CDZ Climate Denial or Climate Dishonesty?

[task0778]

So much of the AGW stuff comes out of the UN, who is notorious for trying every possible scheme they can think of to get large quantities of US taxdollars going to them and their cronies. Just like the Paris Agreement, which was more about redistribution of wealth rather than global warming.

 

[Toronado3800]

How about the Weather changes just like it has in History. Then you can understand why the Weather in Egypt is so dry, this was because the Himalayas were growing up. So it blocked the weather system and changed the flow of the upper winds carrying moisture away from the area. North Africa use to be wet and now its dry, proven by space photos of dry river beds and lakes. At one time the Gulf stream moved away from the British Isles and it got colder, but did return. They could really be happy with Global warming. You do have the carbon tax people who want to profit, even if they lie to get the support and the people to buy into the global warming story.

And New Mexico was once shallow ocean and then rain forest when dinosaurs roamed. And it is now high desert with desert areas generally receiving about 10 inches of rain or less in wet years--the alpine terrains will get up to 20 inches which is still well below the national average. Prolonged drought--yes, the desert can have drought too--is almost certainly what drove the Anasazi people from their cliff dwellings.

And all that climate change was well before the Industrial Revolution.

I would say there is a totally different scale of time involved.

The point, however, is that there have been dramatic, and sometimes relatively fast major climate shifts and mini climate shifts before any industrial revolution could have affected the process. And given that the scientists climate models can't take information that we have from the past and create any kind of realistic conditions that exist now should at least give us pause for thought that what they forecast for the future is likely to be just as flawed.

I want scientists who aren't getting paid to support a hypothesis beneficial to the government and the 'new world order' to agree on all this before I willingly hand over my liberties, options, choices, and opportunities to people who very likely do not have anybody's best interests at heart other than their own.

When I follow the money I get coal mine workers and B.P. for my climate conspiracies. You get old hippies who just want to take away your car for some power trip?

BTW, I don't wanna take away your car. I own 3 cars with 24 spark plugs, 16 plug wires and 8 coil overs between them.

When I follow the money, I see that government science research money flows ONLY to those who support the whole AGW theory as a serious and potentially deadly problem. And I believe that taints the science and encourages dishonesty.

Do you not think it is a potentially deadly problem?

Do you not think B.P. and whoever they don't own aren't a bit concerned about subverting that idea?

Money motivates people.

 

[Foxfyre]

And New Mexico was once shallow ocean and then rain forest when dinosaurs roamed. And it is now high desert with desert areas generally receiving about 10 inches of rain or less in wet years--the alpine terrains will get up to 20 inches which is still well below the national average. Prolonged drought--yes, the desert can have drought too--is almost certainly what drove the Anasazi people from their cliff dwellings.

And all that climate change was well before the Industrial Revolution.

I would say there is a totally different scale of time involved.

The point, however, is that there have been dramatic, and sometimes relatively fast major climate shifts and mini climate shifts before any industrial revolution could have affected the process. And given that the scientists climate models can't take information that we have from the past and create any kind of realistic conditions that exist now should at least give us pause for thought that what they forecast for the future is likely to be just as flawed.

I want scientists who aren't getting paid to support a hypothesis beneficial to the government and the 'new world order' to agree on all this before I willingly hand over my liberties, options, choices, and opportunities to people who very likely do not have anybody's best interests at heart other than their own.

When I follow the money I get coal mine workers and B.P. for my climate conspiracies. You get old hippies who just want to take away your car for some power trip?

BTW, I don't wanna take away your car. I own 3 cars with 24 spark plugs, 16 plug wires and 8 coil overs between them.

When I follow the money, I see that government science research money flows ONLY to those who support the whole AGW theory as a serious and potentially deadly problem. And I believe that taints the science and encourages dishonesty.

Do you not think it is a potentially deadly problem?

Do you not think B.P. and whoever they don't own aren't a bit concerned about subverting that idea?

Money motivates people.

No, I have seen no evidence that it is a potentially deadly problem, at least something anybody has any ability to do anything about. From the information we now have, IMO we would be much better off at this point using our resources to adapt to climate change rather than pretending we can affect it just by living our lives.

I see the climate models and predictions that we pay a lot of taxpayer money to produce have missed the mark time and time again. In fact they haven't been right yet. But the so-called climate scientists just keep giving us new predictions, apparently mostly made up out of whole cloth, and moving the goal posts to keep the money flowing to them. And the most gullible among us never question them but just keep buying whatever they feed to us.

I think everybody looks to their own interests and those interests can be affected by greed, opportunity, mandates, or altruistic motives. The oil companies however have been benefited hugely by government initiatives re climate change and they have no monetary motive to interfere with that. They have not suffered in the least but the higher prices to provide the products they provide as a result of climate change regulation is paid by you and me.

Remove the unnecessary rules and regulations for the oil companies, and they will adjust their goals and objectives accordingly and most likely will be offering the products more economically for us.

Remove the incentive for scientists to promote the whole AGW schtick, and I am pretty sure we would be getting much different scientific conclusions than we now get. But if I am wrong about that, at least I would have more confidence in the 'scientific' opinions.

 

[westwall]

And New Mexico was once shallow ocean and then rain forest when dinosaurs roamed. And it is now high desert with desert areas generally receiving about 10 inches of rain or less in wet years--the alpine terrains will get up to 20 inches which is still well below the national average. Prolonged drought--yes, the desert can have drought too--is almost certainly what drove the Anasazi people from their cliff dwellings.

And all that climate change was well before the Industrial Revolution.

I would say there is a totally different scale of time involved.

The point, however, is that there have been dramatic, and sometimes relatively fast major climate shifts and mini climate shifts before any industrial revolution could have affected the process. And given that the scientists climate models can't take information that we have from the past and create any kind of realistic conditions that exist now should at least give us pause for thought that what they forecast for the future is likely to be just as flawed.

I want scientists who aren't getting paid to support a hypothesis beneficial to the government and the 'new world order' to agree on all this before I willingly hand over my liberties, options, choices, and opportunities to people who very likely do not have anybody's best interests at heart other than their own.

When I follow the money I get coal mine workers and B.P. for my climate conspiracies. You get old hippies who just want to take away your car for some power trip?

BTW, I don't wanna take away your car. I own 3 cars with 24 spark plugs, 16 plug wires and 8 coil overs between them.

When I follow the money, I see that government science research money flows ONLY to those who support the whole AGW theory as a serious and potentially deadly problem. And I believe that taints the science and encourages dishonesty.

Do you not think it is a potentially deadly problem?

Do you not think B.P. and whoever they don't own aren't a bit concerned about subverting that idea?

Money motivates people.

Indeed it does. So, let's take a look at the motivation. Green energy advocates want us to completely re engineer the electrical grid to use 100% green energy. Guess how much that will cost? The UN estimate is 74 trillion dollars. Seems like a pretty big motivator to me. How about you?

Don't believe me? Here it is for you to look over.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

 

[task0778]

Money motivates people 6 ways from Sunday. I do not doubt that there are many among the AGWers who truly believe in the catastrophic consequences of GW if left unaddressed that have no regard to monetary concerns, but my problem with the whole concept is that so many of them want to spend gobs of our money that won't fix the problem. The Paris Agreement is only going to lower the global temps by some 2 tenths of 1 freakin' degree, and we're supposed to sign up for that? How does any responsible person not see the nonsense in that? Can we not find better and cheaper ways to do something about it? Why aren't we getting the whole story on all known alternatives to deal with Climate Change, it'll cost this much and the results will be this much. I don't think that's too much to ask.

 

[task0778]

I would say there is a totally different scale of time involved.

The point, however, is that there have been dramatic, and sometimes relatively fast major climate shifts and mini climate shifts before any industrial revolution could have affected the process. And given that the scientists climate models can't take information that we have from the past and create any kind of realistic conditions that exist now should at least give us pause for thought that what they forecast for the future is likely to be just as flawed.

I want scientists who aren't getting paid to support a hypothesis beneficial to the government and the 'new world order' to agree on all this before I willingly hand over my liberties, options, choices, and opportunities to people who very likely do not have anybody's best interests at heart other than their own.

When I follow the money I get coal mine workers and B.P. for my climate conspiracies. You get old hippies who just want to take away your car for some power trip?

BTW, I don't wanna take away your car. I own 3 cars with 24 spark plugs, 16 plug wires and 8 coil overs between them.

When I follow the money, I see that government science research money flows ONLY to those who support the whole AGW theory as a serious and potentially deadly problem. And I believe that taints the science and encourages dishonesty.

Do you not think it is a potentially deadly problem?

Do you not think B.P. and whoever they don't own aren't a bit concerned about subverting that idea?

Money motivates people.

Indeed it does. So, let's take a look at the motivation. Green energy advocates want us to completely re engineer the electrical grid to use 100% green energy. Guess how much that will cost? The UN estimate is 74 trillion dollars. Seems like a pretty big motivator to me. How about you?

Don't believe me? Here it is for you to look over.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

Betcha that 74 trillion dollars is way underestimated.

 

[2aguy]

Money motivates people 6 ways from Sunday. I do not doubt that there are many among the AGWers who truly believe in the catastrophic consequences of GW if left unaddressed that have no regard to monetary concerns, but my problem with the whole concept is that so many of them want to spend gobs of our money that won't fix the problem. The Paris Agreement is only going to lower the global temps by some 2 tenths of 1 freakin' degree, and we're supposed to sign up for that? How does any responsible person not see the nonsense in that? Can we not find better and cheaper ways to do something about it? Why aren't we getting the whole story on all known alternatives to deal with Climate Change, it'll cost this much and the results will be this much. I don't think that's too much to ask.

actually, that isn't quite accurate.....they claim it will lower global temps......but nothing they have said about anything else has been accurate to this point, so why would anyone trust them about that claim?

 

[task0778]

Money motivates people 6 ways from Sunday. I do not doubt that there are many among the AGWers who truly believe in the catastrophic consequences of GW if left unaddressed that have no regard to monetary concerns, but my problem with the whole concept is that so many of them want to spend gobs of our money that won't fix the problem. The Paris Agreement is only going to lower the global temps by some 2 tenths of 1 freakin' degree, and we're supposed to sign up for that? How does any responsible person not see the nonsense in that? Can we not find better and cheaper ways to do something about it? Why aren't we getting the whole story on all known alternatives to deal with Climate Change, it'll cost this much and the results will be this much. I don't think that's too much to ask.

actually, that isn't quite accurate.....they claim it will lower global temps......but nothing they have said about anything else has been accurate to this point, so why would anyone trust them about that claim?

Point taken, these days I don't trust anybody. I'd want to see the arguments for and against a particular action or program, and if it appears reasonable AND cost effective then it should be at least considered. I would add however that researchers are coming up with new innovations all the time in all sorts of avenues that affect GW. Maybe in the next 85 years before the century is over we'll have cold fusion and hydrogen cars and all sorts of new ways to power society that will relegate fossil fuels to the dustbin of history.

 

[2aguy]

Money motivates people 6 ways from Sunday. I do not doubt that there are many among the AGWers who truly believe in the catastrophic consequences of GW if left unaddressed that have no regard to monetary concerns, but my problem with the whole concept is that so many of them want to spend gobs of our money that won't fix the problem. The Paris Agreement is only going to lower the global temps by some 2 tenths of 1 freakin' degree, and we're supposed to sign up for that? How does any responsible person not see the nonsense in that? Can we not find better and cheaper ways to do something about it? Why aren't we getting the whole story on all known alternatives to deal with Climate Change, it'll cost this much and the results will be this much. I don't think that's too much to ask.

actually, that isn't quite accurate.....they claim it will lower global temps......but nothing they have said about anything else has been accurate to this point, so why would anyone trust them about that claim?

Point taken, these days I don't trust anybody. I'd want to see the arguments for and against a particular action or program, and if it appears reasonable AND cost effective then it should be at least considered. I would add however that researchers are coming up with new innovations all the time in all sorts of avenues that affect GW. Maybe in the next 85 years before the century is over we'll have cold fusion and hydrogen cars and all sorts of new ways to power society that will relegate fossil fuels to the dustbin of history.

You won't have those things if you give more power to the man made global warming high priests...it will not be in their interest to push technological innovation....natural gas and nuclear are the cleanest energy sources.....do you see them pushing either one of those?

 

[task0778]

Money motivates people 6 ways from Sunday. I do not doubt that there are many among the AGWers who truly believe in the catastrophic consequences of GW if left unaddressed that have no regard to monetary concerns, but my problem with the whole concept is that so many of them want to spend gobs of our money that won't fix the problem. The Paris Agreement is only going to lower the global temps by some 2 tenths of 1 freakin' degree, and we're supposed to sign up for that? How does any responsible person not see the nonsense in that? Can we not find better and cheaper ways to do something about it? Why aren't we getting the whole story on all known alternatives to deal with Climate Change, it'll cost this much and the results will be this much. I don't think that's too much to ask.

actually, that isn't quite accurate.....they claim it will lower global temps......but nothing they have said about anything else has been accurate to this point, so why would anyone trust them about that claim?

Point taken, these days I don't trust anybody. I'd want to see the arguments for and against a particular action or program, and if it appears reasonable AND cost effective then it should be at least considered. I would add however that researchers are coming up with new innovations all the time in all sorts of avenues that affect GW. Maybe in the next 85 years before the century is over we'll have cold fusion and hydrogen cars and all sorts of new ways to power society that will relegate fossil fuels to the dustbin of history.

You won't have those things if you give more power to the man made global warming high priests...it will not be in their interest to push technological innovation....natural gas and nuclear are the cleanest energy sources.....do you see them pushing either one of those?

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.

 

[Toronado3800]

Money motivates people 6 ways from Sunday. I do not doubt that there are many among the AGWers who truly believe in the catastrophic consequences of GW if left unaddressed that have no regard to monetary concerns, but my problem with the whole concept is that so many of them want to spend gobs of our money that won't fix the problem. The Paris Agreement is only going to lower the global temps by some 2 tenths of 1 freakin' degree, and we're supposed to sign up for that? How does any responsible person not see the nonsense in that? Can we not find better and cheaper ways to do something about it? Why aren't we getting the whole story on all known alternatives to deal with Climate Change, it'll cost this much and the results will be this much. I don't think that's too much to ask.

actually, that isn't quite accurate.....they claim it will lower global temps......but nothing they have said about anything else has been accurate to this point, so why would anyone trust them about that claim?

Point taken, these days I don't trust anybody. I'd want to see the arguments for and against a particular action or program, and if it appears reasonable AND cost effective then it should be at least considered. I would add however that researchers are coming up with new innovations all the time in all sorts of avenues that affect GW. Maybe in the next 85 years before the century is over we'll have cold fusion and hydrogen cars and all sorts of new ways to power society that will relegate fossil fuels to the dustbin of history.

You won't have those things if you give more power to the man made global warming high priests...it will not be in their interest to push technological innovation....natural gas and nuclear are the cleanest energy sources.....do you see them pushing either one of those?

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?

 

[task0778]

Money motivates people 6 ways from Sunday. I do not doubt that there are many among the AGWers who truly believe in the catastrophic consequences of GW if left unaddressed that have no regard to monetary concerns, but my problem with the whole concept is that so many of them want to spend gobs of our money that won't fix the problem. The Paris Agreement is only going to lower the global temps by some 2 tenths of 1 freakin' degree, and we're supposed to sign up for that? How does any responsible person not see the nonsense in that? Can we not find better and cheaper ways to do something about it? Why aren't we getting the whole story on all known alternatives to deal with Climate Change, it'll cost this much and the results will be this much. I don't think that's too much to ask.

actually, that isn't quite accurate.....they claim it will lower global temps......but nothing they have said about anything else has been accurate to this point, so why would anyone trust them about that claim?

Point taken, these days I don't trust anybody. I'd want to see the arguments for and against a particular action or program, and if it appears reasonable AND cost effective then it should be at least considered. I would add however that researchers are coming up with new innovations all the time in all sorts of avenues that affect GW. Maybe in the next 85 years before the century is over we'll have cold fusion and hydrogen cars and all sorts of new ways to power society that will relegate fossil fuels to the dustbin of history.

You won't have those things if you give more power to the man made global warming high priests...it will not be in their interest to push technological innovation....natural gas and nuclear are the cleanest energy sources.....do you see them pushing either one of those?

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.

 

[Toronado3800]

actually, that isn't quite accurate.....they claim it will lower global temps......but nothing they have said about anything else has been accurate to this point, so why would anyone trust them about that claim?

Point taken, these days I don't trust anybody. I'd want to see the arguments for and against a particular action or program, and if it appears reasonable AND cost effective then it should be at least considered. I would add however that researchers are coming up with new innovations all the time in all sorts of avenues that affect GW. Maybe in the next 85 years before the century is over we'll have cold fusion and hydrogen cars and all sorts of new ways to power society that will relegate fossil fuels to the dustbin of history.

You won't have those things if you give more power to the man made global warming high priests...it will not be in their interest to push technological innovation....natural gas and nuclear are the cleanest energy sources.....do you see them pushing either one of those?

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.

 

[Cassandro]

Supply & Demand is the best way to distribute goods and services. Government intervention (e.g. rent control, CAFE standards, etc.).
That being said, consumers should pay for the societal cost of the products they purchase through recycling fees, pollution taxes, etc..

 

[Toronado3800]

Supply & Demand is the best way to distribute goods and services. Government intervention (e.g. rent control, CAFE standards, etc.).
That being said, consumers should pay for the societal cost of the products they purchase through recycling fees, pollution taxes, etc..

I'm split on that.

To think out loud...

On one hand with government controls, our air in St Louis seems better than it was 40 years ago and is definitely better than the 1930's. As someone who remembers the muscle car resurgence the fox bodies were, I think the 2017 pollution / mileage mandates are pretty weak. Heck, the new Vettes have 650 horse and get to 60 in under 3 seconds.

On the other, I'd say if a company is willing to pay $xx,xxx in taxes to have a fleet of over motored tow trucks belching out smoke but towing tractor trailers so be it. We gotta pay for that aircraft carrier or kidney transplant we are all going to want if we need it somehow.

But I really don't want to live near the pollution so maybe its best if we just regulate the tow trucks, the railroad's diesel emissions or whatever.

Then again, we do have Carbon credits and the air isn't worse than ten years ago so your plan apparently doesn't allow gross over pollution.

 

[Foxfyre]

Point taken, these days I don't trust anybody. I'd want to see the arguments for and against a particular action or program, and if it appears reasonable AND cost effective then it should be at least considered. I would add however that researchers are coming up with new innovations all the time in all sorts of avenues that affect GW. Maybe in the next 85 years before the century is over we'll have cold fusion and hydrogen cars and all sorts of new ways to power society that will relegate fossil fuels to the dustbin of history.

You won't have those things if you give more power to the man made global warming high priests...it will not be in their interest to push technological innovation....natural gas and nuclear are the cleanest energy sources.....do you see them pushing either one of those?

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.

 

[Cassandro]

Supply & Demand is the best way to distribute goods and services. Government intervention (e.g. rent control, CAFE standards, etc.) adds dysfunction to this process.
That being said, consumers should pay for the societal cost of the products they purchase through recycling fees, pollution taxes, etc..

 

[task0778]

According to the World Energy Outlook 2016 Report, more than 2.7 billion people – 38% of the world’s population – are estimated to have relied on the traditional use of solid biomass for cooking. I.E., wood, agricultural by-products, dried animal waste, etc., all carbon based BTW. And an estimated 1.2 billion people – 16% of the global population – did not have access to electricity.

I say this for a reason: besides these folks there are a few billion more people who depend on coal for their power source and all these other grandiose renewable sources are quite expensive at least for now. And the cost to replace these coal-fired plants with anything else is astonishingly high; it's just not feasible.

 

[Toronado3800]

According to the World Energy Outlook 2016 Report, more than 2.7 billion people – 38% of the world’s population – are estimated to have relied on the traditional use of solid biomass for cooking. I.E., wood, agricultural by-products, dried animal waste, etc., all carbon based BTW. And an estimated 1.2 billion people – 16% of the global population – did not have access to electricity.

I say this for a reason: besides these folks there are a few billion more people who depend on coal for their power source and all these other grandiose renewable sources are quite expensive at least for now. And the cost to replace these coal-fired plants with anything else is astonishingly high; it's just not feasible.

If you were talking to me, I did not say anything about shutting down the Portage Des Sioux coal plant.

Also, I think we agree, Chad is a different place than the stirring meccas of Omaha, Los Angeles, Lordsburg, Demming or Chicago. Does the World Energy Outlook report have any information on what it would cost to even support the Portage Des Sioux plant if you plum gave it to Chad and dropped it in a place where some of them 1.2 billion people live like Moussoro? The infrastructure there just sucks. That city does have a road heading to it. Not one any of my 3 cars could probably survive the trip down, but a road.

After thinking about the cost them boys at the BNSF deal with to keep their established line running to Portage I think it might be easier to drop some solar panels on Moussoro.

 

[Toronado3800]

You won't have those things if you give more power to the man made global warming high priests...it will not be in their interest to push technological innovation....natural gas and nuclear are the cleanest energy sources.....do you see them pushing either one of those?

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.