By on April 24, 2014

Back-440x350

Several hundred Chrysler minivans are stuck indefinitely on a piece of prime Detroit real estate, unable to be transported across America. The reason? The fossil fuel boom in Canada and the United States is hogging much of the available rail capacity needed to transport the vans.

Citing a report by the Associated Press, the Windsor Star reports that railway capacity – which is normally transport new vehicles – is being eaten up by deliveries of oil from both the Alberta Oil Sands and the Bakken shale formation in the United States. According to the AP, just 9,500 railway carloads of crude were being transported in 2008, but that number exploded to 434,032 in 2013. In addition, ethanol shipments have exploded nearly fivefold since 2005, with up to 325,000 carloads being shipped last year.

One of the biggest players in energy shipments is CP Rail, a Canadian railway company that is also the major player in the Windsor, Ontario region, where Chrysler’s minivan plant is located. Aside from capacity issues, a CP spokesman told the Star that the extreme weather has created supply chain issues that still linger at CP’s Chicago hub.

A Chrysler spokesman told the Star

“We have experienced delays of delivery of our finished vehicles due to rail car shortages…We are using alternative modes of transport and alternative routes where possible to move around the biggest problem areas.”

Inventories of the two vans have fallen sharply in the last month. As of April 1st, Chrysler had 50 days worth of Town & Country vans, and 37 days worth of Caravans, down from 75 days and 50 days respectively on March 1st.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

111 Comments on “Chrysler Vans Sitting Idle As Oil Boom Robs Rail Capacity...”


  • avatar
    86er

    Lots of Bakken oil north of the 49th, too. Nice light sweet crude.

    The feds also had to put a boot up the ass of CP and CN to move that record crop.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @86er
      Actually the oil coming out of Bakken isn’t the best. But it can earn you guys money.

      CO2???

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        I think you’re mistaking the US Bakken crude with the Canadian tar sands output. The Bakken oil produced via fracking is nearly up to the highest WTI (West Texas Intermediate) standard, while the tar sands oil has a smaller percentage of volatiles and higher sulfur content.

        The Bakken crude can be refined anywhere, but the Athabaska Tar Sands oil must be cracked by refineries that specialize in heavier, higher sulfur crude, such as the heavy oil from Venezuela. Most of those latter refineries are in Texas and Oklahoma, which is why the Canadians were willing to finance the Keystone pipeline.

        The Bakken operators would have been able to also use Keystone instead of rail tankers. The Keystone could be built now, but only from the US side – it’s the cross border segment that requires White House approval. The Bakken companies could build the rest, but would have to pay millions for it, so they’re staying with tanker rail cars, and probably hoping the rail disruptions will help get the Canadian-financed pipeline approved.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      Ask the people in Lac Megantic what they think about expediting the transportation of Bakken crude.

    • 0 avatar

      86er

      KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE NOW!!!!

      • 0 avatar
        bd2

        Would just make it easier to export oil/fuel to China.

        • 0 avatar
          CJinSD

          Ever seen a globe?

        • 0 avatar
          Jeff Weimer

          Building the possible alternate to BC would do that for certain, and the USA wouldn’t get a piece of the action.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            We wouldn’t have to clean up the mess from any spills either.

          • 0 avatar
            thornmark

            >>We wouldn’t have to clean up the mess from any spills either.
            <<

            Except that pipelines are the safest form of transport, rails are more likely to cause spills. Witness the recent carnage from such an event.

            "More oil spilled from trains in 2013 than in previous 4 decades
            "
            http://news.msn.com/us/more-oil-spilled-from-trains-in-2013-than-in-previous-4-decades

            About fifty people died in this derailment:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_derailment

            Warren Buffett is profiting handsomely from his investment.

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff Weimer

            We’re cleaning up spills now, FreedMike. From the same trains that are delivering oil instead of minivans.

            A pipeline would reduce that risk.

      • 0 avatar
        morbo

        As long as Canada is willing to guarantee a fresh water supply for American farmers indefinitely should a leaky Keystone poison the Ogalla Aquifer, than sure. But I’m no fan of giving those maple slurping puckheads a free ride.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOR38552MJA

        • 0 avatar
          shaker

          Climate change will take care of the aquifer in 15 years. By then, Canada will have the climate to become the “breadbasket of the world”.

          We’re just the dupes and suckers of the oil barons – they’ll drill and scrape the land and poison the water right under our noses, for a short-term economic gain.

          If this keeps up, fresh water will become more expensive than oil, but Exxon won’t be able to drill for it; it’s not their business model. The people will eventually lobby the government to protect water, but it will probably be too late.

          Desalination plants will have to be built by the government, with people migrating to the coasts because that’s where all the water will be.

          Fun times.

          • 0 avatar
            Kenmore

            Tornadic waste disposal plants can then render all those coast clingers down to handy little fuel pellets for further processing that will power the happy lifestyles of the rich and famous.

            Once it’s generally accepted in North America that poor people are merely another livestock the underlying aims of the welfare state become evident. It’s all about animal husbandry. Moo.

          • 0 avatar
            TEXN3

            Sounds horrific, I think I’ll stay put here in Idaho and avoid all that hell.

          • 0 avatar

            > Once it’s generally accepted in North America that poor people are merely another livestock the underlying aims of the welfare state become evident.

            It’s long been accept by the conservative upper crust that those beneath are livestock. The only curiosity here is why the livestock who still worship them can’t see this.

        • 0 avatar
          koshchei

          Maple slurping puckheads? I represent that remark.

        • 0 avatar
          Truckducken

          And why is the Ogallala so important? It’s so we can plant corn in places that oughta be rangeland, so we can make ethanol from it and reduce our fuel mileage! At the rate our beloved American farmer (translation: ethanol lobbyist) is draining the aquifer, it may not outlast the Bakken. Therefore, you can make the case that farm state senators are a bigger threat to the Ogallala than Keystone XL. You can also bet your last dollar that the aquifer is screwed either way.

    • 0 avatar
      86er

      Is everyone going to put discursive replies under my post? In that case: Kony 2012!

    • 0 avatar
      MoDo

      As US oil “production” goes up, manufacturing will go down.

      You can’t have both – the Canadian dollar goes up and down with the price of oil, right now the US dollar has a decent balance for manufacturing but you can kiss that goodbye if you start selling oil and gas like we do. (Canada)

      Keep in mind though, a laborer in the oil industry can actually make a living and crack 6 figures – try that on the assembly line snapping staplers together.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        “As US oil “production” goes up, manufacturing will go down.”

        That depends on the prices. Higher production usually means lower energy prices, and the low cost of energy goes hand-in-hand with industry, which uses a lot of it.

        American crude oil prices are usually lower than world prices, because the production is where the refineries are, and the refiners play off the producers for lower prices of crude. Producers have no choice, since big oil divested itself of the high tax, low margin refining business, and it’s illegal to export American crude.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    If you had similar road conditions that we have in the Top End we could sell you some of these to move your cars around NA.

    http://truck-photos.net.s3.amazonaws.com/431.jpg

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    Why don’t they build a pipeline ;)

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Not for the vans! It might scratch the paint.

    • 0 avatar
      ClutchCarGo

      Ask the folks in Kalamazoo, MI:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalamazoo_River_oil_spill

      • 0 avatar
        Toad

        They are better off than the people in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec. I’d much prefer a burst pipeline to being incinerated in a railroad tank car fire.

        • 0 avatar
          nrd515

          Maybe, maybe not:

          Runaway train/San Bernardino pipeline explosion. One thing lead to another…

          Part 1:

          Part 2:

          There are like 7 parts, but the very end seems to be missing. Doesn’t matter, the main part of it is there.

          Watch it all, what a mess!

    • 0 avatar
      April

      Depends. What is the diameter of a Town and Country?

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      If we had decent autonomous vehicle technology, they could be turned loose to find their own way to the dealership. The conversation with the customs guy at the border would be interesting.

    • 0 avatar
      George B

      Actually that’s a more interesting question than you might realize. Pipelines could be built from the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota without approval from the current administration, but they’re not being built. This suggests that energy companies are worried that current oil production in North Dakota isn’t going to last long-term with present technology. OTOH, an oil industry insider pointed out to me that we haven’t figured out how to get oil out of shale as effectively and we’ve figured out the process for natural gas. New technology will open up new sources of oil.

      In the case of Shale Gas, George Mitchell had existing pipeline capacity and leases for mineral rights in the Fort Worth basin, but declining production from conventional wells. The Barnett Shale extends under much of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex so it was relatively easy to get the shale gas to millions of paying customers without long interstate pipelines.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        And running parallel to the Barnett (dry) gas shale is the oil-bearing Eagle Ford shale. That development will be tough competition for US Bakken, most of which is under federal land and unavailable for license.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      Why don’t the eagles fly the cars directly into Mount Doom?

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      It’ll get done…after the election. Both sides have to engage in massive chest-puffery first.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        What are these sides of which you speak? Obama won’t make a decision about the pipeline because he can’t turn off the suicidal lunatic side of his party that is conducting war on the middle class and he can’t admit to the union thug puppets that killing industrial jobs is the reason we’ve been brainwashing people to be environmentalists all along.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          Easy there, friend. This is obviously the more lighthearted section of the comments…section, and you look like you’re in the wrong place. If you’re looking for posturing and vitriol in place of a civil discussion, why not try the comments section of PickupTrucks.com?

        • 0 avatar
          koshchei

          The US is an oligarchy. There’s no point in being blindly partisan when what you have is a factionalized ruling class pretending to be a representative democracy.

          The only solution is education – the American people need to understand the platforms and policies being implemented in detail, not just the regurgitated TV pundit versions. If the US is to ever return to the economic powerhouse that it once was, the population needs to stop fighting itself over ideological rubbish that means nothing in the long run.

          • 0 avatar
            shaker

            I’m consistently amazed how people can be duped into equating the success of monied interests with their own, when there is considerable evidence to the contrary.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Anyone else sick of feeding the CJ troll?

          • 0 avatar

            > Anyone else sick of feeding the CJ troll?

            CJ isn’t a troll, and only barely right of norm for the american proletariat. They believe this stuff like it’s the bible.

  • avatar
    bball40dtw

    There is alot more than Caravans stacked up in Detroit. I’ve never seen the lots of Jefferson North (Durango and JGC) assembly so full of cars either. RAMs, Durangos, and Grand Cherokees as far as the eye can see. There certainly isn’t much else to see over there.

    • 0 avatar
      TCragg

      There is a large lot on the east side of I-75, not far from Toledo Assembly that is packed with Wranglers, Cherokees, and Ram pick-ups. This is in addition to the usual staging lot at the plant. Looks like this issue extends beyond Windsor.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Yet another reason to buy a Kia Sedona! :)

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    I believe this is irony

  • avatar
    danio3834

    If only we had a better way to move oil vast distances.

    • 0 avatar
      jhefner

      We do. They are called pipelines. If you have deep water available; crude oil tankers.

      • 0 avatar
        Toad

        Apparently not everybody gets sarcasm.

        • 0 avatar
          Lorenzo

          It’s our atrocious educational system that makes it hard to identify sarcasm. I blame the parents, who tell their kids to go out and play, until they’re old enough to go to school, when the parents should be teaching their kids to read Chaucer, Shakespeare and Swift.

          • 0 avatar
            shaker

            Or at least show them some old Monty Python movies.

          • 0 avatar
            Kenmore

            Black Adder’s pretty good, too.

          • 0 avatar
            shaker

            Blackadder, indeed – Rowan Atkinson was the king of televised sarcasm.

            Our local PBS station used to play lots of Python and BA – looking at the crap smeared across 100+ channels these days, I (as a blossoming curmudgeon) tend to view those days as the “Golden Age” of TV.

            Hugh Laurie (Prince George et.al from Blackadder) went on to play “House”, the last TV series that I cared to watch). His character was sarcastic beyond measure.

  • avatar
    sproc

    If only manufacturers could do retail sales. They could offer some awesome incentives for direct factory deliveries to customers. Maybe even throw in a one way plane ticket.

  • avatar
    jimble

    Rail capacity issues have also screwed many farmers in the Canadian Prairies who can’t get their grain to market.

  • avatar
    Compaq Deskpro

    This is a good problem to have.

  • avatar
    kuponoodles

    You know how some people pay extra to go to Grrrmany to pick up their BMWs? Well.. Secretly divert them to Canada and take their wallets and hand them keys. The next reality tv show for the Velocity channel.

    • 0 avatar
      Chicago Dude

      It’s actually cheaper to pick up your BMW in Grrrmany. Time, money and selection are the reasons more people don’t do it. It has to be a car made in Germany, so the SUVs are out. You have to start paying for the car a month or two before its in your own driveway, so the people who are always paying for a car usually can’t do it because they’d have to carry two payments. And of course, the big one is time. You have to order many months in advance and then later on you get assigned a delivery date – so you’d better be able to get that time off work! And then once you fly back home your car doesn’t arrive in the US for another month or two. Impulsive buyers definitely can’t do it!

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        Actually, you can order as little as 30 days from delivery in many cases. You can do ED on the X1, it’s made in Europe. For me, first payment was due a couple days after delivery, but I sent the first payment when I signed the paperwork so I have always been a month ahead. Six weeks from drop-off to delivery to the East coast, more like 9 weeks to the West coast. I spent 3 weeks driving from Munich all the way to Stockholm and Helsinki, and as far south as Paris. Trip of a lifetime. The savings on the car was gravy. I plan to do it again in 2016, either a 2-series or a Cayman. No discount on the Porsche though.

  • avatar
    Scout_Number_4

    The market will take care of this if we let it. Time to get into the rail car business!

    • 0 avatar
      krhodes1

      Especially as Canada has just banned all the tank cars of the type in the Lac Megantic accident, effective in a couple years or so. Something like 100K+ tank cars that need to be replaced.

  • avatar
    canddmeyer

    Thankfully they’re still dealing on vans locally.

  • avatar
    Sooke

    “But I’m no fan of giving those maple slurping puckheads a free ride”

    That’s MR.maple slurping puckhead to you, bub!

  • avatar
    Point Given

    I’ve been told issue has to do more with rail cars used to haul high roof cargo vans(they would haul normal cars when not needed) have been contracted by both Nissan (NV) and Ford (Transit) for exclusive use which eliminates a fair chunk of rail car haulers. Apparently this is the reason why ram promaster shipping is so delayed and thus is being hauled via truck.(at greater expense)

  • avatar
    phippsj

    Don’t confuse “railcar shortages”, as quoted in the original post with lack of rail network capacity. True, oil shipments are at an all-time high, but so are new automobile shipments by rail.

    To make matters worse, there is a shortage of railcars that transport new automobiles (known as autoracks). Railcar builders are very busy cranking out autoracks to add capacity to the rail network, but it will take another couple of years to satisfy the demand.

    As for new pipelines, they will only make a small dent in the ever increasing need to move crude oil and related petroleum and LPG products throughout North America. Railcars (tank cars) will always have the greatest capacity and flexibility to move bulk liquids. Tank cars can haul a different commodity back to Canada than the crude oil they delivered to the Gulf coast refineries. Pipelines are typically one-way only.

    As for moving the new minivans out to dealers, why not use semitruck auto carriers over the road? Probably not cheaper than rail, but certainly faster.

  • avatar
    RHD

    Now if there were a way to install a small oil tank inside each minivan, the rail cars could do double duty. Problem solved!
    As a second harebrained idea, the rail cars that are being decommissioned could be rebuilt as car carriers.
    Seriously, though, the paranoid side of me suspects that this is a
    way to pressure the US to approve their pipeline, probably being pushed by whatever communist nation would buy all that crude oil.

  • avatar
    nrd515

    A large part of this problem is that CP is probably in the worst shape, both financially, and equipment wise, of any of the bigger North American railroads, and they are kind of struggling in a lot of ways. The last winter kicked the RR’s asses besides the basic capacity issue. I watch train webcams and the oil and ethanol trains are a constant thing no matter what camera I’m watching.

    http://www.railstream.biz/

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    Are there big sales in the US on these Chrysler people movers?

    Are the sales slipping for these vans?

    Because if demand was high enough, then they would be delivered.

    Supply and demand.

  • avatar

    “prime Detroit real estate” hahahahahahaha

  • avatar
    BuzzDog

    This explains something that I noticed in the last month or so.

    We’ve been requesting these from my company’s purchasing department as we replace two or three of the company cars in my department (Tauruses) this year.

    Haven’t noticed a difference in the bids, but noticed our dealer/vendor had difficulties finding one in our preferred fleet spec and color when we requested one six weeks ago. There was one in the four Dodge stores owned by this dealer, and it took three tries: The first one sold before we accepted the bid, the second lacked rear air and was not much less, and the one we finally received came from another, unrelated dealership over 100 miles away.

    We just requested another one a week ago, and our purchasing guy told me that there’s a shortage of these in the region, at least in the configuration we prefer.

  • avatar
    don1967

    “Oil Boom Robs Railway Capacity”

    Well if that ain’t a perfect epilogue to those hysterical, CAPS-ON “Peak Oil” rants from 2008.

    Next up: Scientists Unanimously Call for Urgent Action on Global Cooling.

    • 0 avatar

      > Well if that ain’t a perfect epilogue to those hysterical, CAPS-ON “Peak Oil” rants from 2008. Next up: Scientists Unanimously Call for Urgent Action on Global Cooling.

      The comic irony here is that the petrochem engineers behind Hubbert peak theory are also typically the “scientists” lined up to deny climate change. Some folks just can’t seem to catch a break.

    • 0 avatar
      shaker

      The nuances and mechanisms of climate changes are indeed still under study and debate – but the overarching fact that adding CO2 will result in a warmer Earth is only disputed by the “hired guns” of the fossil fuel giants. They have engineered our economy and our short-term well-being to the use of fossil fuels, and the “average Joe” would suffer if we attempt to change to more renewable sources.
      They have blinded the average citizen to think that abundant fossil fuels will produce a better world, when the exact opposite is true.

      Oil will have a place in the future, to produce plastics, chemicals and medicines that can only come from substances that Nature took millions of years to produce – burning them is sheer folly when we have alternatives right on our doorstep.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        Oh, the effect of CO2 is disputed by reputable scientists who think there are multiple causes, many man-made, like deforestation-and not just in the Amazon, the growth of mega-cities with their heat island effect, and other land use activities. Water vapor is an even stronger warming agent than CO2, and the land use changes on a global scale are changing rainfall patterns and atmospheric water distribution. They see CO2 as a minor effect being touted as the cure-all that’s doomed to failure, setting back efforts to address the other causes.

        • 0 avatar
          shaker

          At the risk of displaying my ignorance on the subject, I’ll “give it a go”. :-)

          CO2 has been proven to raise the temperature of the globe. However, this has been shown to have happened in the distant past, yet life as we now know it has managed to evolve, despite natural fluctuations in CO2 levels. This suggests that our biosphere harbors “compensatory” mechanisms to moderate these fluctuations.

          I humbly suggest that frozen and liquid water are the primary mechanisms to absorb the increases in atmospheric temperature increases due to elevated CO2 levels – the basic “kitchen science” involved with the latent heat of frozen and liquid water.

          The melting ice of the Arctic and Antarctic are absorbing large amounts of heat in the process of melting, as well as the ice of Greenland and thousands of shrinking mountain glaciers. (I’ll not even go into the reduced albedo that results in more sunlight being absorbed by the planet). The permafrost of the Northern Hemisphere’s Arctic regions also absorb heat by melting, and previously frozen organic matter (now above freezing) are broken down by bacteria, releasing methane (another powerful warming gas) into the atmosphere.

          The oceans themselves absorb tremendous amounts of heat from the atmosphere through the process of evaporation, which, in turn adds water vapor to the atmosphere, another warming component. At present, the ocean’s currents provide enough mixing to replace the warmed water at the surface, so that the production of water vapor is moderated by the vast amount of cold water at depth that can still absorb this heat.

          At some point (the oft-quoted “tipping point”, that many believe has become the focus of debate, not the accepted fact of AGW itself), these compensatory mechanisms will become overwhelmed, and rapid, irreversible warming of the entire planet will occur.

          This will either be due to the melting of ice beyond a certain point, a breakdown of the ocean currents leading to a massive build-up of warm water at the surface, or (if the ocean currents persist), a rapid destruction of vast quantities of “methane ices” that exist at great ocean depths, in a fragile “equilibrium” state.

          These things could happen in 50 years, 100 years, or maybe (if we’re lucky) 200 years, which may give us a chance to reverse what we’ve done.

          Let’s just hope that Mother Earth will have the ability to absorb the punishment that we’re dealing her, and that she won’t abandon us to our fate.

        • 0 avatar

          > the effect of CO2 is disputed by “reputable scientists” who think there are multiple causes

          > This suggests that our biosphere harbors “compensatory” mechanisms to moderate these fluctuations.

          Just a suggestion. If being right matters it’s best to read people who do the relevant sciencing or can at least understand the papers instead of those who believe it that’s just their opinion.

          • 0 avatar
            shaker

            At this point, the “opinion” of voters (who have a chance to influence policy and wrest power from the fossil-fuel lobby) are at the center of the battle.
            It matters little if the “pro warming” climate scientists come up with “the answer”, if that happens when it’s too late.
            So, they have to battle minority opinion of scientists hired by the oil/gas industry, but since the “pro-warming” scientists do not yet have “ironclad proof”, then doubt can be sown amongst voters.
            So, we’re back to the fact that “opinion” not only matters, it’s crucial to the future of this quest.

          • 0 avatar

            Your intuitive is correct that there are two distinct battlefields here, one for science and one for popular opinion.

            My point is the science is a settled issue, or at least about as settled as evolution. Climate physics is a technically more deterministic problem than genetic shift, though the evidence hasn’t been mounting as long.

            Popular opinion has basically nothing to do with science, as evidenced by the fact ~50% of americans still don’t entirely believe in evolution; more or less the same half as AGW.

          • 0 avatar
            shaker

            “Popular opinion has basically nothing to do with science, as evidenced by the fact ~50% of americans still don’t entirely believe in evolution; more or less the same half as AGW.”

            Which is why the “states rights” initiatives in education (adding creationism as an alternative to science) are so troubling – and I’m sure that people like the Kochs are behind funding for many of these.

          • 0 avatar
            Lorenzo

            u mad scientist, there’s no such thing as “settled science”, no matter what Al Gore says. Attempts to disprove relativity are still being conducted. Any little exception opens up a world of new possibilities. The mass of AGW studies with all their assumptions, all the computer modeling runs with a limited suite of other assumptions, and the consensus of any number of scientists/experts, are incapable of settling any science. Demonizing those who point out flaws in studies, simplistic computer models and expert pronouncements is not a defense of AGW, but a tactic used by religious fanatics to defend their dogma.

          • 0 avatar

            > u mad scientist, there’s no such thing as “settled science”, …The mass of AGW studies with all their assumptions, all the computer modeling runs with a limited suite of other assumptions,.. simplistic computer models and expert pronouncements

            Those assumptions are physical thermodynamics, and the more complex ones are assuredly not simple (though generally unnecessary since higher order adjustment don’t seem to change much).

            The problem isn’t in the physical theory as the empirical measurement. I’ve posted about it before (this was pasted in my notes in case the post got eaten or whatever):

            The best analogy is turning up the thermostat _very_ slowly in your home. There’s always going to be hysteresis, but the temp is eventually going to go up because how a furnace works. You might get into an arg with others in the house about it’s still not warm enough in a room (uneven distrib) or how the heat’s coming up slow, but globally speaking it’s undeniably going to warm up based on the physics of more heating of air in the furnace and blowing it around.

            The measurement problem if we step back is that there can be no “global” temp meter due to the nature of thermodynamics thus you have a bunch of probes scattered around the house (or in this case the one probe where the dial is). The temp swings during the day, people might open room doors and the air moves around, so it’s just hard to tell without studying a lot of house and weather nuances, but there’s little doubt it’s going up in the long run.

    • 0 avatar
      don1967

      Creationists are not the only religious zealots in this discussion.

      We also have the global warmists themselves, who divide the world into “believers” and “non-believers”, who mock and marginalize dissenters in exactly the same way as the Flat Earth Society mocked and marginalized Galileo, and who worship men in robes who tell stories about the world being created in a millisecond from a single particle smaller than an atom. They are so confident in their theories, and so certain of their intellectual superiority, that you could cut the hubris with a knife.

      Kindly note that I am not taking sides here. Frankly I think both sides are full of crap, which probably explains why people are losing interest in the whole discussion.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India