[tomder55]

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.

[talaniman]

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.

[tomder55]

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 .

[NeedKarma]

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 didn't. He hates fossil fuels:

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.

[cdad]

Because he didn't. He hates fossil fuels:

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.

[NeedKarma]

He covers both sides I see.

[paraclete]

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.

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 shot

[cdad]

He covers both sides I see.

As with any politician they tend to talk out of both sides of their mouth depending on who and when they give a speech.

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 shot

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.

[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 doesn't 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 abrogation

[tomder55]

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 shot

No clearly the imaginary phenomena is anthropogenic global warming . But you knew that already .

. We don't know why the ice age lifted and the ice retreated we can only say temperature increased

clearly the cavemen were driving SUVs .

[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

[tomder55]

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 .

[paraclete]

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

[tomder55]

The concern, Tom, appears to be more intense weather events

talk about lack of data supporting a hypothesis !

[paraclete]

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

[talaniman]

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.

[paraclete]

Pollution is one thing carbon another

[tomder55]

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 .

[talaniman]

[tomder55]

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.