Chuck Plunkett, a member of the Denver Post‘s editorial board, has a few choice words to say about light rail. Words like “obsolete” and “a transportation option that our environment can no longer afford.”
The Post must have joined the Antiplanner in the pockets of big oil. As recently as a year ago, Denver’s largest paper was an enthusiastic supporter of rail transit. Plunkett himself says he has “long been a fan of rail.” But after reading the Antiplanner’s analysis of light rail and greenhouse gases, and replicating that analysis using the latest available data, Plunket concludes that “further expanding rail in metro Denver would be an outrage.”
Plunkett’s article contains two mistakes, both of them attributed to rail supporters. First, he notes, rail advocates argue that I am “hostile to light rail.” Not true; I love trains. I am only hostile to government waste.
Second, he quotes an RTD executive who claims that my analysis is misleading because I only looked at 2008 cars and not “the actual mix of cars on metro streets.” This is simply false. My analysis was based on the average car on the road in 2006. The only 2008 car I even considered was the Prius.
Even accepting these erroneous claims by rail advocates, Plunkett says he hasn’t “succeeded in debunking” the Antiplanner’s “central findings.” If, on one hand, Xcel Energy (which supplies the electricity for Denver’s light rail) meets its renewable energy targets, and on the other hand, auto manufacturers meet Obama’s fuel economy targets, Plunkett finds that by 2030 light rail will be generating far more greenhouse gases per passenger mile than automobiles.
In some more choice words, Plunkett calls this the “Prius effect.”
Your doctor can identify and buy cialis viagra correct the underlying immune system dysfunction that causes the problem. Modulation: Every time buying cialis in uk each of three grams of boiling water, three times a month. It also tadalafil tablets india improves semen volume and sperm count. The emphasis should be on lifestyle buy cialis pill change, education about proper diet, exercise, and behavior modification.
To be honest, the Antiplanner isn’t quite sure that the extra greenhouse gases emitted by light rail are as “dangerous” to the environment as Plunkett contends. But Plunkett skewers those who claim that light rail will play any role in preventing global climate change.
Meanwhile, another recent article in the Denver Post describes a new study, commissioned by Denver’s metropolitan planning organization, that finds that RTD — Denver’s transit agency — is still overly optimistic in its projections of sales tax revenues. In 2004, the agency persuaded voters that, if they raised sales taxes by 0.4 percent, it would have enough money to build six new rail lines by 2017. Now, it says it needs another 0.4 percent sales tax increase to build the system by 2017.
The increase is needed partly because of higher construction costs and partly because RTD overestimated the revenues it would get from sales taxes. RTD assumed that revenues would rise by at least 5 percent per year forever — when in fact sales tax revenues had actually fallen in the two years prior to the election.
Now RTD says sales taxes will rise by at least 4.5 percent per year forever after 2012, and even if sales taxes rise by only 2 percent per year forever, it will be able to keep up the payments on the loans it takes out to build the rail lines.
The problem is not that RTD assumes too high of an average growth rate. The problem instead is that it assumes that growth will continue at that rate forever. In fact, we know that in some years revenues grow and in other years they decline. When revenues decline, you can’t tell your mortgage company, “I will pay you less this year, but don’t worry, over the long run my average payments will cover the loan on my house.” Neither can transit agencies, so when revenues decline, they are often forced to make drastic cuts in operations.
A better analysis would ask, “Is there any time when a decline in revenues would have serious consequences for the transit system?” But RTD has studiously avoided such questions.
Are there any similar studies comparing auto and light rail CO2 emissions? Much of the debate could be resolved if everyone sets out their assumptions, calculations and sources of data.
What I find most interesting is that all the investment being made does next to nothing to achieve the IPCC goal of an 85 percent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. If people take that goal seriously, the much more radical efforts are needed.
I sent in my LTE of Duh Post pointing out the glaring flaws in Plunkett’s fawning over Randal’s piece. We’ll see if it gets printed on the fishwrap.
Wrt bad financial projections, this state is amazingly dumb when it comes to people who can make these projections. Is as if the job description includes ‘make a happy wish and write it down for public consumption’.
DS
We shouldn’t go nuts over achieving the IPCC goal of an 85 percent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. Read “Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science” by Ian Plimer.
“Read “Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science†by Ian Plimer.”
In case anyone actually considers believing in this crap for a second, check out this site which debunks all of his junk science:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php
There is junk science on both sides of the debate. Just look at Mr. Hockey Stick Mann.
Check out Dr. Roy Spencer, a government employee whose never taken oil money, so don’t try to play the guilt-by-association card.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
ROT:“Plunkett’s article contains two mistakes, both of them attributed to rail supporters. First, he notes, rail advocates argue that I am “hostile to light rail.†Not true; I love trains. I am only hostile to government waste.”
ws: Riiight, is that why you go out of your way to calculate total CO2/energy output of light rail all the way down to the flatulence of the construction workers but have lacked an in depth CO2/energy output analysis for the operation of automobiles and its accompanying infrastructure? Better yet, how many days did you wait to have an article about how dangerous train infrastructure is after the Metro accident? It wasn’t you that used spotty math to determine that Manhattan could replace all of its trains with a few lanes and buses, was it?
Hostile to government waste? Maybe, but you have yet to have a worthy paper about the wasteful expenditures and ultimate subsidization of automobiles in the US. Maybe a short blurb about the topic, but nothing exhaustive of the topic.
But yeah, we *so* believe you that you “love trains”…’cause you know, you said so yourself.
I can only reiterate – it’s about choosing the right form of transit for a particular task. Unfortunately, all too often, the alternative is diesel bus, which pumps out lots of nasty emissions, including NOX. Why is there so rarely a middle ground?
Please note figures 3 and 7 of this:
http://www.transportpolicy.org.uk/PublicTransport/AdvancedBuses/AdvancedBuses.htm
I notice that the amount of coal used in the electricity generation was mentioned, but not alternative (e.g. diesel electric) power supplies. So would Antiplanner be happy/happier if the vehicle was self-propelled?
http://www.metrail.com/
I also notice that the local electricity supply uses more coal than in the UK. This will have a significant effect on the result.
One of the commentators on the opening report said this:
“A more interesting question would be why so few people use the light rail, especially when we have free passes for university students and cheap ecopasses for employees, something none of these articles is addressing (even though they continue to mention how low rider numbers are). Why don’t you run an article investigating WHY nobody rides the light rail rather than pulling the same tired arguments about how light rail is worse than energy efficient vehicles nobody owns anyway?”
It’s a good point, isn’t it?
Please folks. We are going to vote on carbon legislation. Almost all of society (save for a few dead-enders) has moved on past discussing denialist denials of empirical evidence. Ian Plimer is a fraud and if someone is trotting him out, or still wishing about fraudulent paleo findings, you know the game is over.
Denialist hand-waving isn’t a supportable argument for or against particular transportation choices as policy. Life-cycle costs of mode choices that include carbon outputs are supportable arguments (including concrete). Life-cycle costs that include eminient domain property losses to add lane-miles are supportable arguments. Life-cycle costs that include costs of gas after peak oil are supp…you get the idea.
DS
DS, you’re the one getting away from the facts by trying to stifle discussion, fortunately the Australian Senate is not so stupid http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/17/a_tax_on_thin_air_97917.html
Frank:“There is junk science on both sides of the debate. Just look at Mr. Hockey Stick Mann.
Check out Dr. Roy Spencer, a government employee whose never taken oil money, so don’t try to play the guilt-by-association card.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/“
ws: Maybe his motivation is not one of money, but of faith. He certainly has religious ties in Alabama (which is not only faith based, but politically aligned, too). Is it an ad-hominem attack to question his belief of intelligent design and non-belief of macroevolution?
The question is, is his largely conservative Christian beliefs and ties to religion getting in the way of his scientific research? I’m not attacking his personal beliefs directly, but to say that the theory of intelligent design (and its movement) does not tweak biology and scientific results would be erroneous and completely naive. We all have bias – even scientists – but I think there is much to question in Dr. Roy’s motives.
I do think that if Roy Spencer believes the Earth is a few thousand years old, then we might have a problem. Though, 44% of Americans believe God created Man in its present form just 10,000 years ago. It’s easy to not believe in the science behind climate change when one does not even believe in science in the first place!:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx
ws said:
ROT:“Plunkett’s article contains two mistakes, both of them attributed to rail supporters. First, he notes, rail advocates argue that I am “hostile to light rail.†Not true; I love trains. I am only hostile to government waste.â€Â
ws: Riiight, is that why you go out of your way to calculate total CO2/energy output of light rail all the way down to the flatulence of the construction workers but have lacked an in depth CO2/energy output analysis for the operation of automobiles and its accompanying infrastructure? Better yet, how many days did you wait to have an article about how dangerous train infrastructure is after the Metro accident? It wasn’t you that used spotty math to determine that Manhattan could replace all of its trains with a few lanes and buses, was it?
Hostile to government waste? Maybe, but you have yet to have a worthy paper about the wasteful expenditures and ultimate subsidization of automobiles in the US. Maybe a short blurb about the topic, but nothing exhaustive of the topic.
But yeah, we *so* believe you that you “love trainsâ€Â…’cause you know, you said so yourself.
THWM: In Canada, Calgary is buying most of the power for their light rail system from wind turbines.
Hugh, your weak ‘stifle debate’ tactic doesn’t work with me. Pointing out society has left your small percentage of head-in-sand populace behind isn’t ‘stifling debate’, nor is pointing out long-ago refuted arguments have no place in intelligent policy discussion. Come now.
Now, back OT: surely another policy issue that must be overcome for such narrow policy to work is the ‘buses contribute to congestion’ or ‘buses are shunned by numerous socioeconomic groups’.
DS
Hugh Jardonn wrote:
“DS, you’re the one getting away from the facts by trying to stifle discussion, fortunately the Australian Senate is not so stupid http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/17/a_tax_on_thin_air_97917.html”
There are differences of opinion on this subject, but that journal is hopelessly biased.
A classic: “As Senator Nick Minchin put it in a blistering speech opposing the bill, “this whole extraordinary scheme, which would do so much damage to Australia, is based on the as yet unproven assertion that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are the main driver of global warming….”
Is gravity proven to the required standard? No, we don’t know what gravity is, or what causes it. So perhaps we should just throw ourselves off a tall building, and see what happens. Not so much blistering, then, as idiotic.
The Australian government was right to reject the proposal, because it threatened to trash the economy. Whatever measures are taken on CO2 emissions, it’s got to be done without damaging people’s quality of life.
ws wrote:
“ws: Maybe his motivation is not one of money, but of faith. He certainly has religious ties in Alabama (which is not only faith based, but politically aligned, too). Is it an ad-hominem attack to question his belief of intelligent design and non-belief of macroevolution?”
I don’t know. But he appears to have an intelligent take on what is going on. Have his opinions been debunked? The more that we are stridently told about the evil disaster that is about to overtake us, the more I want to see some facts – I originally qualified as a physicist, and I know what should be happening now. For example, we have a temperature graph against year, which is rich in detail. What makes up this complex graph? To be told that it’s all down to CO2 emissions insults my intelligence. So many climate scientists seem to be lost in their climate models, when we don’t understand basic things – like what the temperature graph is all about. I don’t want to hear any more predictions about the future until they can explain the past.
One thing they could do is a Fourier analysis of the temperature in order to pick out oscillations. The frequency of each contribution to the temperature should identify what it is.
Dan, you’re flat out wrong with your “debate’s over, move on” nonsense. Your allegation that “Almost all of society (save for a few dead-enders) has moved on past discussing denialist denials of empirical evidence” is a flat-out lie. According to Gallup, 41% now say [seriousness of global warming] is exaggerated. 41%. That’s hardly the lopsided majority you claim. And what’s this “denialist” crap? It’s a not too subtle attempt to somehow link global warming skeptics to “Holocaust deniers” like Iran’s president. That’s an apples-to-oranges comparison, folks. An more accurate comparison is between global warming believers and religious fundamentalists.
Add a third person who is still willing to examine facts and evidence before declaring things “over.” After all, science is perpetually open to proof by replicatable experimentation, so any theory is open to attack if someone can present same. But wait! Could it be that environmentalism in general today is junk science made up of sorta-maybe-couldbe consensus and not replicatable experiment? Hmmmm. And science by consensus, knowing it is completely vulnerable to replicatable experimentation, generally seeks to stifle debate to discourage people from seeing that the emperor has no clothes.
I’ve been “green” since before it was trendy; 25 to 30 years ago it was called “conservation” and we were huge participants through Scouting and such. Back then, conservation was based on sound science and sensible stewardship of wilderness and animal habitats. Now, environmentalism is practically a religion, possessing of its own dogma and demanding unbending faith. Science and faith are not compatible and never will be. As such, despite the insistence of the faithful, the skepticism of scientists will continue.
Hugh Jardonn:
I just gave a link to gallop poll showing that almost half of Americans believe the Earth is 10,000 years old. One really cannot believe in climate change if they think that the earth is 10,000 years old. Ironically, I always hear of anti-anthropogenic climate change people stating the planet has changed climates many times over many years, but then ask them how old they think the earth is and they might just give you a “Young Earth” argument.
Just because the general American public’s perception is such, does not mean it is accurate or the truth. By in large, many Americans are so far removed from rudimentary science it’s not even funny.
Your allegation … is a flat-out lie…link global warming skeptics to “Holocaust deniers 
Please, better rhetoric.
I made no claim to seriousness or exaggeration. I made a claim about flat-out denial of evidence, and ‘denial’ being a pshychological condition.
Weak argumentation aside, the % of dead-enders is likely single-digit, perhaps just nudging into double-digits. Which is why we are voting, and API and other big oil firms are going all out on the astroturf and fake town hall meetings to game the vote.
DS
spam queue again…
Could it be that environmentalism in general today is junk science made up of sorta-maybe-couldbe consensus and not replicatable experiment?
No.
And science by consensus,… the emperor has no clothes.
The talking point has no clothes, as there is no science by consensus.
But decision-makers have heard this tired tripe a million times. Which is why we are voting and ignoring the tired arguments, all of which on this thread are numbered for convenience and given point values for our amusement.
DS
Here is a site that basically shows that there is NO CASE for AGW:
http://www.SustainableOregon.com
Thanks
JK
Jim Karlock wrote:
“Here is a site that basically shows that there is NO CASE for AGW: ”
And here is a part of it: under ‘Take our CO2 quiz”…
http://www.sustainableoregon.com/co2_sources.html
They calculate that 3.3% of CO2 emissions is due to human activity. That’s new CO2, outside of the usual carbon cycle, and it makes the carbon cycle bigger every year – global warming in other words. If the authors of this web-site don’t get that, what do they get?
Once we’ve got past this silliness, and we’re discussing global warming, then we’ve still got to break the temperature graph down into it’s component parts…
Francis King said: Jim Karlock wrote: “Here is a site that basically shows that there is NO CASE for AGW: â€Â
And here is a part of it: under ‘Take our CO2 quizâ€Â…
http://www.sustainableoregon.com/co2_sources.html
They calculate that 3.3% of CO2 emissions is due to human activity. That’s new CO2, outside of the usual carbon cycle, and it makes the carbon cycle bigger every year – global warming in other words.
JK: I hope you are joking? Otherwise your statement presumes the following:
1. CO2 is a delicate balance, so delicate that just 3% more will tip over some point. Laughable. The Earth did not stay in a narrow range of temperature for millions of years without negative feedback.
2. That other sources are known to a degree such that man’s 3% is less than the errors. Laughable.
3. Somehow, without negative feedback, the earth was in perfect balance.
Of course your presumption that CO2 causes global warming is totally without foundation. Just look at Al Gore’s ice core data – is shows CO2 responds to, not causes temperature. (Al lied, you buyed)
Francis King said: If the authors of this web-site don’t get that, what do they get?
JK: They get it. Man’s CO2 is a tiny fraction of the total CO2. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas (if at all). Multiply the two together and you get, at most, 1% of warming due to man. You apparently don’t get it.
Francis King said: Once we’ve got past this silliness, and we’re discussing global warming, then we’ve still got to break the temperature graph down into it’s component parts…
JK: I agree the whole claim of CO2 caused warming is would be silly,. Except so many people are fooled by it.
Residents of some quarters should state CO2 ppmv has increased ~34% since the Industrial Revolution began. The increase is an equivalent increase in dosage of, say, Atavan from 7 mg to 10 mg.
Such weak grasp of facts by the small population of denialists and glaring omissions of other facts is why we are voting on carbon legislation. And oil companies seek to spread FUD far and wide to spread confusion and mayhem prior to the vote.
Like what is happening with the health care debate, sans assault weaponry.
DS
Dan, leftist blogs are not credible scientific sources. Even taking them as an argumentative source, perhaps one of the reasons that the same arguments are heard multiple times is that some of them are based on those pesky little things called facts. If that is the best you can do, it’s no wonder the thrust of your argument today has been, “Shut up.”
Of course that’s the thrust of your argument most days, as statists seem to believe that words possess the metaphysical power to shape reality all by themselves, and if those “darned right-wingers” would just stop DOUBTING already, and would stop TALKING against our statist plans, everything would work out great and we’d be hip-deep in unicorns and puppy dogs. After all, to want it is to make it so, n’est-ce pas?
JK: ” 1. CO2 is a delicate balance, so delicate that just 3% more will tip over some point. Laughable. The Earth did not stay in a narrow range of temperature for millions of years without negative feedback.
2. That other sources are known to a degree such that man’s 3% is less than the errors. Laughable.
3. Somehow, without negative feedback, the earth was in perfect balance.”
ws: JK, I have some issues with your link: http://www.sustainableoregon.com/co2_sources.html
I *believe* 7.1 GtC means actual carbon itself, not CO2 as you have labeled. Conversion of carbon to CO2 is 44/12 or 3.67.
7.1 * 3.67 = 26.057 Gt of CO2
Moving on:
2.1 Gt C = 1 ppm (CO2)
Humans = 7.1 Gt C w/ 40% sink rate = 4.16 Gt C released into atmosphere
Divide that by 2.1 = 1.98 ppm / year released into atmosphere. 1.98 ppm growth rate is tremendous considering 100 ppm growth rate in past climate models took thousands of years.
This is at current levels and not assuming the exponential growth of CO2.
So, in conclusion your statement that 7.1 Gt C a year of carbon (26 CO2 Gt)is not a “big deal” because other natural sources of carbon output are much higher than humans’ is completely erroneous. And yes, with a 1.9 ppm growth/ year, the carbon cycle is in a “delicate” balance.
Feel free to check over my calculations, I don’t for them to be perfect.
Francis King wrote:
> I can only reiterate – it’s about choosing the right form of
> transit for a particular task. Unfortunately, all too often,
> the alternative is diesel bus, which pumps out lots of
> nasty emissions, including NOX. Why is there so rarely
> a middle ground?
Is the assertion above based on emissions from engines burning “old” Diesel fuel?
Or ultra-low-sulfur Diesel (ULSD) fuel that improves (reduces) the emissions of all highway-use Diesel engines in the U.S., Canada and the EU nations (as compared to older Diesel fuels)?
Francis, many of those “Diesel” buses may be using other fuels, such as bioDiesel or CNG. Or they may be equipped with Diesel-electric powertrains.
Please do not compare modern Diesel transit buses with these or even these.
Dan, leftist blogs are not credible scientific sources.
No one claimed they were. Yet you cannot show that their aggregation is erroneous. This is why wr are voting and dead-enders are…well…dead-enders – because they have nothing to back their claims.
Now. One wonders why Randal uses carbon emissions as a metric, like the rest of the non-wingnut planet. Surely the dim-bulb logicians here should be ganging up on the Guy Who Uses Basic Principles of Physics.
DS
as statists seem to believe
Simpleton dog-whistle phrases mean you self-marginalize.
Meaning you don’t get access. Now, some may say blame the perpetrator, but others say it is hard-wired into the brain. Just don’t be mad at others for noting the wiring.
DS
ws: JK, I have some issues with your link: http://www.sustainableoregon.com/co2_sources.html
I *believe* 7.1 GtC means actual carbon itself, not CO2 as you have labeled.
JK: Where did I mention units? Units are irrelevant when calculating percentages (as I did on that page) as long as they are consistent. You are again showing your ignorance of basic math.
ws: So, in conclusion your statement that 7.1 Gt C a year of carbon…
JK: Where did I mention “7.1 GT C�
Please quit jumping to conclusions and then trying to accuse me of the result.
WS, some people will do anything to save the planet, except study science.
I suggest you study science (and math) before further pestering us with your ignorant garbage.
Thanks
JK
ws: 1.98 ppm growth rate is tremendous considering 100 ppm growth rate in past climate models took thousands of years.
JK: Oh, did you find a for sure, absolutely accurate account of past CO2? Where it your rate of change proof? We DO know that your side has previously claimed that the rate of temperature change was tremendous until proven wrong. Wrong like most of your side’s claims:
* CO2 causes temperature increase. Actually all the proof is that CO2 responds to temperature. (Al lied about the ice cores.)
* Temperature was stable for 1000 years then suddenly shot up. (Al’s “hockey stick†– proven fraud)
* Rapid rising oceans. No data.
* Island inundate Pacific Islands, creating climate refugees. False.
* Oceans will rise 20 meters, flooding xxx. False.
* Lake whatever in Africa. No evidence.
* Melting glaciers on Mt Kilimanjaro. No evidence.
* Disappearing Pacific NW glaciers. Fraudulent claims.
* Polar bears disappearing. Most are doing fine and populations increasing. They are pests.
All your side has to offer is one lie after another. As soon as one is proven false, they create another. See http://www.SustainableOregon.com
ws: This is at current levels and not assuming the exponential growth of CO2.
JK: What exponential growth?
ws: So, in conclusion your statement that 7.1 Gt C a year of carbon (26 CO2 Gt)is not a “big deal†because other natural sources of carbon output are much higher than humans’ is completely erroneous.
JK: Erroneous, how? Man’s sources are 3% including land use and cement. You have to show us that there are NO natural negative feedbacks that will adjust to sop up man’s CO2.
Actually you first have to prove that the CO2 increase is related to man’s emissions, instead of a mere co-incidence. You cannot do this, so your whole argument is speculation based on the “sins of modern societyâ€Â
I assume that you know that CO2 typically rises a few hundred years after the temperature rises. It now a few hundred years after the temperature rise after the end of the little ice age.
Thanks
JK
Surely one wears a red honkey nose, squirting flower and oversized AGDS*-colored shoes when one claims in one breath about the uncertainty of historical CO2 levels, and in the next breath refers to Vostok data.
That, my friends, is comedy gold.
And a good display of the reason why we are voting on carbon legislation, and the small percentage of dead-enders are being left behind.
Note why Randal is calculating carbon footprints – one must be serious to have play in policy discussions. Ululating ‘Aaaaaaaalllllgoooooooooooooooore!!’ will get you ushered to the door in any policy discussion.
DS
* Algore Derangement Syndrome
Dan, you blithering idiot: I already said I’m green. I was an environmentalist BEFORE it was trendy, as I noted. I have more authentic green cred in my little finger than people like you who got on the toboggan in the 1990s will ever accrue. Of course, for you modern environmentalists, unbending faith to the dogma of government-as-solution is mandated. Mere adherence to the long-established and well-proven science behind Conservation doesn’t cut it with you morons — it has to be coupled with statism, and more specifically, statism where your guys are in power.
Because I do not believe that the government will have anything effective to do about the environment, and therefore believe that we should not surrender our souls and wallets to every government program and control that purports to address the issue, you now say I “self-marginalize” and use “dog-whistle phrases.” When I use a word like “statist” to describe you and your ilk, that is because that’s what you are. If you don’t like being called a statist, stop being one! It’s not hard.
This is typical of why the environmentalist movement is stalled and why the Congress, which so you gleefully point out is “voting,” is at its worst approval levels in American history and is backpedaling like Lance f__king Armstrong on the health care public option to avoid being swept away in a (regrettable) Republican mid-term landslide in 2010. The congress knows good and well that what it is doing is not supported by the VAST majority of the public, and despite having the votes to pass literally any legislation they wish without Republican support, they are hemming and hawing and holding late-night votes and quick-ram-it-through bills and anything else they can think of so they can sidestep accountability when all this artifice comes crashing down on their (and your) heads. If they really thought any of their plans would have a chance in hell at working, they would pass them boldly, in the light of day, no “consensus building” and no back-room deals, loudly proclaiming to all and casting their votes and daring any Republican not to get on board.
You and your fellow statists are damned lucky most Republicans are tethered to religion. On the day the majority of conservatives are not people who believe in the invisible sky fairy, the Democratic Party is finished and big-government statism will be in its death throes. Until then, I remain (I)ndependent and consistent with reality, not mysticism.
[yada omitted]…I have more authentic green cred in my little finger than people like you who got on the toboggan in the 1990s will ever accrue…[talking points snipped]
Again we see an attempt to distract away from the fact that assertions can’t stand scrutiny, as anyone with a scroll wheel can see by reading the repeated attempts to change the subject away from the incorrect assertions throughout this thread.
Nonetheless, here we find yet another incorrect assertion from zeee-ro evidence. Such standard low-wattage, reliably incorrect assertions and weak hand-waving rhetoric makes one think there are others who also wear a squirt flower and big shoes while typing out flat-out wrong and poorly argued tripe. My ecological footprint was lower than most for decades before somebody’s poor daddy wondered what went wrong with his weak-*ss arguing son.
DS
C. P. Zilliacus wrote:
“Francis, many of those ‘Diesel’ buses may be using other fuels, such as bioDiesel or CNG. Or they may be equipped with Diesel-electric powertrains. Please do not compare modern Diesel transit buses with these or even these.”
I wouldn’t dare!
The web-site quoted…
http://www.transportpolicy.org.uk/PublicTransport/AdvancedBuses/AdvancedBuses.htm
… is mine! – of which that is just one page. A lot of people on this blog have a web-site. Antiplanner has one, I have one, Jim Karlock has one, and msetty I believe also has one.
This page covers all kind of buses, including the use of ULSD.
In the UK, as I suspect is also the case in the USA, it’s a race to the bottom. New buses in the UK are seriously polluting, and old ones (which are even more dirty) don’t die, they get hand-me-downed to other parts of the UK, including where my mother lives (that part of the UK is an open-air transport museum).
In the UK, the odd one out is London, where TfL franchises out bus services, and can specify the kind of bus used. Elsewhere, bus companies run the cheapest diesel bus that money can buy. Diesel-hybrid buses, electric buses, trolleybuses, etc. are much more expensive. And we have the air quality to prove it.
A bit late in the day, just before they are voted out of office, the Labour Party has decided to offer an additional subsidy to bus companies that run diesel-electric hybrid buses.
JK:“Oh, did you find a for sure, absolutely accurate account of past CO2? Where it your rate of change proof?”
ws:Past CO2? I didn’t use those numbers, I used the numbers on your web site which would mean 1.98 ppm CO2 rise per year assuming man’s contribution to carbon output is 7.1 Gt.
Also, It’s not 7.1 Gt of CO2, it’s 7.1 Gt of Carbon. A slight point, but someone running a global warming website should know the difference between carbon and CO2. Your assertion that man only contributes 3% to the atmosphere a year is a silly statistic – this small 3% adds up every year, with the majority of it not getting absorbed by land or sea and ultimately being released into the atmosphere.
CO2 gets “picked on” because it is the only GHG we can readily decrease. Sorry, we can’t change the sun, can’t change water vapor, can’t change anything else.
JK:“Actually you first have to prove that the CO2 increase is related to man’s emissions, instead of a mere co-incidence. You cannot do this, so your whole argument is speculation based on the “sins of modern societyâ€Â
ws:I have, just look at your website: http://www.sustainableoregon.com/co2_sources.html. You’re not eating your own feedback which shows 7.1 Gt C from human activities.
Assuming that man puts out 7.1 Gt of Carbon like your website shows, that equates to 1.98 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. We can also assume that world economies are going to get bigger, releasing even more carbon and ultimately carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That is what I meant by exponential.
Follow along, please.
JK:“I assume that you know that CO2 typically rises a few hundred years after the temperature rises. It now a few hundred years after the temperature rise after the end of the little ice age.”
ws:Well, yes and no. Even so that just means we do not know the initiator of warming, but that does not discount that CO2 does not retain and trap heat. These past models still show the amplification that CO2 has.
If you’re denying that CO2 doesn’t retain heat, you might want to retake 6th grade science class.
Well, yes and no.
It’s no in this context.
No as in we are not in a climate regime like in the past; no as occasionally CO2 was in phase during interglacials, and lagged at onset of glaciation; and no as the LIA was not a glacial-interglacial transition (rather noise in system).
Basic grasp of facts are not found in the denialist population set. Which is why we are voting on carbon legislation and Randal talks about carbon budgets.
DS
ws: Past CO2? I didn’t use those numbers, I used the numbers on your web site which would mean 1.98 ppm CO2 rise per year assuming man’s contribution to carbon output is 7.1 Gt.
JK: Wrong again. You have to accurately know all sinks and their rates to calculate rise rate. All the numbers on the NASA chart are estimates. The error bands of many are wider than man’s total contribution. You are just showing your lack of knowledge and the fact that you base your beliefs on religion, not fact.
ws: CO2 gets “picked on†because it is the only GHG we can readily decrease. Sorry, we can’t change the sun, can’t change water vapor, can’t change anything else.
JK: You left out the last statement: and we can’t change the climate. Further since man’s CO2 is only about 1% of any greenhouse effect, man completely ceasing CO2 output will have no practical effect on climate.
we: JK:“Actually you first have to prove that the CO2 increase is related to man’s emissions, instead of a mere co-incidence. You cannot do this, so your whole argument is speculation based on the “sins of modern societyâ€Â
ws:I have, just look at your website: http://www.sustainableoregon.com/co2_sources.html. You’re not eating your own feedback which shows 7.1 Gt C from human activities.
Assuming that man puts out 7.1 Gt of Carbon like your website shows, that equates to 1.98 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. We can also assume that world economies are going to get bigger, releasing even more carbon and ultimately carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That is what I meant by exponential.
Follow along, please.
JK: There is nothing to follow – your premise is wrong as usual:
* You presume to know all the sinks and sources – you cannot be sure you do.
* You presume the numbers in the chart are absolutely accurate. They are not.
ws: JK:“I assume that you know that CO2 typically rises a few hundred years after the temperature rises. It now a few hundred years after the temperature rise after the end of the little ice age.â€Â
ws:Well, yes and no. Even so that just means we do not know the initiator of warming, but that does not discount that CO2 does not retain and trap heat.
JK: So what? It only proves that CO2 did not start the warming, like your side used to claim. Now you grasp at the remaining straw of “well CO2 could have continued itâ€Â. There is no proof of this – only wishful thinking by the idiots at realclimate
ws: These past models still show the amplification that CO2 has.
JK: No they don’t. Again you show your ignorance. The actual fact is that “the models so not work without CO2 acting as an amplifierâ€Â. That claim is filled with assumptions such as the models are accurate; we know all possible climate influences. Grade school logic, I’m surprised you got sucked in (well, not really).
ws: If you’re denying that CO2 doesn’t retain heat, you might want to retake 6th grade science class.
JK: Define “retain heatâ€Â. Do you mean it has a specific heat like all other materials? Do you mean it traps IR in a manner that results in dangerous warming is areal atmosphere? (For which there is no evidence.)
Thanks
JK
JK:“Wrong again. You have to accurately know all sinks and their rates to calculate rise rate. All the numbers on the NASA chart are estimates. The error bands of many are wider than man’s total contribution. You are just showing your lack of knowledge and the fact that you base your beliefs on religion, not fact.”
ws:I did account for an estimated 40% sink rate (sink rate currently estimated right now) according to my calculations. Post #25: Humans = 7.1 Gt C w/ 40% sink rate = 4.26 Gt C released into atmosphere 7.1 * .60 = 4.26 after carbon sinks.
JK:* You presume the numbers in the chart are absolutely accurate. They are not.
ws:If they’re not accurate, why did you post them on your website as link and source. I’m using your numbers. Let’s not presume things, Jim.
JK:“So what? It only proves that CO2 did not start the warming, like your side used to claim. Now you grasp at the remaining straw of “well CO2 could have continued itâ€Â. There is no proof of this – only wishful thinking by the idiots at realclimate”
ws:Let’s keep this in context to CO2 “initiating” warming regarding the specific ice core data. This is not exactly a global example, and is only one.
ws, his ideology and self-identity are dependent upon a fantasy. You could go on until the year 2100 and he’ll still refuse to be convinced, even tho even Lomborg admits it*. Lots of folk have that gene. This is why folk have moved on and the small %age are left behind and Randal calculates carbon.
DS
* “There is no doubt that mankind has influenced and is still increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and that this will increase temperature.”
I wrote:
>> “Francis, many of those ‘Diesel’ buses may be using other
>> fuels, such as bioDiesel or CNG. Or they may be equipped
>> with Diesel-electric powertrains. Please do not compare
>> modern Diesel transit buses with these or even these.â€Â
Francis King wrote:
> I wouldn’t dare!
Good!
> The web-site quoted…
>
> http://www.transportpolicy.org.uk/PublicTransport/AdvancedBuses/AdvancedBuses.htm
>
> is mine!
You just got another visitor. Will check in some detail in the near future. Looks well done! I like the images of the buses in Adelaide, though I don’t know how practical that really is.
> – of which that is just one page. A lot of people on this blog
> have a web-site. Antiplanner has one, I have one, Jim Karlock
> has one, and msetty I believe also has one.
All for the better.
> This page covers all kind of buses, including the use
> of ULSD.
>
> In the UK, as I suspect is also the case in the USA, it’s a
> race to the bottom. New buses in the UK are seriously
> polluting, and old ones (which are even more dirty) don’t
> die, they get hand-me-downed to other parts of the UK,
> including where my mother lives (that part of the UK is
> an open-air transport museum).
Though buses do eventually wear out or get phased out for other reasons. Here in the U.S., WMATA was running 1960’s GMC “New Look” buses (with equally old Detroit Diesel 6-cylinder motors) as recently as 2000, but they were phased out because they could not comply with the ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act), and retrofitting them with wheelchair lifts was deemed too expensive. And WMATA scrapped the newer AMC buses (yes, now-defunct American Motors, the same people that brought us the Nash Rambler and Gremlin) purchased in the 1970’s, long before 2000.
> In the UK, the odd one out is London, where TfL franchises
> out bus services, and can specify the kind of bus used.
Yet another advantage of competitive tendering, in my opinion. Stockholm Transport, SL, like all of the regional transit agencies in Sweden, does the same thing. Note that retired Swedish buses often go to places like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
> Elsewhere, bus companies run the cheapest diesel bus that
> money can buy. Diesel-hybrid buses, electric buses,
> trolleybuses, etc. are much more expensive.
Though I must point out here that mandated nationwide highway use of ULSD makes even the oldest and dirtiest Diesel engine much cleaner than it would be with “conventional” Diesel fuel.
> And we have the air quality to prove it.
But has not air quality in all or very nearly all of the EU improved? Including the UK?
> A bit late in the day, just before they are voted out of office,
> the Labour Party has decided to offer an additional subsidy to
> bus companies that run diesel-electric hybrid buses.
I disagree with that approach. Much better to set a certain emissions level (for example grams of NOX, SOX, CO and CO2 allowed per kilometer) and then let the bus operators and bus manufacturing companies decide how best to meet the standard.
Dan, stop being a douche and kill your condescending, fucking know-it-all tone. You’re a fucking tyrant. Grow the fuck up. It’s not our fault bullies molested you; you don’t need to take our your adolescent frustrations here. Now go get a fucking life.
Wow. I was just channeling Dan.
ws said: JK:“Wrong again. You have to accurately know all sinks and their rates to calculate rise rate. All the numbers on the NASA chart are estimates. The error bands of many are wider than man’s total contribution. You are just showing your lack of knowledge and the fact that you base your beliefs on religion, not fact.â€Â
ws:I did account for an estimated 40% sink rate (sink rate currently estimated right now) according to my calculations. Post #25: Humans = 7.1 Gt C w/ 40% sink rate = 4.26 Gt C released into atmosphere 7.1 * .60 = 4.26 after carbon sinks.
JK: I repeat: you DO NOT accurately know the magnitude of the various sources and sinks. And subtraction when one factor is smaller than the error bands of the other is pure speculation. It has no meaning (beyond your fantasy.) You do not even know if that 40% number is accurate. It could be that man’s CO2 release has no part in the atmospheric build up. You simple do not know. You do not know if there are other, still unknown, sources of CO2 release (or sinks.) I am not addressing your math, only your logic – you cannot be sure of your facts, so any calculation is purely a waste of time.
ws said: JK:* You presume the numbers in the chart are absolutely accurate. They are not.
ws:If they’re not accurate, why did you post them on your website as link and source. I’m using your numbers. Let’s not presume things, Jim.
JK: Sorry for presuming that the readers of that page would exhibit above a grade school level of thinking ability. My point of using that NASA graphic was to show that man’s portion of CO2 emission is a tiny amount of the total. The chart accomplishes that. It does not show what you want to show.
ws said: JK:“So what? It only proves that CO2 did not start the warming, like your side used to claim. Now you grasp at the remaining straw of “well CO2 could have continued itâ€Â. There is no proof of this – only wishful thinking by the idiots at realclimateâ€Â
ws:Let’s keep this in context to CO2 “initiating†warming regarding the specific ice core data. This is not exactly a global example, and is only one.
JK: Good, then quit claiming that CO2 can cause climate warming because there is no evidence of it in the real world. The ice cores and the hockey stick were the best your side had.
They are both gone now. Live with it.
Admit that there is no evidence to support the CO2 causes dangerous warming postulate.
Frank said: Dan, stop being a douche and kill your condescending, fucking know-it-all tone. . . .
JK: Don’t be too hard of poor Dan. He appears to be just trying to earn a living as a paid blogger – paid to disrupt the transportation realists like Randal.
I imaging that the rail sales sleezes pay pretty well. The certainly get caught at it enough around the world. One just got nailed in Europe for bribing officials. Those are the people that Dan appears to like to work for.
Awwww Fwank. Tantwum? Upset because “your” “arguments” can’t stand scrutiny? Or are you trying to distract away from the fact that whole arguments here can’t stand scrutiny?
Surely the reason for the tantrum is a component of why we are voting on carbon legislation, and the fossil fuel industry* is desperately trying** to stop the vote. Oh, and why Randal calculates carbon footprints.
DS
* http://tinyurl.com/lsma93
** http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/business/energy-environment/19climate.html?_r=1
No, it’s your appeal to ridicule I can’t stand. WS made some good points that I considered above, but he did so in a logical and level way. You fling shit like apes at the zoo.
At any rate, the one logical argument I have against carbon legislation is air tight: the constitution does not give the federal government the power to do so.
the constitution does not give the federal government the power to [enact federal legislation].
Rrrrrreally. But it is good to see you have backed off your illogical assertions above.
Nonetheless, your movement to logically repeal all such and similar extant federal laws – how is that logical campaign going?
DS
JK:“I repeat: you DO NOT accurately know the magnitude of the various sources and sinks. And subtraction when one factor is smaller than the error bands of the other is pure speculation. It has no meaning (beyond your fantasy.) You do not even know if that 40% number is accurate. It could be that man’s CO2 release has no part in the atmospheric build up. You simple do not know. You do not know if there are other, still unknown, sources of CO2 release (or sinks.) I am not addressing your math, only your logic – you cannot be sure of your facts, so any calculation is purely a waste of time.”
ws:It’s impossible to know all sources/sinks. Scientific studies have concluded that about 40% of human’s emissions get absorbed into natural sinks. You assume that everything in science is 100% proven and nothing is based on theory. Sorry, but if we waited for actual, unequivocal proof of everything in the known world, we would never have scientific or medical breakthroughs as so many advances in society are based off of preconceived suppositions and theories.
If we wait for everything to be proven in the scientific world without a reasonable doubt, we will not have progress. Something you are not familiar with (as noted by your out-of-date HTML skills on your webpage). It is not erroneous to use the numbers for sinks/sources that I have used as there is good background information proving these numbers. Are they 100% accurate? Probably not, but nothing is.
JK:“Sorry for presuming that the readers of that page would exhibit above a grade school level of thinking ability. My point of using that NASA graphic was to show that man’s portion of CO2 emission is a tiny amount of the total. The chart accomplishes that. It does not show what you want to show.”
ws:If it’s not proven, why would you use it? Are you admitting you are displaying non-proven data on your webby site? You should apologize for the 4 people who read your website.
How do you know what’s a “tiny” amount? 3% of all emissions does not sound like a lot, but is it? Where is your proof that it is not substantial in relation to the earth’s carbon cycle? MY proof is that it adds about 2 PPM CO2 to the atmosphere every year, which is substantial esp. when compared to past climate models.
PS: If a person earned 3% interest per year on 30 k investment (non compounding), they would double their money in 30 years.
JK:“Admit that there is no evidence to support the CO2 causes dangerous warming postulate.”
ws:The question is: If anthropogenic climate change cannot be backed up with solid science, does it mean it does not exist? Where’s the smoking gun, 100% proof there isn’t Anthro GW? It works both ways, Jim. At best, the anti-global warming movement has just as much evidence (not really of course) as the pro-global warming movement – but the #1 argument the idiots on the “other side” use is there’s is no solid evidence – and then they point to non solid evidence themselves! Hello, can we insert logic anywhere into this discussion?
Funny how you accuse pro-GW zealots as following blind faith, but hypocritically (which is your M.O., btw) operate under the same movement just with a polar position.
You keep saying climate change needs more evidence. That’s fine, it definitely does. But then you completely say it’s not real (without a doubt) and base your opinion off of marginally accurate evidence yourself. Look in the mirror, man, you’re no different than the square-framed glasses-eco friendly-tattood-latte sippin’-Portland hipster that thinks cars are evil and how global warming is going to create a 6 degree C increase in temperatures and flood every single major city in the US.
No different at all.
Sallah said it best in “Raiders of the Lost Ark”: “They’re digging in the wrong place.”
AGW may be a reality and it may be a misinterpretation of the evidence. As a person who finds authentic science credible, I see enough evidence to suggest that AGW may be occurring, and perhaps AGW will be proven correct by time and more evidence. But whether AGW is happening is NOT the issue.
The issue that counts is whether governmental entities should do anything about it.
The Democrats/statists see government controls as the solution to everything, so deviating from the expectation that government controls are the proper answer to AGW is completely congruent in their minds with denying the existence of AGW in the first place. To them, the hustle is clearly defined: If there is AGW, government controls are the answer. There is evidence supporting AGW. Therefore, government controls are the answer. If p then q. P, therefore q. Solved.
The Republicans/religionists abandoned principles after the Barry Goldwater era and are utter pragmatists now. They are now incapable of articulating the principle that, because governments are instituted among men to protect life, liberty, and property, the only proper function of a government is to protect individual rights. Thus, the only way the Republicans see of defeating the Democratic argument that government controls are the answer to AGW is to insist that AGW is not occurring. And thus they lose: If p, then q. Not p. “Not q” does not necessarily follow. Solved.
It is beyond the Republicans’ comprehension to make the principled argument that whether or not AGW is occurring, government controls are not the answer because a governmental response to AGW would not be within the legitimate purpose of government of protecting individual rights. If they did, make that argument, they would win with: If p then q. Not q. “Not p” does not necessarily follow. Solved. The Democrats/statists’ relentless effort to propagandize that p is unassailably true becomes meaningless, because “not q” allows both “p” and “not p.”
The best way to address AGW is to maximize the freedom of individuals to act in their own interests. If a global ice age began TOMORROW, worldwide, the freer markets were, the more readily individuals could acquire necessary goods for survival. Local “greedy capitalist” gouging on firewood? With a maximally free market, anyone who owns wood (or property with trees) is free to undercut that “greedy capitalist.” They won’t have to own a business license or pay a VAT tax or be forbidden from chopping down a treetop cuddly-bear habitat. Individuals would be free to contract with one another on terms mutually agreeable. This was the USA economically, for the most part, throughout the 19th century. As you may observe, by the turn of the 20th century, we were the world’s largest creditor nation, were buying up land by the millions of acres, and had an economy like a speeding train (in some respects, literally).
If a global ice age [or ecosystem flips] began TOMORROW, worldwide, the freer markets were, the more readily individuals could acquire necessary goods for survival.
Ecosystem goods and services are non-rival and non-excludable (pure public goods). Thus markets of any sort cannot provision or allocate their goods and services.
In addition, if one treats current and future warming as an externality where polluter pays or rights have assignations (right to pollute, right to transact to reduce pollution), Coaseian (Coasian? Coase theorem) theorem fails to account for non-accounted goods or high transaction costs (and determination of harm), nor does it (as India has recently forcefully proclaimed) allow for being too poor to pay. Thus in many instances the externality still occurs in this model.
Nor have markets overcome information asymmetry, esp evident recently with all these shenanigans from Big Coal and Big Oil (API) going on and additionally with the health care debacle in public fora, and evidenced by the comments above. No way can efficient allocation go on in such an environment. Information asymmetry includes how we value the rights of future generations to such goods as well, and the discounting rate, and emergent phenomena.
[/ecological econ 301]
But I did enjoy the comment, even if some things were omitted or overstated. More should argue that way so we can at least have a decent discourse.
DS