Why we should listen to the 97%

[Foxfyre]

In my opinion the government should do neither. It should offer tax incentives to those who PRODUCE cleaner, cheaper energy to the greatest number of people. It should not be fundng energy in any way, nor should it be funding research that will inevitably be tainted just to qualify for those government dollars.

 

[Abraham3]

I reject all subsidies of any kind. I also reject regulations that are designed solely to put certain industries out of business. The market should decide which industries thrive and which wither away.

Let me ask you something. Do you LIKE the smell of half burnt hydrocarbons? Do you like the appearance of strip mines? Do you like seeing miners "coughing out pieces of their broken lungs"?

I live within 5 miles of a giant coal fired power plant. I don't smell a thing. The air hear is as crystal clear as the air at the South Pole. Miners who "cough their lungs out" are all smokers. Black lung disease is really a disease of smokers.

Bullshit.

Coal workers' pneumoconiosis (CWP), colloquially referred to as black lung disease, is caused by long exposure to coal dust. It is a common affliction of coal miners and others who work with coal, similar to both silicosis from inhaling silica dust, and to the long-term effects of tobacco smoking. Inhaled coal dust progressively builds up in the lungs and is unable to be removed by the body; that leads to inflammation, fibrosis, and in worse cases, necrosis.
Coal workers' pneumoconiosis, severe state, develops after the initial, milder form of the disease known as anthracosis (anthrac — coal, carbon). This is often asymptomatic and is found to at least some extent in all urban dwellers[1] due to air pollution. Prolonged exposure to large amounts of coal dust can result in more serious forms of the disease, simple coal workers' pneumoconiosis and complicated coal workers' pneumoconiosis (or Progressive massive fibrosis, or PMF). More commonly, workers exposed to coal dust develop industrial bronchitis,[2] clinically defined as chronic bronchitis (i.e. productive cough for 3 months per year for at least 2 years) associated with workplace dust exposure. The incidence of industrial bronchitis varies with age, job, exposure, and smoking. In nonsmokers (who are less prone to develop bronchitis than smokers), studies of coal miners have shown a 16%[3] to 17%[4] incidence of industrial bronchitis.

The air where you live is not as clean as the air at the South Pole and strip mines are still ugly pits in the Earth which are rarely if ever restored to a healthy state.

The amount of money being invested in alternative energy technologies is not going to break the bank and, if nothing else, will get us cleaner air, water and land. The vehemence of your objection seems unjustified, even by the reasons you give.

The improvement in cleanliness won't even be detectable to anyone. In exchange for massive costs the taxpayers receive zero tangible benefit. Furthermore, this meddling causes distortions in the market. Obama is imposing draconian regulations on the coal industry in a deliberate attempt to drive it out of business. If you think "green energy" is economically competitive, then let it compete. Otherwise let it die a natural death.

Do you not recall acid rain? The smogs of London, LA and Beijing? Coal combustion in the US has gotten cleaner - due entirely to regulation pushed through by liberals - but it is a L O N G way from undetectable. The added regulation of coal IS meant to eventually drive it from the marketplace. The government has the ability and the obligation to take action to protect the health and well being of the American citizenry and our common infrastructure. Those things are put at risk by GHG emissions.

If we were to follow your advice, we'd still be using DDT and the world's bird population would be a tiny fraction of it's current size. We'd still be looking at cigarette advertising in every media that exists, including that aimed at the young, and the rate of lung cancer would be through the roof. We'd never have established OSHA and their regulatory opus and workplace injuries and deaths would be several times what they are now. We'd still be filling every chiller and aerosol can with polychlorinated fluorocarbons and the ozone hole would be up to the 60th parallel or so.

This nation is a representative democracy. The individuals elected to run the government and this nation are intended to represent its people, not its companies; its individuals, not its corporations. Their actually is a difference between the well-being of GM and the well-being of its employees and their nation.

 

[bripat9643]

I reject all subsidies of any kind. I also reject regulations that are designed solely to put certain industries out of business. The market should decide which industries thrive and which wither away.

Let me ask you something. Do you LIKE the smell of half burnt hydrocarbons? Do you like the appearance of strip mines? Do you like seeing miners "coughing out pieces of their broken lungs"?

Bullshit.

Coal workers' pneumoconiosis (CWP), colloquially referred to as black lung disease, is caused by long exposure to coal dust. It is a common affliction of coal miners and others who work with coal, similar to both silicosis from inhaling silica dust, and to the long-term effects of tobacco smoking. Inhaled coal dust progressively builds up in the lungs and is unable to be removed by the body; that leads to inflammation, fibrosis, and in worse cases, necrosis.
Coal workers' pneumoconiosis, severe state, develops after the initial, milder form of the disease known as anthracosis (anthrac — coal, carbon). This is often asymptomatic and is found to at least some extent in all urban dwellers[1] due to air pollution. Prolonged exposure to large amounts of coal dust can result in more serious forms of the disease, simple coal workers' pneumoconiosis and complicated coal workers' pneumoconiosis (or Progressive massive fibrosis, or PMF). More commonly, workers exposed to coal dust develop industrial bronchitis,[2] clinically defined as chronic bronchitis (i.e. productive cough for 3 months per year for at least 2 years) associated with workplace dust exposure. The incidence of industrial bronchitis varies with age, job, exposure, and smoking. In nonsmokers (who are less prone to develop bronchitis than smokers), studies of coal miners have shown a 16%[3] to 17%[4] incidence of industrial bronchitis.

Bronchitis is not black lung disease. Nothing you posted disproves what I said.

The air where you live is not as clean as the air at the South Pole and strip mines are still ugly pits in the Earth which are rarely if ever restored to a healthy state.

I exaggerated, of course, but the fact is no one could tell whether the air is cleaner 1 mile from the coal fired plant or 50 miles from the plant if you put a blind fold on them.

The amount of money being invested in alternative energy technologies is not going to break the bank and, if nothing else, will get us cleaner air, water and land. The vehemence of your objection seems unjustified, even by the reasons you give.

The improvement in cleanliness won't even be detectable to anyone. In exchange for massive costs the taxpayers receive zero tangible benefit. Furthermore, this meddling causes distortions in the market. Obama is imposing draconian regulations on the coal industry in a deliberate attempt to drive it out of business. If you think "green energy" is economically competitive, then let it compete. Otherwise let it die a natural death.

Do you not recall acid rain? The smogs of London, LA and Beijing? Coal combustion in the US has gotten cleaner - due entirely to regulation pushed through by liberals - but it is a L O N G way from undetectable. The added regulation of coal IS meant to eventually drive it from the marketplace. The government has the ability and the obligation to take action to protect the health and well being of the American citizenry and our common infrastructure. Those things are put at risk by GHG emissions.

You're right about one thing: the added regulation is intended to drive coal from the marketplace. The rest of your claims are bullshit. The government doesn't have the authority to decide what forms of power generation the consumers can choose. Where does it say that in the Constitution? And, of course, AGW is a colossal con.

If we were to follow your advice, we'd still be using DDT and the world's bird population would be a tiny fraction of it's current size. We'd still be looking at cigarette advertising in every media that exists, including that aimed at the young, and the rate of lung cancer would be through the roof. We'd never have established OSHA and their regulatory opus and workplace injuries and deaths would be several times what they are now. We'd still be filling every chiller and aerosol can with polychlorinated fluorocarbons and the ozone hole would be up to the 60th parallel or so.

Of course, that's all bullshit, or it's none of the government's business. The Constitution doesn't give the government authority to regulate advertising. OSHA isn't needed to make workplaces safer. Tort law is more than sufficient to take care of it. The Ozone hole was another myth perpetrated by eco-wacos, and now instead of spray cans filled with harmless freon, they are filled with butane and they are extremely dangerous.

This nation is a representative democracy. The individuals elected to run the government and this nation are intended to represent its people, not its companies; its individuals, not its corporations.

Wrong again. They are also entitled to representation and all the rights listed in the Bill of Rights and other amendments.

Their actually is a difference between the well-being of GM and the well-being of its employees and their nation.

You're belief that they are in conflict is where you er.

 

[Abraham3]

Inhaled coal dust progressively builds up in the lungs and is unable to be removed by the body; that leads to inflammation, fibrosis, and in worse cases, necrosis.

No smoking required

Prolonged exposure to large amounts of coal dust can result in more serious forms of the disease, simple coal workers' pneumoconiosis and complicated coal workers' pneumoconiosis (or Progressive massive fibrosis, or PMF).

No smoking required

More commonly, workers exposed to coal dust develop industrial bronchitis,[2] clinically defined as chronic bronchitis (i.e. productive cough for 3 months per year for at least 2 years) associated with workplace dust exposure.

No smoking required

The incidence of industrial bronchitis varies with age, job, exposure, and smoking. In nonsmokers (who are less prone to develop bronchitis than smokers), studies of coal miners have shown a 16%[3] to 17%[4] incidence of industrial bronchitis.

Bronchitis is not black lung disease. Nothing you posted disproves what I said.

Everything I posted disproves what you said. Black Lung disease is not a smoker's disease. It is a disease which develops in people exposed to coal dust. People who also smoke get it worse, but that's true of smokers and EVERY lung disease.

I exaggerated, of course, but the fact is no one could tell whether the air is cleaner 1 mile from the coal fired plant or 50 miles from the plant if you put a blind fold on them.

No one? I'll bet ya a dollar to a doughnut that someone with an air filter and a mass spectrometer would find it child's play to discern signs of that plant.

I'd also bet you that someone coming from a region with genuinely clean air stepping directly into your front yard, would smell it. It's surprising how quickly and how thoroughly our noses get saturated and exhausted and you simply no longer smell the aromatics to which you're constantly exposed.

You're right about one thing: the added regulation is intended to drive coal from the marketplace. The rest of your claims are bullshit. The government doesn't have the authority to decide what forms of power generation the consumers can choose. Where does it say that in the Constitution? And, of course, AGW is a colossal con.

The government DOES have that right. It's covered under the Commerce Clause, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution. And AGW is quite real.

Of course, that's all bullshit, or it's none of the government's business. The Constitution doesn't give the government authority to regulate advertising.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3

OSHA isn't needed to make workplaces safer. Tort law is more than sufficient to take care of it.

That's an interesting viewpoint Patrick. If my employer conducts his business in an inherently unsafe manner and I get injured because of that, I sue, he pays and, one hopes, alters his behavior to prevent further lawsuits. Now what is it that forces all his competitors to also change their habits? After all, if my employer changes his behavior to make his workplace safer, he has almost certainly added to his baseline costs. It gives his competitors an advantage over him. OSHA takes the rational and commonsense approach of applying common safety rules to ALL businesses. No one gains a cost advantage at the risk of their employees health.

You really are a mercantile son of a *****, aren't you.

The Ozone hole was another myth perpetrated by eco-wacos, and now instead of spray cans filled with harmless freon, they are filled with butane and they are extremely dangerous.

You believe the ozone hole was a myth? You believe there was no hole? Where do you get this stuff Patrick? Did anyone ever really walk on the moon? Was JFK murdered by the Secret Service? Were the commies behind fluoridation? Is the moon hollow and inhabited by aliens?

This nation is a representative democracy. The individuals elected to run the government and this nation are intended to represent its people, not its companies; its individuals, not its corporations.

Wrong again. They are also entitled to representation and all the rights listed in the Bill of Rights and other amendments.

You are the first person I have EVER met that supported Citizens United. Be that as it may, even Citizens United does not state that our elected officials represent business entities.

Their actually is a difference between the well-being of GM and the well-being of its employees and their nation.

You're belief that they are in conflict is where you er.

Err. Two r's. I didn't say they're in conflict. I simply said they are not one and the same.

 

[westwall]

Yes. ALL government subsidies should be eliminated. Research is one thing. Being forced to pay extra taxes so that that money can be given to companies that would otherwise fail completely is a joke. If they have a product that they can deliver in a timely efficient manner then they don't NEED a subsidy.

Fund research, NOT companies. The left continually wants to treat these things as the same concept and there is nothing further from the truth. There is something to be said for the government being capable of pushing tech with resources that it can afford to lose (and the fact that industry PREFERS static tech) but we don’t really do that. For the most part, the problems have occurred because we are sinking cash into companies rather than development in the hops that a small portion might someday reach to an R&D department. It is asinine and does nothing to clean anything up.

Are you suggesting the government fund only government research or that the government somehow restrict subsidies, tax breaks and the like to R&D?

Government funds universities. They are the best to do that sort of research. Company's, for the most part, don't do research, and when they have nothing to lose what research they do is limited to what they already know. There is no real incentive to come out with anything better.

But I still say let the Chinese develop it and then we steal it from them. I'm tired of them doing that crap. Let them take the lead on something for once. Let's put our research dollars into something truly revolutionary.

 

[westwall]

Inhaled coal dust progressively builds up in the lungs and is unable to be removed by the body; that leads to inflammation, fibrosis, and in worse cases, necrosis.

No smoking required

Prolonged exposure to large amounts of coal dust can result in more serious forms of the disease, simple coal workers' pneumoconiosis and complicated coal workers' pneumoconiosis (or Progressive massive fibrosis, or PMF).

No smoking required



No smoking required





Everything I posted disproves what you said. Black Lung disease is not a smoker's disease. It is a disease which develops in people exposed to coal dust. People who also smoke get it worse, but that's true of smokers and EVERY lung disease.



No one? I'll bet ya a dollar to a doughnut that someone with an air filter and a mass spectrometer would find it child's play to discern signs of that plant.

I'd also bet you that someone coming from a region with genuinely clean air stepping directly into your front yard, would smell it. It's surprising how quickly and how thoroughly our noses get saturated and exhausted and you simply no longer smell the aromatics to which you're constantly exposed.



The government DOES have that right. It's covered under the Commerce Clause, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution. And AGW is quite real.



Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3



That's an interesting viewpoint Patrick. If my employer conducts his business in an inherently unsafe manner and I get injured because of that, I sue, he pays and, one hopes, alters his behavior to prevent further lawsuits. Now what is it that forces all his competitors to also change their habits? After all, if my employer changes his behavior to make his workplace safer, he has almost certainly added to his baseline costs. It gives his competitors an advantage over him. OSHA takes the rational and commonsense approach of applying common safety rules to ALL businesses. No one gains a cost advantage at the risk of their employees health.

You really are a mercantile son of a *****, aren't you.



You believe the ozone hole was a myth? You believe there was no hole? Where do you get this stuff Patrick? Did anyone ever really walk on the moon? Was JFK murdered by the Secret Service? Were the commies behind fluoridation? Is the moon hollow and inhabited by aliens?





You are the first person I have EVER met that supported Citizens United. Be that as it may, even Citizens United does not state that our elected officials represent business entities.

Their actually is a difference between the well-being of GM and the well-being of its employees and their nation.

You're belief that they are in conflict is where you er.

Err. Two r's. I didn't say they're in conflict. I simply said they are not one and the same.

Once workplace safety needs and measures are recognized any company that ignores those practices is going be destroyed in the lawsuit that follows their accident. I guess you haven't read too much law have you. Or even watched a episode of Law and Order.

 

[Abraham3]

Abraham's 97% is bogus.

It's not mine and it's not "bogus". Five different surveys by five different sets of researchers, three of which passed peer review and one of which was published in a journal of statisticians. The arguments that have been raised against the validity of these surveys, first, are almost exclusively made against Ken Doran's survey, pretending the others don't even exist, and, second, show a complete ignorance regarding sampling accuracy. If a very large majority of climate scientists did NOT support AGW, I think we'd be hearing a great deal more complaints than we have been. When Watts et al went looking for study authors who thought they'd been misrepresented by John Cook et al in the ERL survey of literature, he found three of them. That would be three guys out of four thousand and fourteen papers (multiple authors each). And uninvolved third parties CONFIRMED that Cook's characterization of the three author's papers were accurate.

97% of active climate scientists accept AGW. As far as it is possible to tell, that is a fact.

Too much of what passes for climate science is bogus.

1) Like what?
2) What or who informs you that it is bogus?
3) What are your qualifications to judge?
4) What's your personal opinion of Al Gore? *

* - Just kidding.

We the people deserve better from those who would take away our liberties and control our lives in these matters.

I queried you about this before and I don't recall getting much of an answer. But we've all got our pokers in way too many fires around here.

WHO do you believe would take away WHAT liberties and WHAT control of your life? Are you worried about CFL light bulbs and hybrid cars? Do wind generators and solar power plants make you nervous? What in god's name could lead you to make such a statement? You're a paragon of hyperbole and coming from a histrionic fruitcake like me that's saying something.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Inhaled coal dust progressively builds up in the lungs and is unable to be removed by the body; that leads to inflammation, fibrosis, and in worse cases, necrosis.

No smoking required

Prolonged exposure to large amounts of coal dust can result in more serious forms of the disease, simple coal workers' pneumoconiosis and complicated coal workers' pneumoconiosis (or Progressive massive fibrosis, or PMF).

No smoking required



No smoking required





Everything I posted disproves what you said. Black Lung disease is not a smoker's disease. It is a disease which develops in people exposed to coal dust. People who also smoke get it worse, but that's true of smokers and EVERY lung disease.



No one? I'll bet ya a dollar to a doughnut that someone with an air filter and a mass spectrometer would find it child's play to discern signs of that plant.

I'd also bet you that someone coming from a region with genuinely clean air stepping directly into your front yard, would smell it. It's surprising how quickly and how thoroughly our noses get saturated and exhausted and you simply no longer smell the aromatics to which you're constantly exposed.



The government DOES have that right. It's covered under the Commerce Clause, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution. And AGW is quite real.



Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3



That's an interesting viewpoint Patrick. If my employer conducts his business in an inherently unsafe manner and I get injured because of that, I sue, he pays and, one hopes, alters his behavior to prevent further lawsuits. Now what is it that forces all his competitors to also change their habits? After all, if my employer changes his behavior to make his workplace safer, he has almost certainly added to his baseline costs. It gives his competitors an advantage over him. OSHA takes the rational and commonsense approach of applying common safety rules to ALL businesses. No one gains a cost advantage at the risk of their employees health.

You really are a mercantile son of a *****, aren't you.



You believe the ozone hole was a myth? You believe there was no hole? Where do you get this stuff Patrick? Did anyone ever really walk on the moon? Was JFK murdered by the Secret Service? Were the commies behind fluoridation? Is the moon hollow and inhabited by aliens?





You are the first person I have EVER met that supported Citizens United. Be that as it may, even Citizens United does not state that our elected officials represent business entities.

Their actually is a difference between the well-being of GM and the well-being of its employees and their nation.

You're belief that they are in conflict is where you er.

Err. Two r's. I didn't say they're in conflict. I simply said they are not one and the same.

You are the first person I have EVER met that supported Citizens United. Be that as it may, even Citizens United does not state that our elected officials represent business entities.

If unions can spend money on politics, businesses should be allowed to do the same.

 

[Abraham3]

you are the first person i have ever met that supported citizens united. Be that as it may, even citizens united does not state that our elected officials represent business entities.

if unions can spend money on politics, businesses should be allowed to do the same.

esl ?

 

[westwall]

Abraham's 97% is bogus.

It's not mine and it's not "bogus". Five different surveys by five different sets of researchers, three of which passed peer review and one of which was published in a journal of statisticians. The arguments that have been raised against the validity of these surveys, first, are almost exclusively made against Ken Doran's survey, pretending the others don't even exist, and, second, show a complete ignorance regarding sampling accuracy. If a very large majority of climate scientists did NOT support AGW, I think we'd be hearing a great deal more complaints than we have been. When Watts et al went looking for study authors who thought they'd been misrepresented by John Cook et al in the ERL survey of literature, he found three of them. That would be three guys out of four thousand and fourteen papers (multiple authors each). And uninvolved third parties CONFIRMED that Cook's characterization of the three author's papers were accurate.

97% of active climate scientists accept AGW. As far as it is possible to tell, that is a fact.

Too much of what passes for climate science is bogus.

1) Like what?
2) What or who informs you that it is bogus?
3) What are your qualifications to judge?
4) What's your personal opinion of Al Gore? *

* - Just kidding.

We the people deserve better from those who would take away our liberties and control our lives in these matters.

I queried you about this before and I don't recall getting much of an answer. But we've all got our pokers in way too many fires around here.

WHO do you believe would take away WHAT liberties and WHAT control of your life? Are you worried about CFL light bulbs and hybrid cars? Do wind generators and solar power plants make you nervous? What in god's name could lead you to make such a statement? You're a paragon of hyperbole and coming from a histrionic fruitcake like me that's saying something.

It is total bullshit and anyone who is not part of the fraudster camp bloody well KNOWS it.
Feel free to enjoy your delusion, but also know, you and yours are talking to yourselves...

 

[Abraham3]

It is total bullshit and anyone who is not part of the fraudster camp bloody well KNOWS it.
Feel free to enjoy your delusion, but also know, you and yours are talking to yourselves...

Impressive case you make there. Foundational background established, evidence and observations, theories falsified, theories supported, predictions going this way and that. Wow.

Yeah... wow.

 

[Saigon]

In my opinion the government should do neither. It should offer tax incentives to those who PRODUCE cleaner, cheaper energy to the greatest number of people. It should not be fundng energy in any way, nor should it be funding research that will inevitably be tainted just to qualify for those government dollars.

Then you have clearly changed your mind about supporting coal...!

I don't entirely disagree with your point though - and I do think feed-in tariffs have worked well in most countries where they have been used.

 

[Saigon]

The idea that you understand industry better than me is laughable

Well, two days ago you had never heard of feed-in tariffs....which are the most common form of subsidy used in the energy industry.

That's because they are money losing propositions. The power they produce is vastly more expensive and vastly less dependable

How can you evaluate the cost of power from a form of energy that has not yet been tested commercially?

It seems clear to most analysts that breeder reactors, tidal and solar thermal will all be hugely productive - but you oppose them because they are new.

It does make me laugh that you pretend to know something about this industry - but oppose the three best forms of future energy production REAL experts are promoting.

They may be new, but they are already tested commercially on a broad enough scale to know their costs of operation. The information is there for anybody who is scientifically adept enough to do the minimal research required.

And feed-in tariffs apply to renewable energy production only. Not oil and coal.

Really? Where has solar thermal been commercially tested?

They are both very new technologies with massive potential. LMFBR Breeders haveonly been really possible since 2006 - that isn't long for real potential to be clear.

Smart people are going to want to pursue these technologies and see how things look in 5 - 10 years. It's going to take at least that long to analyse or solve any teething problems, environmental concerns etc.

What looks likely is that all three tecnhologies will be cheaper, cleaner and more efficient than anything available on the market now....and yet we know that you will oppose them out of hand, as you do here. There is only one reason to oppose them at this stage, and that is politics. Luddites oppose anything new, purely and simply because it is new. This is what holds the US back in this field.

Feed-in tariffs are anentirely flexible mechanism which allows government to do exactly what you just suggested - to use tax incentives to reward cheaper and more efficient means of electricity production. Coal does not meet that standard, so it is generally excluded.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

you are the first person i have ever met that supported citizens united. Be that as it may, even citizens united does not state that our elected officials represent business entities.

if unions can spend money on politics, businesses should be allowed to do the same.

esl ?

fya!

 

[westwall]

It is total bullshit and anyone who is not part of the fraudster camp bloody well KNOWS it.
Feel free to enjoy your delusion, but also know, you and yours are talking to yourselves...

Impressive case you make there. Foundational background established, evidence and observations, theories falsified, theories supported, predictions going this way and that. Wow.

Yeah... wow.

There have been many posts and links showing the fallacy of your BS 97% meme. Do some research of your own for once.

 

[bripat9643]

Inhaled coal dust progressively builds up in the lungs and is unable to be removed by the body; that leads to inflammation, fibrosis, and in worse cases, necrosis.

No smoking required

Prolonged exposure to large amounts of coal dust can result in more serious forms of the disease, simple coal workers' pneumoconiosis and complicated coal workers' pneumoconiosis (or Progressive massive fibrosis, or PMF).

No smoking required



No smoking required


Everything I posted disproves what you said. Black Lung disease is not a smoker's disease. It is a disease which develops in people exposed to coal dust. People who also smoke get it worse, but that's true of smokers and EVERY lung disease.

No it doesn't. Bronchitis is not Black Lung Disease. The above applies to Bronchitis. It proves nothing about Black Lung Disease which afflicts only miners who smoke.

No one? I'll bet ya a dollar to a doughnut that someone with an air filter and a mass spectrometer would find it child's play to discern signs of that plant.

Of course a machine can detect it. I said a person couldn't detect. What a machine cannot detect is levels of emissions from a power plant that are in any hazardous to human health. Modern coal fired power plants are so clean that they are built right in the middle of populous cities with zero reports of any ill effects.

I'd also bet you that someone coming from a region with genuinely clean air stepping directly into your front yard, would smell it. It's surprising how quickly and how thoroughly our noses get saturated and exhausted and you simply no longer smell the aromatics to which you're constantly exposed.

No they can't. There is no smell. Natural substances in the air such as pollen overwhelm anything coming from a power plant.

The government DOES have that right. It's covered under the Commerce Clause, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution. And AGW is quite real.

Until FDR packed the court with political hacks that clause was always interpreted to mean that the federal government could remove impediments to commerce. It doesn't mean that the federal government could itself become an impediment to Congress. That's how the men who wrote the Constitution interpreted it.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3

wrong again.

That's an interesting viewpoint Patrick. If my employer conducts his business in an inherently unsafe manner and I get injured because of that, I sue, he pays and, one hopes, alters his behavior to prevent further lawsuits. Now what is it that forces all his competitors to also change their habits? After all, if my employer changes his behavior to make his workplace safer, he has almost certainly added to his baseline costs. It gives his competitors an advantage over him. OSHA takes the rational and commonsense approach of applying common safety rules to ALL businesses. No one gains a cost advantage at the risk of their employees health.

Where are you getting this "Patrick" shit? Did I ever say my name was "Patrick?" Your employers competitors will change their behavior because multi-million dollar lawsuits are very bad for profits. There was recently a Stossel episode that showed a company that makes gas guns going out of business because of lawsuits.

You really are a mercantile son of a *****, aren't you.

That must be your way of admitting that I'm not a gullible moron like you.

You believe the ozone hole was a myth? You believe there was no hole? Where do you get this stuff Patrick? Did anyone ever really walk on the moon? Was JFK murdered by the Secret Service? Were the commies behind fluoridation? Is the moon hollow and inhabited by aliens?

Yes, it's a myth. You see, Ozone is made when sunlight strikes the atmosphere. In the Winter there is no sunlight in the polar regions. Hence the concentration of ozone is reduced. That's all there was to the myth of the ozone "hole."

You are the first person I have EVER met that supported Citizens United. Be that as it may, even Citizens United does not state that our elected officials represent business entities.

It also doesn't say that 2+2=4. The Constitution says it applies to every person and every legal entity in the country. Your belief that corporations don't have Constitutional rights is positively fascist.

 

[FA_Q2]

In my opinion the government should do neither. It should offer tax incentives to those who PRODUCE cleaner, cheaper energy to the greatest number of people. It should not be fundng energy in any way, nor should it be funding research that will inevitably be tainted just to qualify for those government dollars.

Absolutely NOT. That is exactly the problem with the tax code. That is a special favor to a company and that only leads to other special favors. Why should any company get special tax incentives for anything. There is nothing wrong with funding science in general. You have a problem with NASA? Do you agree with Obama’s cancellation of the shuttle program?

That is funding science. Tax breaks for green energy – that is EXACTLY what you just advocated for. There are BIG problems with that.

 

[daveman]

Really? Where has solar thermal been commercially tested?

Why do you speak on this subject, when you obviously know nothing about it?

List of solar thermal power stations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[numan]

'
the Global Heating Denialists insert their propaganda in the right-wing media, and, as always, further examination shows it up for the lying crap that it is.

Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?

As we have discussed many times at Skeptical Science, although the warming of global surface air temperatures has slowed over the past decade due to a preponderance of La Niña events, the rate of heat accumulation on Earth has not slowed at all. In fact over the past 15 years, the planet has accumulated more heat than during the previous 15 years (Figure 1). That's global warming.

Figure 1: Land, atmosphere, and ice heating (red), 0-700 meter OHC increase (light blue), 700-2,000 meter OHC increase (dark blue).

Unfortunately many people (often even including climate scientists) mistakenly equate the warming of global surface air temperatures with global warming. That is simply inaccurate. Approximately 90% of global warming goes into heating the oceans.

Figure 2: A visual depiction of how much global warming heat is going into the various components of the climate system for the period 1993 to 2003.

So the reality is that global warming continues unabated. Despite this reality, an article by Graham Lloyd in The Australian (paywalled) claims that the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri agreed that there has been a 17-year pause in global temperature rises. Unfortunately we don't know exactly what Pachauri said on the subject, because Lloyd did not quote him directly (which is a red flag)....

Despite the lack of useful verifiable content, the story headline has nevertheless gone viral. This is not the first time Lloyd has been caught misrepresenting climate science in The Australian - in January of this 2013 he wrong claimed that a study had found no link between global warming and sea level rise.

emphases added
.

 

[Abraham3]

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

Bronchitis is not Black Lung Disease.

I never said it was. Neither did the article.

The above applies to Bronchitis. It proves nothing about Black Lung Disease which afflicts only miners who smoke.

Can you not read? Show us ANY authority that says only smoking miners get Black Lung.

Of course a machine can detect it. I said a person couldn't detect. What a machine cannot detect is levels of emissions from a power plant that are in any hazardous to human health. Modern coal fired power plants are so clean that they are built right in the middle of populous cities with zero reports of any ill effects.

Link?

The government DOES have that right. It's covered under the Commerce Clause, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution. And AGW is quite real.

Until FDR packed the court with political hacks that clause was always interpreted to mean that the federal government could remove impediments to commerce. It doesn't mean that the federal government could itself become an impediment to Congress. That's how the men who wrote the Constitution interpreted it.

Hah. Link?

Where are you getting this "Patrick" shit? Did I ever say my name was "Patrick?"

I don't recall you ever saying what your name might be. Mine is actually Abraham.

Your employers competitors will change their behavior because multi-million dollar lawsuits are very bad for profits. There was recently a Stossel episode that showed a company that makes gas guns going out of business because of lawsuits.
[/quotes]

But those suits don't take place till someone has already been hurt or killed. You find that acceptable?

You really are a mercantile son of a *****, aren't you.

That must be your way of admitting that I'm not a gullible moron like you.

No, it's my way of saying you consider the profits of business more important than the welfare of the people around you.

Yes, it's a myth. You see, Ozone is made when sunlight strikes the atmosphere. In the Winter there is no sunlight in the polar regions. Hence the concentration of ozone is reduced. That's all there was to the myth of the ozone "hole."

Why, that's BRILLIANT. HOW could the world's scientists have MISSED that point?!?!? You've got links, of course. I'd love to read the real science behind that. Or is this another astounding discovery unique to Mr British Patrick?

It also doesn't say that 2+2=4.

Now THERE is some witty and acutely pointed repartee!

The Constitution says it applies to every person and every legal entity in the country. Your belief that corporations don't have Constitutional rights is positively fascist.

I'd really like for you to point out for us where in the Constitution it states that it applies to "all legal entities".

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America.[1] The Constitution originally consisted of seven Articles. The first three Articles embody the doctrine of the separation of powers, whereby the federal government is divided into three branches: the legislature, consisting of the bicameral Congress; the executive, consisting of the President; and the judiciary, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. The fourth and sixth Articles frame the doctrine of federalism, describing the relationship between State and State, and between the several States and the federal government. The fifth Article provides the procedure for amending the Constitution. The seventh Article provides the procedure for ratifying the Constitution.
The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in eleven States. It went into effect on March 4, 1789.[2]
Since the Constitution was adopted, it has been amended twenty-seven times. The first ten amendments (along with two others that were not ratified at the time) were proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789, and were ratified by the necessary three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.[3] These first ten amendments are known as the Bill of Rights.
The Constitution is interpreted, supplemented, and implemented by a large body of constitutional law. The Constitution of the United States was the first constitution of its kind, and has influenced the constitutions of many other nations.
********************************
The purpose of the Constitution is to establish the structure of the American government and to place restrictions on its powers and those of the states. The Bill of Rights addresses "individual rights, federal courts and the national government’s relationships with the States". It does not address the rights of corporations or other "legal entities".

Citizens United v Federal Election Commission dealt with an interpretation of the First Amendment.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a US constitutional law case, in which the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions. The conservative lobbying group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA").[2] In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that portions of BCRA §203 violated the First Amendment.
The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a July 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The lower court held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][3] The Supreme Court reversed, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and "electioneering communications".[2]
The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[4] The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.[5]
**************************************************************
The First Amendment, in its entirety, reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Where is it you see "all legal entities"?