Global Warming Didn't Exist In The US Until 1979! (compare, parties, state)

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by rlchurch

We don't have to do all this; all we have to do is live responsibly. I buy electricity from renewable resources, I've insulated my house, when I put a new roof on this year I chose shingles with a high albedo, I take public transportation into work. All in all, while I live a reasonably opulent lifestyle, I have a very modest carbon footprint. It's about wise choices, not freezing in the dark.

Huh, I do the same thing heating with coal. It's a local resource so energy for transportation is minimal, I use a super efficient system so I'm extracting nearly all the energy from it and it's anthracite which is quite clean compared to bit. Cost me $1500 last year for about 4000 sq foot house excluding the attic and basement. also does the domestic hot water too. Basement stays reasonably warm because the furnace is down there.

There ya go, wanna save the planet? Put in a coal stove.

[rlchurch]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Huh, I do the same thing heating with coal. It's a local resource so energy for transportation is minimal, I use a super efficient system so I'm extracting nearly all the energy from it and it's anthracite which is quite clean compared to bit. Cost me $1500 last year for about 4000 sq foot house excluding the attic and basement. also does the domestic hot water too. Basement stays reasonably warm because the furnace is down there.

There ya go, wanna save the planet? Put in a coal stove.

You and the Chinese see eye to eye. Save the world burn coal.

[thecoalman]

Firstly do you even know that is caused by coal? nope.

Secondly as I mentioned before if in fact that is coal the owner of that building would be advised to head to my forum to learn the proper way to fire bituminous coal.

Lastly anthracite burns with no soot or smoke as bituminous does, it's "smokeless" hence the reson it's ideal for any urban environment. I have nearly half million dollar homes on the same block as me and the one guy never even knew we burned coal until he saw the ashes one day.

I'll be happy to provide video demonstration if you want me too?

Anthracite:

[rlchurch]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Firstly do you even know that is caused by coal? nope.

Yes it's caused by coal.

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Secondly as I mentioned before if in fact that is coal the owner of that building would be advised to head to my forum to learn the proper way to fire bituminous coal.

Lastly anthracite burns with no soot or smoke as bituminous does, it's "smokeless" hence the reson it's ideal for any urban environment. I have nearly half million dollar homes on the same block as me and the one guy never even knew we burned coal until he saw the ashes one day.

I'll be happy to provide video demonstration if you want me too?

Anthracite:

I'd like a chemical and particulate analysis of what goes up the chimney of an anthracite fired boiler -- NOx, SOx, mercury, radon, particulate, CO2, etc. It may be "smokeless" but it's not clean. Like "smokeless tobacco", it will still kill you.

[thecoalman]

As an aside you again try to divert something about a subject you obviously know nothing about. I see you haven't commented on my post specifically. Perhaps because I'm 100% correct?

I believe your claim is you work in the power industry? You of course would know the most efficient delivery of energy is when it's created at the point it's needed in most cases.

The point I'm trying to make and you're trying to avoid is that when you look at the big picture:

• I use very little energy to get the fuel to my house. It's locally mined and processed.
• It's a highly efficient system therefore I need to burn less fuel than many people.
• The furnace itself has lifespan of about 50 years when it can be refurbished preventing excess usage of more energy and resources for a new boiler.
• Anthracite is a unique product, it's the highest rank of coal and made up almost entirely of carbon. It does contain the impurities common in soft coal. CO2 is higher because of this but other emissions are much lower. In some cases rivaling that of NG or Oil.

Taking all that into consideration I'm greener than most.

[rlchurch]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

As an aside you again try to divert something about a subject you obviously know nothing about. I see you haven't commented on my post specifically. Perhaps because I'm 100% correct?

I believe your claim is you work in the power industry? You of course would know the most efficient delivery of energy is when it's created at the point it's needed in most cases.

The point I'm trying to make and you're trying to avoid is that when you look at the big picture:

• I use very little energy to get the fuel to my house. It's locally mined and processed.
• It's a highly efficient system therefore I need to burn less fuel than many people.
• The furnace itself has lifespan of about 50 years when it can be refurbished preventing excess usage of more energy and resources for a new boiler.
• Anthracite is a unique product, it's the highest rank of coal and made up almost entirely of carbon. It does contain the impurities common in soft coal. CO2 is higher because of this but other emissions are much lower. In some cases rivaling that of NG or Oil.

Taking all that into consideration I'm greener than most.

Anthracite is a footnote in the world of coal. It's use is restricted to a few places in the country and it's unsuitable for use in steam coal applications. In the larger scheme of climate control it's really not important, but burning anthracite in home furnaces creates significant local pollution issues. From a national perspective and even my own local perspective, I don't care. I wouldn't live in an environment where coal was burned in this matter, but others can if they choose.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by rlchurch

I wouldn't live in an environment where coal was burned in this matter, but others can if they choose.

LOL... You wouldn't know it if you were and there wouldn't be a thing you could do about it either except move. As I said no different than using gas or oil except a few minutes work. You never know, I have a few members from Maryland.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by Bluefly

You certainly put a lot of faith in a report created by politicians who all have agendas.

You seem to have studied this issue in depth, yet the conclusions you draw and the sources you cite suggest that you entered this issue with a predetermined conclusion you sought to prove, rather than the other way around. I could be wrong - just judging by your posts.

Do you think by clinging to fallacies it will make your position sound? Every response you make is a logical fallacy. You assume my motive, you summarize my intentions, and you evade the information I provide that points errors in your own while still concluding its validity.

That report is a summation of published research that was made on MBH98 (aka the hockey stick). It is quantifiable, that is... it can be logically derived to its claim. The errors in Mann's research can be shown, not assumed, guessed or predicted. The errors are as I said "quantifiable" and this report confirms it.

You as others here so arrogantly claim that anyone who is skeptical concerning this is an ignorant pawn that defies science (in denial) and yet look at your arguments. They are strewn with assumptions, unverifiable opinions, calls to appeal to authority and specific attacks to character.

You didn't answer to the information I posted, you merely put my character into question in order to avoid needing to. If you can discredit me with assumptive calls of bias, then you need not apply any thinking, any effort, or any thought to a response. You can simply point fingers, call me wrong and proclaim yourself correct.

The fact that I must educate you not only in the subject itself, yet in proper use of logical discussion says more about your character than you know. You see, each of our approaches to the discussion are quantifiable in their basic premise.

Your premise is that AGW is proven and you provide evidence to this fact through news paper clippings and calls of consensus.

My premise is that it is not proven and I have provided evidence that is quantifiable. That is, the errors in MBH98, the errors in surface reconstruction, the condition of the units used to measure temperature and the assumptive nature to which the research you purpose hangs on.

Your position is that of a political one, it doesn't discuss the science, it is based on assessments of social opinion. Mine is based on the actual science, the assessment of the evidence claimed to support your position.

You refuse to even consider the information provided and I could only speculate as to why, but the fact remains that you have not provided a valid position in this argument from the start.

Now if you would like to discuss the issues with the data in question, the methodology used and its speculative posture, then I would be happy to have a real discussion on the issue. Who knows, maybe you might see something of note that either supports either for or against AGW.

Science is not about "sides", again that is politics. While I certainly have a bias in terms of AGW as all people do on subjects (it is why the Scientific Method was created, which is to limit the influence of bias), it does not control my position because I do not measure the evidence based on my personal subjective view as you do. The evidence is what it is, if it supports a direction, then it does so based on its results. I do not argue against AGW because I do not want it to be true, but rather that the claims being made to support it are not properly established, not validated and based on assumptive guessing that is supported by a strong political bias for it.

If you want to discuss the "politics" of this, I am not interested as it is nothing short of kiddie rants on a play ground. It is childish, ignorant and excuse my bluntness, but nothing short of pure stupidity.

[rlchurch]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

LOL... You wouldn't know it if you were and there wouldn't be a thing you could do about it either except move. As I said no different than using gas or oil except a few minutes work. You never know, I have a few members from Maryland.

It would take me all of about 30 minutes to decide to move. I've seen many coal areas across the country. I've never seen one where I said "Wow beautiful. I think I'd like to live here."

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by rlchurch

We don't have to do all this; all we have to do is live responsibly. I buy electricity from renewable resources, I've insulated my house, when I put a new roof on this year I chose shingles with a high albedo, I take public transportation into work. All in all, while I live a reasonably opulent lifestyle, I have a very modest carbon footprint. It's about wise choices, not freezing in the dark.

But have you hugged a tree?

After the previous post you still don't get it. After reading my OP that very clearly proves it's one fifth of one degree F hotter today than it was 100 years ago (using NOAA data), you still refuse to acknowledge the facts.