiculous idea. Do a little research on just how much corn is used to feed livestock in the US.

It's not the quantity that matters

 

[culdeus]

My 5 point plan. Poke holes.

-Invest heavily in Nuke plants away from fault lines and oceans and where waste can be stored.

-Allow massive tax breaks for solar at the home and business level.

-Raise gas tax to the point where people would be cost neutral at 45mpg at today's rates. That's probably a buck a gallon. This would be used to invest in rail infrastructure, and large scale wind infrastructure.

-End corn subsidies and ban the practice of feeding corn to livestock.

-Begin a Manhattan project type project to capture and store CO2 underground.

Honestly, this would probably be revenue positive while reducing CO2 emissions substantially.

I just cannot get behind the idea of nuclear. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Japan, etc. Folks can say "yabbut" or offer "unlikelihoods" all they want, but even if the chances are 1 in 100,000, when something FUBARs, it's not like cleaning up after a tornado or hurricane and getting "back to normal."I'm all-for the ending of corn subsidies too! But good luck ever telling any "patriots" in the Bible Belt what they can and cannot feed to their livestock. Especially if what you might want to feed them will cost a lot more.

I also think it is embarrassing how limited our transit/high-speed rail service is in this country. Go to Japan? Hop on the train. Go to Europe? Hop on the train. Go to the United States? Rent a car. I get it. Freedom...don't tread on me...blah, blah, blah. But our love affair with the automobile is harming the environment. Hurting our economy. As just think if even $0.20 of every $1.00 that is spent on road construction, road maintenance, road clearing (Northern climates) were to be invested in developing a kick-### rail system instead? I could hop on the train in MSP, and be in Chicago in time for a late dinner. Or Kansas City. Or St. Louis. Or __________. With no car being necessary. And no billions needed to give me a smooth, safe ride on my way to/from.

So...I'll still need a car to drive to the station?

Seriously, this choo-choo train stuff has got to stop. The US is 3.8 million square miles. Japan is about 145,000 square miles. Europe is packed together whereas the US is spread out.

And how the hell are people going to get to the train station? Walk? Nope. They'll probably have to take their car. But hey, if you live right next to the train station it should work out great. And how about when the trains stop? They'll probably have to rent a car. So now not only are you STILL spending money on a car, you still have to buy train tickets and maybe parking fees for the car you took to the train station. How is this economical?

Let's not forget that just about EVERY....SINGLE...train and rail project ALWAYS goes way over budget and ends up becoming a monetary black hole.

Our previous Governor wanted to put, quote "HIGH SPEED RAIL" from Milwaukee to Madison. You want to take a stab at the definition of what they thought HIGH SPEED was? 75 miles per hour. yep, you read the right. 75 miles per hour. Now take a stab at what the posted speed is from Milwaukee to Madison by car? 70 mph.

Train/Rail is nothing but a loser unless you're shipping product.

I never said anything about light rail. I want to get the 18 wheeler traffic down.

 

[MaxThreshold]

My 5 point plan. Poke holes.

-Invest heavily in Nuke plants away from fault lines and oceans and where waste can be stored.

-Allow massive tax breaks for solar at the home and business level.

-Raise gas tax to the point where people would be cost neutral at 45mpg at today's rates. That's probably a buck a gallon. This would be used to invest in rail infrastructure, and large scale wind infrastructure.

-End corn subsidies and ban the practice of feeding corn to livestock.

-Begin a Manhattan project type project to capture and store CO2 underground.

Honestly, this would probably be revenue positive while reducing CO2 emissions substantially.

I just cannot get behind the idea of nuclear. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Japan, etc. Folks can say "yabbut" or offer "unlikelihoods" all they want, but even if the chances are 1 in 100,000, when something FUBARs, it's not like cleaning up after a tornado or hurricane and getting "back to normal."I'm all-for the ending of corn subsidies too! But good luck ever telling any "patriots" in the Bible Belt what they can and cannot feed to their livestock. Especially if what you might want to feed them will cost a lot more.

I also think it is embarrassing how limited our transit/high-speed rail service is in this country. Go to Japan? Hop on the train. Go to Europe? Hop on the train. Go to the United States? Rent a car. I get it. Freedom...don't tread on me...blah, blah, blah. But our love affair with the automobile is harming the environment. Hurting our economy. As just think if even $0.20 of every $1.00 that is spent on road construction, road maintenance, road clearing (Northern climates) were to be invested in developing a kick-### rail system instead? I could hop on the train in MSP, and be in Chicago in time for a late dinner. Or Kansas City. Or St. Louis. Or __________. With no car being necessary. And no billions needed to give me a smooth, safe ride on my way to/from.

So...I'll still need a car to drive to the station?

Seriously, this choo-choo train stuff has got to stop. The US is 3.8 million square miles. Japan is about 145,000 square miles. Europe is packed together whereas the US is spread out.

And how the hell are people going to get to the train station? Walk? Nope. They'll probably have to take their car. But hey, if you live right next to the train station it should work out great. And how about when the trains stop? They'll probably have to rent a car. So now not only are you STILL spending money on a car, you still have to buy train tickets and maybe parking fees for the car you took to the train station. How is this economical?

Let's not forget that just about EVERY....SINGLE...train and rail project ALWAYS goes way over budget and ends up becoming a monetary black hole.

Our previous Governor wanted to put, quote "HIGH SPEED RAIL" from Milwaukee to Madison. You want to take a stab at the definition of what they thought HIGH SPEED was? 75 miles per hour. yep, you read the right. 75 miles per hour. Now take a stab at what the posted speed is from Milwaukee to Madison by car? 70 mph.

Train/Rail is nothing but a loser unless you're shipping product.

I never said anything about light rail. I want to get the 18 wheeler traffic down.

What? So you hate truckers? Racist.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

So let's see. jon_mx, Distefano, jonessed, Chaos Commish, Dr. J, Sand, all visit to mock me. All of them are skeptical of global warming- not necessarily that it's happening, but how serious it is, and that man's use of fossil fuels are at the root of it.

What else do all of these guys have in common? Oh yeah- they're all American political conservatives. Gee, fancy that! Why is it that, of all the political groups around the world, only American conservatives are skeptical of this issue? Sure, there are some extremists in other countries who are probably skeptical, but all of these are a very small minority. Only in this country are a majority of a rather large and significant group, conservatives, skeptical of this issue. What to make of this? I see two possibilities:

1. American conservatives are right about this, and the rest of the world is wrong. Though this means that the majority of the worlds' scientists are deliberately lying, or that their science is simply inferior to that of American conservatives and a few hand-picked scientists that agree with them.

2. American conservatives are wrong about this, and the source of their attitudes on this issue is not based on scientific fact, but rather on political philosophy.

I know which one I choose...

I mock you on this sometimes too, simply because I find some of your arguments and positions inconsistent.

As far as AGW and political leanings, I think you're off base. I know plenty of liberals who are skeptical that AGW is significant. Sure, there's a certain subset of the "American right", the hardcore Fox News devotees, who think the Earth hasn't been warming at all, and that there's a grand conspiracy. Guess what? There's a lunatic fringe on pretty much every topic. Stop wasting your breath trying to convince that group.

Try to convince me. There are a lot of people like me; we really want to do the right thing for the country, the world, the Earth, but over-the-top rhetoric and constant gloom-and-doom simply shows us that you're not serious. Don't tell me that you're certain that 51%+ of the warming is directly attributable to CO2, or that there will be millions of climate refugees by 2020, or that Katrina was caused by AGW. You don't know that. Stating that you do makes me discount the rest of your claims. Tell me we're pretty sure that at least some portion of the warming is attributable to CO2, but you really don't know how much, or how much the sea level will rise over the next ten years, etc., and that the data you have so far is best effort but admittedly incomplete.

More importantly, tell me what you propose to DO about it. Convince me that carbon taxes won't hurt us competitively in the global market. Convince me that carbon taxes will do any good, even if India and China don't follow along. Convince me that you have a better proposal than carbon taxes.

If your only argument is "Global Warming!!!! Aaaaaggghhhhhhhh! SCARY!!!!", then I'm going to ignore you and probably make fun of you, too.

Well written as usual, Rich, but a bit surprising, since it appears you haven't bothered to read my posts on this matter. I do not indulge in "gloom and doom". I think GW is a serious problem, and that it's largely man-made, and we need to do something about it before it's too late. If the science is not going to convince you of that, then I wouldn't be successful at doing so.

As far as what to do about it, I made some proposals earlier today. I'm not in favor of a carbon tax. I think we need to get off of oil and coal in the next 25 years- at least that should be our goal. I want a large national investment similar to the space program. I think that nuclear energy is likely the most viable alternative, though we can look at others as well.

No you didn't. You threw a bunch of random crap out there that didn't include cost, expected returns, any of that. Same crap we've been getting from everyone on the alarmist side, which is one of the main reasons that nothing's actually been done.

We can go back and forth endlessly sharing scientific data trying prove and disprove each others beliefs and get nowhere. How about just using common sense. If you looked at the planet like it was a human body and you smoked 2-3 packs of butts a day,ate the worst food imaginable all day every day for years and years and treated your body like crap,at some point its going to fail you.You cant treat the planet like a giant dump and not pay a price.

 

[datonn]

Max, I disagree with you on so many things, but you're dead on about high speed rail. It's a complete boondoggle, a total waste of government money. Burn it down.

And I am with you on this one, Tim. It works in Europe, in fact, I will be taking the train from Paris to London in a few days. But you need a high population density to support it.

Population density per square mile:

Netherlands 1,259

Belgium 889

UK 650

Germany 609

Italy 512

France 289

Spain 210

USA 84

You guys do realize, however, that that population density number is disingenuous, correct? I mean, I assume that population density per square mile number for the US includes Hawaii, Alaska, and maybe even US territories. (?) Places that we wouldn't be serving with rail.

If you want to be fair and do a truly apples to apples comparison, why not look at the population density from, say, Boston to Raleigh-Durham. Cleveland/Pittsburgh to Minneapolis. If the US had high-speed rail, we're not talking about connecting Topeka, KS to Moab, UT. We're talking about connecting heavily populated urban centers along the Eastern seaboard. Major Midwestern cities such as Chicago and Minneapolis. Oklahoma City to San Antonio. Roughly 81 percent of all Americans live in (sub)urban centers...so it's not like we're talking about connecting Tumbleweed, OK to Moonshine, TN.

And FWIW, it has EVERYTHING to do with climate change...but nobody here probably wants to talk about the detrimental effects of urban sprawl, and how its impacts are a LARGE reason why city, county, State, and Federal governments are digging us into an ever-deeper hole related to spending. It's GREAT in the short term! New construction jobs, higher property taxes (via higher property valuations), et al. But what is it doing to our (need for) roads? Our bridges? Our fresh and waste water treatment/handling systems? The environment?

 

[timschochet]

Sorry Datonn, I agree with most of what you've written in this thread. But high speed rail just doesn't make sense for this country.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Sorry Datonn, I agree with most of what you've written in this thread. But high speed rail just doesn't make sense for this country.

Sure it does. Except it is some form of this rather than what we think of as a passenger train.

 

[timschochet]

Sorry Datonn, I agree with most of what you've written in this thread. But high speed rail just doesn't make sense for this country.

Sure it does. Except it is some form of this rather than what we think of as a passenger train.

That's a different concept, and very interesting. But I can foresee a lot of problems.

I don't think we need to get rid of our current system of transportation. Certain things like moving freight can probably be improved upon. But human travel from here to there, I think we can stick with our own cars. We just need to find a different kind of fuel for them.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Sorry Datonn, I agree with most of what you've written in this thread. But high speed rail just doesn't make sense for this country.

Sure it does. Except it is some form of this rather than what we think of as a passenger train.

That's a different concept, and very interesting. But I can foresee a lot of problems.

I don't think we need to get rid of our current system of transportation. Certain things like moving freight can probably be improved upon. But human travel from here to there, I think we can stick with our own cars. We just need to find a different kind of fuel for them.

Sure we need a better means to fuel the system, but paving more and wider/taller highways to [not really] handle the ever increasing road congestion doesn't help the environment (or our sanity) either.

 

[Sand]

So let's see. jon_mx, Distefano, jonessed, Chaos Commish, Dr. J, Sand, all visit to mock me. All of them are skeptical of global warming- not necessarily that it's happening, but how serious it is, and that man's use of fossil fuels are at the root of it.

What else do all of these guys have in common? Oh yeah- they're all American political conservatives. Gee, fancy that! Why is it that, of all the political groups around the world, only American conservatives are skeptical of this issue? Sure, there are some extremists in other countries who are probably skeptical, but all of these are a very small minority. Only in this country are a majority of a rather large and significant group, conservatives, skeptical of this issue. What to make of this? I see two possibilities:

1. American conservatives are right about this, and the rest of the world is wrong. Though this means that the majority of the worlds' scientists are deliberately lying, or that their science is simply inferior to that of American conservatives and a few hand-picked scientists that agree with them.

2. American conservatives are wrong about this, and the source of their attitudes on this issue is not based on scientific fact, but rather on political philosophy.

I know which one I choose...

My opinions on this are very well laid out in this thread. I reject both one and two.

 

[Sand]

Solar and nuclear seem like the most viable long term alternatives.

Solar is incredibly labor intensive and isn't nearly reliable enough yet. Nuclear would be excellent. And don't forget fusion - the NIF just achieved a net positive reaction. Long way to go, but there is really good stuff there.

The best place for a nuclear power plant is a mile or two offshore, but NIMBYism would likely be difficult to overcome in areas where it would be most beneficial.

That's the very worst place for a plant. Not to mention if we'd actually implement new reactor designs all these fears would go away - they are just about infinitely safer than pressurized water designs.

 

[jon_mx]

So let's see. jon_mx, Distefano, jonessed, Chaos Commish, Dr. J, Sand, all visit to mock me. All of them are skeptical of global warming- not necessarily that it's happening, but how serious it is, and that man's use of fossil fuels are at the root of it.

What else do all of these guys have in common? Oh yeah- they're all American political conservatives. Gee, fancy that! Why is it that, of all the political groups around the world, only American conservatives are skeptical of this issue? Sure, there are some extremists in other countries who are probably skeptical, but all of these are a very small minority. Only in this country are a majority of a rather large and significant group, conservatives, skeptical of this issue. What to make of this? I see two possibilities:

1. American conservatives are right about this, and the rest of the world is wrong. Though this means that the majority of the worlds' scientists are deliberately lying, or that their science is simply inferior to that of American conservatives and a few hand-picked scientists that agree with them.

2. American conservatives are wrong about this, and the source of their attitudes on this issue is not based on scientific fact, but rather on political philosophy.

I know which one I choose...

My opinions on this are very well laid out in this thread. I reject both one and two.

Tim likes to frame this debate in extreme terms.

 

[TwinTurbo]

My 5 point plan. Poke holes.

-Invest heavily in Nuke plants away from fault lines and oceans and where waste can be stored.

-Allow massive tax breaks for solar at the home and business level.

-Raise gas tax to the point where people would be cost neutral at 45mpg at today's rates. That's probably a buck a gallon. This would be used to invest in rail infrastructure, and large scale wind infrastructure.

-End corn subsidies and ban the practice of feeding corn to livestock.

-Begin a Manhattan project type project to capture and store CO2 underground.

Honestly, this would probably be revenue positive while reducing CO2 emissions substantially.

I just cannot get behind the idea of nuclear. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Japan, etc. Folks can say "yabbut" or offer "unlikelihoods" all they want, but even if the chances are 1 in 100,000, when something FUBARs, it's not like cleaning up after a tornado or hurricane and getting "back to normal."

I'm all-for the ending of corn subsidies too! But good luck ever telling any "patriots" in the Bible Belt what they can and cannot feed to their livestock. Especially if what you might want to feed them will cost a lot more.

I also think it is embarrassing how limited our transit/high-speed rail service is in this country. Go to Japan? Hop on the train. Go to Europe? Hop on the train. Go to the United States? Rent a car. I get it. Freedom...don't tread on me...blah, blah, blah. But our love affair with the automobile is harming the environment. Hurting our economy. As just think if even $0.20 of every $1.00 that is spent on road construction, road maintenance, road clearing (Northern climates) were to be invested in developing a kick-### rail system instead? I could hop on the train in MSP, and be in Chicago in time for a late dinner. Or Kansas City. Or St. Louis. Or __________. With no car being necessary. And no billions needed to give me a smooth, safe ride on my way to/from.

So...I'll still need a car to drive to the station?

Seriously, this choo-choo train stuff has got to stop. The US is 3.8 million square miles. Japan is about 145,000 square miles. Europe is packed together whereas the US is spread out.

And how the hell are people going to get to the train station? Walk? Nope. They'll probably have to take their car. But hey, if you live right next to the train station it should work out great. And how about when the trains stop? They'll probably have to rent a car. So now not only are you STILL spending money on a car, you still have to buy train tickets and maybe parking fees for the car you took to the train station. How is this economical?

Let's not forget that just about EVERY....SINGLE...train and rail project ALWAYS goes way over budget and ends up becoming a monetary black hole.

Our previous Governor wanted to put, quote "HIGH SPEED RAIL" from Milwaukee to Madison. You want to take a stab at the definition of what they thought HIGH SPEED was? 75 miles per hour. yep, you read the right. 75 miles per hour. Now take a stab at what the posted speed is from Milwaukee to Madison by car? 70 mph.

Train/Rail is nothing but a loser unless you're shipping product.

Exactly. Rail travel is actually a less economical option than air travel for most people even in the Amtrak-owned and maintained Northeast Corridor. And it would never replace driving, except for big city to big city. And even then, it couldn't completely replace driving unless you live next to the train station. And it would cost untold billions of dollars to build out new infrastructure. Just picture an old time conductor shoveling piles of cash into a giant train furnace fueled by money.

 

[datonn]

My 5 point plan. Poke holes.

-Invest heavily in Nuke plants away from fault lines and oceans and where waste can be stored.

-Allow massive tax breaks for solar at the home and business level.

-Raise gas tax to the point where people would be cost neutral at 45mpg at today's rates. That's probably a buck a gallon. This would be used to invest in rail infrastructure, and large scale wind infrastructure.

-End corn subsidies and ban the practice of feeding corn to livestock.

-Begin a Manhattan project type project to capture and store CO2 underground.

Honestly, this would probably be revenue positive while reducing CO2 emissions substantially.

I just cannot get behind the idea of nuclear. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Japan, etc. Folks can say "yabbut" or offer "unlikelihoods" all they want, but even if the chances are 1 in 100,000, when something FUBARs, it's not like cleaning up after a tornado or hurricane and getting "back to normal."

I'm all-for the ending of corn subsidies too! But good luck ever telling any "patriots" in the Bible Belt what they can and cannot feed to their livestock. Especially if what you might want to feed them will cost a lot more.

I also think it is embarrassing how limited our transit/high-speed rail service is in this country. Go to Japan? Hop on the train. Go to Europe? Hop on the train. Go to the United States? Rent a car. I get it. Freedom...don't tread on me...blah, blah, blah. But our love affair with the automobile is harming the environment. Hurting our economy. As just think if even $0.20 of every $1.00 that is spent on road construction, road maintenance, road clearing (Northern climates) were to be invested in developing a kick-### rail system instead? I could hop on the train in MSP, and be in Chicago in time for a late dinner. Or Kansas City. Or St. Louis. Or __________. With no car being necessary. And no billions needed to give me a smooth, safe ride on my way to/from.

So...I'll still need a car to drive to the station?

Seriously, this choo-choo train stuff has got to stop. The US is 3.8 million square miles. Japan is about 145,000 square miles. Europe is packed together whereas the US is spread out.

And how the hell are people going to get to the train station? Walk? Nope. They'll probably have to take their car. But hey, if you live right next to the train station it should work out great. And how about when the trains stop? They'll probably have to rent a car. So now not only are you STILL spending money on a car, you still have to buy train tickets and maybe parking fees for the car you took to the train station. How is this economical?

Let's not forget that just about EVERY....SINGLE...train and rail project ALWAYS goes way over budget and ends up becoming a monetary black hole.

Our previous Governor wanted to put, quote "HIGH SPEED RAIL" from Milwaukee to Madison. You want to take a stab at the definition of what they thought HIGH SPEED was? 75 miles per hour. yep, you read the right. 75 miles per hour. Now take a stab at what the posted speed is from Milwaukee to Madison by car? 70 mph.

Train/Rail is nothing but a loser unless you're shipping product.

Exactly. Rail travel is actually a less economical option than air travel for most people even in the Amtrak-owned and maintained Northeast Corridor. And it would never replace driving, except for big city to big city. And even then, it couldn't completely replace driving unless you live next to the train station. And it would cost untold billions of dollars to build out new infrastructure. Just picture an old time conductor shoveling piles of cash into a giant train furnace fueled by money.

So how does it work in Europe? In Japan? Oh RIGHT...population density. I would ask one more time then (post #1184), what is the REAL population density figures in the United States that would be relevant to the high-speed rail discussion, when you exclude Alaska's population and 570,641 square miles? When you exclude most of the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. At least half of Texas and Oklahoma. How many people per square mile in the (remaining) United States are we looking at then?

 

[jonessed]

My 5 point plan. Poke holes.

-Invest heavily in Nuke plants away from fault lines and oceans and where waste can be stored.

-Allow massive tax breaks for solar at the home and business level.

-Raise gas tax to the point where people would be cost neutral at 45mpg at today's rates. That's probably a buck a gallon. This would be used to invest in rail infrastructure, and large scale wind infrastructure.

-End corn subsidies and ban the practice of feeding corn to livestock.

-Begin a Manhattan project type project to capture and store CO2 underground.

Honestly, this would probably be revenue positive while reducing CO2 emissions substantially.

I just cannot get behind the idea of nuclear. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Japan, etc. Folks can say "yabbut" or offer "unlikelihoods" all they want, but even if the chances are 1 in 100,000, when something FUBARs, it's not like cleaning up after a tornado or hurricane and getting "back to normal."I'm all-for the ending of corn subsidies too! But good luck ever telling any "patriots" in the Bible Belt what they can and cannot feed to their livestock. Especially if what you might want to feed them will cost a lot more.

I also think it is embarrassing how limited our transit/high-speed rail service is in this country. Go to Japan? Hop on the train. Go to Europe? Hop on the train. Go to the United States? Rent a car. I get it. Freedom...don't tread on me...blah, blah, blah. But our love affair with the automobile is harming the environment. Hurting our economy. As just think if even $0.20 of every $1.00 that is spent on road construction, road maintenance, road clearing (Northern climates) were to be invested in developing a kick-### rail system instead? I could hop on the train in MSP, and be in Chicago in time for a late dinner. Or Kansas City. Or St. Louis. Or __________. With no car being necessary. And no billions needed to give me a smooth, safe ride on my way to/from.

So...I'll still need a car to drive to the station?

Seriously, this choo-choo train stuff has got to stop. The US is 3.8 million square miles. Japan is about 145,000 square miles. Europe is packed together whereas the US is spread out.

And how the hell are people going to get to the train station? Walk? Nope. They'll probably have to take their car. But hey, if you live right next to the train station it should work out great. And how about when the trains stop? They'll probably have to rent a car. So now not only are you STILL spending money on a car, you still have to buy train tickets and maybe parking fees for the car you took to the train station. How is this economical?

Let's not forget that just about EVERY....SINGLE...train and rail project ALWAYS goes way over budget and ends up becoming a monetary black hole.

Our previous Governor wanted to put, quote "HIGH SPEED RAIL" from Milwaukee to Madison. You want to take a stab at the definition of what they thought HIGH SPEED was? 75 miles per hour. yep, you read the right. 75 miles per hour. Now take a stab at what the posted speed is from Milwaukee to Madison by car? 70 mph.

Train/Rail is nothing but a loser unless you're shipping product.

Exactly. Rail travel is actually a less economical option than air travel for most people even in the Amtrak-owned and maintained Northeast Corridor. And it would never replace driving, except for big city to big city. And even then, it couldn't completely replace driving unless you live next to the train station. And it would cost untold billions of dollars to build out new infrastructure. Just picture an old time conductor shoveling piles of cash into a giant train furnace fueled by money.

They had the perfect opportunity to build one right through the highest population corridors in. California. What did they do with the money instead? Played politics and put it in the middle of nowhere. Now they deviated from the original plan so much they likely can't even use the bond money anymore. All in a state with one party rule who overwhelmingly support high speed rail. It's a fine idea until the government starts cutting checks and trading votes. Then it inevitably becomes a boondoggle.

 

[RCon]

Population density:

http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/populations/usadensityh.htm

 

[The Goat]

Too...much...smug...in thread!

Must...turn back!

 

[Sand]

Population density:

http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/populations/usadensityh.htm

I'm convinced NJ is just a human beehive with Christie as the queen.

 

[Kal El]

I thought (and still partially think) that a bullet train system connecting major cities would cut down on air travel, reducing that pollution, though it would be slower than a plane. Still, cost is a major issue with that. What about water travel? It's reasonably cheap, there are decent bodies of water in or near almost every major metropolis, and docks can be easily connected with public transit.

 

[timschochet]

This morning's piece by Al Gore:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-gore/national-climate-assessment_b_5279943.html

The latest National Climate Assessment provides clear evidence of what many Americans are already experiencing in their daily lives: the growing impact of extreme weather events linked to global warming.

When Pensacola, Florida, gets two feet of rain in 26 hours, that is exactly the kind of extreme and destructive event that scientists have long warned will become way more common.

From stronger and more frequent storms that take lives and damage infrastructure, to deeper droughts and heat waves that hurt agriculture and threaten water supplies, to rising seas that threaten our coastal cities -- the way Miami Beach is already threatened -- the costs of carbon are growing rapidly.

The good news is that we now have the technologies and alternatives we need to really solve the climate crisis -- but we must start acting now.

More and more businesses and governments around the world understand this and have started working to stop recklessly dumping global warming pollution into the atmosphere, as if it is an open sewer. And under the leadership of President Obama, the United States has also now finally begun to make important changes to our energy infrastructure and start reducing emissions of pollution -- but we can and must do more. It's time for Congress to step up and enact legislation to make it easier to shift to a more efficient and competitive -- and job rich -- renewable, low carbon economy.

We have no time to waste. We must end our addiction to dirty fossil fuels and transition to clean, renewable energy in order to ensure a prosperous and sustainable future.

 

[jon_mx]

Tim has a closeted man-crush on Al Gore.

 

[DrJ]

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by timschochet. View it anyway?

Not going to bother with this fishing anymore.