Back to the topic, global warming:

"Would you bet your paycheck on a weather forecast for tomorrow? If not, then why should this country bet billions on 'global warming' predictions that have even less foundation?"

(06-05-2011 05:23 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-05-2011 06:43 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Romney and Huntsmann are the GOP candidates Obama is concerned about. The rest of the field is compiled of knuckle draggers that deny sound science, social justice and settled law.

Since Sowell came up:


"Envy plus rhetoric equals 'social justice'."

I just want you to nominate someone I (and the sane majority)can get behind.

(06-05-2011 03:54 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Oh, I understand the differences. One of them is how large the country is and another is how rural many parts of the country are. Guess what? Nobody is talking about a cross country high speed train and nobody is talking about putting a high speed train between sone trailer park in Mississippi to another trailer park in Alabama. They are taling about big city to big city. Short duration trips. Like Chicago to St. Louis or Atlanta to pick your favorite Florida city. Or there is even talk of gasp. High speed commuting from places like Roc\kford airport to Chicago or Champaign(U of I) to Chicago(which may eventually connect with St. Louis and/or Indy). Champaign to Chicago would be less than an hour esentially making it a suburb and attracting gtowth(don't believe me? Look at what has happened around the current Metra stops in the Chicago area). THe line that is talked about from Chicago to Rockford(not sure about the time on that but probably not much more than an hour) would link to the Rockford airport. This would help eleviate some of the need for a third airport in Chicago(not to mention stir the Rockford economy which can use a lot of stirring) which is planned at about 5 billion+ dollars.

Paragraphs Robert, please!

Like I said you only know the two reasons that a child would know so you an go back to the kids table.

For truly high speed rail, you need a long straightaway with few curves or inclines. That means it’s very important to lay the rail in the best possible path, or near it.

Trying to do this between, say, Atlanta and Chicago (what you term a short trip) would mean approximately a century of court battles with homeowners, tree huggers, and residents.

Most desirable routes are occupied by interstate highways, and only someone with a very rich fantasy life could believe that we are going to rip out the highways to put in a rail network. After all Rail is meant to compete with Airlines (moving people), most people would rather drive

Finally there is the fact that *most* American urban centers are not friendly to people without cars. That's why I would rather drive from Minnesota to Chicago than fly.

BTW I love this statement:

Quote:Nobody is talking about a cross country high speed train

Followed by a hypothetical Chicago to Miami Trip which is 1,300 miles!

(06-05-2011 12:04 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(06-04-2011 06:08 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I think it is funny that you guys think that a moderate Republican can now run as a Democrat. It goes to show just how far right the Republican party has moved.

No, it shows how far left the Dems have gone. Romney's politics aren't too far from JFK's politics. Today's democrats are more like Mao.

True! But, many of the loyal GOP base have swung equally as hard to the right.

(06-05-2011 06:50 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-05-2011 03:54 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Oh, I understand the differences. One of them is how large the country is and another is how rural many parts of the country are. Guess what? Nobody is talking about a cross country high speed train and nobody is talking about putting a high speed train between sone trailer park in Mississippi to another trailer park in Alabama. They are taling about big city to big city. Short duration trips. Like Chicago to St. Louis or Atlanta to pick your favorite Florida city. Or there is even talk of gasp. High speed commuting from places like Roc\kford airport to Chicago or Champaign(U of I) to Chicago(which may eventually connect with St. Louis and/or Indy). Champaign to Chicago would be less than an hour esentially making it a suburb and attracting gtowth(don't believe me? Look at what has happened around the current Metra stops in the Chicago area). THe line that is talked about from Chicago to Rockford(not sure about the time on that but probably not much more than an hour) would link to the Rockford airport. This would help eleviate some of the need for a third airport in Chicago(not to mention stir the Rockford economy which can use a lot of stirring) which is planned at about 5 billion+ dollars.

Paragraphs Robert, please!

Like I said you only know the two reasons that a child would know so you an go back to the kids table.

For truly high speed rail, you need a long straightaway with few curves or inclines. That means it’s very important to lay the rail in the best possible path, or near it.

Trying to do this between, say, Atlanta and Chicago (what you term a short trip) would mean approximately a century of court battles with homeowners, tree huggers, and residents.

Most desirable routes are occupied by interstate highways, and only someone with a very rich fantasy life could believe that we are going to rip out the highways to put in a rail network. After all Rail is meant to compete with Airlines (moving people), most people would rather drive

Finally there is the fact that *most* American urban centers are not friendly to people without cars. That's why I would rather drive from Minnesota to Chicago than fly.

BTW I love this statement:

Quote:Nobody is talking about a cross country high speed train

Followed by a hypothetical Chicago to Miami Trip which is 1,300 miles!

I would guess it all depends on where it goes. THe talked about route to Rockford actually follows a highway. I believe it is a split highway and the train would run in the middle. At least in Illinois, there are many old abandoned rail routes. Not sure if one is being considered for the Champaign route but it is possible. So the route may already exist and just needs new track to be built for the most part. In the rural area, I can't see as much a problem as in urban areas in terms of acquiring property. Also, I never said Miami. I said Atlanta and I said it wouldn't happen anytime soon. Just a possibility as a network is created. I do kind of find it funny that you did mention Miami though. THe company I work for has a facility in the Chicago area, one in Georgia and the headquarters is in Miami. :)

(06-05-2011 07:11 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Also, I never said Miami. I said Atlanta and I said it wouldn't happen anytime soon. Just a possibility as a network is created. I do kind of find it funny that you did mention Miami though. THe company I work for has a facility in the Chicago area, one in Georgia and the headquarters is in Miami. :)

Actually, you did say "Like Chicago to St. Louis or Atlanta to pick your favorite Florida city." So he picked Miami.

The question is simply will enough people use it to make it worthwhile. I'm assuming (hoping) there's some market research going on that says plenty of people would use it - and actually mean it. Those that say they want it, would they seriously use it? And with that, I cue the Onion article.

Of course, I live near a city where everyone loves their cars, and most home-to-work routes are widely dispersed from suburb to suburb, not one mega-track toward downtown or just a few centralized locations.

You know, I don't find Romney's comments all that bad. Simply believing that the global average temperature has risen over the past x decades doesn't mean you are "betraying" your fiscal conservative ideology.

I don't know how much man has contributed and how much impact natural occurrances has played (a few decades of a +/-0.2C trend in either direction is hardly unprecedented in history), and I'm highly skeptical of climate predictions. Already, there are examples galore of predictions gone wrong or 'adjusted'.

But regardless of this, I think it's just a generally good idea to find ways to limit pollutants and find cleaner energy methods. I obviously don't agree with giving government a blank check to do as it pleases - you just know the ulterior motives of many global activists and politicians are to put the ultimate screw job on capitalism (as much as they rage against it, "climate change" is privately a golden opportunity for them). But there are ways to create a viable and attractive market for private green energy products, technology and innovations, if the right conditions are in place.

BTW, it's along the same topic and I was thinking about this the other day...

Has there been any research or reports available detailing the impact of electronic communication on logging and deforestation? With the web, everything from bank statements to business reports to e-vites to greeting cards has shifted significantly to electronic format, and hard-copy newspapers are only a small fraction of what they once were. There just has to have been a decrease on the number of trees getting chopped down, right? Or has global population grown to such an extent that it has negated this?

(06-05-2011 07:34 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(06-05-2011 07:11 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Also, I never said Miami. I said Atlanta and I said it wouldn't happen anytime soon. Just a possibility as a network is created. I do kind of find it funny that you did mention Miami though. THe company I work for has a facility in the Chicago area, one in Georgia and the headquarters is in Miami. :)

Actually, you did say "Like Chicago to St. Louis or Atlanta to pick your favorite Florida city." So he picked Miami.

The question is simply will enough people use it to make it worthwhile. I'm assuming (hoping) there's some market research going on that says plenty of people would use it - and actually mean it. Those that say they want it, would they seriously use it? And with that, I cue the Onion article.

Of course, I live near a city where everyone loves their cars, and most home-to-work routes are widely dispersed from suburb to suburb, not one mega-track toward downtown or just a few centralized locations.

I guess if you missed reading(or misread) the whole post, you could say that. But nonetheless, I can see where that came from.

As for people using it, I am sure there are studies upon studies on the subject. Habing said that, when you ask the question, are you expecting it to run at a profit or do you expect to spend some money on subsideies? Very few if any mass transit systems run at a profit. Here are some numbers for Chicago area public transit(which doesn't run at a profit but likely has corruption and overruns which if you could eliminate would probably closer to profitable).

(in thousands)
Metra 296.6 daily passengers
Chicago Transit Authority("L") 661.5
PACE Suburban Bus 98.3
Chicago Transit Authority(bus) 962.9

I am not sure how much is subsidized but if you eliminate these, how much money would you have to subsidize in new roads/expansion of roads? One would have to figure out which is the best bang for the buck. The same would apply to high speed rail(except you MIGHT have to include airport AND road costs if you are going from Chicago to St. Louis for example).

From this site:

http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics...eport.aspx

Specifically this page:

http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics...p_APTA.pdf

(06-05-2011 08:06 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  BTW, it's along the same topic and I was thinking about this the other day...

Has there been any research or reports available detailing the impact of electronic communication on logging and deforestation? With the web, everything from bank statements to business reports to e-vites to greeting cards has shifted significantly to electronic format, and hard-copy newspapers are only a small fraction of what they once were. There just has to have been a decrease on the number of trees getting chopped down, right? Or has global population grown to such an extent that it has negated this?

Maybe but with the obesity epidemic and people eating a lot more, I am sure the use of :tp: has skyrocketed.

(06-05-2011 07:05 PM)CountryRedHawk Wrote:  

(06-05-2011 12:04 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(06-04-2011 06:08 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I think it is funny that you guys think that a moderate Republican can now run as a Democrat. It goes to show just how far right the Republican party has moved.

No, it shows how far left the Dems have gone. Romney's politics aren't too far from JFK's politics. Today's democrats are more like Mao.

True! But, many of the loyal GOP base have swung equally as hard to the right.

ChickenHawk, Thats totally brainless. Who would be the total opposite on Mao? You caught Roberts'a disease. possibly later stage Meningitis.

(06-05-2011 09:22 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Torch better send is "watts up with the weather" blog to Mitt stat. He obviously hasn't read it.

Yeah, better to listen to some HS teacher on You Tube.

But tell me Mach, why are you so afraid of science?

(06-05-2011 06:43 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Romney and Huntsmann are the GOP candidates Obama is concerned about. The rest of the field is compiled of knuckle draggers that deny sound science, social justice and settled law.

Oh please, tell us all about science, social justice and settled law! People learn more about reality from the Stooges than from you.

(06-05-2011 09:08 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-05-2011 09:22 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Torch better send is "watts up with the weather" blog to Mitt stat. He obviously hasn't read it.

Yeah, better to listen to some HS teacher on You Tube.

But tell me Mach, why are you so afraid of science?

Bible thumperTorchy telling Mach he is afraid of science? Thats priceless.

(06-05-2011 07:11 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I would guess it all depends on where it goes. THe talked about route to Rockford actually follows a highway. I believe it is a split highway and the train would run in the middle. At least in Illinois, there are many old abandoned rail routes. Not sure if one is being considered for the Champaign route but it is possible. So the route may already exist and just needs new track to be built for the most part. In the rural area, I can't see as much a problem as in urban areas in terms of acquiring property. Also, I never said Miami. I said Atlanta and I said it wouldn't happen anytime soon. Just a possibility as a network is created. I do kind of find it funny that you did mention Miami though. THe company I work for has a facility in the Chicago area, one in Georgia and the headquarters is in Miami. :)

You could not run a high speed train along 90 between Rockford and Chicago, it's a pipe dream when you consider that no US highway is 'straight enough' for a high speed train to run over any true stretch of distance.

Those areas between the interstate highways are used by public safety officers like police and ambulances to cross at a certain point to help with accidents.. run a trin through there and the response time for highway accidents and for cities along 90 go way up.

You could run a low speed rail way there, but even then the construction cost would be astronomical. How many overpasses would have to be destroyed and rebuilt just to accommodate the tracks?

I like metro community rails, most big cities have the vestigial railways to accommodate it and it does not need to be high speed to be effective but high speed rail beyond the Boston-DC corridor is nothing but a pipe dream (not that what they have can truly be called high speed)

(06-05-2011 09:11 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-05-2011 06:43 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Romney and Huntsmann are the GOP candidates Obama is concerned about. The rest of the field is compiled of knuckle draggers that deny sound science, social justice and settled law.

Oh please, tell us all about science, social justice and settled law! People learn more about reality from the Stooges than from you.

Thanks Knuckle Dragger

(06-06-2011 04:19 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(06-05-2011 09:11 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-05-2011 06:43 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Romney and Huntsmann are the GOP candidates Obama is concerned about. The rest of the field is compiled of knuckle draggers that deny sound science, social justice and settled law.

Oh please, tell us all about science, social justice and settled law! People learn more about reality from the Stooges than from you.

Thanks Knuckle Dragger

Exactly. You can't make any points, b/c people here refute your lies repeatedly. So you call names.

I agree with him that there is global warming going on....Humans causing it?..Not so much.

My advice to Mr. Magic Underwear is to stick to an environmental issue that everyone can agree on....like clean water and clean air.

(06-05-2011 10:09 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-05-2011 07:11 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I would guess it all depends on where it goes. THe talked about route to Rockford actually follows a highway. I believe it is a split highway and the train would run in the middle. At least in Illinois, there are many old abandoned rail routes. Not sure if one is being considered for the Champaign route but it is possible. So the route may already exist and just needs new track to be built for the most part. In the rural area, I can't see as much a problem as in urban areas in terms of acquiring property. Also, I never said Miami. I said Atlanta and I said it wouldn't happen anytime soon. Just a possibility as a network is created. I do kind of find it funny that you did mention Miami though. THe company I work for has a facility in the Chicago area, one in Georgia and the headquarters is in Miami. :)

You could not run a high speed train along 90 between Rockford and Chicago, it's a pipe dream when you consider that no US highway is 'straight enough' for a high speed train to run over any true stretch of distance.

Those areas between the interstate highways are used by public safety officers like police and ambulances to cross at a certain point to help with accidents.. run a trin through there and the response time for highway accidents and for cities along 90 go way up.

You could run a low speed rail way there, but even then the construction cost would be astronomical. How many overpasses would have to be destroyed and rebuilt just to accommodate the tracks?

I like metro community rails, most big cities have the vestigial railways to accommodate it and it does not need to be high speed to be effective but high speed rail beyond the Boston-DC corridor is nothing but a pipe dream (not that what they have can truly be called high speed)

Obviously you are an expert on high speed trains and Illinois highways.

(06-06-2011 10:42 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I agree with him that there is global warming going on....Humans causing it?..Not so much.

My advice to Mr. Magic Underwear is to stick to an environmental issue that everyone can agree on....like clean water and clean air.

To be honest, I don't think humans are CAUSING the problem. I think it is warming naturally BUT human interference is SPEEDING it up.