Future generations are bound to ask why we closed coal-fueled generating stations,the cheapest, most plentiful source of electric power, and wasted billions of dollars trying to stop insignificant changes in imaginary phenomena.
|
Future generations are bound to ask why we closed coal-fueled generating stations,the cheapest, most plentiful source of electric power, and wasted billions of dollars trying to stop insignificant changes in imaginary phenomena.
Morning again Tom. Future generations who lived around those cheap coal fired energy plants will be glad they have less breathing problems with their children (and themselves), and may wonder what took so long.
Scrubbing out ash and soot are SOP in modern plants . Carbon capture and sequester (CCS )technology already well into development ,has a far more promising future than your windmills and solar .
Steven Chu, the Nobel-winning physicist who was the emperor's secretary of energy until last year, has declared coal CCS essential.
Why would he say that ? Because he recognizes that the world will not be able to function in this century without utilizing it's most abundant energy source.
You know who has taken the lead ? Not the short sighted US . China's Huaneng Group in collaboration with Peabody Energy, a Missouri firm that is the world’s biggest private coal company have constructed a plant in Tianjin called GreenGen,a $ billion facility that extracts the co2 from a coal plant and, ultimately, will channel it into an underground storage area . If this works ,China ,the world's biggest polluter ;( which has a dozen big CCS efforts in planning or production),will have done more for clean energy than any western envirowacko .
Because he didn't. He hates fossil fuels:Quote:
Steven Chu, the Nobel-winning physicist who was the emperor's secretary of energy until last year, has declared coal CCS essential.
Why would he say that ?
Quote:
He is a vocal advocate for more research into renewable energy and nuclear power, arguing that a shift away from fossil fuels is essential to combating climate change. Chu said that a typical coal power plant emits 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Looks like according to this article he said it ?
(Quote)
In October U.S Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced $55 million to develop advanced technologies that can capture carbon dioxide from flue gases at existing power plants. A few days before that announcement, on October 12, Secretary Chu issued a “call to action” to Energy Ministers and other attendees of the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum in London. Noting that coal accounts for 25% of the world’s energy supply and 40% of carbon emissions, Secretary Chu acknowledged that coal would be a major and growing energy source now and in the future. “For this reason, I believe we must make it our goal to advance carbon capture and storage technology to the point where widespread, affordable deployment can begin in 8 to 10 years,” he said.
AEP Commissions Mountaineer Carbon Capture and Sequestration Project | JouleBlog
Next to last paragraph.
He covers both sides I see.
Here is the fellow who was telling me the other day that CLIMATE CHANGE HAPPENS. You cannot have it both ways Tom. Sequestration is the hope of the coal industry but it is a long time coming. Now you are telling us these climate change events are IMAGINARY PHENOMENA. Your crediability on this subject is forever shotQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
As with any politician they tend to talk out of both sides of their mouth depending on who and when they give a speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I dont see it as having it both ways. I see the one Tom seems to be expressing as natural events that take place over the course of time vs the man made changes some seem to think we are making happen.
The latter being based upon bad science and driven by the money mongers. There is no real proof.
Reading from history through science and looking at accounts that we can actually measure then we can form some basis for predictions and one of them is change. It is going to happen no matter what we do. History in scientific form doesnt lie it only tells a story.
HI dad I was expressing the same thought when Tom told me pointedly climate change happens with reference to emissions. You have to always keep his remarks in context because he shifts in the wind. I see that you are an AGW denier and there is a lot of support for long term change but we are also having an impact it is just we have no measurement of these other contributors to change. We don't know why the ice age lifted and the ice retreated we can only say temperature increased, we probably don't know why there was onset of the ice age but it would seem ice is more prevalent than on no ice so this period we are now in is an abrogationQuote:
Originally Posted by cdad
No clearly the imaginary phenomena is anthropogenic global warming . But you knew that already .Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
clearly the cavemen were driving SUVs .Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Okay Tom you are on the side of long term change and not AGW and perhaps it was the discovery of fire and cavemen upsetting the balance of green house gases which caused warming and retreat of the ice, I mean thinking about it, they must have had an impact otherwise climate scientists would be wrong, you cannot burn carbon and not have an impact.
Let us understand something clearly, whatever the cause of climate change, mankind does not possess the science to reverse it or even stop it
I frankly don't understand the concern. There was a time in our earth's history long ago when greenhouse gases were at greater concentrations than now . Life was abundant ;vegetation flourished (which meant that 02 had to also be in abundance since that is what plants exhale ) .
Even in times where there was mini-warming and mini-ice ages ,humans were much better off when there was warming .
The concern, Tom, appears to be more intense weather events and unindation due to rising seas, displacing millions from what might otherwise be fertile lands, as far as to humans being better off, we don't know that, as we have no data. There is a supposition that crops will be more productive, however droughts will be more intense.
If you consider what is happening now with the movement of migrants due to war and multiply it several times over you might have some idea of problems to be dealt with. Do you really want millions dumped on your doorstep because you live in a place where crops are productive
talk about lack of data supporting a hypothesis !Quote:
The concern, Tom, appears to be more intense weather events
Yes the data is subjective because it is based on computer modelling, we have been all over this. As I understand science, you first have a hypothesis, you gather some data which if it tends to support your hypothesis, you develop your theory and try to find data that demonstrates your theory is supported by facts. Let's examine the supporting facts;
Glacial melt, shrinking polar ice caps, increased variabilitity in climatic conditions, sea level rise, higher sea temperature, higher average temperatures, correlation with emission levels, more intensive weather events
The facts that don't support the theory
questionable data sources, slower progression than anticipated, long term trends, ice core data, correlation with emission levels, plateau in temperature, weather events not as predicted
on balance the theory could not be said to be unequivicably proven and more study is needed widening the number of variables examined
I rate existing climate science somewhere between alchemy and witchcraft
Here is some data to consider, man polluting the air, water, and soil, and what he does about it, which for fact is very little, yet has profound effects on the lives of MANY humans, and the wildlife that inhabits those affected environments.
Pollution is one thing carbon another
and tal is wrong on that front too. Humans have made great strides in elimination "pollution" (unless they are the EPA of course ...the biggest polluter in the US this year ) ..
BTW at least one geologist thinks the spill into the Animas River was intentional . Dave Taylor wrote a letter to the editor in “The Silverton Standard” pointing out that the EPA was planning a maneuver that could potentially cause toxins from mineshafts to flood into rivers. He also suggested that the EPA was aware of the possible outcomes, and were going forward with the plan anyway to gain funding.
According to Taylor's theory ,the EPA wants funding to construct a treatment plant ,and to create another 'Superfund site' .
A week before it happened he wrote the letter predicting the EPA would intentionally create the spill . "After all ,with a budget of $8.2 billion and 17,000 employees, the EPA needs new, big projects to feed and justify their existence."
When the BP spill occured ,the emperor was quick to publicly proclaim that he was looking for "a$$es to kick " . He told Ken Salazar (Dept Interior) to "keep his boot on the neck " of BP .
With this spill there is a collective cricket chirping by the government and the press. If the Animas River spill was by the actions of BP ,or Exxon-Mobile ,or the Koch brothers ,this would be the lead story every day in the press .....and the Justice Dept would already be handing out indictments .
you're right ;
Global warming alarmism is very much a cult . But don't take it from me . Take it from Nobel Prize winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever : 'Global warming is a non-problem’ ‘I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.’
Take it from Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize Winning for physicist who said “I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem.” In 2008 he was one of 70 Nobel winners who endorsed the emperor. But he started doing legitimate research on warming and he since has stopped endorsing the emperor AND the global warming cult.
He says “The facts are that in the last 100 years we have measured the temperatures it has gone up .8 degrees and everything in the world has gotten better. So how can they say it’s going to get worse when we have the evidence? We live longer, better health, and better everything. But if it goes up another .8 degrees we are going to die I guess,” .He says “When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory.”
MIT Professor emeritus Richard Lindzen discussed the religious nature of the movement.“As with any cult, once the mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical. I think that’s what’s happening here. Think about it,”... “You’ve led an unpleasant life, you haven’t led a very virtuous life, but now you’re told, you get absolution if you watch your carbon footprint. It’s salvation!”
Lindzen said he was fortunate to have gained tenure just as the “climate change” movement was beginning, because now non-believers are often ostracized in academia. In his career he has watched the hysteria of the 1970’s over “global cooling” morph into “global warming.”
“They use climate to push an agenda. But what do you have left when global warming falls apart? Global normalcy? We have to do something about ‘normalcy?’”
As for CO2, Lindzen said that until recently, periods of greater warmth were referred to as “climate optimum.” Optimum is derived from a Latin word meaning “best.”
“Nobody ever questioned that those were the good periods. All of a sudden you were able to inculcate people with the notion that you have to be afraid of warmth.”
The warmists’ ultimate solution is to reduce the standard of living for most of mankind. That proposition is being resisted most vigorously by nations with developing economies Lindzen understands their reluctance.
“Anything you do to impoverish people, and certainly all the planned policies will impoverish people, is actually costing lives. But the environmental movement has never cared about that.”
But I get it ,these scientists are evil apostates.
Tom no one has ever changed a religious opinion. Galaleo was wrong according to the orthodoxy of his day, Columbus was wrong according to the orthodoxy of his day. Now it is true that these people may have been wrong about some of the details, after all you cannot know what you don't know. Or can you? Jesus was wrong according to the orthodoxy of his day, but he knew a little more than most. Climate scientists claim to know what they don't know, because they think they can predict with accuracy the outcome of adding carbon to the atmosphere and their deciples are absolutely convinced that man can reverse the consequences of his actions. We don't have a very good track record in that regard. Change cannot be revolutionary it must be incremental but climate scientists want revolutionary change. When we say we will do this in the immediate future, something within our capacity perhaps, they say it's not enough and pull another, rabbit, read dire prediction, out of the hat and yet so much of their data and predictions are discredited
My conclusion, climate change is happening, it has been for thousands of years, change is normal and to be expected, perhaps if we have learned this during our short lives we have gained wisdom
meanwhile the EPA is doing what every other Administrator does best under the reign of the emperor ........covering up .
EPA withholds mine spill documents from Congress | Fox NewsQuote:
A congressional committee blasted the Environmental Protection Agency today for blocking release of documents related to the Gold King mine disaster, which poured deadly chemicals into the largest source of drinking water in the West.
“It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the EPA failed to meet the House Science Committee’s reasonable deadline in turning over documents pertaining to the Gold King Mine spill,” said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX). “These documents are essential to the Committee’s ongoing investigation and our upcoming hearing on Sept. 9. But more importantly, this information matters to the many Americans directly affected in western states, who are still waiting for answers from the EPA.”
Smith – who frequently spars with the EPA – is chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. EPA director Gina McCarthy has been asked to appear and answer questions about the agency’s role in creating a 3-million-gallon toxic spill into Colorado’s Animas River on Aug. 5. Critics say McCarthy and the EPA have been unresponsive, secretive and unsympathetic toward millions of people who live in three states bordering the river.
For several days, the EPA didn’t notify the states of Utah, New Mexico or the Navajo Nation that the spill was coming their way. McCarthy waited a week before visiting Colorado and even then she refused to tour Silverton, the town nearest the Gold King mine where EPA contractors unleashed the toxic plume into waterways that feed the Colorado River. The agency withheld the name of the contractor working on the project and other details that are generally considered public information. Lastly, the Navajo Nation, which relies on the river for drinking water and farming, received an emergency supply from the EPA in oil-contaminated containers.
This comes in the wake of suspicions that the spill was deliberate .
Geologist predicted EPA would intentionally pollute Animas River to secure federal funding - NaturalNews.com
You fellows are really paranoid, you see plots in everything
plots and incompetence in government . But yeah let's grow the government because they have such a great track record .
Law enforcement is difficult and considering the weight of legislation you have difficult without resources, every decision taken requires fresh resources to enforce it and we know self regulation doesn't work
Here is something I found that adds a twist to the growing concerns over global warming and how to deal with it. I found it pretty interesting. Who knew ?
Your used coffee grounds could do a lot of good | Fox News
Undoubtedly there are natural resources yet to be discovered, we have been provided with everything we need we just have to uncover it
And just in time for Paris
Scientists worried about cold 'blob' in North Atlantic amid record hot spell
Now we all have a marvelous anomaly to consider. What is the significance of ocean cooling in the north Atlanic. I'll put my money on the great conveyor shutting down, however no one is game to make that prediction yet, they speak of the process of the Gulf Stream slowing. What significance does this have for the rest of us who are affected by the flow of the vast ocean currents of the world. I have been disturbed by the incidence of the terms east coast low and antarctic flow this year which has certainly seen a prolonged period of cold conditions and violent storms, happily much of it has moved offshore. We have an El Nino at the moment and the unusual prediction of rain.
We do indeed need to consider that all our efforts at modifying the climate are too little too late and to put it in a local context the Bureau of Meteorology is accused of massaging the numbers to support the theory of climate change whereas they say they are homogenising the data to give more accurate results. Either way someone is telling lies
We can debate the causes of this climate change but the real issue is have humans evolved enough to make the right adjustments to what is obviously a growing awareness of the power of mother nature, and the effects it has on humans across the globe.
I don't think we can just bury our head in the sand and holler when we get lucky enough to have dodged it's effects on our locale, when others are not so lucky. At some point we have to ACT instead of react after the fact.
Humans lie about everything and anything especially when we have no clue, and we holler HELP when Mother Nature blows our house down. Those that can afford it have insurance, but none of us can hide from Mother Nature when she does what he does. So the question none can answer is what to do about it?
Have humans evolved? What makes you think we are smarter than the Greeks or the Romans or the Chinese or the Moors. Each of these had a culture and great achievements. We cannot decide what to do until we can definatively define the cause of the problem all we can do is build patches. Tal even if we stopped all emissions today we would not have the desired effect for centuries, we may even be beyond the tipping point and if that is so we will see the onset of another ice age and Mother Nature will do what we refuse to do, control our population and our activities. I think we might need those coal mines
I haven't dodged the effects in my locale, an east coast low is a terrifying experience, feet of rain and hail and they are certainly becoming more prevalent but not one single thing can I do to prevent it. My nation says we will reduce emissions by 25% but we won't do it by cap and trade and we are criticised yet China will be allowed to continue to pollute for decades let us just all stand by and see the march of the windmills across the land and say this is better
Of course we have evolved if we can speak without waiting months for a pigeon to find us and as we find new problems we find better ways to deal with them.
Some evolve quicker than others and some need more convincing. Evolution is an ongoing process.
My glass is half full what about yours?
That's not evolution it is just development. Physically we are the same and if you took the middle east as an example we have learned nothing. We are bigger because there is greater food resource but we are not smarter, in fact people used to do wonders with almost nothing.
My glass is full it is just the contents that are suspect, if we survive our own averice we will emerge with something worthwhile. We have perhaps 6,000 years of recorded history and yet we have the audacity to think we can order circumstance, another thousand years of this and we will have exhausted many resources, with a population of perhaps 2,000,000 we might have achieved sustainability but right now we are an out of control virus. Our real problem is we have outdone natural selection and the brightest and fitest live along side those who don't contribute, this is a problem we have to solve
https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/201...-done-science/Quote:
Barack Obama says that 97 per cent of scientists agree that climate change is “real, man-made and dangerous”. That’s just a lie (or a very ignorant remark): as I point out above, there is no consensus that it’s dangerous.
Some reason has been injected into the climate change debate it seems there are like myself some people who are willing to agree that climate change is happening but the effects may not be catastrophic but the scientific communty doesn't agree, that is they are hiding behind their consensus
Quote:
These scientists and their guardians of the flame repeatedly insist that there are only two ways of thinking about climate change—that it’s real, man-made and dangerous (the right way), or that it’s not happening (the wrong way). But this is a false dichotomy. There is a third possibility: that it’s real, partly man-made and not dangerous. This is the “lukewarmer” school, and I am happy to put myself in this category. Lukewarmers do not think dangerous climate change is impossible; but they think it is unlikely.
Interesting and basically accords with my view, which is something is happening, man might be contributing and the effects may not be catastrophic. I have said for a long time the data is flawed but Cruz is wrong in saying satellite data doesn't show some warming, it does, but a much lower level than the so called consensus. Come back to what I have said many times, even if we stopped all carbon emissions immediately, the change would continue because we don't have the technology to make large scale changes in the global weather systems. My view further goes to say if there is an emissions problem it is one cause by the northern hemisphere economies and they have the responsibility to fix the problem, anything we do won't make any difference at all because it is within the perimeters of a statistical error. By the way this isn't to say we have not acted responsibly, we have not built a coal fired power station in many years and have even taken some out of service
yawn . You drank the kool aid too.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Funny how it was warm enough that grapes grew in England and Greenland in the Middle ages. The world didn't end... and the normal cycle continued. Wasn't people that did it then and its not people doing it now.
Not all weather patterns are annual....or even a few years, some are centuries in duration, others thousands of years.
No Tom I recognise that things are changing, it is very obvious that seasons are different, like we have an el nino with rain, I'm still out on the reasons a change is happening because we should not be using computer models to make long term decisions, computer models are opinion, not science and we all have opinions. We cannot forget that there are finite resources and we still have to be looking at solutions to future problems before they overtake us. Not so long ago we were discussing peak oil and a new ice age.
yes, patterns can be long term and there are factors they have to take into account such as volcanic activity which can cause both short term and long term problems. What I would like to know and noone can tell me, what is the norm
Antarctic sea ice maximum at 'normal' level for first time in three years - Science - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Or is it, Antarctic sea ice is normal. I'm somewhat unsure of what this means but I don't think it means a significantly shrinking ice cap even though the ice cap covers a smaller area than last year. I know it has meant some colder periods than usual in recent months around here as apparently the maximum was reached almost three weeks later this year. I'm wondering how this data feeds into measurment of the mean average temperature which is allegedly suggestive of warming. Does it mean that the ice was slow growing and thus indicative of higher temperature, or does it mean it was colder for longer. It would be interesting to know what the calculated volume of the ice is from year to year and how much reference is made to measurements in Antarctica in calculating the average. Perhaps data from Antartica is smoothed
NOAA Scientists Refuse To Comply With House Science Committee Subpoena : SCIENCE : Tech TimesQuote:
Despite receiving a subpoena from the House of Representatives, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) continues to defy the summons to explain itself regarding a controversial climate study it had released back in June.
An aide to the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology said the NOAA has refused to provide documents related to a report that suggested there has been no reduction in global warming rates, as was initially thought.
What have they got to hide ? that they are a complete fraud ?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:02 AM. |