Climate

Carp said:
It would also seem to me that a much better investment would be into public transportation. It's 2024 and the US is still one of the only developed nations to not have a bullet train? Why?

Imagine how much more tourism you could promote if you reduce the time it takes to get between major cities like Chicago and NY to only a couple hours or less. Imagine waking up in Atlanta on a Saturday and being able to grab some authentic cajun food in New Orleans and making it back in time to catch the Braves game that night.
Click to expand...

Bullet Trains aren't super viable for the USA. The tokyo to kyoto bullet train has about 200 miles to cover and does it in about 2 hours or so with 3 stops. Comparable distance for NYC to Boston. Which is about a 4.5 hour drive. It's a hard sell when you have so much infrastructure invested into roads and bridges.

But beyond that what will make it hell is agreeing to what would qualify for it. IMO the only half shot we have is with a hub and spoke. Hub hits major cities (or just outside) like NYC, Boston, DC, Charlotte, Atlanta, Nashville, St. Louis, Dallas, Denver, SLC, Vegas, San Fran and each of them serves as hub for regional bullet trains SF could serve Boise, Portland and Seattle, LV could serve Phoenix, LA, and San DIego, Denver and SLC don't really hub much but could probably come up with some ideas. Just can't imagine building a ton of trains through/over the rockies makes sense. Dallas could hub for OKC and the big texas cities, STL would hub Minneapolis, Chicago, Cincy, Indy. Nashville hubs, Louisville, and New Orleans, Atlanta hubs florida, Charlotte Hubs SC and and Southern VA, DC does Richmond, Baltimore NYC does Philly, Wilmington western CT and NJ. Boston covers NE cities like Providence, Portland, etc.

Problem is that's an absolute assload of cost. It isn't not unworth it of course. It could be viable but I'd doubt we'd ever as a country be willing to agree to the cost of doing it.
 
zitothebrave said:
Bullet Trains aren't super viable for the USA. The tokyo to kyoto bullet train has about 200 miles to cover and does it in about 2 hours or so with 3 stops. Comparable distance for NYC to Boston. Which is about a 4.5 hour drive. It's a hard sell when you have so much infrastructure invested into roads and bridges.

But beyond that what will make it hell is agreeing to what would qualify for it. IMO the only half shot we have is with a hub and spoke. Hub hits major cities (or just outside) like NYC, Boston, DC, Charlotte, Atlanta, Nashville, St. Louis, Dallas, Denver, SLC, Vegas, San Fran and each of them serves as hub for regional bullet trains SF could serve Boise, Portland and Seattle, LV could serve Phoenix, LA, and San DIego, Denver and SLC don't really hub much but could probably come up with some ideas. Just can't imagine building a ton of trains through/over the rockies makes sense. Dallas could hub for OKC and the big texas cities, STL would hub Minneapolis, Chicago, Cincy, Indy. Nashville hubs, Louisville, and New Orleans, Atlanta hubs florida, Charlotte Hubs SC and and Southern VA, DC does Richmond, Baltimore NYC does Philly, Wilmington western CT and NJ. Boston covers NE cities like Providence, Portland, etc.

Problem is that's an absolute assload of cost. It isn't not unworth it of course. It could be viable but I'd doubt we'd ever as a country be willing to agree to the cost of doing it.
Click to expand...

By the time all of that would be completed, people will be traveling by portal
 
Carp said:
That's California for you. I would love to see the receipts on that venture. Someone pocketed a **** ton of cash.
Click to expand...

California and the US don’t believe in checking on spending and earmarks.

They refused to do so with Ukraine money, and Californias homeless budget keeps getting bigger along with the homeless issues and no one has any clue where the money went
 
Organization Just Stop Oil paints Stonehenge in orange powder paint to protest the use of oil.

Asking our fellow libs here what the he orange paint on Stonehenge has to do with anything or is this just desecration of a national monument or park ?

Completely normal for lefties these days
 
Is anyone else concerned that a huge portion of leaders and activists wish to destroy our economy and liberty on the predictions of experts who are almost always wrong about everything?

[Tw]1805571139550290272[/tw]
 
sturg33 said:
Everything is proof of the thing

[Tw]1805679096745087069[/tw]
Click to expand...

This article is not expressing proof of anything related to climate change. It’s stating that other environmental initiatives are decreasing cloud cover that was hiding even more warming and suggesting that scientists are working to find specific solutions to that problem rather than continuing to subject people to the air pollution that was already being mitigated. Did you read the article?
 
mqt said:
This article is not expressing proof of anything related to climate change. It’s stating that other environmental initiatives are decreasing cloud cover that was hiding even more warming and suggesting that scientists are working to find specific solutions to that problem rather than continuing to subject people to the air pollution that was already being mitigated. Did you read the article?
Click to expand...

No I didn't read the article. Because whether it's hot, cold, bad weather, great weather, less ice, more ice... the answer is always the same.

Climate change climate change climate change. End carbon.. destroy civilization
 
sturg33 said:
No I didn't read the article. Because whether it's hot, cold, bad weather, great weather, less ice, more ice... the answer is always the same.

Climate change climate change climate change. End carbon.. destroy civilization
Click to expand...

Well hey, as long as End Wokeness can read the word cooling and get a quippy tweet, why bother reading the thing you’re sharing to insult, right?
 
I just think there is an ideological opposition to the idea that collective action can be a good thang.

So any problem that is best addressed through collective action must a figment of certain mentally ill people's imagination or a conspiracy to take away our liberty or both.

That's the logic.

Anyone for a slice of pizza fresh from a wood fired oven?
 
Last edited:
mqt said:
Well hey, as long as End Wokeness can read the word cooling and get a quippy tweet, why bother reading the thing you’re sharing to insult, right?
Click to expand...

End wokeness quoted the subtext of the article headline

I have no doubt the article expresses that men are destroying the climate and other men must intervene to undo it.

Am I wrong?
 
Garmel said:
Yes, we should only listen to the people in the field getting grant money. lol
Click to expand...

No, but when two guys come out of nowhere to deliver results that don’t match the consensus, I think it’s worth being a touch skeptical, yes?
 
Doctors tried to tell us the consensus on Covid and look how that turned out.

Most regular joes were way ahead of them. In fact lotta experts been having to eat some words lately
 
Yeah. The scientific consensus was so wrong about thangs like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. It is important to keep an open mind and do our own research.
 
sturg33 said:
What do the experts believe to be "ideal" climate conditions?
Click to expand...

i'm not an expert, but i'll weigh in anyhow on how to try to identify the answer to your question

i think the answer turns somewhat on sea levels and where we have built our cities and other valuable infrastructure

we can relocate and rebuild as sea levels rise or we can try to take action that will limit how much they rise...both are expensive propositions and we should weigh the costs and benefits of each course of action

there are obviously other considerations such as effects on agriculture

there is a pretty substantial body of research (by those pesky academics and experts) looking at these questions
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top