Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Coal: the cleanest energy source there is?

Coal: the cleanest energy source there is?

+4
ZVUGKTUBM
Markle
Hospital Bob
VectorMan
8 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Go down  Message [Page 3 of 4]

Sal

Sal

Bob wrote:
Sal wrote:C'mon, Bob.

You've used the magic google machine.

You're a smart guy.

Surely, you can see where the scientific community is on this issue.

It is in no way ambiguous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CdVTCDdEwI

I overestimated you.

It happens.

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:
Bob wrote:
Sal wrote:Diagnosis - missing spine

I'll have to admit, Sal, that your professional credentials to make that diagnosis are every bit as impressive as Limbaugh's and Gore's professional credentials to be commenting on climatology. lol

C'mon, Bob.

You've used the magic google machine.

You're a smart guy.

Surely, you can see where the scientific community is on this issue.

It is in no way ambiguous.

Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

Over the past 400 thousand years – even without human intervention – the level of CO2 in the air, based on the Antarctic ice cores, has already been similar four times, and even higher than the current value. At the end of the last ice age, within a time [interval] of a few hundred years, the average annual temperature changed over the globe several times.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

Read that^^^^^

and understand this>>>>http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html

Health sciences pays my bills. earth sciences make my heart piter pater.

Man has not created this. You are being sold a bag of goods

Be kind to our earth, but dont step in the bull shit.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Okay, here is another angle. Global warming is a "global" issue. Does this mean that countries need to submit to a global governing body in order to deal with it? Should they submit their sovereignty to the global warming advocates so we can rid the world of this threat?

That may be the crux of the whole issue, afterall... Control. Using climate change as yet another reason to bring the world under one government. A world without borders. Who would rule such a world, and would ordinary people have a say in it? Rolling Eyes

As an afterthought, I think Ghandi's analogy nails it (and you know I rarely agree with him on things). Who stands to garner both profit and power from implementing and enforcing worldwide standards on CO2 emissions?

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Sal

Sal

Sage wrote:
Sal wrote:
Bob wrote:
Sal wrote:Diagnosis - missing spine

I'll have to admit, Sal, that your professional credentials to make that diagnosis are every bit as impressive as Limbaugh's and Gore's professional credentials to be commenting on climatology. lol

C'mon, Bob.

You've used the magic google machine.

You're a smart guy.

Surely, you can see where the scientific community is on this issue.

It is in no way ambiguous.

Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

Over the past 400 thousand years – even without human intervention – the level of CO2 in the air, based on the Antarctic ice cores, has already been similar four times, and even higher than the current value. At the end of the last ice age, within a time [interval] of a few hundred years, the average annual temperature changed over the globe several times.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

Read that^^^^^

and understand this>>>>http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html

Health sciences pays my bills. earth sciences make my heart piter pater.

Man has not created this. You are being sold a bag of goods

Be kind to our earth, but dont step in the bull shit.

BWAAAAAAAAHAAAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Complete and unadulterated BULLSHIT.

That petition is a complete fraud

Maybe, Bob can use the magic google machine to figure it out.

I was waiting for someone to post that cowpie.


How appropriate it was you.

ROTFLMAO

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:
Sage wrote:
Sal wrote:
Bob wrote:
Sal wrote:Diagnosis - missing spine

I'll have to admit, Sal, that your professional credentials to make that diagnosis are every bit as impressive as Limbaugh's and Gore's professional credentials to be commenting on climatology. lol

C'mon, Bob.

You've used the magic google machine.

You're a smart guy.

Surely, you can see where the scientific community is on this issue.

It is in no way ambiguous.

Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

Over the past 400 thousand years – even without human intervention – the level of CO2 in the air, based on the Antarctic ice cores, has already been similar four times, and even higher than the current value. At the end of the last ice age, within a time [interval] of a few hundred years, the average annual temperature changed over the globe several times.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

Read that^^^^^

and understand this>>>>http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html

Health sciences pays my bills. earth sciences make my heart piter pater.

Man has not created this. You are being sold a bag of goods

Be kind to our earth, but dont step in the bull shit.

BWAAAAAAAAHAAAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Complete and unadulterated BULLSHIT.

That petition is a complete fraud

Maybe, Bob can use the magic google machine to figure it out.

I was waiting for someone to post that cowpie.


How appropriate it was you.

ROTFLMAO

of course its cowpie. it doesnt fit in with the agenda. you cant come out in the scientific would against man made global warming. you will be run out of town.

did you read about how they measure the co2?

its a simple fact that climate change has happened over and over again in our history. your not special. and the ice caps melted before the indutrial age.

Sal

Sal

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Okay, here is another angle. Global warming is a "global" issue. Does this mean that countries need to submit to a global governing body in order to deal with it? Should they submit their sovereignty to the global warming advocates so we can rid the world of this threat?

That may be the crux of the whole issue, afterall... Control. Using climate change as yet another reason to bring the world under one government. A world without borders. Who would rule such a world, and would ordinary people have a say in it? Rolling Eyes

As an afterthought, I think Ghandi's analogy nails it (and you know I rarely agree with him on things). Who stands to garner both profit and power from implementing and enforcing worldwide standards on CO2 emissions?

Whatever.

Will you at least acknowledge that there is a scientific consensus that atmospheric warming is occurring and man is contributing to it, or are you amongst the denialists?

Guest


Guest

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2010/02/01/meteorologists-reject-uns-global-warming-claims

Just putting the other side out there.

Guest


Guest

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/study_most_engineers_and_earth_scientists_are_sceptics/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Guest


Guest

There are dozens of variables that make a scientific model incomparable with scientific method... I've listed them before.

This guy incorporates a few. Does anyone know what one or two unknowns do to a calculation? How're their predictions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark

Guest


Guest

PkrBum wrote:There are dozens of variables that make a scientific model incomparable with scientific method... I've listed them before.

This guy incorporates a few. Does anyone know what one or two unknowns do to a calculation? How're their predictions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark

They beleive this without even understanding or even trying to understand. Its just what they are told.

To even think about how much co2 comes from the ocean never occurs to them, or where those monitors are put, in volcanos, or the variances that placment in low wind can make etc etc etc.

this is the petition thats being denied.
http://petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

facts are, they only beleive GOV scientist.

They dont even fully understand what a scientist is. I think they think a scientist is a person who works for the government lol

http://www.lunarplanner.com/SolarCycles-climate.html

they probaly dont even know the suns poles are do for a flip

They probaly dont understand that measurment of the temperture a 100 years ago even was different than today and would cause a inconsistant measurement.

crap, there are so many things and we have been through this a thousand times. I dont even know why I get involved in these threads any more.

just listen to the government, they know best and they never fudge data to promote what they want.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
As an afterthought, I think Ghandi's analogy nails it (and you know I rarely agree with him on things). Who stands to garner both profit and power from implementing and enforcing worldwide standards on CO2 emissions?[/color]
That is the valid question (the follow the money question).
But the answer may be more complicated than you're thinking. Because there are a lot of different factors and motives involved.
Obviously a position of political power (which translates to economic power) can be derived from what happens here.
But A LOT of additional profits for the fossil fuel industry can also be derived from successful attempts to challenge emissions standards.
And then we have academia which relies on government grants and other subsidies which to a great degree is also influenced by politics.
And then we have the large number of jobs which rely on the fossil fuel industry and the impact on the world's private economies which comes with more emissions standards.

But, IF we are damaging the atmosphere and the climate, the future could put all of those considerations in jeopardy even if they don't know or care about it now.






Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Sage wrote:

They dont even fully understand what a scientist is. I think they think a scientist is a person who works for the government lol


No doubt. No different than the corporate world thinks a scientist is someone who works for corporations. The tobacco companies have those and so do the pharmaceutical companies and so do the oil and coal companies.

gulfbeachbandit

gulfbeachbandit

[quote="Bob"]
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
As an afterthought, I think Ghandi's analogy nails it (and you know I rarely agree with him on things). Who stands to garner both profit and power from implementing and enforcing worldwide standards on CO2 emissions?[/color]
That is the valid question (the follow the money question).
But the answer may be more complicated than you're thinking. Because there are a lot of different factors and motives involved.
Obviously a position of political power (which translates to economic power) can be derived from what happens here.
But A LOT of additional profits for the fossil fuel industry can also be derived from successful attempts to challenge emissions standards.
And then we have academia which relies on government grants and other subsidies which to a great degree is also influenced by politics.
And then we have the large number of jobs which rely on the fossil fuel industry and the impact on the world's private economies which comes with more emissions standards.

But, IF we are damaging the atmosphere and the climate, the future could put all of those considerations in jeopardy even if they don't know or care about it now.

For the first time. I'm proud of my Bob.
Just kidding Bob. But there is a sad truth to the "follow the money theory".
Like all the tax payer funded green energy programs that went belly up.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

This issue is not the only one which has politicized science.
It's also happening with economics.
We have republican economists and democrat economists. And each works within a framework of whichever politics he adheres to.
We can easily see that with some economists loudly proclaiming that growing government and more borrowing is the solution to our problems. While others tell us exactly the opposite.

But according to Sal, for me to even talk like that indicates nothing more than "lack of spine". Just like Ann Coulter, Sal thinks the whole thing is a football game and we must sit on either the democrat side or the republican side and cheer one team or cheer the other.
I'm getting a little tired of the whole game. If you've seen one superbowl you've seen them all.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Sal wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Okay, here is another angle. Global warming is a "global" issue. Does this mean that countries need to submit to a global governing body in order to deal with it? Should they submit their sovereignty to the global warming advocates so we can rid the world of this threat?

That may be the crux of the whole issue, afterall... Control. Using climate change as yet another reason to bring the world under one government. A world without borders. Who would rule such a world, and would ordinary people have a say in it? Rolling Eyes

As an afterthought, I think Ghandi's analogy nails it (and you know I rarely agree with him on things). Who stands to garner both profit and power from implementing and enforcing worldwide standards on CO2 emissions?

Whatever.

Will you at least acknowledge that there is a scientific consensus that atmospheric warming is occurring and man is contributing to it, or are you amongst the denialists?

I'll not swing either way on the issue. I went to grad school late in life (age 39) and studied biology, and I can tell you that in the 1991-1992 time frame, global warming was not on the mind of any of my professors. Nobody even mentioned climate change.

Mankind contributes to many different impacts on this planet--unfortunately, to reduce the impacts, the only real way is to depopulate the world down to a carefully controlled population of about 1.5 billion souls. There are some in this world who actually advocate this, and I will not swing with them at all.

If controlling climate change means submitting to a world-governing body and its dictates, I'll not join the advocates.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Sal

Sal

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

I'll not swing either way on the issue. I went to grad school late in life (age 39) and studied biology, and I can tell you that in the 1991-1992 time frame, global warming was not on the mind of any of my professors. Nobody even mentioned climate change.

Mankind contributes to many different impacts on this planet--unfortunately, to reduce the impacts, the only real way is to depopulate the world down to a carefully controlled population of about 1.5 billion souls. There are some in this world who actually advocate this, and I will not swing with them at all.

If controlling climate change means submitting to a world-governing body and its dictates, I'll not join the advocates.

The ONLY alternative to controlling climate change is extinction.

Climate change is not increasing linearly, it is increasing exponentially.

We are pushing steadily toward the tipping point when events will accelerate rapidly and catastrophically.

There is no controversy over climate change.

You are in one of three camps.

You are either with the 160 governments and 98% of thousands of scientists from dozens of fields who understand and are in agreement regarding what is happening to the planet, or you're with the talented lying flacks of the fossil fuel industries who are trying like hell and succeeding at sowing confusion where there should be none, or you're a denialist asshat who is too ignorant and/or stupid to be able to distinguish between the first two groups.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Sal wrote:

The ONLY alternative to controlling climate change is extinction.

Climate change is not increasing linearly, it is increasing exponentially.

We are pushing steadily toward the tipping point when events will accelerate rapidly and catastrophically.

There is no controversy over climate change.

You are in one of three camps.

You are either with the 160 governments and 98% of thousands of scientists from dozens of fields who understand and are in agreement regarding what is happening to the planet, or you're with the talented lying flacks of the fossil fuel industries who are trying like hell and succeeding at sowing confusion where there should be none, or you're a denialist asshat who is too ignorant and/or stupid to be able to distinguish between the first two groups.

Here's what I like best about this post. It is brilliantly conceived and executed. I have not ever seen any politician or media pundit, or even scientist for that matter, ever articulate one side of this debate and do it better.
And that goes double when it comes to Al Gore.
With this post you have actually done a better job of communication than a vice president of the United States can do.

And there is something very unsettling about that. lol

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Of course this could be influenced by the fact that, in this case, I am not distracted and influenced by what you look like, your manner of speaking, your accent, your facial idiosyncracies, or any number of other things I associate with Gore or Chris Matthews or all the rest.
If you walk and talk like a cross between a pseudo-geek and Ernest T Bass, as in the case of Gore, then please do not reveal that to us. And whatever you do please do not lay claim to inventing the internet. And don't go on Jay Leno and proclaim to the national tv audience that the temperature at the center of the Earth is greater than the temperature of the sun. And for gods sake don't sell a tv channel to arab oil sheiks while pocketing $100 million.
Don't do anything to destroy the myth. Just stick to the written words.

Sal

Sal

Bob wrote:Of course this could be influenced by the fact that, in this case, I am not distracted and influenced by what you look like, your manner of speaking, your accent, your facial idiosyncracies, or any number of other things I associate with Gore or Chris Matthews or all the rest.
If you walk and talk like a cross between a pseudo-geek and Ernest T Bass, as in the case of Gore, then please do not reveal that to us. And whatever you do please do not lay claim to inventing the internet. And don't go on Jay Leno and proclaim to the national tv audience that the temperature at the center of the Earth is greater than the temperature of the sun. And for gods sake don't sell a tv channel to arab oil sheiks while pocketing $100 million.
Don't do anything to destroy the myth. Just stick to the written words.

Thanks, Bob.

I look pretty good and am well-spoken, but I absolutely abhor public-speaking.

I have to do it professionally several times a year, and I start getting physically sick at the thought of it days before the events.

Thank gawd for propranolol.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Sal wrote:I absolutely abhor public-speaking.

I start getting physically sick at the thought of it


me too. lol

Guest


Guest

For anyone that thinks these models are scientific certainty or that a consensus can be drawn from them... this is as simple as it can be made for you that they are not a set of known scientific facts. There are exclusions, assumptions, inconsistencies, falsehoods... and acknowledgment that there are both limitations and further work and data needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model

Guest


Guest

PkrBum wrote:For anyone that thinks these models are scientific certainty or that a consensus can be drawn from them... this is as simple as it can be made for you that they are not a set of known scientific facts. There are exclusions, assumptions, inconsistencies, falsehoods... and acknowledgment that there are both limitations and further work and data needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model

Thats good information. but youre confusing them with scientific data when all they really need to make a decision is political talking points.

Guest


Guest

Whelp... I was trying to make it as simple as possible and take the big break down of the science out of the equation.

Guest


Guest

PkrBum wrote:Whelp... I was trying to make it as simple as possible and take the big break down of the science out of the equation.

You do a good job.

I think the truth of the matter is there are a lot of hypothesis going on and they are being used as a tool for political and monetary reasons to scare people into handing over thier money and reducing thier standard of living to meet a world criteria.

and just to toss in some stuff because I like to do that, allthough I know no one will read it because they really dont care, the only thing they really care about is the politics of it, and they will stand firm on that because its now a political agenda they must defend at all cost.

------------------

Abstract


Conventional theory of global warming states that heating of atmosphere occurs as a result of accumulation of CO2 and CH4 in atmosphere. The writers show that rising concentration of CO2 should result in the cooling of climate. The methane accumulation has no essential effect on the Earth’s climate. Even significant releases of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide into the atmosphere do not change average parameters of the Earth’s heat regime and the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Moreover, CO2 concentration increase in the atmosphere results in rising agricultural productivity and improves the conditions for reforestation. Thus, accumulation of small additional amounts of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere as a result of anthropogenic activities has practically no effect on the Earth’s climate.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00254-008-1615-3#

Global Warming Causes Stratospheric Cooling

By Jeffrey Masters, Ph.D. — Director of Meteorology, Weather Underground, Inc
http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp

When reading mr masters theories one must consider the word usage, because he is offering theory, not complete fact. There is no complete fact.

I'll now redirect my position back to a thread I made a while back. we are heading into a mini ice age and what we are seeing around us is normal for the earth to do.

125,000 years ago it was warmer than it is today.

conclusion. The earth changes as she pleases.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

For me, I am not so much worried about global warming as I am about Peak Oil. There will be a transition away from burning fossil fuels, simply because they are a finite resource that the world is running out of. After 2100, the use of oil and coal for fuel will be greatly curtailed because most of the recoverable resources, worldwide, will be gone. Yes, Peak Coal also occurs in the current century.

I am hoping for an orderly transition to a society that obtains all of its energy from electricity, with most of that obtained through renewable means. The technology for this is rapidly maturing. Solar, Enhanced Geothermal Systems, advanced nuclear technologies, expansion of wind, will make this possible.

However, any notion of summarily banning the use of fossil fuels in the interim is just idiotic, and would be catastrophic for modern man.

Then, you must look at the notion of this: Is it really smart to invest trillions of dollars sequestering CO2 now and radically changing the world, when CO2 emmisions are scheduled to diminish anyway as the Earth's recoverable fossil fuels are expended? We have less than 100 years to transition to a new energy regime, even with all of the new oil being found in North America using advanced technology.

To me, making an effective and smooth transition to renewables is far more important than worrying about CO2, and I am suspicious of the politically-charged nature of the whole issue.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 3 of 4]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Coal: the cleanest energy source there is?

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum