CDZ Climate Denial or Climate Dishonesty?

[Foxfyre]

Our thoughts march together on this, I have no interest in giving more power to the man made global warming high priests. Many of whom are more interested in wealth redistribution and globalism than AGW. Which is not to say efforts to clean up our air and water should be ignored, but we better be smart about it cuz we ain't got the money to waste any more.

The words get in the way but perhaps we can agree on issues.

Do you think the new style CAFE regulations on fleet fuel economy in America are too restrictive? Are they limiting the types of automobiles you can buy?

I think the new CAFE regulations are too much, I'd pare it back somewhat. Over the long haul we're eventually going to get away from gasoline powered cars and trucks, not by gov't mandates but by market forces that make it cheaper and safer. Maybe not in the next 10 years, but we'll eventually get there.

I haven't heard that those regs are limiting the types of autos you can buy, seems like I still see a lot of SUVs on the road.

Ah, our difference is then I have no faith in humanity.

Here in St Louis we needed big brother to keep us from heating our homes with dirty coal. Amazing considering the immediate and obvious effects to air pollution. I hear there was a near uprising when folks were forced to buy......CLEANER coal.

Our city botanical garden has good examples of the effects on evergreen conifers in particular.

Really? How many St. Louis homes have been heated with coal in the last 50-60 years? The switch to oil burning furnaces or natural gas or electricity occurred long before climate change became an issue. And even the pro-AGW climate scientists agree that the change in the USA came more from market forces than anything the government has done.

Most of the world's electricity generation is via coal at about 40%. The rest is mostly from oil, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro with wind and solar still at the bottom at less than 1% worldwide. The USA now uses slightly more natural gas than coal for electricity generation but in both cases the percentage is in the low 30 percentile.

Few if any homes are heated with coal in St Louis any longer. The one I live in was heated with fuel oil 15 years ago. Even that was unbelievably dirty by modern standards.

To my point on heating with coal. The story of the trouble making people switch to cleaner coal in the 1930's is an example of something ridiculously easy and obvious the government had to make people do at the risk of riots.

Back to your point, market forces are slowly killing coal in America independent of government regulations I agree. Emissions regulations do not help coal but whatever nostalgia people have for wanting to go back to well off Coal miners were in Butcher's Hollow in the 1930's is misplaced.

What can we debate....I don't want to just plum shut down every coal plant in America. I'm also not enough of an expert to really engage in a conversation about coal plant emissions controls. In general I find electricity humorously cheap and if anyone asked me to vote yes on a bill which would add 5% to the cost of producing energy with coal by means of emissions control additions I would.

Try living on a small fixed income and see how you feel about adding 5% to that electric bill, most especially if it is for reasons that benefit pretty much nobody. Certainly where natural gas is cheaper, electric plants will use natural gas.

But if the USA cannot use all the coal produced, there are many other countries that need it.

 

[Toronado3800]

The words get in the way but perhaps we can agree on issues.

Do you think the new style CAFE regulations on fleet fuel economy in America are too restrictive? Are they limiting the types of automobiles you can buy?

I think the new CAFE regulations are too much, I'd pare it back somewhat. Over the long haul we're eventually going to get away from gasoline powered cars and trucks, not by gov't mandates but by market forces that make it cheaper and safer. Maybe not in the next 10 years, but we'll eventually get there.

I haven't heard that those regs are limiting the types of autos you can buy, seems like I still see a lot of SUVs on the road.

Ah, our difference is then I have no faith in humanity.

Here in St Louis we needed big brother to keep us from heating our homes with dirty coal. Amazing considering the immediate and obvious effects to air pollution. I hear there was a near uprising when folks were forced to buy......CLEANER coal.

Our city botanical garden has good examples of the effects on evergreen conifers in particular.

Really? How many St. Louis homes have been heated with coal in the last 50-60 years? The switch to oil burning furnaces or natural gas or electricity occurred long before climate change became an issue. And even the pro-AGW climate scientists agree that the change in the USA came more from market forces than anything the government has done.

Most of the world's electricity generation is via coal at about 40%. The rest is mostly from oil, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro with wind and solar still at the bottom at less than 1% worldwide. The USA now uses slightly more natural gas than coal for electricity generation but in both cases the percentage is in the low 30 percentile.

Few if any homes are heated with coal in St Louis any longer. The one I live in was heated with fuel oil 15 years ago. Even that was unbelievably dirty by modern standards.

To my point on heating with coal. The story of the trouble making people switch to cleaner coal in the 1930's is an example of something ridiculously easy and obvious the government had to make people do at the risk of riots.

Back to your point, market forces are slowly killing coal in America independent of government regulations I agree. Emissions regulations do not help coal but whatever nostalgia people have for wanting to go back to well off Coal miners were in Butcher's Hollow in the 1930's is misplaced.

What can we debate....I don't want to just plum shut down every coal plant in America. I'm also not enough of an expert to really engage in a conversation about coal plant emissions controls. In general I find electricity humorously cheap and if anyone asked me to vote yes on a bill which would add 5% to the cost of producing energy with coal by means of emissions control additions I would.

Try living on a small fixed income and see how you feel about adding 5% to that electric bill, most especially if it is for reasons that benefit pretty much nobody. Certainly where natural gas is cheaper, electric plants will use natural gas.

But if the USA cannot use all the coal produced, there are many other countries that need it.

It is nice of you to be so concerned about the poor. There is a socialized healthcare thread someplace I'll link ya to where you can support someone's drive for subsidies for insurance for the poor.

I would counter even if 100% of your electricity comes from coal $20 a month in mid winter and mid summer being added on is not the big deal. It is what is wrong with their situation.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with coal production...if Chad can produce coal and use it bless them. Sneak them the designes for the most cost effective / cleanest plant they can build.....and build them a railroad to feed it with I suppose. I don't hate the poor. I just don't think really poor countries have the infrastructure needed to support coal plants.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think the new CAFE regulations are too much, I'd pare it back somewhat. Over the long haul we're eventually going to get away from gasoline powered cars and trucks, not by gov't mandates but by market forces that make it cheaper and safer. Maybe not in the next 10 years, but we'll eventually get there.

I haven't heard that those regs are limiting the types of autos you can buy, seems like I still see a lot of SUVs on the road.

Ah, our difference is then I have no faith in humanity.

Here in St Louis we needed big brother to keep us from heating our homes with dirty coal. Amazing considering the immediate and obvious effects to air pollution. I hear there was a near uprising when folks were forced to buy......CLEANER coal.

Our city botanical garden has good examples of the effects on evergreen conifers in particular.

Really? How many St. Louis homes have been heated with coal in the last 50-60 years? The switch to oil burning furnaces or natural gas or electricity occurred long before climate change became an issue. And even the pro-AGW climate scientists agree that the change in the USA came more from market forces than anything the government has done.

Most of the world's electricity generation is via coal at about 40%. The rest is mostly from oil, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro with wind and solar still at the bottom at less than 1% worldwide. The USA now uses slightly more natural gas than coal for electricity generation but in both cases the percentage is in the low 30 percentile.

Few if any homes are heated with coal in St Louis any longer. The one I live in was heated with fuel oil 15 years ago. Even that was unbelievably dirty by modern standards.

To my point on heating with coal. The story of the trouble making people switch to cleaner coal in the 1930's is an example of something ridiculously easy and obvious the government had to make people do at the risk of riots.

Back to your point, market forces are slowly killing coal in America independent of government regulations I agree. Emissions regulations do not help coal but whatever nostalgia people have for wanting to go back to well off Coal miners were in Butcher's Hollow in the 1930's is misplaced.

What can we debate....I don't want to just plum shut down every coal plant in America. I'm also not enough of an expert to really engage in a conversation about coal plant emissions controls. In general I find electricity humorously cheap and if anyone asked me to vote yes on a bill which would add 5% to the cost of producing energy with coal by means of emissions control additions I would.

Try living on a small fixed income and see how you feel about adding 5% to that electric bill, most especially if it is for reasons that benefit pretty much nobody. Certainly where natural gas is cheaper, electric plants will use natural gas.

But if the USA cannot use all the coal produced, there are many other countries that need it.

It is nice of you to be so concerned about the poor. There is a socialized healthcare thread someplace I'll link ya to where you can support someone's drive for subsidies for insurance for the poor.

I would counter even if 100% of your electricity comes from coal $20 a month in mid winter and mid summer being added on is not the big deal. It is what is wrong with their situation.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with coal production...if Chad can produce coal and use it bless them. Sneak them the designes for the most cost effective / cleanest plant they can build.....and build them a railroad to feed it with I suppose. I don't hate the poor. I just don't think really poor countries have the infrastructure needed to support coal plants.

The USA hasn't always had the infrastructure to support much of anything either, but by exploiting our own natural resources we became the No. 1 economic power of the world with one of the highest standards of living.

Evenso states such as Hawaii have no natural power sources except for a small amount of thermal, wind, and solar, so they have to import the coal and petroleum they use as their primary source of energy. Their electric costs are therefore the highest in the country, but they have electricity. Alaska does fine because, though they have about half the nation's coal reserves, oil and natural gas are also abundant there and provide over 95% of their energy needs. And our extensive power grid takes care of all the rest of us in the contiguous 48.

Poor countries should be encouraged to adopt personal liberty, free markets, and respect human rights so that they too can prosper.

And that is why we need to be sure this whole combat climate change stuff is honest and useful because it could deny poor countries the ability to prosper as those pushing that program already have.

 

[task0778]

Ah, our difference is then I have no faith in humanity.

Here in St Louis we needed big brother to keep us from heating our homes with dirty coal. Amazing considering the immediate and obvious effects to air pollution. I hear there was a near uprising when folks were forced to buy......CLEANER coal.

Our city botanical garden has good examples of the effects on evergreen conifers in particular.

Really? How many St. Louis homes have been heated with coal in the last 50-60 years? The switch to oil burning furnaces or natural gas or electricity occurred long before climate change became an issue. And even the pro-AGW climate scientists agree that the change in the USA came more from market forces than anything the government has done.

Most of the world's electricity generation is via coal at about 40%. The rest is mostly from oil, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro with wind and solar still at the bottom at less than 1% worldwide. The USA now uses slightly more natural gas than coal for electricity generation but in both cases the percentage is in the low 30 percentile.

Few if any homes are heated with coal in St Louis any longer. The one I live in was heated with fuel oil 15 years ago. Even that was unbelievably dirty by modern standards.

To my point on heating with coal. The story of the trouble making people switch to cleaner coal in the 1930's is an example of something ridiculously easy and obvious the government had to make people do at the risk of riots.

Back to your point, market forces are slowly killing coal in America independent of government regulations I agree. Emissions regulations do not help coal but whatever nostalgia people have for wanting to go back to well off Coal miners were in Butcher's Hollow in the 1930's is misplaced.

What can we debate....I don't want to just plum shut down every coal plant in America. I'm also not enough of an expert to really engage in a conversation about coal plant emissions controls. In general I find electricity humorously cheap and if anyone asked me to vote yes on a bill which would add 5% to the cost of producing energy with coal by means of emissions control additions I would.

Try living on a small fixed income and see how you feel about adding 5% to that electric bill, most especially if it is for reasons that benefit pretty much nobody. Certainly where natural gas is cheaper, electric plants will use natural gas.

But if the USA cannot use all the coal produced, there are many other countries that need it.

It is nice of you to be so concerned about the poor. There is a socialized healthcare thread someplace I'll link ya to where you can support someone's drive for subsidies for insurance for the poor.

I would counter even if 100% of your electricity comes from coal $20 a month in mid winter and mid summer being added on is not the big deal. It is what is wrong with their situation.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with coal production...if Chad can produce coal and use it bless them. Sneak them the designes for the most cost effective / cleanest plant they can build.....and build them a railroad to feed it with I suppose. I don't hate the poor. I just don't think really poor countries have the infrastructure needed to support coal plants.

The USA hasn't always had the infrastructure to support much of anything either, but by exploiting our own natural resources we became the No. 1 economic power of the world with one of the highest standards of living.

Evenso states such as Hawaii have no natural power sources except for a small amount of thermal, wind, and solar, so they have to import the coal and petroleum they use as their primary source of energy. Their electric costs are therefore the highest in the country, but they have electricity. Alaska does fine because, though they have about half the nation's coal reserves, oil and natural gas are also abundant there and provide over 95% of their energy needs. And our extensive power grid takes care of all the rest of us in the contiguous 48.

Poor countries should be encouraged to adopt personal liberty, free markets, and respect human rights so that they too can prosper.

And that is why we need to be sure this whole combat climate change stuff is honest and useful because it could deny poor countries the ability to prosper as those pushing that program already have.

I have to take issue with you Foxy on this notion that this climate change stuff is honest and useful, IMHO it is neither. All this uproar about the Paris Agreement was a load of crap, it was never going to make even a small dent in AGW, instead it was nothing more than a naked ploy to redistribute wealth. Our wealth. And most of that money wasn't going to make it tot hose who need it most, oh no; there are too many UN bureaucrats who would be skimming a lot of money off the top and then you have the greedy dictators and so-called leaders in many of these poorer countries who would grab as much as they could of what's left. That doesn't sound honest or useful to me.

NO - if we're going to provide aid and assist poor countries to increase their ability to prosper then we need to forget this AGW/CC crap and get right to the root of the problem. Starting with food, clean water, and necessary health care, but only for those countries who are willing to make changes to their political and economic systems so that more people benefit over time. Not just from what we give them but what they can do for themselves. And we need to do it without the UN, who IMHO are the biggest bunch of liars and thieves the world has ever seen.

 

[Foxfyre]

Really? How many St. Louis homes have been heated with coal in the last 50-60 years? The switch to oil burning furnaces or natural gas or electricity occurred long before climate change became an issue. And even the pro-AGW climate scientists agree that the change in the USA came more from market forces than anything the government has done.

Most of the world's electricity generation is via coal at about 40%. The rest is mostly from oil, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro with wind and solar still at the bottom at less than 1% worldwide. The USA now uses slightly more natural gas than coal for electricity generation but in both cases the percentage is in the low 30 percentile.

Few if any homes are heated with coal in St Louis any longer. The one I live in was heated with fuel oil 15 years ago. Even that was unbelievably dirty by modern standards.

To my point on heating with coal. The story of the trouble making people switch to cleaner coal in the 1930's is an example of something ridiculously easy and obvious the government had to make people do at the risk of riots.

Back to your point, market forces are slowly killing coal in America independent of government regulations I agree. Emissions regulations do not help coal but whatever nostalgia people have for wanting to go back to well off Coal miners were in Butcher's Hollow in the 1930's is misplaced.

What can we debate....I don't want to just plum shut down every coal plant in America. I'm also not enough of an expert to really engage in a conversation about coal plant emissions controls. In general I find electricity humorously cheap and if anyone asked me to vote yes on a bill which would add 5% to the cost of producing energy with coal by means of emissions control additions I would.

Try living on a small fixed income and see how you feel about adding 5% to that electric bill, most especially if it is for reasons that benefit pretty much nobody. Certainly where natural gas is cheaper, electric plants will use natural gas.

But if the USA cannot use all the coal produced, there are many other countries that need it.

It is nice of you to be so concerned about the poor. There is a socialized healthcare thread someplace I'll link ya to where you can support someone's drive for subsidies for insurance for the poor.

I would counter even if 100% of your electricity comes from coal $20 a month in mid winter and mid summer being added on is not the big deal. It is what is wrong with their situation.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with coal production...if Chad can produce coal and use it bless them. Sneak them the designes for the most cost effective / cleanest plant they can build.....and build them a railroad to feed it with I suppose. I don't hate the poor. I just don't think really poor countries have the infrastructure needed to support coal plants.

The USA hasn't always had the infrastructure to support much of anything either, but by exploiting our own natural resources we became the No. 1 economic power of the world with one of the highest standards of living.

Evenso states such as Hawaii have no natural power sources except for a small amount of thermal, wind, and solar, so they have to import the coal and petroleum they use as their primary source of energy. Their electric costs are therefore the highest in the country, but they have electricity. Alaska does fine because, though they have about half the nation's coal reserves, oil and natural gas are also abundant there and provide over 95% of their energy needs. And our extensive power grid takes care of all the rest of us in the contiguous 48.

Poor countries should be encouraged to adopt personal liberty, free markets, and respect human rights so that they too can prosper.

And that is why we need to be sure this whole combat climate change stuff is honest and useful because it could deny poor countries the ability to prosper as those pushing that program already have.

I have to take issue with you Foxy on this notion that this climate change stuff is honest and useful, IMHO it is neither. All this uproar about the Paris Agreement was a load of crap, it was never going to make even a small dent in AGW, instead it was nothing more than a naked ploy to redistribute wealth. Our wealth. And most of that money wasn't going to make it tot hose who need it most, oh no; there are too many UN bureaucrats who would be skimming a lot of money off the top and then you have the greedy dictators and so-called leaders in many of these poorer countries who would grab as much as they could of what's left. That doesn't sound honest or useful to me.

NO - if we're going to provide aid and assist poor countries to increase their ability to prosper then we need to forget this AGW/CC crap and get right to the root of the problem. Starting with food, clean water, and necessary health care, but only for those countries who are willing to make changes to their political and economic systems so that more people benefit over time. Not just from what we give them but what they can do for themselves. And we need to do it without the UN, who IMHO are the biggest bunch of liars and thieves the world has ever seen.

And that begs the question about what did I say that you take issue with?

 

[task0778]

Few if any homes are heated with coal in St Louis any longer. The one I live in was heated with fuel oil 15 years ago. Even that was unbelievably dirty by modern standards.

To my point on heating with coal. The story of the trouble making people switch to cleaner coal in the 1930's is an example of something ridiculously easy and obvious the government had to make people do at the risk of riots.

Back to your point, market forces are slowly killing coal in America independent of government regulations I agree. Emissions regulations do not help coal but whatever nostalgia people have for wanting to go back to well off Coal miners were in Butcher's Hollow in the 1930's is misplaced.

What can we debate....I don't want to just plum shut down every coal plant in America. I'm also not enough of an expert to really engage in a conversation about coal plant emissions controls. In general I find electricity humorously cheap and if anyone asked me to vote yes on a bill which would add 5% to the cost of producing energy with coal by means of emissions control additions I would.

Try living on a small fixed income and see how you feel about adding 5% to that electric bill, most especially if it is for reasons that benefit pretty much nobody. Certainly where natural gas is cheaper, electric plants will use natural gas.

But if the USA cannot use all the coal produced, there are many other countries that need it.

It is nice of you to be so concerned about the poor. There is a socialized healthcare thread someplace I'll link ya to where you can support someone's drive for subsidies for insurance for the poor.

I would counter even if 100% of your electricity comes from coal $20 a month in mid winter and mid summer being added on is not the big deal. It is what is wrong with their situation.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with coal production...if Chad can produce coal and use it bless them. Sneak them the designes for the most cost effective / cleanest plant they can build.....and build them a railroad to feed it with I suppose. I don't hate the poor. I just don't think really poor countries have the infrastructure needed to support coal plants.

The USA hasn't always had the infrastructure to support much of anything either, but by exploiting our own natural resources we became the No. 1 economic power of the world with one of the highest standards of living.

Evenso states such as Hawaii have no natural power sources except for a small amount of thermal, wind, and solar, so they have to import the coal and petroleum they use as their primary source of energy. Their electric costs are therefore the highest in the country, but they have electricity. Alaska does fine because, though they have about half the nation's coal reserves, oil and natural gas are also abundant there and provide over 95% of their energy needs. And our extensive power grid takes care of all the rest of us in the contiguous 48.

Poor countries should be encouraged to adopt personal liberty, free markets, and respect human rights so that they too can prosper.

And that is why we need to be sure this whole combat climate change stuff is honest and useful because it could deny poor countries the ability to prosper as those pushing that program already have.

I have to take issue with you Foxy on this notion that this climate change stuff is honest and useful, IMHO it is neither. All this uproar about the Paris Agreement was a load of crap, it was never going to make even a small dent in AGW, instead it was nothing more than a naked ploy to redistribute wealth. Our wealth. And most of that money wasn't going to make it tot hose who need it most, oh no; there are too many UN bureaucrats who would be skimming a lot of money off the top and then you have the greedy dictators and so-called leaders in many of these poorer countries who would grab as much as they could of what's left. That doesn't sound honest or useful to me.

NO - if we're going to provide aid and assist poor countries to increase their ability to prosper then we need to forget this AGW/CC crap and get right to the root of the problem. Starting with food, clean water, and necessary health care, but only for those countries who are willing to make changes to their political and economic systems so that more people benefit over time. Not just from what we give them but what they can do for themselves. And we need to do it without the UN, who IMHO are the biggest bunch of liars and thieves the world has ever seen.

And that begs the question about what did I say that you take issue with?

Did you not say: "And that is why we need to be sure this whole combat climate change stuff is honest and useful"?

 

[Foxfyre]

Try living on a small fixed income and see how you feel about adding 5% to that electric bill, most especially if it is for reasons that benefit pretty much nobody. Certainly where natural gas is cheaper, electric plants will use natural gas.

But if the USA cannot use all the coal produced, there are many other countries that need it.

It is nice of you to be so concerned about the poor. There is a socialized healthcare thread someplace I'll link ya to where you can support someone's drive for subsidies for insurance for the poor.

I would counter even if 100% of your electricity comes from coal $20 a month in mid winter and mid summer being added on is not the big deal. It is what is wrong with their situation.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with coal production...if Chad can produce coal and use it bless them. Sneak them the designes for the most cost effective / cleanest plant they can build.....and build them a railroad to feed it with I suppose. I don't hate the poor. I just don't think really poor countries have the infrastructure needed to support coal plants.

The USA hasn't always had the infrastructure to support much of anything either, but by exploiting our own natural resources we became the No. 1 economic power of the world with one of the highest standards of living.

Evenso states such as Hawaii have no natural power sources except for a small amount of thermal, wind, and solar, so they have to import the coal and petroleum they use as their primary source of energy. Their electric costs are therefore the highest in the country, but they have electricity. Alaska does fine because, though they have about half the nation's coal reserves, oil and natural gas are also abundant there and provide over 95% of their energy needs. And our extensive power grid takes care of all the rest of us in the contiguous 48.

Poor countries should be encouraged to adopt personal liberty, free markets, and respect human rights so that they too can prosper.

And that is why we need to be sure this whole combat climate change stuff is honest and useful because it could deny poor countries the ability to prosper as those pushing that program already have.

I have to take issue with you Foxy on this notion that this climate change stuff is honest and useful, IMHO it is neither. All this uproar about the Paris Agreement was a load of crap, it was never going to make even a small dent in AGW, instead it was nothing more than a naked ploy to redistribute wealth. Our wealth. And most of that money wasn't going to make it tot hose who need it most, oh no; there are too many UN bureaucrats who would be skimming a lot of money off the top and then you have the greedy dictators and so-called leaders in many of these poorer countries who would grab as much as they could of what's left. That doesn't sound honest or useful to me.

NO - if we're going to provide aid and assist poor countries to increase their ability to prosper then we need to forget this AGW/CC crap and get right to the root of the problem. Starting with food, clean water, and necessary health care, but only for those countries who are willing to make changes to their political and economic systems so that more people benefit over time. Not just from what we give them but what they can do for themselves. And we need to do it without the UN, who IMHO are the biggest bunch of liars and thieves the world has ever seen.

And that begs the question about what did I say that you take issue with?

Did you not say: "And that is why we need to be sure this whole combat climate change stuff is honest and useful"?

Yes I did. I am not opposed to studying climate change. But pushing an agenda based on bogus or dishonest science is not something anybody should condone. And if we take the government money out of it, I suspect the scientific 'consensus' might come out a lot differently.

 

[FA_Q2]

I think the new CAFE regulations are too much, I'd pare it back somewhat. Over the long haul we're eventually going to get away from gasoline powered cars and trucks, not by gov't mandates but by market forces that make it cheaper and safer. Maybe not in the next 10 years, but we'll eventually get there.

I haven't heard that those regs are limiting the types of autos you can buy, seems like I still see a lot of SUVs on the road.

Ah, our difference is then I have no faith in humanity.

Here in St Louis we needed big brother to keep us from heating our homes with dirty coal. Amazing considering the immediate and obvious effects to air pollution. I hear there was a near uprising when folks were forced to buy......CLEANER coal.

Our city botanical garden has good examples of the effects on evergreen conifers in particular.

Really? How many St. Louis homes have been heated with coal in the last 50-60 years? The switch to oil burning furnaces or natural gas or electricity occurred long before climate change became an issue. And even the pro-AGW climate scientists agree that the change in the USA came more from market forces than anything the government has done.

Most of the world's electricity generation is via coal at about 40%. The rest is mostly from oil, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro with wind and solar still at the bottom at less than 1% worldwide. The USA now uses slightly more natural gas than coal for electricity generation but in both cases the percentage is in the low 30 percentile.

Few if any homes are heated with coal in St Louis any longer. The one I live in was heated with fuel oil 15 years ago. Even that was unbelievably dirty by modern standards.

To my point on heating with coal. The story of the trouble making people switch to cleaner coal in the 1930's is an example of something ridiculously easy and obvious the government had to make people do at the risk of riots.

Back to your point, market forces are slowly killing coal in America independent of government regulations I agree. Emissions regulations do not help coal but whatever nostalgia people have for wanting to go back to well off Coal miners were in Butcher's Hollow in the 1930's is misplaced.

What can we debate....I don't want to just plum shut down every coal plant in America. I'm also not enough of an expert to really engage in a conversation about coal plant emissions controls. In general I find electricity humorously cheap and if anyone asked me to vote yes on a bill which would add 5% to the cost of producing energy with coal by means of emissions control additions I would.

Try living on a small fixed income and see how you feel about adding 5% to that electric bill, most especially if it is for reasons that benefit pretty much nobody. Certainly where natural gas is cheaper, electric plants will use natural gas.

But if the USA cannot use all the coal produced, there are many other countries that need it.

It is nice of you to be so concerned about the poor. There is a socialized healthcare thread someplace I'll link ya to where you can support someone's drive for subsidies for insurance for the poor.

I would counter even if 100% of your electricity comes from coal $20 a month in mid winter and mid summer being added on is not the big deal. It is what is wrong with their situation.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with coal production...if Chad can produce coal and use it bless them. Sneak them the designes for the most cost effective / cleanest plant they can build.....and build them a railroad to feed it with I suppose. I don't hate the poor. I just don't think really poor countries have the infrastructure needed to support coal plants.

I find your last statement rather interesting. The reality is that the really poor countries only have the infrastructure and ability to use coal or other fossil fuel sources. Green energy is not cheap to set up. That is one of the problems with AGW 'solutions' - they do noting to address the majority of the problem that they are claiming exists.

Green energy will eventually take over traditional fossil fuel sources of energy - it is abundant and everywhere. At this point in time it just is not ready to do such.

 

[FA_Q2]

It is nice of you to be so concerned about the poor. There is a socialized healthcare thread someplace I'll link ya to where you can support someone's drive for subsidies for insurance for the poor.

I would counter even if 100% of your electricity comes from coal $20 a month in mid winter and mid summer being added on is not the big deal. It is what is wrong with their situation.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with coal production...if Chad can produce coal and use it bless them. Sneak them the designes for the most cost effective / cleanest plant they can build.....and build them a railroad to feed it with I suppose. I don't hate the poor. I just don't think really poor countries have the infrastructure needed to support coal plants.

The USA hasn't always had the infrastructure to support much of anything either, but by exploiting our own natural resources we became the No. 1 economic power of the world with one of the highest standards of living.

Evenso states such as Hawaii have no natural power sources except for a small amount of thermal, wind, and solar, so they have to import the coal and petroleum they use as their primary source of energy. Their electric costs are therefore the highest in the country, but they have electricity. Alaska does fine because, though they have about half the nation's coal reserves, oil and natural gas are also abundant there and provide over 95% of their energy needs. And our extensive power grid takes care of all the rest of us in the contiguous 48.

Poor countries should be encouraged to adopt personal liberty, free markets, and respect human rights so that they too can prosper.

And that is why we need to be sure this whole combat climate change stuff is honest and useful because it could deny poor countries the ability to prosper as those pushing that program already have.

I have to take issue with you Foxy on this notion that this climate change stuff is honest and useful, IMHO it is neither. All this uproar about the Paris Agreement was a load of crap, it was never going to make even a small dent in AGW, instead it was nothing more than a naked ploy to redistribute wealth. Our wealth. And most of that money wasn't going to make it tot hose who need it most, oh no; there are too many UN bureaucrats who would be skimming a lot of money off the top and then you have the greedy dictators and so-called leaders in many of these poorer countries who would grab as much as they could of what's left. That doesn't sound honest or useful to me.

NO - if we're going to provide aid and assist poor countries to increase their ability to prosper then we need to forget this AGW/CC crap and get right to the root of the problem. Starting with food, clean water, and necessary health care, but only for those countries who are willing to make changes to their political and economic systems so that more people benefit over time. Not just from what we give them but what they can do for themselves. And we need to do it without the UN, who IMHO are the biggest bunch of liars and thieves the world has ever seen.

And that begs the question about what did I say that you take issue with?

Did you not say: "And that is why we need to be sure this whole combat climate change stuff is honest and useful"?

Yes I did. I am not opposed to studying climate change. But pushing an agenda based on bogus or dishonest science is not something anybody should condone. And if we take the government money out of it, I suspect the scientific 'consensus' might come out a lot differently.

Possibly. The other source of much of that funding though comes from sources that have a real interest in the continued use of coal and oil.

 

[Foxfyre]

The USA hasn't always had the infrastructure to support much of anything either, but by exploiting our own natural resources we became the No. 1 economic power of the world with one of the highest standards of living.

Evenso states such as Hawaii have no natural power sources except for a small amount of thermal, wind, and solar, so they have to import the coal and petroleum they use as their primary source of energy. Their electric costs are therefore the highest in the country, but they have electricity. Alaska does fine because, though they have about half the nation's coal reserves, oil and natural gas are also abundant there and provide over 95% of their energy needs. And our extensive power grid takes care of all the rest of us in the contiguous 48.

Poor countries should be encouraged to adopt personal liberty, free markets, and respect human rights so that they too can prosper.

And that is why we need to be sure this whole combat climate change stuff is honest and useful because it could deny poor countries the ability to prosper as those pushing that program already have.

I have to take issue with you Foxy on this notion that this climate change stuff is honest and useful, IMHO it is neither. All this uproar about the Paris Agreement was a load of crap, it was never going to make even a small dent in AGW, instead it was nothing more than a naked ploy to redistribute wealth. Our wealth. And most of that money wasn't going to make it tot hose who need it most, oh no; there are too many UN bureaucrats who would be skimming a lot of money off the top and then you have the greedy dictators and so-called leaders in many of these poorer countries who would grab as much as they could of what's left. That doesn't sound honest or useful to me.

NO - if we're going to provide aid and assist poor countries to increase their ability to prosper then we need to forget this AGW/CC crap and get right to the root of the problem. Starting with food, clean water, and necessary health care, but only for those countries who are willing to make changes to their political and economic systems so that more people benefit over time. Not just from what we give them but what they can do for themselves. And we need to do it without the UN, who IMHO are the biggest bunch of liars and thieves the world has ever seen.

And that begs the question about what did I say that you take issue with?

Did you not say: "And that is why we need to be sure this whole combat climate change stuff is honest and useful"?

Yes I did. I am not opposed to studying climate change. But pushing an agenda based on bogus or dishonest science is not something anybody should condone. And if we take the government money out of it, I suspect the scientific 'consensus' might come out a lot differently.

Possibly. The other source of much of that funding though comes from sources that have a real interest in the continued use of coal and oil.

I don't have a problem at all with scientific research. But honest research only happens when a particular result doesn't result in more money flowing to the scientific organization.

 

[jwoodie]

"Whoever has the power in society determines what can be studied, determines what can be observed, determines what can be thought. Scientists fall in line with the dominant power structure. They have to, because the power structure pays the bills. You don't play ball with the power structure, you don't get money for research, you don't get an appointment, you don't get published, in short you don't count anymore. You're out. You might as well be dead." -Michael Crichton, Micro (2011)

 

[Foxfyre]

"Whoever has the power in society determines what can be studied, determines what can be observed, determines what can be thought. Scientists fall in line with the dominant power structure. They have to, because the power structure pays the bills. You don't play ball with the power structure, you don't get money for research, you don't get an appointment, you don't get published, in short you don't count anymore. You're out. You might as well be dead." -Michael Crichton, Micro (2011)

And his opinion, which I completely agree with, clearly illustrates what is wrong with the whole AGW schtick.

An honorable government would not assign research money in order to support a particular point of view and therefore increase government power and/or the fortunes of those in government or who work at the pleasure of the government.

An honorable government would assign research money to get honest research and honest opinion/conclusions so it would knew when to act, how to act, or whether to act.

 

[FA_Q2]

I have to take issue with you Foxy on this notion that this climate change stuff is honest and useful, IMHO it is neither. All this uproar about the Paris Agreement was a load of crap, it was never going to make even a small dent in AGW, instead it was nothing more than a naked ploy to redistribute wealth. Our wealth. And most of that money wasn't going to make it tot hose who need it most, oh no; there are too many UN bureaucrats who would be skimming a lot of money off the top and then you have the greedy dictators and so-called leaders in many of these poorer countries who would grab as much as they could of what's left. That doesn't sound honest or useful to me.

NO - if we're going to provide aid and assist poor countries to increase their ability to prosper then we need to forget this AGW/CC crap and get right to the root of the problem. Starting with food, clean water, and necessary health care, but only for those countries who are willing to make changes to their political and economic systems so that more people benefit over time. Not just from what we give them but what they can do for themselves. And we need to do it without the UN, who IMHO are the biggest bunch of liars and thieves the world has ever seen.

And that begs the question about what did I say that you take issue with?

Did you not say: "And that is why we need to be sure this whole combat climate change stuff is honest and useful"?

Yes I did. I am not opposed to studying climate change. But pushing an agenda based on bogus or dishonest science is not something anybody should condone. And if we take the government money out of it, I suspect the scientific 'consensus' might come out a lot differently.

Possibly. The other source of much of that funding though comes from sources that have a real interest in the continued use of coal and oil.

I don't have a problem at all with scientific research. But honest research only happens when a particular result doesn't result in more money flowing to the scientific organization.

While I can feel your sentiment here you might as well say that honest research does not exist. All research requires resource and the larger the project or topic the greater the resource required.

 

[Foxfyre]

And that begs the question about what did I say that you take issue with?

Did you not say: "And that is why we need to be sure this whole combat climate change stuff is honest and useful"?

Yes I did. I am not opposed to studying climate change. But pushing an agenda based on bogus or dishonest science is not something anybody should condone. And if we take the government money out of it, I suspect the scientific 'consensus' might come out a lot differently.

Possibly. The other source of much of that funding though comes from sources that have a real interest in the continued use of coal and oil.

I don't have a problem at all with scientific research. But honest research only happens when a particular result doesn't result in more money flowing to the scientific organization.

While I can feel your sentiment here you might as well say that honest research does not exist. All research requires resource and the larger the project or topic the greater the resource required.

I disagree that honest research does not exist. I have participated in it enough to know. I have no problem with scientific organizations receiving grants to do it. But I have a HUGE problem with those grants only being issued to those whose research results in a prespecified conclusion.

I have also been witness to what I believed to be totally bogus research so I also knows that happens.

 

[task0778]

Did you not say: "And that is why we need to be sure this whole combat climate change stuff is honest and useful"?

Yes I did. I am not opposed to studying climate change. But pushing an agenda based on bogus or dishonest science is not something anybody should condone. And if we take the government money out of it, I suspect the scientific 'consensus' might come out a lot differently.

Possibly. The other source of much of that funding though comes from sources that have a real interest in the continued use of coal and oil.

I don't have a problem at all with scientific research. But honest research only happens when a particular result doesn't result in more money flowing to the scientific organization.

While I can feel your sentiment here you might as well say that honest research does not exist. All research requires resource and the larger the project or topic the greater the resource required.

I disagree that honest research does not exist. I have participated in it enough to know. I have no problem with scientific organizations receiving grants to do it. But I have a HUGE problem with those grants only being issued to those whose research results in a prespecified conclusion.

I have also been witness to what I believed to be totally bogus research so I also knows that happens.

It's hard sometimes to know the honest research from the rest. Some have the reputation for integrity that you don't want to jeopardize, but may require a check for the other side of the story. And then we have to determine who's more accurate or truthful.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes I did. I am not opposed to studying climate change. But pushing an agenda based on bogus or dishonest science is not something anybody should condone. And if we take the government money out of it, I suspect the scientific 'consensus' might come out a lot differently.

Possibly. The other source of much of that funding though comes from sources that have a real interest in the continued use of coal and oil.

I don't have a problem at all with scientific research. But honest research only happens when a particular result doesn't result in more money flowing to the scientific organization.

While I can feel your sentiment here you might as well say that honest research does not exist. All research requires resource and the larger the project or topic the greater the resource required.

I disagree that honest research does not exist. I have participated in it enough to know. I have no problem with scientific organizations receiving grants to do it. But I have a HUGE problem with those grants only being issued to those whose research results in a prespecified conclusion.

I have also been witness to what I believed to be totally bogus research so I also knows that happens.

It's hard sometimes to know the honest research from the rest. Some have the reputation for integrity that you don't want to jeopardize, but may require a check for the other side of the story. And then we have to determine who's more accurate or truthful.

Very true. But when you see the inconsistencies between the IPCC report the the Summary for Policymakers that is developed from it, you begin to see a consistent agenda emerge.

When you hear testimony again and again and again that ONLY those whose research supports the AGW 'consensus' can expect to receive research or study grants from the government or any agency promoting AGW, you have to believe that the science is likely to be tainted.

When you see climate 'scientists' and/or their advocates living lifestyles that are not at all 'green' or 'responsible to reduce carbon footprints' it is easy to conclude that those 'scientists' are not all that concerned about it.

And when you see reports that are not denied that this or that group has altered or omitted data so that it conforms with the AGW consensus, or they just move the goal posts on down the line when their models prove to consistently be wrong, you know it is a pretty safe bet that the science is tainted if not downright bogus.

And when you see that more and more government regulation has had little or no impact on where or how much global warming is occurring, you begin to strongly suspect that none of this is all that much about climate change and is much more about government control and a one-world-order ultimate goal.

Acknowledging all that does not make me a denier as I'm not because I don't KNOW. But when something smells that bad, it sure makes me a healthy skeptic and not all that willing to swallow what they want to feed us as the gospel truth.

 

[task0778]

The thing that really bothers me is the attempts by the Left to intimidate anyone with an opposing view or even a view that is neutral if it comes from someone within the scientific circle. Threats of disassociation or being ostracized, refusal to publish, lack of funding or tenure, and in some cases unemployment if you aren't part of the AGW alarmist group. That isn't what I'd call settled science.

 

[Foxfyre]

The thing that really bothers me is the attempts by the Left to intimidate anyone with an opposing view or even a view that is neutral if it comes from someone within the scientific circle. Threats of disassociation or being ostracized, refusal to publish, lack of funding or tenure, and in some cases unemployment if you aren't part of the AGW alarmist group. That isn't what I'd call settled science.

100% correctamundo.

 

[Toronado3800]

Ah, our difference is then I have no faith in humanity.

Here in St Louis we needed big brother to keep us from heating our homes with dirty coal. Amazing considering the immediate and obvious effects to air pollution. I hear there was a near uprising when folks were forced to buy......CLEANER coal.

Our city botanical garden has good examples of the effects on evergreen conifers in particular.

Really? How many St. Louis homes have been heated with coal in the last 50-60 years? The switch to oil burning furnaces or natural gas or electricity occurred long before climate change became an issue. And even the pro-AGW climate scientists agree that the change in the USA came more from market forces than anything the government has done.

Most of the world's electricity generation is via coal at about 40%. The rest is mostly from oil, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro with wind and solar still at the bottom at less than 1% worldwide. The USA now uses slightly more natural gas than coal for electricity generation but in both cases the percentage is in the low 30 percentile.

Few if any homes are heated with coal in St Louis any longer. The one I live in was heated with fuel oil 15 years ago. Even that was unbelievably dirty by modern standards.

To my point on heating with coal. The story of the trouble making people switch to cleaner coal in the 1930's is an example of something ridiculously easy and obvious the government had to make people do at the risk of riots.

Back to your point, market forces are slowly killing coal in America independent of government regulations I agree. Emissions regulations do not help coal but whatever nostalgia people have for wanting to go back to well off Coal miners were in Butcher's Hollow in the 1930's is misplaced.

What can we debate....I don't want to just plum shut down every coal plant in America. I'm also not enough of an expert to really engage in a conversation about coal plant emissions controls. In general I find electricity humorously cheap and if anyone asked me to vote yes on a bill which would add 5% to the cost of producing energy with coal by means of emissions control additions I would.

Try living on a small fixed income and see how you feel about adding 5% to that electric bill, most especially if it is for reasons that benefit pretty much nobody. Certainly where natural gas is cheaper, electric plants will use natural gas.

But if the USA cannot use all the coal produced, there are many other countries that need it.

It is nice of you to be so concerned about the poor. There is a socialized healthcare thread someplace I'll link ya to where you can support someone's drive for subsidies for insurance for the poor.

I would counter even if 100% of your electricity comes from coal $20 a month in mid winter and mid summer being added on is not the big deal. It is what is wrong with their situation.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with coal production...if Chad can produce coal and use it bless them. Sneak them the designes for the most cost effective / cleanest plant they can build.....and build them a railroad to feed it with I suppose. I don't hate the poor. I just don't think really poor countries have the infrastructure needed to support coal plants.

I find your last statement rather interesting. The reality is that the really poor countries only have the infrastructure and ability to use coal or other fossil fuel sources. Green energy is not cheap to set up. That is one of the problems with AGW 'solutions' - they do noting to address the majority of the problem that they are claiming exists.

Green energy will eventually take over traditional fossil fuel sources of energy - it is abundant and everywhere. At this point in time it just is not ready to do such.

Our positions are probably pretty close. If anyone in Chad can figure out how to lay a railroad and feed a coal plant more power to them. If we can feed them some technology so the plant is somewhat more efficient all the better. It helps their people down wind as well as ours.

In some ways renewables seem easier to set up.

My neighbor has a detached garage 20 feet from his house. Instead of getting it wired right to support a trickle charger he bought a solar powered one about a decade ago. I guess if we didn't have building codes wiring it would be something even I can do...not sure you all want that in a real neighborhood though because the people worse than me would be wiring things.

The same holds true in the third world. If I we moved in together into a city with no real electricity it would be easier to import some solar panels and set up a windmill and see if we could power a fridge and recharge our satellite phones.

To power a whole city I wonder. You would think economy of scale would favor the coal plant. They are cheap and steady.

Google fails me. What cities have had this kind of electrical service improvements since Y2K?

 

[Toronado3800]

Ah, our difference is then I have no faith in humanity.

Here in St Louis we needed big brother to keep us from heating our homes with dirty coal. Amazing considering the immediate and obvious effects to air pollution. I hear there was a near uprising when folks were forced to buy......CLEANER coal.

Our city botanical garden has good examples of the effects on evergreen conifers in particular.

Really? How many St. Louis homes have been heated with coal in the last 50-60 years? The switch to oil burning furnaces or natural gas or electricity occurred long before climate change became an issue. And even the pro-AGW climate scientists agree that the change in the USA came more from market forces than anything the government has done.

Most of the world's electricity generation is via coal at about 40%. The rest is mostly from oil, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro with wind and solar still at the bottom at less than 1% worldwide. The USA now uses slightly more natural gas than coal for electricity generation but in both cases the percentage is in the low 30 percentile.

Few if any homes are heated with coal in St Louis any longer. The one I live in was heated with fuel oil 15 years ago. Even that was unbelievably dirty by modern standards.

To my point on heating with coal. The story of the trouble making people switch to cleaner coal in the 1930's is an example of something ridiculously easy and obvious the government had to make people do at the risk of riots.

Back to your point, market forces are slowly killing coal in America independent of government regulations I agree. Emissions regulations do not help coal but whatever nostalgia people have for wanting to go back to well off Coal miners were in Butcher's Hollow in the 1930's is misplaced.

What can we debate....I don't want to just plum shut down every coal plant in America. I'm also not enough of an expert to really engage in a conversation about coal plant emissions controls. In general I find electricity humorously cheap and if anyone asked me to vote yes on a bill which would add 5% to the cost of producing energy with coal by means of emissions control additions I would.

Try living on a small fixed income and see how you feel about adding 5% to that electric bill, most especially if it is for reasons that benefit pretty much nobody. Certainly where natural gas is cheaper, electric plants will use natural gas.

But if the USA cannot use all the coal produced, there are many other countries that need it.

It is nice of you to be so concerned about the poor. There is a socialized healthcare thread someplace I'll link ya to where you can support someone's drive for subsidies for insurance for the poor.

I would counter even if 100% of your electricity comes from coal $20 a month in mid winter and mid summer being added on is not the big deal. It is what is wrong with their situation.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with coal production...if Chad can produce coal and use it bless them. Sneak them the designes for the most cost effective / cleanest plant they can build.....and build them a railroad to feed it with I suppose. I don't hate the poor. I just don't think really poor countries have the infrastructure needed to support coal plants.

The USA hasn't always had the infrastructure to support much of anything either, but by exploiting our own natural resources we became the No. 1 economic power of the world with one of the highest standards of living.

Evenso states such as Hawaii have no natural power sources except for a small amount of thermal, wind, and solar, so they have to import the coal and petroleum they use as their primary source of energy. Their electric costs are therefore the highest in the country, but they have electricity. Alaska does fine because, though they have about half the nation's coal reserves, oil and natural gas are also abundant there and provide over 95% of their energy needs. And our extensive power grid takes care of all the rest of us in the contiguous 48.

Poor countries should be encouraged to adopt personal liberty, free markets, and respect human rights so that they too can prosper.

And that is why we need to be sure this whole combat climate change stuff is honest and useful because it could deny poor countries the ability to prosper as those pushing that program already have.

Perhaps if we can get rid of the rhetoric of the yellers on both sides we can find agreement.

Pretty much I don't mind holding the U.S. to a higher standard than the rest of the world. I don't want my city's air to become as dirty as Beijing's just to lower my electric bills. From history I firmly believe it would if we remove regulations.

Also, we can afford it. If anyone in Chad can build a Coal power plant and the infrastructure needed to support it, bless them! If the Paris accords or my own accords provide a tax break to U.S. companies who sell at cost or give them equipment which met our standards of 30 years ago, great.

Cheaply selling or giving away even our obsolete technology will make 3rd world countries more capable of competing first with manufacturing then militarily but if we don't, eventually the Chinese or the French will and I'd like to think we would get some return on the good will.