CDZ Climate Denial or Climate Dishonesty?

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by jwoodie, Jun 23, 2017.

  1. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,400
    Thanks Received:
    12,333
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +17,966
    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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Toronado3800
    Offline

    Toronado3800 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,206
    Thanks Received:
    322
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +559
    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.
     
  3. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,400
    Thanks Received:
    12,333
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +17,966
    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.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. task0778
    Offline

    task0778 Silver Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    1,731
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Location:
    Texas hill country
    Ratings:
    +1,606
    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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,400
    Thanks Received:
    12,333
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +17,966
    And that begs the question about what did I say that you take issue with? :)
     
  6. task0778
    Offline

    task0778 Silver Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    1,731
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Location:
    Texas hill country
    Ratings:
    +1,606
    Did you not say: "And that is why we need to be sure this whole combat climate change stuff is honest and useful"?
     
  7. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,400
    Thanks Received:
    12,333
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +17,966
    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  8. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    15,807
    Thanks Received:
    2,319
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +5,356
    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.
     
  9. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    15,807
    Thanks Received:
    2,319
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +5,356
    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.
     
  10. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,400
    Thanks Received:
    12,333
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +17,966
    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.
     

Share This Page