Do liberals want the whole world to stop the coal industry, or just the US?

[Theowl32]

Does anyone know?

Let's hear from the left. The coal industry. Should it be completely shut down?

Only here or everywhere?

Please, explain.

 

[Stratford57]

Liberals can't explain it to you. They just repeat all that sh*t after their puppeteers. Like parrots. Thinking on their own is not the goal of their puppeteers.

 

[miketx]

Liberals only want to destroy the United States.

 

[rightwinger]

Does anyone know?

Let's hear from the left. The coal industry. Should it be completely shut down?

Only here or everywhere?

Please, explain.

Why is everything in absolutes with conservatives?

A goal of reducing carbon emissions by 10% worldwide is automatically labeled.........They want to completely shut down coal!

 

[miketx]

Does anyone know?

Let's hear from the left. The coal industry. Should it be completely shut down?

Only here or everywhere?

Please, explain.

Why is everything in absolutes with conservatives?

A goal of reducing carbon emissions by 10% worldwide is automatically labeled.........They want to completely shut down coal!

Why do you deny that you only want to destroy the United States?

 

[rightwinger]

Does anyone know?

Let's hear from the left. The coal industry. Should it be completely shut down?

Only here or everywhere?

Please, explain.

Why is everything in absolutes with conservatives?

A goal of reducing carbon emissions by 10% worldwide is automatically labeled.........They want to completely shut down coal!

Why do you deny that you only want to destroy the United States?

Hillary never said she wanted to destroy the coal industry. Unlike Trump, who made promises he can't keep, Hillary acknowledged that the coal industry was dying and that we needed to do more to bring new industries into coal country

 

[SSDD]

Why is everything in absolutes with conservatives?

A goal of reducing carbon emissions by 10% worldwide is automatically labeled.........They want to completely shut down coal!

The goal is to eliminate coal...and like most liberal ideas, it isn't very well thought out and inevitably most hurts the people who can least afford the cost of implementing the idea. You reduce coal and the inevitable result is an increase in energy prices which trickles out to everything that requires energy to make and results in an increase in cost. An increase of a few dollars here, and a few quarters there which result in anywhere from a few hundred to a couple of thousand dollars a year isn't going to hurt me, but what about the people who have to decide whether to eat or pay their bills...those are the people who are hurt most by the liberal desire to reduce coal and aren't really concerned with who they hurt, or even if anyone is being hurt by their wishes. There is a reason that liberals are known as the kings of unintended consequences and the heap of bodies that can be laid at the altar of unthinking liberal good intentions is larger than the heap of bodies that can be laid at the altar of all the modern wars combined.

 

[rightwinger]

Why is everything in absolutes with conservatives?

A goal of reducing carbon emissions by 10% worldwide is automatically labeled.........They want to completely shut down coal!

The goal is to eliminate coal...and like most liberal ideas, it isn't very well thought out and inevitably most hurts the people who can least afford the cost of implementing the idea. You reduce coal and the inevitable result is an increase in energy prices which trickles out to everything that requires energy to make and results in an increase in cost. An increase of a few dollars here, and a few quarters there which result in anywhere from a few hundred to a couple of thousand dollars a year isn't going to hurt me, but what about the people who have to decide whether to eat or pay their bills...those are the people who are hurt most by the liberal desire to reduce coal and aren't really concerned with who they hurt, or even if anyone is being hurt by their wishes. There is a reason that liberals are known as the kings of unintended consequences and the heap of bodies that can be laid at the altar of unthinking liberal good intentions is larger than the heap of bodies that can be laid at the altar of all the modern wars combined.

No.....the goal is not to eliminate coal
It is to reduce carbon emissions

Coal is dirty. They can't help it. The objective is to develop technologies that reduce the crap that goes into the air when coal is burnt. If coal can't keep up, it will become obsolete

 

[SSDD]

No.....the goal is not to eliminate coal
It is to reduce carbon emissions

Why? Can you provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that demonstrates that CO2 is causing a change in the global climate?....Just one?

Coal is dirty. They can't help it.

And the filtering requirements imposed on those who burn coal have made coal burners almost as clean as gas burners.

The objective is to develop technologies that reduce the crap that goes into the air when coal is burnt. If coal can't keep up, it will become obsolete

Which is what the filtering requirements imposed on coal burners did... Killing an industry and the resulting loss of livelihood for people who have made a living that way for generations just because of some climate scam is uncontionable and just one more example of the unintended consequences of liberal thinking.

 

[rightwinger]

No.....the goal is not to eliminate coal
It is to reduce carbon emissions

Why? Can you provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that demonstrates that CO2 is causing a change in the global climate?....Just one?

Coal is dirty. They can't help it.

And the filtering requirements imposed on those who burn coal have made coal burners almost as clean as gas burners.

The objective is to develop technologies that reduce the crap that goes into the air when coal is burnt. If coal can't keep up, it will become obsolete

Which is what the filtering requirements imposed on coal burners did... Killing an industry and the resulting loss of livelihood for people who have made a living that way for generations just because of some climate scam is uncontionable and just one more example of the unintended consequences of liberal thinking.

Great....If coal can burn "clean" it can survive as an energy source

But as a nation, we need to wean ourselves from oil and coal. Doesn't mean we ban them, only develop a more balanced energy policy. Solar and wind can take some of the burden off of coal and oil. Conservation and efficiency also reduce our dependence

 

[SSDD]

No.....the goal is not to eliminate coal
It is to reduce carbon emissions

Why? Can you provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that demonstrates that CO2 is causing a change in the global climate?....Just one?

Coal is dirty. They can't help it.

And the filtering requirements imposed on those who burn coal have made coal burners almost as clean as gas burners.

The objective is to develop technologies that reduce the crap that goes into the air when coal is burnt. If coal can't keep up, it will become obsolete

Which is what the filtering requirements imposed on coal burners did... Killing an industry and the resulting loss of livelihood for people who have made a living that way for generations just because of some climate scam is uncontionable and just one more example of the unintended consequences of liberal thinking.

Great....If coal can burn "clean" it can survive as an energy source

But as a nation, we need to wean ourselves from oil and coal. Doesn't mean we ban them, only develop a more balanced energy policy. Solar and wind can take some of the burden off of coal and oil. Conservation and efficiency also reduce our dependence

You didn't answer my pertinent question so I will ask again...Can you provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that demonstrates that CO2 is causing a change in the global climate?

New energy sources will be developed when a genuine profit motive exists for their production...just as was the case in the past with all new uses of energy. Government simply can't regulate and tax a new type of energy production into existence...it hasn't happened in the past and it isn't going to happen in the future. Why? you may ask yourself? Well, it is because the best and brightest don't work for the government...they work in the private sector and if you wan't a revolutionary new type of energy production, it is going to come from the minds of the best and the brightest.

 

[rightwinger]

No.....the goal is not to eliminate coal
It is to reduce carbon emissions

Why? Can you provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that demonstrates that CO2 is causing a change in the global climate?....Just one?

Coal is dirty. They can't help it.

And the filtering requirements imposed on those who burn coal have made coal burners almost as clean as gas burners.

The objective is to develop technologies that reduce the crap that goes into the air when coal is burnt. If coal can't keep up, it will become obsolete

Which is what the filtering requirements imposed on coal burners did... Killing an industry and the resulting loss of livelihood for people who have made a living that way for generations just because of some climate scam is uncontionable and just one more example of the unintended consequences of liberal thinking.

Great....If coal can burn "clean" it can survive as an energy source

But as a nation, we need to wean ourselves from oil and coal. Doesn't mean we ban them, only develop a more balanced energy policy. Solar and wind can take some of the burden off of coal and oil. Conservation and efficiency also reduce our dependence

You didn't answer my pertinent question so I will ask again...Can you provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that demonstrates that CO2 is causing a change in the global climate?

New energy sources will be developed when a genuine profit motive exists for their production...just as was the case in the past with all new uses of energy. Government simply can't regulate and tax a new type of energy production into existence...it hasn't happened in the past and it isn't going to happen in the future. Why? you may ask yourself? Well, it is because the best and brightest don't work for the government...they work in the private sector and if you wan't a revolutionary new type of energy production, it is going to come from the minds of the best and the brightest.

Sorry...not playing your global warming denial games

You can't PROVE cigarettes cause cancer
You can't PROVE the earth is round

 

[skookerasbil]

No.....the goal is not to eliminate coal
It is to reduce carbon emissions

Why? Can you provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that demonstrates that CO2 is causing a change in the global climate?....Just one?

Coal is dirty. They can't help it.

And the filtering requirements imposed on those who burn coal have made coal burners almost as clean as gas burners.

The objective is to develop technologies that reduce the crap that goes into the air when coal is burnt. If coal can't keep up, it will become obsolete

Which is what the filtering requirements imposed on coal burners did... Killing an industry and the resulting loss of livelihood for people who have made a living that way for generations just because of some climate scam is uncontionable and just one more example of the unintended consequences of liberal thinking.

Great....If coal can burn "clean" it can survive as an energy source

But as a nation, we need to wean ourselves from oil and coal. Doesn't mean we ban them, only develop a more balanced energy policy. Solar and wind can take some of the burden off of coal and oil. Conservation and efficiency also reduce our dependence

You didn't answer my pertinent question so I will ask again...Can you provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that demonstrates that CO2 is causing a change in the global climate?

New energy sources will be developed when a genuine profit motive exists for their production...just as was the case in the past with all new uses of energy. Government simply can't regulate and tax a new type of energy production into existence...it hasn't happened in the past and it isn't going to happen in the future. Why? you may ask yourself? Well, it is because the best and brightest don't work for the government...they work in the private sector and if you wan't a revolutionary new type of energy production, it is going to come from the minds of the best and the brightest.

Sorry...not playing your global warming denial games

You can't PROVE cigarettes cause cancer
You can't PROVE the earth is round

Who cares s0n..........stinky analogy.

Governments are going to be burning coal like it is going out of style for decades to come.........100% certainty. China alone will have upped its production by...........ready for this..........50% by 2040. The end of coal may well come........but it will have zero to do with conventional renewables. And its going to be long after everybody on this forum is snug in their boxes!

 

[SSDD]

Sorry...not playing your global warming denial games

You can't PROVE cigarettes cause cancer
You can't PROVE the earth is round

I didn't ask for proof. I asked for a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that demonstrates that CO2 is causing a change in the global climate.

I can certainly provide plenty of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that cigarettes increase your risk of cancer...and likewise I can provide plenty of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the claim that the earth, while not a perfect sphere, is certainly spherical in shape. You would be hard pressed to find any generally "accepted" scientific claim which is not backed by a fair amount of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the claim...even if the claim turns out to be wrong as has been the case for far to many generally accepted scientific claims...except for the claim that CO2 is somehow altering the global climate....to which there is not a single scrap of observed, measured, quantified supporting evidence.

And don't worry, I never expected you to give me an answer...or to provide any such evidence. I wouldn't have asked had there been any for you to provide. I wouldn't be as skeptical as I am if there were even one shred of such evidence available for examination.

 

[Crick]

You are absolutely nothing more than a lying piece of shit.

www.ipcc.ch

 

[Syriusly]

Does anyone know?

Let's hear from the left. The coal industry. Should it be completely shut down?

Only here or everywhere?

Please, explain.

The coal industry will never be completely shut down- coal is necessary for lots of things- just not for power production.

Coal is just much more expensive than natural gas, and much dirtier than natural gas or alternatives.

Will the environment of the entire world be better once we stop burning dirty coal?

Sure- and that is why China is spending so much money to convert from coal to natural gas, and is a leader in both wind and solar technology.

We should continue our conversion from coal to natural gas, and use coal for the industries like steel that we need coal for.

That is the direction that eventually the whole world will go- it will be harder for poor countries like India to make the conversion- but China moving that direction.

 

[skookerasbil]

You are absolutely nothing more than a lying piece of shit.

www.ipcc.ch

s0n.......pay..........attention..........the...........IPCC.............has..........absolutely............nothing.............to.............do...........with..............coal.............production........and..........never.............will


Oh..........and not for nothing but SSDD is 100% correct. There is no proof anywhere that CO2 contributes to "climate change".

So on two counts, you get the gigantic bumpy...............

 

[SSDD]

You are absolutely nothing more than a lying piece of shit.

www.ipcc.ch

Sorry crick, but we all know that you are the lying piece of shit...I have asked you over and over and over to bring forward a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data from the IPCC that supported the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.... You have been unable to find a single piece of such data. But feel free cut and paste a single piece of such data from your source right now and paste it here and prove me wrong.....or give some impotent and inane reason for not doing it and prove me right once again.

Step on up to the plate skid mark...show us all what you've got.

 

[SSDD]

Does anyone know?

Let's hear from the left. The coal industry. Should it be completely shut down?

Only here or everywhere?

Please, explain.

The coal industry will never be completely shut down- coal is necessary for lots of things- just not for power production.

Coal is just much more expensive than natural gas, and much dirtier than natural gas or alternatives.

Will the environment of the entire world be better once we stop burning dirty coal?

Sure- and that is why China is spending so much money to convert from coal to natural gas, and is a leader in both wind and solar technology.

We should continue our conversion from coal to natural gas, and use coal for the industries like steel that we need coal for.

That is the direction that eventually the whole world will go- it will be harder for poor countries like India to make the conversion- but China moving that direction.

Actually, China has been starting new coal fired plants at the rate of about 2 per week. Your belief that china is cutting back on coal is based on a statement made by the government...and long history has shown that what government says and what it does are two very different things. The report that they have abandoned over 100 coal projects is meaningless in the face of two new coal projects beginning every week.

China keeps building coal plants despite new overcapacity policy - Energydesk

 

[rightwinger]

Sorry...not playing your global warming denial games

You can't PROVE cigarettes cause cancer
You can't PROVE the earth is round

I didn't ask for proof. I asked for a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that demonstrates that CO2 is causing a change in the global climate.

I can certainly provide plenty of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that cigarettes increase your risk of cancer...and likewise I can provide plenty of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the claim that the earth, while not a perfect sphere, is certainly spherical in shape. You would be hard pressed to find any generally "accepted" scientific claim which is not backed by a fair amount of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the claim...even if the claim turns out to be wrong as has been the case for far to many generally accepted scientific claims...except for the claim that CO2 is somehow altering the global climate....to which there is not a single scrap of observed, measured, quantified supporting evidence.

And don't worry, I never expected you to give me an answer...or to provide any such evidence. I wouldn't have asked had there been any for you to provide. I wouldn't be as skeptical as I am if there were even one shred of such evidence available for examination.

Sorry...still not playing global warming denial games