Villified Corporate Bosses Sometimes Are Great Americans February 25, 2010

Union Pacific Stock Certificate Artwork Symbolized Innovation and Progress of E.H. Harriman

"Think you used enough dynamite there, Butch?"

On This Date in History:  Do you remember the movie, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid?   It starred Robert Redford as Sundance and Paul Newman as Butch.  It had some amusing scenes and some were actually based on some true events, though maybe not events associated with Butch Cassidy.  For instance, there was the great scene in which the Hole in the Wall Gang try to rob a train.  Woodcock was the man inside the car and he had been held up by Butch and Sundance before.   So, the second time, he refuses to open the door of the car and Butch uses dynamite to blow the door only to blow up the entire car.  Sundance asks, “think you used enough dynamite there, Butch?”  Well, I suspect that this type of event really happened only it was an event in the life of whom I called the worst outlaw in the old west, Al Jennings.  Now, part of the comedic aspects of these train robberies was Woodcock’s outspoken loyalty to Mr. E. H. Harriman.  As it turns out, E. H. Harriman was indeed a real person and a very powerful and influencial man.

Union Pacific Fell Hard and Fast After Triumph At Promontory, Utah in 1869

Episcopal minister Orlando Harriman and his wife, Cornelia Neilson, brought Edward H. Harriman into the world in Hempstead, New York on this date in 1848.  Young Edward hated school, dropped out at age 14 and became a broker’s boy.  He amazed the stock brokers at his ability to pick stocks.  By the time he was 21, he had his own seat on the stock exchange.   He got interested in railroads when he tried to revive some distressed rail lines owned by his wife’s relatives.  He apparently was the type of man who dove into his projects because he became very astute when it came to managing rail flow as well as the technological aspects of steam locomotion.  He also seemed to enjoy the challenge of rehabilitating depressed railroads.   So, he moved on to a more ambitious project: saving the Union Pacific Railroad.

Harriman Rebulding the Union Pacific in 1899

The Union Pacific had been one of the railroads that completed the transcontinental railroad.  But, by 1897, it was but a shadow of its former self as its equipment fell into disrepair, the business had become extremely inefficient and in general was behind the times.  In about a decade, E. H. Harriman had turned the Union Pacific into one of best run railroads and companies in the nation.  As part of his revival of the Union Pacific, he gobbled up weaker railroads in the West and Southwest in order to maximize profits and efficiency.  His business created a concentration of power in the transportation business that was vital to the American economy.  That got the attention of the great “trust buster” President Theodore Roosevelt.  He sued Harriman and the Union Pacific for violation of anti-trust laws and the US Supreme Court ordered that Harriman divest in 1904. 

Railroad Was A Wreck Until Harriman

Because Harriman adamently refused to explain his rationale, he is viewed in history as a robber baron who only wanted to make more money for himself at the expense of others.  But, like John D. Rockefeller, Harriman went about his business in an effort to maximize efficiency and a more efficient transportation system was a benefit to the economy and the nation as a whole. He didn’t buy railroads for a quick profit but instead believed that a more efficient operation and improvement to the railroad property would maximize profitability.  It can be argued that monopolies are the most efficient way to bring a product or service to the public but, that is dependent on having an honorable person at the helm.  However, pragmatically, the temptation to take advantage of the opportunities presented by a monopoly is extreme and the risk involved is just  too great to allow that to happen as a matter of  normal business.    Rockefeller defended his position and left a large portion of his enormous fortune to build the University of Chicago and the Rockefeller Institute and also greatly improve education of minorities in the South. 

John Muir Painted A Different Picture of E. H. Harriman

Harriman did not defend himself and, regardless of what he did, is largely remembered as an evil Robber Baron.  Nevertheless, had someone like Harriman not come along and improved the transportation system, the American marketplace and economy may not have evolved as quickly and with such gusto as it did from the late 19th century into the 20th century.  Harriman established standards for locomotives, cars, bridges, structures, signals, and even such items as paint and stationery.  And, he spearheaded an expedition to Alaska in 1899 that brought valuable knowledge to the science community.   He probably should be praised, not buried.  Naturalist John Muir, who founded the Sierra Club, wrote this about Harriman:

“Comparatively few have gained anything like adequate knowledge of the extent and warmth of his sympathies, but none who came nigh him could fail to feel his kindness, especially in his home, radiating a delightful, peaceful atmosphere, the finest domestic weather imaginable. His warm heart it was that endeared him to his friends, but in almost every way he was a man to admire—in apparent repose brooding his work plans, or in grand, overcoming, enthusiastic action shoving them forward, rejoicing and influencing all the country like climate; when silent in company, or at long intervals giving out something striking, saying the commonest things in unforgettable ways and making them seem uncommon in the new light flashed upon them; when severe and rigid as fate; or merry in friendly conversation, eye striking eye, thought clashing against thought making wit sparkles fly.” 

Does that sound like the Robber Baron presented to us in history?  Often, labels given by historians or popular culture do not fit the man.

Early Afternoon Saturday NAM Shows Low to Mid 30's....Dont Look For a Warm Up

NAM Nudges Us Over 32 by early Afternoon Despite less than 5400 thickness

Weather Bottom Line:  Now, yesterday, I told you that I am a bit handicapped by not having access to a Skew-T/Log P diagram, though I may have said Log P/Skew T.  This would be helpful as general rules of thumb come into conflict with reality when we have a change of seasons.  It’s good to be able to analyze what is happening.  So, I often have to rely on experience.  For instance, I saw forecasts for Wednesday that called for highs of 36, 37 or 38 degrees.  Now, a rule of thumb is that freezing conditions can generally be found when there is a 1000mb – 5oomb thickness of 5400 meters or less.  Different times of year and other variables mess that up but, in this case, we are still in winter, the forecast was for cloudy skies and with light snow or flurries all day which would tend to drag cold air down.  The thickness forecast for the models had it going from 5230 mb to 5130 mb.  I could not figure out how in the world we would get above freezing if all of those factors came to pass.  For all practical purposes, we did not.  The high at the almost always warmer than everyone else airport was 33 and that was at 12:39 AM.  The low was 27 at 1:25 pm and we stayed in the upper 20′s for most of the day.  So, its stuff like this that often causes my puzzlement.

Our Adopted "Paintbrush" Fits the Bill

Anyway, I had surmised that we we’d have light snow all day but because it fell over a long period, accumulations would not be an issue and that was correct, though I think most people got more than the trace of snow reported at the airport.  Now, by Wednesday evening, we had some decent light snow bands coming through and the ground became covered in snow and the roads slick in spots.  It was enough for Snow White to go out and cover up our adopted outdoor kitty cat, Paintbrush, though she refrained from using the expensive robe I gave her and instead used fleece blankets.  That has got to be the most pampered stray cat of all time.  He gets all the food he wants, has time to chase birds or the ladies at his leisure and can return to a pampered bed.

Early Sun AM, GFS has freezing line well south and wrap around moisture from Low in New England over Ohio Valley. Doesn't look like the 40's to me.

The outlook continues to be cold.  That little warm up we had last weekend was simply an fluke and the pattern shows no signs of changing.  Over the next couple of days, the thicknesses do increase a bit and we get sunshine.   So, even though after lingering snow flurries or light snow early Thursday the thickness only rises to about 5300 meters, we get some sunshine so that should get us to 34 or 35, if the sun does show up.  So, that call has some merit.   After that though, through the weekend, its hard to draw a conclusion to support temperatures much beyond 40.  I mean….maybe some of the forecasts that I see of 43 or 44 come about, but I don’t get it.  In fact, there is a big fat snow snowstorm that you will hear about because it bombs out going up the east coast, stops off of New York Harbor and then backtracks into New England where it stays put.  Parts of the Northeast should get buried in a couple of feet of snow and David Letterman will probably be talking about weekend snow on Monday night.  I suspect that storm will help drag down cold air for the weekend, perhaps some clouds and maybe even some flurries or weak light snow bands.  So…I don’t get how we get to 40.  After that, there had been indications of a potential event around here…first it was snow then it looked like maybe a severe outbreak in the southern plains, but now some indications are that the big trof in the east persists and we get nothing like that.  I’m guessing that the longer range models are having a conflict between reality and the climate parameters built into the programming.  For that reason, long range modeling will probably be in flux and the data largely unreliable.  Eric…that is your answer.

How Can You Handle the Truth About Global Warming When You Can’t Find the Truth? July 12, 2008

For the Louisville Forecast/Severe Outlook Discussion, look to the preceding post.

The line above from Jack in A Few Good Men is one that both sides the in the Global Warming debate might use. The problem is that it cannot be used by either side because speaking in absolutes is generally impossible. Further, it should not be about sides and, no one ever considers there may be more positions out there than just two. But, stories continue in the media that ignore not only the facts within the debate, but facts concerning the debate itself.

Look at this contrast in these two stories. The first is from Salon.com from Feb. 2008 and it states in the beginning that “Deniers continue to insist there’s no consensus on global warming. Well, there’s not. There’s well-tested science and real-world observations.” However, if you look at the second article from Worldnetdaily.com from May of 2008 and it says that over 31,000 scientists including 9000 PhD’s in Atmospheric, Climate, Environment and other disciplines signed a petition that says the following: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate,”

Now…Whom do you believe? It’s hard to make a choice. One reader sent me an email that said she could tell we were in trouble because the glaciers were melting in Glacier National Park and Kilimanjaro snow was disappearing. That, I pointed out fit in well with Sierra Club founder John Muir’s observations from 1870 when he observed that the glaciers in the Sierra were melting due to rapidly warming global temperatures. That was well before anyone suggested man induced global warming. Observations of melting ice or even warming temperatures does not get to the root the source of the warming.

The Salon article says, “The science isn’t settled — it’s unsettling, and getting more so every year as the scientific community learns more about the catastrophic consequences of uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions.” The Worldnetdaily article claims that “In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made.”

People tend to choose whom to believe based on their political beliefs. In short, we believe what we want to believe and let others determine our mindset. There should not be one side vs the other side. This should not be a political debate where one side tries to score points on the other. It should be a search for facts and truth but instead, you have writers like the one from Salon who begins a paragraph with “But I do think the scientific community, the progressive community, environmentalists and media are making a serious mistake by using the word “consensus” to describe…” That sentence alone says two things. First off, the writer is defining his team….his side…the good guys. It’s about winning. The other interesting thing is who he puts on his team. he includes the media as being on his side! Hmmm… He also has decided the entire scientific community is on his side when in fact, we know that over 31,000 from that community do not want to be on his team. The Worldnetdaily article lays out its team. By saying “It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice” it is suggesting that their opposition are not Americans. It goes on to talk about Al Gore’s movie has scientific data with “…many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse…” In short, our scientists are better than your scientists.

It is my view that, unless you demand that the politics be removed from the debate, there will most likely be huge mistakes made one way or another. This should not be about sides. It should be about truth, facts and determining if there is a problem, can it be solved or even, should it be solved. Will the results be such that resources could be better used to combat poverty, disease or hunger? At this point, it seems that it’s either we need to change our whole way of life or we’re doomed…or….it’s if we spend all of this money then we are doomed and you can kiss the freedom and democracy of the US goodbye.

Niels Bohr, the famous physicist once said, “prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.” This is very true and we must realize that no one can know for certain what the future holds or the cause of any change. The media leads us to believe that we are that smart. Al Gore makes it sound like that we absolutely know the truth when he can’t even make a movie without faking scenes using computer graphics from another gloom and doom movie.

Here are the two articles. Look at the difference. The Salon article is long.

Salon Global Warming Feb 2008

Worldnetdaily 31,000 Scientists Reject Global Warming May 2008

More Shakin’ and a Muir’s Tale April 21, 2008

Fog this morning gave way to sunshine…nice day.  Look to yesterday’s stuff..same story except rain chances on Wednesday may not be that great as the front not only sits on us but may get swallowed up before it gets here.  If that’s the case, then it will be warmer and not so dreary. 

Real story for some people today was an “aftershock” from Friday’s quake. This one was a 4.0.  It happened at 1:38 AM EDT.  Originally it was estimated at 4.5 but the USGS now says it has analysed the data and concluded it was a 4.0.  It was shallow again…about 10 km or 6.2 miles in depth.  Supposedly, you can’t feel that but we had some folks who called and emailed said they felt it.  I did not…and I was NOT asleep. I was watchng the final installment of John Adams on HBO.   I didn’t feel the one at 3:58 AM either…you may not have heard about that.  It was 2.2 and was 7 miles NW of Mt. Carmel, IL. but was 17.3 km in depth.  I doubt if anyone felt that.   There have been 22 aftershocks following the initial temblor.  The 4.0 this morning was the 21st and second strongest aftershock.  What happend, it looks to me, is that we have not had an increase in activity, but instead post analysis suggests there were more small quakes in the 24 hours following the quake than initially reported so they have added to it.

However…Snow White told me she felt the earth move when we spent a few days near Mt. St. Helens.  I was feeling pretty good about myself until I got home and checked the USGS site and found that, indeed, there had been a 2.1 quake at the volcano at the exact moment of Snow White’s claim.  My ego has never recovered.

On This Date in History:  On This date in 1836, the Texas Army routed the sleeping forces of General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna at San Jacinto, Texas near Houston.  Texas won its independence. If you want more details, look at the archives from last year.    Let’s see…Elvis had his first number one record, Heartbreak Hotel, on this date in 1956.  The Red Baron died on this date in 1918 after taking on a lot of groundfire. He was trying to help a comrad and ended up in a bad spot.  In 1980, Rosie Ruiz won the Boston Marathon, until authorities found out that she had jumped in from the crowd.  Wonder what ever happened to her…maybe she is a Congressman or something.

On this date in 753 BC, supposedly Rome was founded by Romulus and his brother Remus.  This is one of those myths that may go under the Rosie Ruiz chapter.  The “history” of Rome was written by Marcus Terentius Varro in the 1st century BC.  How would he know?

And this leads me to my take on a man born on this date in 1838,  John Muir, who is credited with beginning the Sierra Club and also is generally thought of as the father of modern environmentalism.

Muir went to the University of Wisconsin but he didn’t finish.  He quit.  He then wandered about and got on a boat in the Southeastern US..I believe it was out of South Carolina.  I’m not sure if he ever got a job or anything between the time he quit school and he got on the boat but he headed around South America and ended up in California.  Again, I have found nothing that suggests he gained employment or anything in California but, instead, went into the Sierra Nevada Mountains.  It was there that he wrote his diary.  He wrote with disdain of the sheep herders he saw in the mountain meadows because the sheep destroyed the grasses.  He suggested that the mountains should be off limits to people because they tend to mess things up.  Both of those sentiments are difficult to argue with.  It is interesting though that he thought it was A-Okay for him to stay in the mountains.  He was a great conservationist…saying that the natural beauty of the Redwood Forest and Sequoias should be preserved.  HOWEVER…Muir went and recounted how he cut down a giant redwood so that he could count the rings the tree.  When I pointed this out in one of my classes, my professor objected saying I was being too negative. I asked if anything I said was not true.  He said no  but…”well…they had a bunch of trees back then.” 

Okay…I’m being pretty rough on the guy but he does sound like a guy who would drive an SUV to a Sierra Club meeting. In any event…if you read on in his diary, he talks about the rapid rate of melting of the glaciers in the Sierra.  I cannot recall but he either said they were melting at 10 feet per day or 10 feet per month due to rapidly rising earth temperatures and he estimated they would be gone by the turn of the century.    He was largely right…most of the glaciers in the Sierra Nevadas were gone by the turn of the century….but here’s the rub….they were gone by the beginning of the 20th Century and the melting due to rising temperatures that Muir was recording was in the 19th Century. His observations were from 1870…well before anyone has suggested that the effects of the industrial revolution  would have affected the climate.

Try this on…the observations of the man who started the Sierra Club support the idea that any rising of earth temperatures are naturally occuring…he shows that they happened before man could contribute any greenhouse gasses. 

This is part of the reason why I suspect that global climate change is largely natural and that man has probably helped it along.  While I certainly support economically pragmatic ways to become more efficient in anything we do, I am cynical in my view of many of the programs in existance or the claims of what will or won’t happen.    As I’ve said many times on this here blog….I wish we would stop chasing the maybes and probablies and tackle one thing that we know for certain that wouldn’t just alter our lifestyle or economies and such or wipe out a few species…it would kill everything. That is water pollution.  

I want the contamination of water to be the focus of Earth Day, which I think is tomorrow.  If you’re gonna have a day to bring attention to something…then make it worth while. I guess no one has figured out how to make money off of having clean water.  (told you I was cynical)