CERN plans to build what the U.S. should have 23 years ago

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 09:00:46 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:

We don't need to sacrifice investment in scientific
infrastructure to build carbon sequestration systems and other
systems to minimize the impact of global warming.

Only if there's enough money to do both. People smarter than you
(and who isn't, you being a Chris and all) are skeptical that's
the case.

There is enough money for both, especially when you factor in
the trillions of dollars of cost incurred by global warming.

People who aren't named Chris (and are thus, much smarter) disagree.
I expect that most people will take the word of professionals over
that of some dumbass on the internet named Chris.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 09:00:46 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:

We don't need to sacrifice investment in scientific
infrastructure to build carbon sequestration systems and other
systems to minimize the impact of global warming.

Only if there's enough money to do both. People smarter than you (and
who isn't, you being a Chris and all) are skeptical that's the case.

There is enough money for both, especially when you factor in the
trillions of dollars of cost incurred by global warming.

wrote in
:

On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 11:59:16 AM UTC-5, Jibini Kula
Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
Mike Collins wrote in

ter nal-september.org:

wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, RichA
wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486

And the US could still build such a thing, except for all
the wasteful projects such as the "bullet train," for
example:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...coming-for-cal
ifo rnias-over-budget-bullet-train

It would save a few hours over driving on a trip from LA to
SF but won't go from San Diego to Phoenix. If you're in THAT
much of a hurry, you can fly, at a cost to the environment,
but not your conscience, if you are a hypocritical greenie.



Travelling by high speed train is a much more pleasant
experience than flying or driving.

Pity the US isn't capable of building any high speed trains,
only dumping billions into welfare projects for unions that
will never be completed, and nobody will ride if they are.

The US is technologically capable of building fast trains, but
the economics don't work.

The politics are the bigger problem. Nobody in California wants any
kind of mass transit, but the unions want to get paid to build it.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 10:12:05 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote in
m:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 09:00:46 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:

We don't need to sacrifice investment in scientific
infrastructure to build carbon sequestration systems and
other systems to minimize the impact of global warming.

Only if there's enough money to do both. People smarter than
you (and who isn't, you being a Chris and all) are skeptical
that's the case.

There is enough money for both, especially when you factor in
the trillions of dollars of cost incurred by global warming.

People who aren't named Chris (and are thus, much smarter)
disagree. I expect that most people will take the word of
professionals over that of some dumbass on the internet named
Chris.

In the U.S., the increasingly ill-informed electorate is likely
to ignore experts in favor of demagogues.

You certainly are, regurgitating whatever propaganda you're spoon
fed.

But hey, what else can we expect from a Chris?

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 11:59:16 AM UTC-5, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
Mike Collins wrote in

nal-september.org:

wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, RichA
wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486

And the US could still build such a thing, except for all the
wasteful projects such as the "bullet train," for example:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...ing-for-califo
rnias-over-budget-bullet-train

It would save a few hours over driving on a trip from LA to SF
but won't go from San Diego to Phoenix. If you're in THAT much
of a hurry, you can fly, at a cost to the environment, but not
your conscience, if you are a hypocritical greenie.



Travelling by high speed train is a much more pleasant
experience than flying or driving.

Pity the US isn't capable of building any high speed trains, only
dumping billions into welfare projects for unions that will never be
completed, and nobody will ride if they are.

The US is technologically capable of building fast trains, but the economics don't work. Almost everyone who could afford to ride such trains would rather fly or drive. Flying is faster and driving is almost always more flexible and convenient.

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 10:12:05 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 09:00:46 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:

We don't need to sacrifice investment in scientific
infrastructure to build carbon sequestration systems and other
systems to minimize the impact of global warming.

Only if there's enough money to do both. People smarter than you
(and who isn't, you being a Chris and all) are skeptical that's
the case.

There is enough money for both, especially when you factor in
the trillions of dollars of cost incurred by global warming.

People who aren't named Chris (and are thus, much smarter) disagree.
I expect that most people will take the word of professionals over
that of some dumbass on the internet named Chris.

In the U.S., the increasingly ill-informed electorate is likely to
ignore experts in favor of demagogues. In the developed world,
however, that's less likely. Which is why we see the developed world
more seriously working on the problem.

Mike Collins wrote in

rnal-september.org:

wrote:
On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 9:12:12 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins
wrote:
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, RichA
wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486

And the US could still build such a thing, except for all the
wasteful projects such as the "bullet train," for example:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...oming-for-cali
fornias-over-budget-bullet-train

It would save a few hours over driving on a trip from LA to
SF but won't go from San Diego to Phoenix. If you're in THAT
much of a hurry, you can fly, at a cost to the environment,
but not your conscience, if you are a hypocritical greenie.



Travelling by high speed train is a much more pleasant
experience than flying or driving.

[anecdotal opinions deleted]

Absolutely not. Flying is faster for long hauls, and for short
or medium hauls driving gives great flexibility along the route
and at the destination. Trains have the inflexibility of flying
and the time savings are only somewhat better than what a car
can manage if the train doesn't go to your destination.

That train is going to cost each Californian $2500 even if they
never have reason to ride it at all.



Have you ever travelled by high speed train in Europe? Have you
even been on the ridiculously slow trains in the USA? Flying is
not a good experience and the waiting to fly, even in a first
class lounge is tedious. If you haven’t been on a high speed
train in Europe you can’t have any idea of how the journey
goes. If an aircraft doesn’t go to your destination you need
transfers from the airport. This could be train, bus, tram,
underground, hired car, taxi. You have one less option if you go
by train.

A friend of mine took the train from San Franciso to Los Angeles a
few years back, about 400 miles. The published schedule said eight
hours. It took well over 12 hours, and part of it was by bus.

The US does not have the ability to build passenger trains, largely
because nobody wants them. That's what makes them so attractive as
pork. The unions get billions in dollars, nothing is actually
completed, and everybody is relieved when it's cancelled.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

wrote:
On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 9:12:12 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486

And the US could still build such a thing, except for all the wasteful
projects such as the "bullet train," for example:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...t-bullet-train

It would save a few hours over driving on a trip from LA to SF but won't
go from San Diego to Phoenix. If you're in THAT much of a hurry, you can
fly, at a cost to the environment, but not your conscience, if you are a
hypocritical greenie.



Travelling by high speed train is a much more pleasant experience than
flying or driving.

[anecdotal opinions deleted]

Absolutely not. Flying is faster for long hauls, and for short or medium
hauls driving gives great flexibility along the route and at the
destination. Trains have the inflexibility of flying and the time savings
are only somewhat better than what a car can manage if the train doesn't
go to your destination.

That train is going to cost each Californian $2500 even if they never
have reason to ride it at all.



Have you ever travelled by high speed train in Europe? Have you even been
on the ridiculously slow trains in the USA? Flying is not a good experience
and the waiting to fly, even in a first class lounge is tedious. If you
haven’t been on a high speed train in Europe you can’t have any idea of how
the journey goes.
If an aircraft doesn’t go to your destination you need transfers from the
airport. This could be train, bus, tram, underground, hired car, taxi.
You have one less option if you go by train.

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
Mike Collins wrote in

rnal-september.org:

wrote:
On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 9:12:12 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins
wrote:
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, RichA
wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486

And the US could still build such a thing, except for all the
wasteful projects such as the "bullet train," for example:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...oming-for-cali
fornias-over-budget-bullet-train

It would save a few hours over driving on a trip from LA to
SF but won't go from San Diego to Phoenix. If you're in THAT
much of a hurry, you can fly, at a cost to the environment,
but not your conscience, if you are a hypocritical greenie.



Travelling by high speed train is a much more pleasant
experience than flying or driving.

[anecdotal opinions deleted]

Absolutely not. Flying is faster for long hauls, and for short
or medium hauls driving gives great flexibility along the route
and at the destination. Trains have the inflexibility of flying
and the time savings are only somewhat better than what a car
can manage if the train doesn't go to your destination.

That train is going to cost each Californian $2500 even if they
never have reason to ride it at all.



Have you ever travelled by high speed train in Europe? Have you
even been on the ridiculously slow trains in the USA? Flying is
not a good experience and the waiting to fly, even in a first
class lounge is tedious. If you haven’t been on a high speed
train in Europe you can’t have any idea of how the journey
goes. If an aircraft doesn’t go to your destination you need
transfers from the airport. This could be train, bus, tram,
underground, hired car, taxi. You have one less option if you go
by train.

A friend of mine took the train from San Franciso to Los Angeles a
few years back, about 400 miles. The published schedule said eight
hours. It took well over 12 hours, and part of it was by bus.

The US does not have the ability to build passenger trains, largely
because nobody wants them. That's what makes them so attractive as
pork. The unions get billions in dollars, nothing is actually
completed, and everybody is relieved when it's cancelled.


London - Paris by train 2h 34min. 234 miles
By car 5h 43 minutes - this does however mean travel across the channel on
a train through the tunnel. By ferry very much longer. But that’s starting
now at 22:45 GMT and 23:35 Paris time. In the daytime a car journey would
be much longer.

You may say that’s not fair because of the channel crossing so:

Paris - Milan by train 7h 24 minutes, by car 8h 34 minutes 528 miles

And you just get on the train with the ticket in your pocket. No
formalities just show your ticket on the train if required. All seats
reserved.

On Friday, 18 January 2019 11:46:14 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 08:42:10 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Friday, 18 January 2019 10:15:29 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 08:12:54 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486

Now I'm glad we didn't. With the U.S. sliding into developing world
territory, becoming a has-been country, much of our scientific
infrastructure will be wasted. Better to see large projects like this
located in countries that have a future.

The greenloons have already begun crying about it in Europe, that the money could be spent instead on plants to such C02 out of the air, that kind of thing. Speaking of sliding toward being part of the "Third World."

We don't need to sacrifice investment in scientific infrastructure to
build carbon sequestration systems and other systems to minimize the
impact of global warming.

Yes, I know. To leftists, the tax-payer is a bottomless PIT for them to exploit.