Coal’s True Cost: 100,000+ Deaths A Year In India

[Toddsterpatriot]

And they use other sources that go directly to peer reviewed papers in science.

you just don't like it.

Oh my the far left propaganda continues.

Coal-Fired Power in India May Cause More Than 100,000 Premature Deaths Annually: Scientific American

This is the source they use. Do you even like science?

I remember when Scientific American was about science, not politics.
Why don't you come up with solutions that work, for India and the US?
Clearly, wind and solar are decades away.
Mandating "green energy" is just a waste.

 

[daveman]

Either way coal and oil are killing those people. + Untold damage to the environment but wind is somehow the worse thing on earth.

Give me a fucking break.

I want you to acknowledge two things:

1. That you were wrong when you said nuclear hasn't killed anyone.

2. That you were wrong to conflate India's use of coal and America's use of coal.

 

[daveman]

Coal-Fired Power in India May Cause More Than 100,000 Premature Deaths Annually: Scientific American

This is the source they use. Do you even like science?

Obviously you hate since every time you use a hack piece to support your position.

Yes that word MAY equals to the far left AGW church going Obama drones that it IS.

If you want to argue just to argue own up to it other wise you just need to accept that 99.9% of the time you are wrong.

So you think a major scientific website is just a left wing mouth piece? You conservatives are anti-science. That is a fact.

No. We're anti "science". AGW is not science.

 

[Abraham3]

Yes that word MAY equals to the far left AGW church going Obama drones that it IS.

It does not. But this criticism of yours indicates an apalling ignorance regarding the most basic workings of the scientific method - and (though I might not be the fellow to bring the charge) a similar weakness in some common practices of polite debate.

 

[daveman]

Yes that word MAY equals to the far left AGW church going Obama drones that it IS.

It does not. But this criticism of yours indicates an apalling ignorance regarding the most basic workings of the scientific method - and (though I might not be the fellow to bring the charge) a similar weakness in some common practices of polite debate.

So, when the cultists screech "The science is SETTLED!!" -- they REALLY mean "...MAYBE!!"?

I think not. They actually believe that non-scientific sloth shit.

 

[Kosh]

Yes that word MAY equals to the far left AGW church going Obama drones that it IS.

It does not. But this criticism of yours indicates an apalling ignorance regarding the most basic workings of the scientific method - and (though I might not be the fellow to bring the charge) a similar weakness in some common practices of polite debate.

AGW is not science and anything supporting it is just AGW church propaganda.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Yes that word MAY equals to the far left AGW church going Obama drones that it IS.

It does not. But this criticism of yours indicates an apalling ignorance regarding the most basic workings of the scientific method - and (though I might not be the fellow to bring the charge) a similar weakness in some common practices of polite debate.

AGW is not science and anything supporting it is just AGW church propaganda.

Nasa isn't science
Noaa isn't science
NFS isn't science
USGS isn't science

Conservatives have a big ego!

 

[daveman]

Either way coal and oil are killing those people. + Untold damage to the environment but wind is somehow the worse thing on earth.

Give me a fucking break.

I want you to acknowledge two things:

1. That you were wrong when you said nuclear hasn't killed anyone.

2. That you were wrong to conflate India's use of coal and America's use of coal.

I knew you wouldn't.

Chickenshit.

 

[freedombecki]

It does not. But this criticism of yours indicates an apalling ignorance regarding the most basic workings of the scientific method - and (though I might not be the fellow to bring the charge) a similar weakness in some common practices of polite debate.

AGW is not science and anything supporting it is just AGW church propaganda.

Nasa isn't science
Noaa isn't science
NFS isn't science
USGS isn't science

Conservatives have a big ego!

The government agencies have to account to politicians, which makes them subject to a certain amount of information suppression or propaganda if higher-ups want a certain issue put on the front or back burner.

When did true science findings have to start reporting to politicians' whims and friends, Matthew?

Seems to me it was about the time the idiot who didn't know he was in a Chinese Temple started proffering the idea that man was ruining a planet he actually had less than a hundredth of one percent influence over if you can cipher decimals correctly, that is. ".28%" is an impact of .0028, or 28/10,000

The author says this: " here is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050."

References:

References:
1) Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (updated October, 2000)
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
(the primary global-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy)
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change (data now available only to "members")
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,
Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL52 7RZ, United Kingdom.

2) "Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2n the construction of the 'Greenhouse Effect Global Warming' dogma;" Tom V. Segalstad, University of Oslo
3) Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potentials (updated April, 2002)
Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center (CDIAC), U.S. Department of Energy
Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
4) Warming Potentials of Halocarbons and Greenhouses Gases
Chemical formulae and global warming potentials from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 119 and 121. Production and sales of CFC's and other chemicals from International Trade Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals: United States Production and Sales, 1994 (Washington, DC, 1995). TRI emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release, EPA-745-R-94-001 (Washington, DC, June 1996), p. 73. Estimated 1994 U.S. emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-1994, EPA-230-R-96-006 (Washington, DC, November 1995), pp. 37-40.
5) References to 95% contribution of water vapor:
a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264
b. Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat

by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, June 1998
Virginia State Climatologist and Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix D, Greenhouse Gas Spectral Overlaps and Their Significance
Energy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government
d. Personal Communication-- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Slone Professor of Meteorology, MIT
e. The Geologic Record and Climate Change
by Dr. Tim Patterson, January 2005
Professor of Geology-- Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada
Alternate link:

f. EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant
by the ecoEnquirer, 2006
Alternate link:

g. Does CO2 Really Drive Global Warming?
by Dr. Robert Essenhigh, May 2001
Alternate link:

h. Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., 21st Century Science and Technology, Winter 2003-2004, pp. 52-65
Link:

5) Global Climate Change Student Guide
Department of Environmental and Geographical Sciences
Manchester Metropolitan University
Chester Street
Manchester
M1 5GD
United Kingdom
6) Global Budgets for Atmospheric Nitrous Oxide - Anthropogenic Contributions
William C. Trogler, Eric Bruner, Glenn Westwood, Barbara Sawrey, and Patrick Neill
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California
7) Methane record and budget
Robert Grumbine

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

Can you wrap your mind around why Al Gore is no longer allowed to speak to schools and universities throughout the EU and England these days? He had almost 600 inaccuracies documented in his "free papers for schoolchildren" gift for his $50 billion dollar tour of people he convinced that we were half an inch from boiling the oceans with his doom and gloom bogus deal based on if we didn't instantly develop green energy to the tune of trillions and trillions and more trillions of dollars, world-wide.

Don't faint, but the truth is, the boor who boasted that he invented the internet was born 10,000 years too early!!!