Pea-Brained President Thinks Trains Are Safer Than Pipelines

ScreenHunter_7732 Mar. 05 21.00

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to Pea-Brained President Thinks Trains Are Safer Than Pipelines

  1. Over 100ft high? Uh, based on the road in the foreground, & the scrubby trees next to it, I’m guessing that yes, those flames are definitely a touch more than 100ft high.

    • nielszoo says:

      I used to ski up in Galena when I was a kid and most of the forest along the river were oaks in the 60′ to 100′ range. The tracks run parallel to the Mississippi there in the foreground. The stories I’ve found have similar pics taken from around the Bellavue, Iowa side of the river and looking East I’d say that photo was taken from at least a mile and a half away. There are a lot of islands there and several channels, but river width is well over a mile in that area. That is a HUGE fireball.

  2. Lance says:

    Perhaps safety, campaign donations, and “rewarding Friends and punishing enemies” figures prominently in Administration calculus. “Shipping oil using tank cars on rail costs about $3 more a barrel than pipeline transport” Citation: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-01-23/buffett-s-burlington-northern-among-winners-in-obama-rejection-of-pipeline

  3. Eric Worrall says:

    My guess, in the President’s mind, photogenic footage of the odd oil derailment will convince American voters to switch off their central heating…

  4. Lance says:

    Evidently, Warren Buffett owns the Union Tank Car that will likely be supplying BNSF (Warren Buffet’s Railroad) with the “safer more expensive” rail cars he proposes to utilize. Does one truly suppose those costs won’t be paid for at the pump by ordinary people? Follow the money. Citation: http://www.ibtimes.com/warren-buffett-keystone-pipeline-cause-effect-1560093

  5. mogur2013 says:

    Does it make sense to you that 97% of climate experts are ALL progressive democrats? That they all are just are on the government dole for research funds? That every scientific body in every country on this globe are all in on a conspiracy to impoverish the poor?

    That you, intelligent people that I know you are, are the only bastions of true scientific thought? Think about it for one second. Push your anti-progressive minds towards the thought that maybe there is a truth that you don’t understand. The planet is warming. Cold spells in New England don’t violate any truths. Most of the conservative climate experts disagree with your simplistic rumenations. Accusations that 1978 is a cherry-picked satellite record does not compute. It is simply when the full force of modern scientific satellite records started.

    When Tony shows you that the arctic sea ice occasionally rises above the last ten year average, do you really believe that the arctic ice has recovered? Can you not see the truth? Were there stupid scientists that said stupid shit in 1979, and were quoted by stupid journalists back then? Yes, and there still are stupid scientists that say stupid shit today, again quoted and exaggerated by stupid sensationalistic journalists. That is their job, to draw attention. The real scientists don’t try to draw attention. If you hate sensationalistic scientists, then don’t listen to Mann and others. I don’t like them, either.

    I know that herding scientists is worse than trying to herd cats. If you think that there is a conspiracy to harm poor people, then I feel sorry for you.

    • When you start your rant with fake statistics, it pretty much ends the discussion.

    • Lance says:

      So, Mogur, did the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming Period upset your ideology a tad bit? That Nature has seen fit to utterly eviscerate your precepts must be galling in every sense of things. Have a fine day. 🙂

    • scott allen says:

      Scientist are like lemmings they go where the research money is, they are not trying to harm poor people, just enrich themselves

      • Lance says:

        Mr. Scott, isn’t there a difference between Scientists in a fundamental sense and Ideological Cheerleaders Pretending to be Scientists? Ladies know they are Ladies, and those who are not know they are not. Just a thought.

    • Snowleopard says:

      Since this site got bloggies nominations, it is likely getting a lot of new readers. Trolls like you are here to scare them away.

      The 97% lie has been soundly refuted numerous times and places. That won’t stop liars (and those who accept lies they are fond of without question) from repeating it. Let me quote from a recent blog:

      “Along came a team in 2013 led by John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli (ardent and committed Warmists out of New Zealand and California, respectively) which again surveyed abstracts and this time concluded there was a “97.1%” consensus among scientists. This study is the source of John Kerry’s—and Barack Obama’s, and everyone else’s—”97% consensus” claim.

      Interestingly (and revealingly), this study was published in a relatively new and relatively unknown science journal, Environmental Research Letters. Why? Well, because it was flat-out rejected by the more established science journal (Earth Systems Dynamics) to which it was first submitted.

      Guess what: five months ago, not that long after its publication, the Cook, Nuccitelli et al. study was debunked and disproved by a peer-reviewed study in the esteemed Science and Education journal—because of math errors, faulty conclusions, and incorrect methodology. The actual consensus among scientists about Global Warming theory according to the rebutters? Not 97.1%, but rather 0.3%.

      0.3% instead of 97%—quite a difference. Our Secretary of State, speechifying in Jakarta about scientific consensus, was wrong by a factor of three hundred twenty three.”

      http://www.jpattitude.com/140222.php
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

      This was widely reported, so there is no excuse for repeating the lie.:

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/19/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus-on-global-warming/

      Apart from the lies about it, a consensus (if it existed, and it does not) would be irrelevant anyway. When ONE person can show the predictions made by a theory are not in line with observed data, that theory is FALSE and needs to be discarded or revised. What you folks are doing instead is revising the theory’s predictions without admitting it and also revising the data that falsify the theory, and then attacking those who call attention to your actions and your theory’s failure.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Actually it is the IPCC models and the earth’s temperature that showed the predictions are falsified.
        http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png

        This spaghetti graph is in the first Draft
        but of course it was removed because it is much too damning.

        A scientist who participated in “expert review” of the Second Order Draft of AR5 (the next IPCC report), Working Group 1 (“The Scientific Basis”) says:

        The Chapter 7 authors are admitting strong evidence (“many empirical relationships”) for enhanced solar forcing (forcing beyond total solar irradiance, or TSI), even if they don’t know what the mechanism is. This directly undercuts the main premise of the report, as stated in Chapter 8 (page 8-4, lines 54-57)
        …The report still barely hints at the mountain of evidence for enhanced solar forcing, or the magnitude of the evidenced effect. Dozens of studies (section two here) have found between a .4 and .7 degree of correlation between solar activity and various climate indices, suggesting that solar activity “explains” in the statistical sense something like half of all past temperature change, very little of which could be explained by the very slight variation in TSI. At least the Chapter 7 team is now being explicit about what this evidence means: that some mechanism of enhanced solar forcing must be at work…

        United States taxpayers have funded climate science to the tune of well over 80 billion dollars, all channeled through the funding bureaucracy established by Vice President Albert “the end is nigh” Gore when he served as President Clinton’s “climate czar.” That Gore-built bureaucracy is still to this day striving to insure that not a penny of all those taxpayer billions ever goes to any researcher who is not committed to the premature conclusion that human contributions to atmospheric CO2 are causing dangerous global warming (despite the lack of any statistically significant warming for more than 15 years).

        The author set up a website for the first draft and discussion: http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/

        Dr. Happer confirms this channeling of funding only to scientists willing to support policy.

        ….“I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly,” Happer said…

        Happer, who served as the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy in 1993, says he was fired by Gore in 1993 for not going along with Gore’s scientific views on ozone and climate issues. “I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy,” Happer explained in 1993….
        http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ef55aa3-802a-23ad-4ce4-89c4f49995d2

        Bob Tisdale has a comparision of the IPCC Final draft (7Jun2013) and the approved final version (27Sep2013) of the IPCC’s AR5 Summary for Policymakers.

        IPCC scientists submit a draft and then politicians go over the Summary line by line and have to APPROVE what is in the Summary. Once the Summary is rewritten the scientific report is then adjusted to agree with the desires of the politicians.

        This practice has ticked off so many scientist even those who believe in AGW that the number of scientists contributing has fallen dramatically.

    • Robert Austin says:

      The satellite record began in 1973 (actually Dec 1972) and this was shown in IPCC (FAR) 1990. But 1973 Arctic ice extent happened to be considerably lower than the late 20th century peak in 1979. The reason (or excuse?) for starting the official satellite record in 1979 was that there was a change of satellite instrumentation in late 1978. So I guess that it was just serendipitous that the late 20th century Arctic ice maximum coincided with htat change in measurement instrumentation.

      The point, mogur, is that there is a lot to be learned here. So stow your arguments from authority and your straw man attacks. And on what basis do you think herding scientists is more difficult than herding cats? Hey, just place a big wad of grant cash in the trap and you are sure to bag one (a scientist that is, not a cat).

    • AndyG55 says:

      1. liberals are REGRESSIVE, not progressive

      2. The planet is NOT warming, hasn’t since the end of the 1998 El Nino. That Elnino is the ONLY warming in the whole satellite record.

      3. There is absolutely NOTHING happening with the planet which has not happened many times before.

      4. Mann is NOT a scientist. he’s a paid propagandist.

      5. Anything that increases or disallows cheap energy is obviously going to harm poor people first. but is that a conspiracy, or just brain-washed stupidity.?

      6, You are not worth feeling sorry for. !

    • AndyG55 says:

      “Yes, and there still are stupid scientists that say stupid shit today”

      Mann, Trenberth, Karoly, Flannery, England, Hayhoe, Jones, Schmidt, Slingo, McGibben, McCarthy, …………………………….. et al ad inf…!!!

      Yes.. there are many…………… way too many !!

    • Gail Combs says:

      ” The Science Is Settled!”

      Oh, really?

      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/clip_image022_thumb.jpg

      Five projections of global warming, 1990-2050, compared with the linear trends on two observed datasets.HadCRUt4 monthly global mean surface temperature anomaliesand the RSS satellite data reflecting the zero trend that has now persisted for more than 17 years. Both observed trends are extrapolated to 2050.

      Even the IPCC acknowledges long term climate models are crap and will always be crap.

      “In climate research and modelling we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system and therefore that long term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
      UN-IPCC Third Assessment Report 2001. Section 14.2.2.2 page 774

      And what about that all important CO2 climate Sensitivity number? Consensus? What Consensus?

      In AR4 it stated:
      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/nobest-estimate-sensitivity1.jpg

      In AR5:
      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/ipcc_ecs_ar5_spm.png

  6. mogur2013 says:

    Oh, Steve, I mean Tony, when will you cut off my dissention? Like blow-torch whats-his-name? I really would like how you freely discuss scientific thought. But I know for a fact that you will cut me off. Go ahead, and claim that I am “spamming”. This is the most obvious cutoff in history. You hate blow torch whats-his-name. If no one hears from me again, they will know that you don’t condone any dissention. They will know that you are just about yourself. Go ahead, cut me off, and let your listeners know that you can not stand an advesary.

  7. Lance says:

    Mr / Ms Mogur: Prithee, do, find meaning in your life without blaming others for your own interpretation of reality. It is unwise to post senseless babble. Especially when drinking. 🙂

  8. Pathway says:

    Rabbit in the briar patch syndrome.

  9. GeologyJim says:

    So, mogur2013, here you are complaining about being “cut off” from this blog – – – all the while your inane comments are displayed here on this blog.

    Please, just keep up the whack-o drivel. And misspellings.

    So entertaining.

    When you come up with some real data/analysis relevant to anything actually scientific, you’ll find many knowledgeable folks here who will provide feedback.

    • Mogur doesn’t do data but he’s tired of whining on C-SPAN so he comes here to complain to Tony …

    • AndyG55 says:

      You keep posting empty meaningless rants, SG will keep letting them through.

      He likes seeing alarmista trogs making a fool of themselves… its their natural modus.

      Highlights the base mediocrity of all alarmist apostles/trolls.

      • DD More says:

        Yes and it makes possible for him to award the ” Biggest Billy Goat Gruff” trophy to the Regular Poster who will best say,
        Well come along! I’ve got two spears,
        And I’ll poke your eyeballs out at your ears;
        I’ve got besides two curling-stones,
        And I’ll crush you to bits, body and bones.
        That was what the big billy goat said. And then he flew at the troll, and poked his eyes out with his horns, and crushed him to bits, body and bones, and tossed him out into the cascade, and after that he went up to the hillside. There the billy goats got so fat they were scarcely able to walk home again. And if the fat hasn’t fallen off them

        http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/type0122e.html

      • Gail Combs says:

        I think SG enjoys having trolls show up. He then gets to sit back and watch the fun.

        Sort of reminds me of the Roman games….

    • Herve D says:

      Progressives do not need to think, their guru (alike Pachauri) thinks (or appears to) for them. Thence progressives just need to repeat, “copy and paste” only. A bacteria has more brain….

  10. kuhnkat says:

    Come now, Barry wants us to stop ALL fossil fuel use. It is all we Deniers fault that this is happening!! 8>)

    • KTM says:

      There was a line of questioning at the latest Congressional hearing with the EPA chief where they asked whether the EPA claimed authority to decide which types of power plants were operating at any one time. She danced around a bit but ultimately said yes. Then she was asked if the EPA claimed authority to regulate the total amount of electricity being output in the country at any one time, and she danced around and said yes. Then she was asked if the EPA claimed authority to decide how much electricity individual citizens could use at any one time, and she refused to answer the question, only saying they had no plans to do so.

      • Gail Combs says:

        “…Then she was asked if the EPA claimed authority to decide how much electricity individual citizens could use at any one time, and she refused to answer the question, only saying they had no plans to do so….”

        Actually they are going to allow the Electric distributors like Duke Energy to do it.
        Energy: “big brother” technology

        My comment on the step by step implementation by Duke Energy with the usual proof.
        https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/27/ams-fires-back-against-the-obama-led-witch-hunt/#comment-496448

        The ONLY reason for the expense of Smart Meters and Smart Appliances is so the Electric companies can shut you down at will. This is the ONLY way erratic power sources like Wind and Solar can be made to work.

        The UK is taking it a step further and is going to start using the batteries in your electric car as a load leveler.

        ….Vehicle owners are actually getting paid to connect their vehicles to the grid, but only as long as their stored electricity is available when called for.

        To explore this further takes us into highly complex areas, delving into the realms of “dynamic demand” – a sophisticated means of adjusting load demands. This is seen as an alternative to the “spinning reserve” system which is based on providing additional power when the demand increases.

        In the traditional electrical supply system, generators feed electricity into the grid and, when demand increases, as it can do very quickly, additional capacity is brought on-line, usually fossil fuel plants (gas), already warmed up and “spinning”, able to feed power into the grid within seconds.

        With the advent of wind power, when supply can drop very quickly and cannot be increased, things change. “Spinning reserve” would have to be massive, the costs enormous, and the emissions high. Thus, the alternative being proposed is this “dynamic demand”.

        The basis of “dynamic demand” is regulating the grid not by adding capacity but by adjusting (i.e., removing or shifting) the demand continuously, using (in one system) the frequency of the electricity supply as the trigger. In the UK, mains electricity is normally supplied at 50 Hertz. When it drops below a certain frequency level (which happens when the supply is low), the system is geared to shed load.

        In the case of electric cars in the V2G system, charging is interrupted – thus the load is shed. But, as an added refinement, the accumulated power is returned to the system as a contribution to stabilising the frequency. When there is an excess of power in the grid, the electricity frequency increases and the cars start charging again, bring the frequency back down….
        http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83851

        BIG QUESTION:
        What does this do the the life of your very expensive batteries if they are constantly charging/discharging dependent on the strength of the wind?

        • Herve D says:

          Such over busy car batteries would even not last one single month….. Would EPA fund repplacement….?

  11. Nobama says:

    Does anybody else find it rather odd that so many oil laden trains are derailing?

    • Windsong says:

      Yes. Lots of discussion about the various reasons on train related blogs about that. And, a lot of theories. (Kinda like on climate sites.) There were three crude oil train derailments in mid-February. Fred W. Frailey, columnist for Trains magazine, in late Feb. wrote two blog posts on oil trains and the huge fires that can result, even when they are the new and improved tank cars, and the train is travelling well below the track speed limit.

      His 2/21/15 post concludes: “…I don’t know about you, but crude oil trains are starting to scare me, too.”

      • Gail Combs says:

        1. Ask rah about trying to transport liquids. NOT EASY. slush, slosh…. FLIP.

        2. You have metal on metal where the wheels meet the tracks. Sparks anyone?

        • rah says:

          Yep, but at least I’m not driving tankers. The unbaffled types are the worst. Though I may still have to get a tanker certification with the new bladders they’ve come up with for bulk transportation of liquids in dry van trailers.

          These bladders are an adaptation of the ones the Military has been using for a long time. Most Americans don’t seem to know that the reason why more of those guys at Desert One in the MC-130 that had the helicopter crash into resulting in the cancellation of the Iran rescue mission couldn’t get out. The reason why is because those guys were sitting on a rubber bladder full of JP-4 fuel that covered nearly the whole cargo deck of the aircraft. They never had a chance.

  12. gator69 says:

    Galena is an interesting little town in the driftless zone. Pretty country and skiing to boot!

  13. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    I wouldn’t even give him the honor of having a brain at all!

  14. DakotaKid says:

    Not only is it making for greater Hazard here in North Dakota, but it is also causing a bottleneck in shipment of grain out of here (Hard Amber Durham for pasta travels the same rails).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *