Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 46

Thread: 25 Climate Change Deaths In California

  1. #16 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    4,416
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 2,482 Times in 1,720 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 90 Times in 82 Posts

    Default


  2. #17 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20,197
    Thanks
    12,434
    Thanked 10,405 Times in 7,042 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 4,878 Times in 4,209 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Try for over 200 years. Coal burning for heat started as early as the 15th century and widespread use occurred by the beginning of the 19th Century.



    A bit more of nothing is still nothing. The percentage in the Earth's atmosphere is less than 1% CO2-- well less than one-percent.



    Correlation doesn't mean causation necessarily



    Same thing.



    In some places. In others glaciers are growing.



    Has been about 2 to 3 mm per year. That's really nothing.



    Again, linking this to anthropomorphic causes is tenuous at best.



    This hasn't happened. The number of these has remained relatively constant over longer periods including the present.



    They also told us that if we stopped using CFC's the hole in the ozone layer at the South Pole would disappear. We did, and it's now well past their predication of closure date but the hole's still there...
    Just remember...
    Plate tectonics was discovered in the 1950's
    The Van Allen belt was discovered in the late 50's
    We didn't know what the bottom of the oceans looked like in the 1940's

    What we don't know is a vast amount of stuff. What we do know isn't and much of it is of recent orgin.



    Not due to Gorebal Warming. Due to fires coming to where people are.

    By the way, ponder this:

    The Gorebal Warming crowd tells us this warming started in earnest in the 1950's or 60's and has accelerated. Aircraft produced contrails started occurring in the 1940's and have expanded to where they create a near permanent haze over most of the Northern Hemisphere year round now. Water is a much better greenhouse gas than CO2. The albedo of the planet changed with increased cloud cover. Cloud cover acts as a much better insulator trapping heat longer than CO2 does.

    Fixing this would require simple and cheap changes to air travel, but it wouldn't aid a political agenda based on Gorebal Warming...
    You've made the best possible points for your position, given what you have to work with. I would add that there is a great lag effect between cause and effect, which explains the more drastic recent climate changes in respect to the long period of time over which CO2 has been building.

    Bottom line here is that most people are fairly well convinced, including most scientists. But, as you have shown, there are reasons to support doubt. Nothing can be proved. Most of the world is pretty sure, but there is the slim bit of doubt, which you have raised well.

    Given that we are not sure and can't prove it, the best course of action is the safe route. Because of the lag effect, we can't know until years / decades after actions. For that reason we would be foolish to assume we have nothing to worry about. We have to assume the worst, because there is no planet B. That is the wise course.

    If we change our energy over, then we get lots of clean new energy that doesn't pollute, and it is virtually inexhaustible. The more we do, the lower the cost gets. If we continue with old tech, we eventually run out of easy to extract fossil fuels. The price goes higher and higher. But the worst case is that we assume we don't have to deal with this, and then it turns out we were wrong. Then we are totally screwed and our planet becomes far less habitable, causing mass migrations, sea level rise which inundates major cities, and widespread death among humans with major species loss.



    That was 4 years ago.

    Good news: Through stark determination and opposition, environmental activists were able to end BP's plan to drill off one of the most inhospitable places on Earth, where a clean up would be impossible. BP gave it up. Problem is, now that BP gave it up, other oil exploration companies have been making inquiries to see if they might be able to succeed where BP failed. The quest to save the planet from greed never ends.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  3. #18 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    24,158
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 11,181 Times in 7,193 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2,114 Times in 1,953 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    ... and that argument would be wrong as well... What has led to the easy spread of the fires is the SOTC's unwillingness to manage their forests (leaving dry brush as fuel for out of control fires) and their unwillingness to have adequate firebreaks. It's almost as if Dems in the SOTC want it to burn down...
    Well I'd ask what SOTC is suppose to stand for, but if it is a Gov't agency, keep in mind that a large extent the property the fires are burning belong to the Federal Gov't, meaning we know who is in charge

  4. #19 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20,197
    Thanks
    12,434
    Thanked 10,405 Times in 7,042 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 4,878 Times in 4,209 Posts

    Default

    Hello archives,

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    ... keep in mind that a large extent the property the fires are burning belong to the Federal Gov't, meaning we know who is in charge
    Too funny. DT said the problem is 'forest management.' And just WHO had been responsible for that? Who is the head of managing everything? Just where does that buck stop?

    He keeps acting like he is some outsider who is going to come in a fix everything, but he keeps forgetting. When people look for someone to blame for mismanagement, HE IS THE ONE.

    These fires represent a failure on Trump's part.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  5. The Following User Groans At PoliTalker For This Awful Post:

    Grajonca (09-21-2020)

  6. #20 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    4,416
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 2,482 Times in 1,720 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 90 Times in 82 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    You've made the best possible points for your position, given what you have to work with. I would add that there is a great lag effect between cause and effect, which explains the more drastic recent climate changes in respect to the long period of time over which CO2 has been building.

    Bottom line here is that most people are fairly well convinced, including most scientists. But, as you have shown, there are reasons to support doubt. Nothing can be proved. Most of the world is pretty sure, but there is the slim bit of doubt, which you have raised well.

    Given that we are not sure and can't prove it, the best course of action is the safe route. Because of the lag effect, we can't know until years / decades after actions. For that reason we would be foolish to assume we have nothing to worry about. We have to assume the worst, because there is no planet B. That is the wise course.

    If we change our energy over, then we get lots of clean new energy that doesn't pollute, and it is virtually inexhaustible. The more we do, the lower the cost gets. If we continue with old tech, we eventually run out of easy to extract fossil fuels. The price goes higher and higher. But the worst case is that we assume we don't have to deal with this, and then it turns out we were wrong. Then we are totally screwed and our planet becomes far less habitable, causing mass migrations, sea level rise which inundates major cities, and widespread death among humans with major species loss.



    That was 4 years ago.

    Good news: Through stark determination and opposition, environmental activists were able to end BP's plan to drill off one of the most inhospitable places on Earth, where a clean up would be impossible. BP gave it up. Problem is, now that BP gave it up, other oil exploration companies have been making inquiries to see if they might be able to succeed where BP failed. The quest to save the planet from greed never ends.
    I agree. The safe route is what works. We shift to natural gas and nuclear for electrical power and move towards using hydrogen as our portable fuel for motor vehicles. Solar and wind are proven--PROVEN--expensive and unworkable solutions for electrical power. Battery cars remain a niche industry as they always have been and will likely always be. The US has within its borders sufficient uranium and thorium to supply the country with energy for over 1000 years at our current levels of use. I suspect long before then something better, like fusion will come along...

    We need solutions that work. What I propose above would work and dramatically reduce not just CO2 emissions but would reduce the cost of electricity for hundreds of millions. Solar and wind won't do that.

    We could implement changes to flight paths in a matter of months to eliminate or reduce contrails at very little cost.

    Instead, we get the most vocal calls on this wanting things like the totally unworkable and utterly idiotic New Green Deal.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to T. A. Gardner For This Post:

    Grajonca (09-21-2020)

  8. #21 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20,197
    Thanks
    12,434
    Thanked 10,405 Times in 7,042 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 4,878 Times in 4,209 Posts

    Default

    Hello T. A. Gardner,

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    I agree. The safe route is what works. We shift to natural gas and nuclear for electrical power and move towards using hydrogen as our portable fuel for motor vehicles. Solar and wind are proven--PROVEN--expensive and unworkable solutions for electrical power. Battery cars remain a niche industry as they always have been and will likely always be. The US has within its borders sufficient uranium and thorium to supply the country with energy for over 1000 years at our current levels of use. I suspect long before then something better, like fusion will come along...

    We need solutions that work. What I propose above would work and dramatically reduce not just CO2 emissions but would reduce the cost of electricity for hundreds of millions. Solar and wind won't do that.

    We could implement changes to flight paths in a matter of months to eliminate or reduce contrails at very little cost.

    Instead, we get the most vocal calls on this wanting things like the totally unworkable and utterly idiotic New Green Deal.
    Thanks for your well considered view. Totally agreed on safe nuclear. I am drawn to the Traveling Wave Reactor design. Bill Gates has put a lot of resources into R&D. It uses the spent fuel from old tech dangerous reactor designs. It can't have a melt down. The only thing holding it back is our regulatory agencies are not equipped to approve it because the technology is so different. That is a hump we need to get over.

    Disagreed on electric motive power. The R&D there is not static. I think we will crack that resource wide open and solve many of the problems holding that back from widespread use. Wind and solar are free energy. All we have to do is figure out how to capture it and store it efficiently. Electric motors have few moving parts, last far longer than combustion. It is s technology we would be foolish to not pursue.

    Contrails.
    Rerouting increases fuel burn. Cleaner fuel is needed, and ultimately other options must be pursued. High speed trains are a lure. We have been left behind in that area of technology. It would be very good for us to catch up. Science and engineering are our friends in the quest to fulfill our needs while minimizing our footprint.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  9. #22 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    4,416
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 2,482 Times in 1,720 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 90 Times in 82 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello T. A. Gardner,



    Thanks for your well considered view. Totally agreed on safe nuclear. I am drawn to the Traveling Wave Reactor design. Bill Gates has put a lot of resources into R&D. It uses the spent fuel from old tech dangerous reactor designs. It can't have a melt down. The only thing holding it back is our regulatory agencies are not equipped to approve it because the technology is so different. That is a hump we need to get over.
    There are a number of very safe designs. The CANDU for example can run on thorium as well as uranium making it attractive.

    Disagreed on electric motive power. The R&D there is not static. I think we will crack that resource wide open and solve many of the problems holding that back from widespread use. Wind and solar are free energy. All we have to do is figure out how to capture it and store it efficiently. Electric motors have few moving parts, last far longer than combustion. It is s technology we would be foolish to not pursue.
    Battery technology is a dead end. The chemistry of batteries cannot be gotten around. That science is well known. The fuel cell using hydrogen is the best alternative. It is 100% green and can be integrated into our current distribution and use system. Yes, there are problems with storage that aren't completely solved, yet. Those will get solved and the more it is used the better and cheaper the technology will become.


    Contrails.
    Rerouting increases fuel burn. Cleaner fuel is needed, and ultimately other options must be pursued. High speed trains are a lure. We have been left behind in that area of technology. It would be very good for us to catch up. Science and engineering are our friends in the quest to fulfill our needs while minimizing our footprint.
    High speed rail for large countries like the US or Russia is a step backwards. It works fine in smaller countries but the cost of the rail lines and right-of-ways gets prohibitive when the lines get long like they would be in the US. Building airports and using aircraft with their much higher travel speeds is the best solution. While aircraft would still have to burn fossil fuel for the near future, eliminating contrails while greatly reducing other forms of CO2 is an acceptable situation.

    Look at the issue here: You have say an LA to Vegas high speed rail system that makes a few stops in between. Let's say the overall trip takes 4 hours. Flying takes 1 hour. Driving takes about 6 to 8. While you save over driving, flying is far more attractive. It takes far less time and the waits at both ends at terminals would be comparable. If you assume the wait time is 1 to 2 hours total, the train trip, door-to-door, approaches that of driving and you gain the advantage of having a vehicle at your disposal if you drive. The train becomes an unattractive alternative.
    When you start talking transcontinental distances, the train is simply so bad an alternative it won't be used. Flying is far faster. Now we're talking hours on a plane versus days on a train. That won't fly with business for a second. Even persons like tourists may not like the train option wanting to spend more time at the destination rather than travelling.

    US passenger train service died out for a reason and it had everything to do with how inefficient it became compared to alternatives.

  10. #23 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    24,158
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 11,181 Times in 7,193 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2,114 Times in 1,953 Posts

    Default

    Wow, a real exchange ^ on this forum, and without any personal attacks, kudos to both of you

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to archives For This Post:

    PoliTalker (09-19-2020)

  12. #24 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20,197
    Thanks
    12,434
    Thanked 10,405 Times in 7,042 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 4,878 Times in 4,209 Posts

    Default

    Hello T. A. Gardner,

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    There are a number of very safe designs. The CANDU for example can run on thorium as well as uranium making it attractive.



    Battery technology is a dead end. The chemistry of batteries cannot be gotten around. That science is well known. The fuel cell using hydrogen is the best alternative. It is 100% green and can be integrated into our current distribution and use system. Yes, there are problems with storage that aren't completely solved, yet. Those will get solved and the more it is used the better and cheaper the technology will become.



    High speed rail for large countries like the US or Russia is a step backwards. It works fine in smaller countries but the cost of the rail lines and right-of-ways gets prohibitive when the lines get long like they would be in the US. Building airports and using aircraft with their much higher travel speeds is the best solution. While aircraft would still have to burn fossil fuel for the near future, eliminating contrails while greatly reducing other forms of CO2 is an acceptable situation.

    Look at the issue here: You have say an LA to Vegas high speed rail system that makes a few stops in between. Let's say the overall trip takes 4 hours. Flying takes 1 hour. Driving takes about 6 to 8. While you save over driving, flying is far more attractive. It takes far less time and the waits at both ends at terminals would be comparable. If you assume the wait time is 1 to 2 hours total, the train trip, door-to-door, approaches that of driving and you gain the advantage of having a vehicle at your disposal if you drive. The train becomes an unattractive alternative.
    When you start talking transcontinental distances, the train is simply so bad an alternative it won't be used. Flying is far faster. Now we're talking hours on a plane versus days on a train. That won't fly with business for a second. Even persons like tourists may not like the train option wanting to spend more time at the destination rather than travelling.

    US passenger train service died out for a reason and it had everything to do with how inefficient it became compared to alternatives.
    If a new clean biofuel for jets could be developed which could mitigate the impact of contrails that would help.

    But there is still something to be said for trains. Consider a full-day business trip. It turns into three days with travel. The worker does the travel the day before, gets a hotel, sleeps, gets up, attends a day of business, goes back to the hotel, sleeps again, gets up the next day and flies home, not getting back until most of the third day is shot.

    The train could combine the travel and the hotel room. The worker arrives at the train station near the end of the day, boards, has a nice meal, some entertainment, sleeps in a private cabin for the night, gets up at the destination, has breakfast, attends the day of business, returns to the train station, boards, has a nice meal, some entertainment, sleeps in a private cabin, arrives the next day back at origination ready for work again.

    3 days shot with the "quicker" air travel, compared to 1 day for the far more comfortable train trip.

    The road warrior with a brain would prefer the train.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  13. #25 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20,197
    Thanks
    12,434
    Thanked 10,405 Times in 7,042 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 4,878 Times in 4,209 Posts

    Default

    Hello archives,

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Wow, a real exchange ^ on this forum, and without any personal attacks, kudos to both of you
    Thank you.

    It's nice.

    Mutual respect makes the difference. It's OK to disagree. That's no reason for hatred or vitriol. That stuff really gets old. It's habitual. Participants become desensitized to it, think nothing of it, but it still hurts.

    Once that cycle is broken, it gets easier and easier to make civil discourse the habit. That's a good habit. I originally tried it as an experiment, just out of curiosity, telling myself I needed a month to really get a good feel for it, get past the old habits. That was long ago on a distant forum.

    Well, of course you know how it came out. At the end of the month I didn't want to go back. I made civil discourse with mutual respect my new standard. That was the frame of mind I wrote my Signature in. I can't see ever going back to flame wars. It's just so nice without all that garbage. To me, that stuff is just boring. I'd rather make better use of my time. That's why I filter it ALL out.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  14. #26 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    4,416
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 2,482 Times in 1,720 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 90 Times in 82 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello T. A. Gardner,



    If a new clean biofuel for jets could be developed which could mitigate the impact of contrails that would help.

    But there is still something to be said for trains. Consider a full-day business trip. It turns into three days with travel. The worker does the travel the day before, gets a hotel, sleeps, gets up, attends a day of business, goes back to the hotel, sleeps again, gets up the next day and flies home, not getting back until most of the third day is shot.

    The train could combine the travel and the hotel room. The worker arrives at the train station near the end of the day, boards, has a nice meal, some entertainment, sleeps in a private cabin for the night, gets up at the destination, has breakfast, attends the day of business, returns to the train station, boards, has a nice meal, some entertainment, sleeps in a private cabin, arrives the next day back at origination ready for work again.

    3 days shot with the "quicker" air travel, compared to 1 day for the far more comfortable train trip.

    The road warrior with a brain would prefer the train.
    Today, its more like this: Take the "red eye" to where you're flying to, sleep on the plane. Conduct your business, then take an evening flight back home napping on the plane. That's the reality of modern business like it or not. Aircraft business seating has become quite luxurious too.

  15. #27 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20,197
    Thanks
    12,434
    Thanked 10,405 Times in 7,042 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 4,878 Times in 4,209 Posts

    Default

    Hello T. A. Gardner,

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Today, its more like this: Take the "red eye" to where you're flying to, sleep on the plane. Conduct your business, then take an evening flight back home napping on the plane. That's the reality of modern business like it or not. Aircraft business seating has become quite luxurious too.
    Workers doing that would love to have the train option with the chance to sleep in a real bed and take a shower. The freedom to move about during travel is so much more relaxing. Also, train schedules are less impacted by weather, thus more reliable. In some nations, clocks can be set by the arrival of trains. American flyers are well acquainted with planes being behind schedule, having to run through the airport with the carry-on to make a connection. Nobody likes being crammed into those tiny airplane seats either. Convicts, Cattle and Sardines. That's the experience. First, it's assume the position, as if a Convict, then get herded down the chutes like a Cattle Call toward the plane. Finally get packed in the aluminum sausage like Sardines. Not a chance a big guy even fits in a 'seatlet.' His shoulders imposing upon whomever is unlucky enough to occupy the next seat. Hope he doesn't smell bad. Only 'special' people can afford the upgrade. Most are in third class. 'Comfortable' is not an apt description. Sardines.

    People would relish a better traveling experience.

    Ask Joe Biden about trains.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  16. The Following User Groans At PoliTalker For This Awful Post:

    Grajonca (09-20-2020)

  17. #28 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    88,358
    Thanks
    41,846
    Thanked 27,412 Times in 20,901 Posts
    Groans
    33,882
    Groaned 4,004 Times in 3,814 Posts
    Blog Entries
    49

    Default

    Scientists have found a “lack of correlation between late summer/autumn wildfires” and “summer precipitation or temperature” in coastal California. In fact, “there is no long-term trend in the number of fires over coastal California” in the last 50 years (Mass and Ovens, 2019).

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/bams/ar...of-8-9-October
    .

    80,000 Americans died and 900,000 were hospitalised just two years ago from flu including the most virulent Type A version of H3N2, so why didn't you arseholes call for the total destruction of the world's economic system then? I hope you have plenty of time to ponder over that when you all lose your houses, jobs and relationships!

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Grajonca For This Post:

    Into the Night (09-20-2020)

  19. #29 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20,197
    Thanks
    12,434
    Thanked 10,405 Times in 7,042 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 4,878 Times in 4,209 Posts

    Default

    Joe Biden would favor efficient modern trains.

    Joe Biden understands their value.

    Joe Biden rode the train to work every day in Congress after his wife and small daughter were killed in a car wreck so he could take care of his grieved small children who lost their mother.

    They called him 'Amtrak Joe,' and he did this for years, out of total family dedication so he could be home every night and be a good Dad.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  20. The Following User Groans At PoliTalker For This Awful Post:

    Grajonca (09-21-2020)

  21. #30 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    4,416
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 2,482 Times in 1,720 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 90 Times in 82 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Joe Biden would favor efficient modern trains.

    Joe Biden understands their value.

    Joe Biden rode the train to work every day in Congress after his wife and small daughter were killed in a car wreck so he could take care of his grieved small children who lost their mother.

    They called him 'Amtrak Joe,' and he did this for years, out of total family dedication so he could be home every night and be a good Dad.
    So, he's an outmoded politician in favor of an outmoded transportation system...? Nice.

    The value of (passenger) trains is summed up in a picture....


Similar Threads

  1. California wildfires, blame global climate change
    By Micawber in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-03-2019, 07:00 AM
  2. Replies: 48
    Last Post: 11-20-2018, 05:53 AM
  3. APP - It isn't climate change causing the fires in California
    By Teflon Don in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-09-2018, 02:32 PM
  4. Obama draws link between climate change, California drought
    By StormX in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-18-2014, 11:12 AM
  5. APP - climate change impacting california coastal water
    By Don Quixote in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-08-2013, 11:58 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •