Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm basically agreeing with you. My limited comment had primarily to do with the residential/commercial 'rural' market (though I should have specified that) where I imagine most of the bituminous goes. It would be impossible in urban areas to use it in place of gas or oil now. I'm not certain if there are differing air standards, for those two areas, but I would assume so. In the old days, coal-fired residential plants were still in use up thisaway, but are extinct anymore of course.
Actually most people burning coal are using anthracite, it's almost exclusively used for home heating. While on the topic another major use is for water filtration <gasp>. It might cost $300 a ton in areas far away from Northeastern Pennsylvania compared to $60 or $70 for local soft coal. They'll buy the hard coal instead for a variety reasons, mostly because of the soot and smell issues associated with soft coal. You are correct soft coal can only be used in a rural environment whereas anthracite can be used anywhere.
I'm sure many people have seen mention of the dark clouds form burning coal that used to hover over many European cities at the turn of the last century. The reason you don't here much about this in Eastern US cities is because they were burning anthracite. The Lackawanna railroad actually used this for gimmick to get customers.
Rail travel around the year 1900 was not pleasant. After a long trip on a coal-powered train, travellers would frequently emerge covered in black soot. The exception to that rule were locomotives powered by anthracite, a clean-burning form of coal. The Lackawanna owned vast anthracite mines in Pennsylvania, and could legitimately claim that their passengers' clothes would still look clean after a long trip.
To promote this fact, their advertising department created Phoebe Snow, a young New York socialite, and a frequent passenger of the Lackawanna.[citation needed] For reasons never explained, Miss Snow often travelled to Buffalo, New York, always wearing a white dress.
Water vapor trumps CO2 as greehouse gas by many magnitudes so are we justified in calling water vapor a pollutant?
I've noticed that none of these GW nuts will address the fact that H2O has an absorption spectrum that massively dwarfs that of CO2. They don't actually want to debate the science.
How funny that they are now calling an INERT gas a pollutant.
As I've said before, these people who believe in global warming caused by excessive CO2 emissions failed middle school chemistry.
Of course, no one knows the full level of damage we are causing to the planet because mankind has never had to deal with the powerful pollutants produced by mankind since the Industrial Revolution. Science is actual measurement, the existence of climate change is not a debatable "theory", its measurable, and if it is repeatable, then science can measure these increases and often compare them to past atmospheric thru the measurement of similar levels from thousands of years prior. A good and accurate level has been established of atmospheric pollutant from man made and otherwise extracted fossil fuels such as natural gas, coal, oil, etc., and the effect they are having on the warming planet.
Clearly, the implications, when taken as an aggregate, can appear dire on a variety of levels. The very likelihood of climate refugees from disappearing/changing ecosystems (droughts or floods no longer making farming possible being only one example) will lead to climate refugees as Third World nations bear the brunt, and the consequence, of the developed worlds industrial emissions. It's certainly not fair, the distribution of the blame and consequence versus those responsible, but then again, those most responsible have set themselves up as being untouchable in the event of a very likely shortage of these finite resources whilst holding the American consumer and much of the world hostage on its reliance of it.
The last thing these people want to lose is their profit margin. Theyve got the sheep at the ready, listening to their quack science and corporate liars pitch the disinformation on their gullible while the effects of climate change are obviously seen and recognized on examples all around the world too numerous to mention.
But I'll mention one anyway. It's REAL basic science, and its measurable. Called pH levels. Ocean Acidification.
Quote:
About Ocean Acidification
The ocean absorbs approximately one-fourth of the CO2 added to the atmosphere from human activities each year, greatly reducing the impact of this greenhouse gas on climate. When CO2 dissolves in seawater, carbonic acid is formed. This phenomenon, called ocean acidification, is decreasing the ability of many marine organisms to build their shells and skeletal structure. Field studies suggest that impacts of acidification on some major marine calcifiers may already be detectable, and naturally high-CO2 marine environments exhibit major shifts in marine ecosystems following trends expected from laboratory experiments. Yet the full impact of ocean acidification and how these impacts may propogate through marine ecosystems and affect fisheries remains largely unknown.
The waters have been warmer and the recently EL nino has affected 80% of North American with Colder the usually temps and Heavy Snow in places not used to it like Mexico or Dallas. So the Question is whats causing it ? And how to stop it , becuz yes greener energy will put a dent in it , but what else?
Even biting on a tiny piece of a lie, is still promoting the BIG LIE. Greener energy will do nothing but put a dent in your pocket ... a HUGE dent, but will do NOTHING to affect the climate or reduce "real" pollution. And the impact is not just in a little bit of increased taxes ... it will literally allow for a global "energy" dictatorship to run commercial and private life around the world ... SELECTIVELY. And if you are stupid enough to believe that the Oil Companies aren't drooling over this, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Green energy, per se, is not a bad thing, nor is reducing legitimate pollution. Nobody wants polluted air and water and environmental damage. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. But this anthropogenic climate change nonsense couldn't care less about the environment. They want to promote wind energy (one of the most inefficient forms of energy), and nuclear energy (the most environmentally dangerous forms) while ignoring natural gas, which is clean and efficient, as well a abundant in the United States. Right now, there are already identified and capped sources of natural gas sufficient to run this country for the next 200 years, but is being pumped back into the ground, and capped off. Why? Because it's cheap, and it would cut our use of oil buy 50% overnight. Something the Oil Companies don't want to see happen. So, this isn't about the environment or clean energy. It's about money and control, and the Cap & Trade scam is what this entire movement is all about. And this complete shell game about how the Oil Companies are against this movement is also a total fraud. It's psychological manipulation ... "if the big oil is against it, it must be good". I got news for you ... big oil is NOT AGAINST IT. They stand to be one of the big winners in it. Any perceived opposition to this is just part of the fraud. They LOVE THE IDEA of Cap & Trade.
This is how one element of the Cap & Trade system works (Carbon Offset Credit system) ... Company A produces a lot of CO2 (over the limit as arbitrarily established under the system), so they can either reduce their output, or purchase carbon offset credits (COCs) instead. Company B produces less CO2 than they are allowed so they receive credits that they can sell to Company A ... the transaction is brokered by one of Al Gore's companies, who obviously makes a tidy profit on the transaction. The net effect is that there is ZERO change in the emissions of CO2 by company A (they just bought the COCs instead of reducing their emissions), and company A raises their prices so that the consumer pays for those COCs they purchased. Al Gore, and Company B take in a nice profit too, all at the expense of the consumer (You and Me).
Now here's where it gets real insidious ... there is also Company C who produces more CO2 than they are allowed ... (they are direct competitors to Company A), but because they are smaller than Company A, they cannot afford to absorb the additional costs of the COCs, so they are driven out of business. Company A can then take over company C, pennies on the dollar, expanding their monopoly, and eliminating the competition.
Then you have some of these large, wealthy companies setting up multiple "front businesses" that actually manufacture nothing ... they are set up solely for the purpose of receiving COCs which can then be sold to real companies under this blatant ponzi scheme, again, without any real reduction in CO2 or other emissions.
What is the net result? Absolutely NO CHANGE in emissions whatsoever. Larger companies swallowing up smaller companies, and new businesses unable to even start up. In the middle, you have the Carbon Credit brokers making a fortune for doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING .... if this sounds like a Wall Street scam, that's because it is ... it's a brand new "Stock Market" that deals with this imaginary, worthless "Carbon Credit" commodity that government regulation requires companies to deal in. There are many other fraudulent business issues, but this is just a brief overview.
The Oil companies will profit greatly from this system because as we have all experienced, every time the cost of oil increases 1 penny, the oil companies charge 3 pennies more, passed on to the consumer. For a good look at the Oil scam, the book ... "The Energy Non-Crisis" by Lindsey Williams will give you information that will blow your mind. It will show that the Oil companies have already identified oil reserves within the United States that dwarf the oil reserves of the Middle East, with enough oil to make the United States energy independent for the next 300 years, with no need to import a single drop of oil. But the system isn't designed to provide the US with abundant, inexpensive energy, it is designed to control world wide energy supply and costs, to keep prices high. The age old effect of Supply and Demand. If supply increases dramatically, prices fall. They don't want that, contrary to the naive public who thinks otherwise.
Now, how does that effect the private life of everyone? First, energy companies that rely on fuel (oil and Coal) for producing electricity will be hit the hardest under the system, raising prices to consumers. Some estimates predict a doubling of consumer energy costs ... electricity, heat, air conditioning, gasoline, etc. This will have a net effect of also dramatically raising prices on all products, because all companies will also experience these huge energy price increases for electricity, transportation, etc. Who will be the big winner here? OIL COMPANIES and CARBON CREDIT BROKERS.
Many energy companies that are non-nuclear will be forced off line, and there will be energy rationing/saving measures implemented to restrict consumer usage, in the form of government regulations to control your thermostat, dictating how much heat you will be allowed in the winter, and how much cooling you'll be allowed in the summer. How many and what size TVs you can have (California is already passing laws to ban large screen TVs).
You'll also get a gasoline rationing system, along with much higher prices ... and that is VERY GOOD for the oil companies ... they get to charge a lot more, with less production costs, and their profits will skyrocket.
And this is what you get IMMEDIATELY. As this corrupt system becomes more and more greedy, it will get much worse .... homeowners and small business owners will be subjected to energy audits, with government goons having cart blanche access and authority to impose fines, and dictate code requirements and basically shut down anyone they choose, anytime they choose as a violator of the 5,000 "green" regulations that will evolve from this nightmarish fraud.
And it is all made possible by fraudulent, fixed, and manipulated data from corrupt government officials who will have TOTAL CONTROL of every aspect of life ... private and commercial. They'll decide who gets energy and who does not ... they'll decide who stays in business and who does not. And they'll decide every tiny aspect of how you live, where you go, and what you do. Privacy and freedom will no longer be words in the dictionary.
That Audi commercial about the "Green Police"? That is the reality that such a system WILL ultimately impose. It will just grow and grow, as with all other government operations, the corruption will be unimaginable, and it's implementation will be selective ... with those "connected" companies, i.e. companies owned by the same individuals controlling the system will not be scrutinized or held accountable for their emissions.
Anyone who thinks this is a good idea doesn't have a single brain cell in their empty heads. Even if CO2 was a "real problem" this would not be a good way to solve it (because the system, as designed doesn't really do anything to reduce emissions .. it just charges everyone for those emissions). But since the global warming/climate change data has been fixed and manipulated, and is a total fraud, this is absolute insanity on a massive scale.
And it does nothing to address real pollution or stop the real polluters. It will actually cause greater environmental damage, as oil and coal fired energy production will be forced out and replaced with more nuclear energy plants that are both dangerous, and damaging to the environment, with greater and greater nuclear waste issues that still, to this day has no solution, and produces radioactive waste that will remain deadly for tens of thousands of years.
All of this is a result of a bunch of lying and cheating beaurocrats, supported by a population of IDIOTS who don't have the intellectual capacity of a cinderblock.
There is a divided population here ... on one side, we have people who understand that legitimate science ... legitimate facts don't need to be manipulated to prove a legitimate point. That when such manipulation occurs, it's a purposeful fraud being committed. On the other side, there is another group who apparently would rather be lied to, than told the truth.
In the end, we wind up with more tyrannical government intrusion and control of our lives, while also paying through the teeth for it.
No thank you. Time to set aside this ridiculous argument, and time for WE THE SHEEPLE, to return to being We The People, and tell these fraudsters to take a long walk on a short path to a very high cliff.
In other words, it's time to use your heads and THINK, and stop this nightmare before it gets it's claws buried into all of us.
So it snowed in the Florida panhandle on Friday because of more moisture and not because it was colder? It snowed because it indicated warmer air instead of colder air? That seems to be your arguement above.
It snows because the moisture in the air gets below freezing. For areas that regularly expect snow, an increase in snowfall would be due to more moisture, not necessarily colder temperatures. In Florida, an area that doesn't expect to get snow, the colder temperatures made it snow, but the fact that it snowed in one area that didn't expect it is not an argument against global warming. In February 1899, it was below zero in Tallahassee, by the way (it was one of the coldest months ever recorded in much of the country). So this cold spell is not even close to what could have happened.
A Ripleys believe it or not factoid
In his war on the American taxpayer, Obama and his merry band of progressives had the EPA classify it as such.
I believe CO2 is a pollutant because it is not needed in larger quantities. If industrial activity produces it in abundance, it should be discouraged. Inert plastic isn't "dangerous" per se, but our overproduction of it makes it a pollutant. Your belief that this is a partisan decision shows me exactly why this EPA designation is needed. Under Bush's EPA, chopping off mountain tops and choking the life out of rivers wasn't considered polluting. Wouldn't the delayed future cost of cleaning up this kind of stupidity be considered a more definitive "war on the the American taxpayer"?
It snows because the moisture in the air gets below freezing. For areas that regularly expect snow, an increase in snowfall would be due to more moisture, not necessarily colder temperatures. In Florida, an area that doesn't expect to get snow, the colder temperatures made it snow, but the fact that it snowed in one area that didn't expect it is not an argument against global warming. In February 1899, it was below zero in Tallahassee, by the way (it was one of the coldest months ever recorded in much of the country). So this cold spell is not even close to what could have happened.
Yes, I know what causes snow, thank you. Apparently you are unable to recognize sarcasm; even with the eye-roll.
Keep beating that dead-horse though as the world doesn't have enough glue.
Of course, no one knows the full level of damage we are causing to the planet because mankind has never had to deal with the powerful pollutants produced by mankind since the Industrial Revolution.
Apparently you think you do! Let me tell you this ... CO2 (which is NOT a pollutant) was around a LONG LONG time before man even appeared on the scene, and certainly long before the industrial revolution. And as "MEASURED", man's contribution to CO2 is miniscule (a fraction of 1% of all CO2) at CURRENT LEVELS OF HUMAN OUTPUT. The complete elimination of man made CO2 wouldn't have a noticeable effect on climate change even IF CO2 was the cause (which it isn't).
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
Science is actual measurement, the existence of climate change is not a debatable "theory", its measurable, and if it is repeatable, then science can measure these increases and often compare them to past atmospheric thru the measurement of similar levels from thousands of years prior. A good and accurate level has been established of atmospheric pollutant from man made and otherwise extracted fossil fuels such as natural gas, coal, oil, etc., and the effect they are having on the warming planet.
Contrived nonsense from the intellectual pseudoscientific ne're-do-wells to deceive the non-intellectual idiot populace, who cannot manage even chimpanzee level basic cognitive logic ... such as, what CAUSED the multiple, periodic, and cyclic, scientifically measured warming periods of the past that have been occurring for thousands of years? There was no "industrialized revolution" causing them then ... no Ford SUVs ... No EXXON/Mobile Oil companies, no electric power plants. So why should we assume that the fundamental cause then (the F'ing SUN) isn't also the cause of it now? Because you say so? Because lying scientists, who have been CAUGHT manipulating the scientific data SAY SO? The fundamental lack of common sense is ASTOUNDING.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
But I'll mention one anyway. It's REAL basic science, and its measurable. Called pH levels. Ocean Acidification.
Yes, indeed. Real science. Too bad you cannot GRASP the implications of what you posted. It's the classic example of a Mimic, who repeats but fails to understand what he's saying. Let me EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY THIS DOESN'T SUPPORT YOUR CASE, but in fact destroys your case.
The Oceans indeed absorb and release CO2, based on water temperature. The warmer the oceans (caused by global warming), the more CO2 they release into the atmosphere, and the resultant increase in those levels, along with the benefit of less "Ocean Acidification". The reverse is also true .. the cooler the oceans (caused by global Cooling) the more CO2 the oceans absorb, resulting in less CO2 in the atmosphere, and MORE "Ocean Acidification".
Now, do I need to also explain THIS to you TOO? OK ... Global Warming=Good (less Ocean acidification), and higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere as the oceans release it. That, by the way also shows that the higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere is not only a good thing (because that CO2 isn't being absorbed by the cooler ocean water, causing Ocean acidification), but it also shows that those higher atmospheric CO2 levels are a RESPONSE to global warming, and not the cause.
I've already posted this several times on several threads, and also directly in response to other nonsensical posts you've offered up.
It's really quite simple, and not so hard to understand ... and I don't really think you are so stupid as to be incapable of understanding this (though such doubts are beginning to wane) ... I think you are just too stubborn and stuck in your own rhetoric, and too insecure to just admit you were fooled by this man made global warming nonsense.
Now let's review what we've learned here ... thanks in no small part to your contribution of the "science" behind "Ocean Acidification".
The planet has been warming and cooling for hundreds of thousands of years. The cause of these warming and cooling periods has always been primarily associated to Solar activity which is cyclic and matches perfectly with measured temperature records. (That is, until the industrial revolution when this relationship apparently ceased to exist, according to the "scientists" at the United Nations).
These temperature and atmospheric gas records are locked into the arctic ice that is millions of years old. And according to those records, scientifically measured, show periods of earth's climate history when it was much warmer than it is today, as well as CO2 levels exponentially higher than today's levels. Common sense tells us that given these measured levels which are much higher than we have today, the earth didn't expire, and the Ice didn't melt away, otherwise it wouldn't be there to take those measurements!!!!! But there is more .... the ice core records also show that the the atmospheric CO2 levels increase as a result of global warming, by the mechanism previously discussed regarding the warmer oceans releasing pent up levels of CO2 into the atmosphere hundreds of years after a warming period.
Therefore, CO2 cannot be both the cause and the result of global warming simultaneously. It's either one or the other, but CANNOT BE BOTH. Given the Oceans, and the Ice Core records showing that higher atmospheric CO2 levels are the result of global warming, IT CANNOT BE THE CAUSE, and consequently, the entire Man Made Global Warming because of man made CO2 FALLS APART, and is not only a COMPLETE FRAUD, but SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
Funny ... this MIGHT EXPLAIN WHY the United Nations panel of "experts" felt the need to fudge the data, dontcha Think? CAN YOU THINK?
Look, ignorance is simply a lack of good information, and everyone is ignorant to some degree on some topics. We've been lied to so much by a compliant and subservient media, that you literally have to seek out and uncover the truth, because they aren't going to offer much of it. Stupidity, on the other hand is the inability or refusal to consider new information in order to formulate a more "informed" and accurate opinion.
We have all been lied to regarding "man made global warming", because there is an agenda being pushed, and it's bad. So, much of this "ignorance" isn't our fault ... it's their fault for lying. Now, we have a lot of courageous scientists and scholars coming forward ... much to their own discomfort, to tell the truth in spite of the negative consequences to their careers and livelihoods, solely based on their integrity and their desire to inform the public of the truth.
You, and many others are now at the crossroads of moving from ignorance to embracing shear stupidity by refusing to consider this new information. And that is your choice. It's not like you haven't been given the other side of the story, now.
Apparently you think you do! Let me tell you this ... CO2 (which is NOT a pollutant) was around a LONG LONG time before man even appeared on the scene, and certainly long before the industrial revolution. And as "MEASURED", man's contribution to CO2 is miniscule (a fraction of 1% of all CO2) at CURRENT LEVELS OF HUMAN OUTPUT. The complete elimination of man made CO2 wouldn't have a noticeable effect on climate change even IF CO2 was the cause (which it isn't).
Yo put it into perspective here's the amount as measured for the last 50 years, this graph is only scaled to 1% so you can see the change in line:
As mentioned by Spencer in this article that doesn't necessarily mean this small amount isn't having an effect but he's addressing the propaganda where people like Al Gore will use figures like millions of tons...
The anti intellectuals on FOX are amplifying the sentiments of the anti intellectuals in the GOP, all of whom enjoy the support the most clueless people in the developed world.
Rachel Maddow helps bring them up to speed. Smart and pretty, she is.
"If you win the lottery, it does not disprove the existence of a recession"
Chris Matthews asked if these people finished High School and I have to agree with that line of questioning.
I ask the same question: If my household is financially secure, does that mean there is no recession?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
