the greenhouse effect has been proven to be false the science absolutely proves this. Now that we know barry sotero is a lying kenyan why are we not demanding he be impeached?
Then kill it. But the catch is you gotta stop using it before you can destroy it. All you are showing at the moment is that your propaganda is more worthwhile than your cause.
I find it slanderous for somebody who has probably never had to preform real labor to pass judgment on my profession. You can eat all that they are feeding you, that is your choice, however it is not as cut and dry as you would like it to be. If you want to drive your point home, take some initiative. Walk outside your house and switch the main disconnect on your house, and leave it off. Be a real crusader, don't sit at your keyboard and speculate.
Yes, that's a favorite Catch-22 of lackeys for modern industrialism -- i.e. that if you want to criticize the industrial destruction of the environment, you can only do it without using any industrial products. Got paper and pencil? No, no, those were made in a factory too!
In other words, "If you don't like our apocalyptic hegemony, then get off the internet and shut up."
No thanks. We need to kill the coal industry before it kills us.
Coal Kills: Coal is just as deadly as radiation from a nuclear bomb. Coal has been killing Americans for centuries. Coal should be considered a terrorist weapon not an energy source. Coal contains arsenic, lead, mercury, candium, cyanide, copper, polycyclic hydrocarbons and much more. Most EPA superfunds contain coal waste left to be cleaned up with our tax dollars. The only way to make coal clean is to leave it in the ground forever. Clean coal advertising is terrorism at its best.
One of the best ways to save the environment is to elect Officials that will focus on reducing immigration.
In America, nearly all the population growth in the last 40 years has been via immigration, over 100 million more and we are on track to go to 500 million in a few decades. The world does not need 300 million more American consumers and America does not need 300 million more immigrants. Go to Numbersusa for more info on immigration and to fax your senators for free.
"The cheapest way to stop global climate change is not converting to
solar power or buying a hybrid car. It's putting on a condom.
That's the conclusion of a London School Of Economics study showing money spent on contraception is five times more efficient than money spent on clean energy technologies. It backs up a recent Oregon State University study tha
t concludes overpopulation and massive immigration is the single biggest threat to the environment." NUMBERSUSA(DOT)COM
@logan1776 Yup, just like evolution, the heliocentric solar system, and all other scienctific consensuses,...ooooh, you were being seriousl weren't you?
Name one. I only know of two contrary theories to AGW (neither one of which "debunks" AGW), both of which are not widely accepted after a number of years of peer review and study. They have not proven to account for what is happening:
watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI
Name me a single "debunker" of AGW who is an actual climatologist who has published peer-reviewed research that you claim "debunks" AGW.
Al Gore is not a climate expert. But over 90% of "climate experts" agree with AGW.
Al Gore didn't come up with climate change, he made a DOCUMENTARY about it presenting the results from research that SCIENTISTS conducted. He is a SPOKESPERSON for the scientists.
Those so called debunkers are fakes paid by oil companies or persons out of touch with the whole picture NOW with regard to climate change and base their theories on part of the picture or on outdated information.
Power companies trying to maintain profit share, another problem with capitalism, people will continue to do wrong and even manipulate the truth for money.
Too bad no matter what happens, even if they could actually invent a clean coal, too bad we still strip-mine and use moutain top removal to get the coal.
Why do we still allow moutain top removal? Coal is bad but the method they use to get it is worse.
doesitmatter2you : other planets in our solar system ARE getting hotter, the global warming racket crowd DO have ulterior motives, please watch "the great global warming swindle" wherein LEADING EXPERTS in there field dispute al gores film(by the way blood and gore corporation are going to make a killing on eco-fascist legislation) also the film details how in the 1970's many sresearchers in grant money competition would add global warming to research cause politicians more likely to give grant
"The Great Global Warming Swindle" is a scam and has long been debunked as such. It was made by energy-backed groups and is comprised of falsified interviews and junk science. It has been changed numerous times since its initial release and is still completely criticized for its misinformation and lies.
The Great Global Warming Swindle" has not been debunked ,indeed YOU have been debunked you spread lies saying that man makes global warning attempting to justify lowering our quality of life so elites casn steal all our wealth I dont want to be a "good turk" I want LIBERTY/RESTORE THE REPUBLIC
Making completely baseless accusations without any proof is not "debunking." Absolutely nothing you have said in any way contradicts my facts - all you are spouting is an emotional and irrational response. You have no proof, you have no facts.
I haven't lied about anything. AGW is real. It is indisputable. It has to be unless you disagree with these two statements:
More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.
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,"
Dude, why all the one-quote posts, put them together.
As I've already said that petition is bunk and has been long de-bunked. You haven't cited your quotes, and you haven't provided a single peer-reviewed example (or even a reference to one) that contradicts AGW. A "petition" does not count, especially a bogus one.
All your quotes are debunked. Please give me sources so I can provide you with the de-bunking information (if you even care).
"Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
p.s. this is simply copy and pasting from a story of which there are literally 100's of 1000's all of which show you are either iggnorant of real science or you LIE
Yes it has, even by itself - they've changed parts of it numerous times because people pointed out the flagrant lies and errors presented in it. Check this out for more:
watch?v=boj9ccV9htk
As for that bogus Inhofe petition, check this out:
watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I
Note that these videos are quick overviews. You can easily find more in depth research on your own by actually investigating these issues, instead of just accepting denialist propaganda like you are right now.
@logan1776 I am really afraid to ask, but how, exactly has the repbuclic of the united states gone anywhere that it needs to be restored? Last I checked we had free and fair elections and just had a couple and are going to have some more, all on schedule, in november,.
I know that. That's why they all support AGW. There are, however, a number of "scientists" (few of them climatologists) who are shills for the energy industry.
UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN.
Too bad there are tens of millions of scientists in the world. Even when the Earth was proved to be round there was scientists that declared the world still flat. They were wrong.
Even when the sun was delcared to be the center of the galaxy there was scientists that said nope the earth is the center.
There will always be scientists that deny new advancements. That is science though, even when people deny, the evidence can be objectively repeated and produce the same results.
does it matter 2 you: the science is clear , man made global warming is a lie perpetuated by scum who are either trying to make a buck off it (carbon tax, al gores 10 dollar light bulbs..etc) or are scum who believe in eugenics(killling people off, babies are evil...etc) REAL scientists state that we are ijn a warming trend much like the ones the earth has gone through in the past due to SOLAR fluctuations
This so-called list of 650 "scientists" is a pet project by Sen. Inhofe - probably the worst senator to ever serve in the United States Congress, and the undying shame of Oklahoma for generations to come.
The "list" has long been debunked and is not what you claim it to be. Most of the people on it are not climatologists, many of the people have requested their names be removed (and they haven't). Some of the names are of people that don't even seem to exist!
wonder how much coal was used in the making of this commercial? half of americas electrical grid is connected to coal plants. is everybody ready to get rid of half of the electrical appliances in there house and at work, remember, this is reality.
The point is replacing coal with SOMETHING ELSE not switching them off just like that. Most coal plants are aging, decrepit and inefficient. The price of coal is artificially low and does not factor in the environmental costs which are tremendous although difficult to show up on balance sheets. The truth is, coal needs to be done away with, anything environmentally unsustainable is economically unsustainable as well.
Great campaign. But capturing and storing CO2 emissions by new coal power plants is not a future destination! Just stop produce this emissions and stop make new coal power plants.
So lets not research ways to have clean coal because it's dirty? Well what do you suggest as a safe, clean alternative? I went to the website and there is no information about that... just a lot of quotes and statistics... nothing of any real substance. This whole campaign comes off as a joke to me. My interest was peaked with the commercial but apparently I can't get any other information unless I give my e-mail address and "join the cause." I'm interested on your thoughts about alternatives.
Clean coal is expensive, impractical, and is not an immediate solution to the energy crisis. Solar, wind, and hydroelectric power produce more energy than bio fuels, coal, or nuclear power. They're also cleaner, renewable, and we have the technology for them NOW!
What's wrong with nuclear power exactly? It seems to be the the most effective and cleanest energy solution for areas that cannot use wind, solar, or hydro power.
Also wind and solar power require much more space to reach the equivalent amount of power output by a nuclear reactor.
Or you could allow for huge tax relief to home owners with independent energy solutions (i.e. solar or wind power that they maintain themselves, off the grid). Solar technology has come a long way since the 90's and is pretty space efficient nowadays. While wind seems to take up a lot of space, it is tiny compared to all the underground nuclear waste that would be built up if the world switched over (think landfills x 1000...but radioactive).
Newer reactors recycle more and more of their waste, and I am not saying that its the ultimate solution. I'm saying energy production should diversified, with each region deriving power from a source that its geography allows.
Nuclear waste disposal is a serious issue but the technology shouldn't be written off entirely.
I agree with you on that it shouldn't be completely written off. It's just that with nuclear power, there is a very small margin that allows for error.
But if you're not in contact with radiation it can't hurt you.
Here's a little interesting fact: the longer it takes an isotope to decay, the less radioactive it is. And not all radiation is created equally. X-rays and gamma rays are more deadly than the little alpha particles that the uranium in a granite countertop gives off.
incorrect, actually. #1, the reason radioactivity is dangerous is its free-flying nature. Next time yo get an x-ray, note that the person (hiding behind the screen) is wearing a lead protector suit. #2 a product that remains radioactive for TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS....where do you think they're going to put that stuff? Your backyard? My backyard?
You are correct that radioactive material can be dangerous if not properly handled and stored, but France uses nuclear for 75% of their energy, so clearly these issues have been resolved.
the issues with nuclear waste has not been settled at all. Imagine for a moment that you live in a house, and there's nothing else there at all. Now, put a can of nuclear waste in the corner of your garage. Let's say it's about as big as a cke can. Every day, a new one is there. The garage fills, you move to the den for staorage. the cans keep coming. You start putting them in a closet, they keep coming.
The earth is your house, our great great great grandchildren are you
France disagrees, as do the facts. The amount of waste generated by a family of four over their *lifetime* would fit into a soda can. The scales in your analogy don't agree with the actual figures.
As for your other post, I'm much more open to the arguments against coal that come from the straight pollution aspects. The reality is that wind and solar aren't viable alternatives with current technology, and acts of Congress and big piles of money can't change that as fast as some think.
I'll give you part credit. The analogy works, only, I don't have the math quite rigt. Then again, I was in the middle od a letter to a gal I know in Florida and reading mail from someone calling me a lot of uncalled for cuss words for my politics.
I've never done the sprcific math, BUT, the model is true.
Unless we enter into a great war that kills all (or most) of us off, in which case, moxnix. Using less means more than the initial view seems. If we ALL used less, the coal wouldn't be needed
The math goes like this: the waste produced for each person's lifetime of electricity is about 3oz. That's about 1 billion ounces for the whole country (per generation). That translates into filling up a Best Buy store every 100 years. That is a tiny amount of waste, especially when compared with the thousands of square miles of land that would be rendered unusable by wind farms and/or solar panel arrays.
I was letting you do the math from there. In a thousand years, we would fill ten "Best Buy" stores. That's a *tiny* amount of waste, compared to the other options. Do you really think in a thousand years there won't be some other breakthrough technology that will make all of this a moot discussion?
Where do I imagine it will go? It will still be contained in the same place we left it, like all the other waste we create. What's your point?
But those of us who are "part of the cause" have a number of ideas. For one, both solar and wind energy have now reached a technological point where, in many cases, they can be operated more cheaply than "dirty" coal. And unlike "clean coal," they're available now.
Further, there's a number of other technologies that, while not currently cheaper than "dirty coal," could be likely developed to viability for a lower research investment than "clean coal."
solar = infinite...is that hard to understand? 80 miles by 80 miles of solar panels will power the whole US. think thats a lot? Drive through Nevada and reconsider. once you have the infrastructure, it is a passive system (no mining, drilling, refining etc.) with the same maintanence as any other energy source. no substance? just so you know, everything that exists is based on numbers and statistics. if that doesnt work for you, its cause your dumb
Just want everyone to keep in mind that a move beyond ANY technology (like coal) should be done CAREFULLY...not investing full trust in government...
Certainly, clean energy is desirable, but what is far MORE desirable is a preservation of our WANING socioeconomic liberties...(inflation taxes, Carbon Taxes, etc...no wonder SAVINGS in this country are pitiful)
By moving beyond coal, the United States could avoid a legacy of smog-filled skies, acid rain, polluted waterways, contaminated fish, and scarred landscapes. This could each year save some 25,000 lives, reduce respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, avert potential neurological damage for 630,000 babies, and erase a health care bill of over $160 billion.
in reality...every war, every death, every problema was caused by man's personal interests, and now we face another problema this one about money and a planet that needs to be saved!!!!!!react people!!!coal industry just as every other industry looks for money not for a better place to everyone else!!!!!
English illustrates solves the invention which the Earth warms, does not use the innovation which all energies possibly generate electricity your government, must be the national person makes this innovation if you did not understand that I said anything I ask you to tell you the National intelligence Organization completes this innovation I do not spend money to give your country In you In you tude character a661333
Let's just burn fossil fuels forever until the skies turn black and the average life expectancy goes back to what it was in the dark ages. Jeesus people, we have the technology to be smarter, let's use it.
Actually with the 700 degree surface temperatures and permanent, hypersonic planet girdling hurricanes, I'm afraid your lifespan estimates would be really optimistic.
If we spew too much of it, then the world will see another anoxic period where methane (from the deep) fowls the air to a point where only micro species can survive (and converts it into yet another vast store of carbon fuels) `~'
Ya, that's what massive volcanism does.
As for nuclear vs solar, go concentrated solar thermal with 24 hr heat storage. Couldn't be much more $ than nuclear AND WOULD CREATE MILLIONS OF MORE JOBS because it's just sunlight and billions of mirrors, lines, ect!
go to that and take a look, just type it in ur browser. it wont let me provide the link. get another view of global warming besides al gores before you say he's right. just give that documentary a chance, you gave al gores one.
Who cares about breathing, good water, healthy foods or kids without birth defects!
If you stop strip mining, drilling everywhere, plastic packaging we will all die because the economy will be hurt by all these restrictions!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL LOL LOL
If warming the planet isn't enough for you to care how about asthma rate increase from air pollution or cancerogens and other results from coal pollution. Not to mention the fact that coal WILL RUN OUT EVENTUALLY. It's common knowledge that sustainable technology is the cheapest, most long lasting way to go but people are still stuck in the stone age. Hasn't our technological advance gotten us anywhere?!?!
This is the part I never quite understood. Even if you DON'T believe in global warming, which is really something hard to deny now, how can anyone go against a renewable, non-ending source of energy that is cheaper in the long run and not reliant on unstable countries! Good comment.
Okay, what the heck are you talking about in the first place? Coal isn't renewable, dipwad. If we don't reverse our damage to the earth's atmosphere (damage mostly due to coal) in the next couple of years, it'll be too late.
Wind and solar will cost trillions. The reason they aren't getting attention is because they *aren't* cheaper (i.e., feasible).
BTW, I'm all for nuclear, but most enviro-wackos hate the thought of that also, though it's more proven than wind or solar (France uses it for 3/4 of their power).
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Someone remind me again, how much has the earth warmed in the last 100 years? Oh, right, one degree. And it was warmer than this before we started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
"Global warming" (now called "climate change", since the globe isn't actually warming) == "junk science" used by enviro-wackos to drive through their radical agenda.
You're right, one degree and we're already seeing the result of that. We also know that the TRENDS are upward and increasing (so you're wrong about that). Oh yeah, your comment on that other video that the earth is flat is wrong too.
We also know that continued rises in temperature, in line with current trends, will see us trapped by tipping points into a whole new situation where we will not be able to reign in global warming. So please get some facts and proper analysis.
whats that suppose to mean? You dont live around coal or the people that mine it. Life thrives off Co2. without it there would b no life on earth. volcano spews alot more than we ever could, so its not like we r goin 2 stop carbon emissions when its natural. What isnt natural is dumping mercury into the ocean and putting plastic into landfills, now that i'm all abotu cleaning up, but not c02. Its ridiculous, go ahead stop coal and then come see thousands starving in east ky. c02 is natural.
The people that mine coal should (must) be redeployed in construction of infrastructure associated with clean renewables. Surely they'd prefer that? Coal miners wont have jobs if your economy is ruined and outstripped by nations which develop, use and sell renewable technologies.
Of course life on earth requires CO2 but it's way out of balance and getting worse due to human activity. Volcanoes are one thing but sustained output by humans is another thing altogether.
"Results" like localized changes from year to year? That's called "weather". The TRENDS are actually going the other way (ocean temps decreasing).
The proper analysis is that there are serious scientific and economic questions about our effects on the climate, our ability to change the effects, the results of any warming, not to mention whether the earth would be better off warmer than it is now anyway.
There is a ton of robust, peer reviewed, interconnected and unifying evidence - ie. proof, that you are wrong. The ocean is not cooling and the TRENDS are that the planet is warming.
Your analysis is wrong because it's based on faulty (or non-existent) data. We have caused climate change, so we do have the ability to repair the problem. Oh yeah, the earth would be so much better off warmer still and with a mass extinction event and a climate which causes massive human suffering. Yeah, right.
NOAA's oceanic buoys report data that contradict your assertions, but they're probably giving "faulty" data. The climatologists at ICECAP (Google it) are also probably giving "faulty" data. Does "faulty" just mean "it disagrees with your agenda"?
Even if it could be proven that we caused it, that doesn't mean we can necessarily undo it, or that it is a good investment to do so. Economists think the trillions of dollars could be better spent elsewhere to benefit humanity.
I can hold up a heap of evidence which opposes the data that you've presented.
"a good investment to do so"? You chicken shit.
The entire human species is not worth the destruction of the Antarctic food chain, the world's rainforests, the world's coral reefs, the world's alpine environments and the world's intertidal habitats. It just simply isn't as important as all those other species which stand to go extinct. We have a moral obligation to fix the damage.
LIVERMORE, Calif., June 19 (UPI) -- U.S.-led research suggests ocean temperature and sea level increases between 1961and 2003 were 50 percent greater than estimated in a 2007 report.
An international team of researchers compared climate models with improved observations that show sea levels rose by 1.5 millimeters per year during the period, equating to an approximately 2 1/2-inch increase in ocean levels during the 42-year period.
"This is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak," said LLNL climate scientist Peter Gleckler. "Our ability to quantify structural uncertainties in observationally based estimates is critically important. This study represents important progress."
The team also included researchers from the Center for Australian Weather and Climate Research and the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Center.
Precisely -- Peter's "ability to quantify" is at the heart of the problem. Computer models are highly sensitive to inputs and assumptions about the system. His "uncertainties and "estimates" can be adjusted to reach a variety of conclusions.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
NOAA reported a recent decrease in the ocean temps. Wow -- conflicting data -- it's almost like climate systems are too large and complex for us to fully understand...
I though Prophet Gore predicted a 20-foot rise in the oceans. At 1.5mm/year, that would take something like 4000 years.
a 1C degree rise in GLOBAL ocean temp will cause enough ice to shed that weather systems will change. as well, certain waters become uninhabitable by some populations, overly habitated by others. eco diversity goes down, food supplies alter, human populations are effected. you read ONE study with conflicting data? forget gore, there are plenty of reasons to change our energy sourcing.
The planet has been warming and cooling for thousands of years before people started driving their "evil" SUVs, and somehow the whole thing managed itself just fine without our intervention. In short, I don't accept your "chicken little" assertions.
Also, you are assuming a connection between global warming and carbon emissions, which is still *highly* speculative at this point.
co2 is a gas (and not the only gas in question). gasses insulate (check your double paned windows) more gas...more insulation. more insulation, more heat trapped within the atmosphere...and on. your approach "do nothing because we have no PROOF" is like waiting for hitler to invade poland or quitting smoking after your lung cancer diagnosis. there is more co2 in the atmosphere than ANY period in history (as measured by air trapped in ice cap pockets) offer me science, not your doubts
Water vapor is the predominant greenhouse gas -- do you want to eliminate that? Also, your analogy doesn't hold up, even if I accepted your premise. More insulation doesn't always equal higher temperatures. Cover yourself with five blankets or twenty, you probably won't notice much heat difference.
So you think we should spend trillions on speculative science when it's not conclusive? Why not build giant lasers to shoot meteors, JUST IN CASE a huge one might hit us.
None of your facts detail the extent of the heating effect from GHGs -- your chain of reasoning breaks down in your step #4. Solar activity is the primary cause, as has been demonstrated by science, the claims of radical enviro dogmatists notwithstanding.
yes, in 500 words or less describe global warming with specific fact and detail...."none of your facts detail..." dude, you have no facts. i get it, your a pseudo-intellectual skeptic with 4 or 5 points that poke holes in the argument, you stick to your guns. however, you give no respect to your debating opponent(s) by offering a remote semblance of fact, just anecdotes and doubt while requiring expansive detail for your satisfaction. i know, ignorance is bliss...have fun with that
At least you understand that 500 characters isn't enough to have a meaningful debate. You are right -- if I was in charge, I *would* require significant proof and detail before committing trillions of dollars. I'm sorry, but grade-school science reasoning isn't going to cut it. If you think windmills will solve all our problems, then I believe it is you who are living in a state of ignorance.
check my posts. i don't engage in conversation re: or supporting windmills. you still have yet to offer a fact. you only address the points that suit you. your constant referral to "trillions" is unfounded, where do you derive that number? know what, ill come to your side for a sec, global warming is a bad arg., because it is completely ineffective for being unable to be explained WITH grade school logic. "cost savings" has been my cause, as CFLs save money, last longer and hurt nothing.
The facts are that global temperatures trend more closely with solar activity than with CO2 levels. I heard "trillions" from an economist (don't remember source), to convert our power grid to exotics like solar and wind (that still can't produce enough) and build the windfarms and solar arrays.
CFLs are fine, except they contain mercury (poisonous), can't be used in all places incandescents are, and don't last as long as reported. Conservation is great, but it won't solve the problem.
every aspects of CFLs can be recycled, including mercury. CFLs have models to fit NEARLY every socket, they will shortly be everywhere. source on "don't last as long" or est life? i like your "cant remember source" too, very persuasive. solar is in fact, a very attractive long term option. because some people cant see past quarterly gains, this investment is painted as unattractive...see next post
the US Dep. of Energy says the amount of solar energy that hits earths surface per hour is > than the total amount of energy the entire human pop req. in a year. Also, estimates are that 100 sq mi. of solar panels placed in the S.W. U.S. could power the country. the US census indicates a projected population growth of less than 1% a year for the next 50 years WITH a declining growth rate. when comparing nuclear waste containment vs. solar panels, a clear LONG TERM winner emerges.
"Estimates" - be careful about ridiculing my lack of source when you use this vague term. Anyway, you can't just build a solar array and plug in an extension cord -- energy transmission is a huge problem. Further, solar can't provide "base load" energy (it's dark at night and you can't just charge up some batteries). The amount of nuclear waste produced for 10,000 years of powering the country would fit into far less than one square mile. Read "Power to Save the World" by Gwyneth Cravens.
yea, est...from the US dep of energy, your source? again, nothing. solar can store in batteries, the grid and pumped-storage hydro. nukes? how many you wanna build, 100 by mccains count, thatll be cheap right? gonna build homes right next to that 1 mile (or within 100)? NIMBY. Miss cravens in a journalist, not where i go for scientific advice. 2 words ENERGY PORTFOLIO, solar AND petro AND geo therm AND tidal AND wind..not coal
What do I care how many they build? They're safe and have less environmental impact than a windfarm or solar array. None of the options will be cheap. You can put it in my backyard -- those things are HEAVILY regulated and controlled.
I agree, we need a variety of measures taken. It seems we just disagree about the long-term use of nuclear and the short-term use of coal. Like it or not, we'll likely be using coal for a while, until other options are realized (constructed).
word. i've enjoyed our debate, but i think its time to put this one to bed. I dont see GW as a singular reason to do anything. I look at the spectrum of issues and favor change of the current methods, it appears you agree to some extent. I am more optimistic about the potential of particularly solar and feel the need to remove the weakest card from the hand: coal and its "clean" counterpart. i learned a lot, take care
Thanks for the discussion. For the sake of our country, I hope you're right, that "renewables" will be a "good buy" and be able to deliver. I'm still hoping our politicians will realize that many practical (engineering, economic, etc.) considerations must be taken along the way.
My personal experience with CFLs (we replaced nearly every bulb in the house with them) isn't a scientific study, but is a valid data-point. Mercury is poisonous to humans, so if you break one, you must take great care in the cleanup. CFLs don't work well in many environments (read the package).
Do you think changing lightbulbs is the answer? Lighting accounts for a small fraction of a household's energy use. You'd be better off making appliances more energy-efficient.
you are crazy. you break a lot of lightbulbs? be careful. you cry that CFLs are not all that, then cite your personal experience? huh, my house saved 40% on electric. many environments? what like, underwater? no lightbulbs arent the answer...again, 500 words or less...and you pretty much missed my solar point. again, only what you care to see. recycle, cfls, shorter showers, drive the speed limit, buy local produce, dont drink bottled h20, public transit...minor changes add up.
You didn't save 40% on your electric bill by changing lightbulbs alone, or you don't have any major appliances. Read the package -- they're not good for cold environments (e.g., outside, refrigerators), less efficient (and incur more wear) when used for short (<15min) durations. I bought them to save some money, but they're not some magical light source. Personally, I'm waiting for LED technology to improve (they don't wear out and they're ultra-efficient).
had to comment on this one, didnt see it till now. i think my statement on 40% deserves some adds. i was referring to my parents house. we did an experiment of sorts, jan $1000 power bill, install cfls, feb 700 something, march, in the 600's. over the course of 2 months, power dropped roughly 40%. this could be partially due to less heating, partially due to other things...but, it was significantly lower than the historic for the same month with one major change, cfls.
also, these cfls were replacing a lot of halogen recessed lights which are notorious energy suckers. my dad didnt realize when he built the house of the incredible cost that comes with high intensity lighting. as for the astronomical bill in general, my gparents live there and use energy like its already renewable. youre right, LED is the best option considering ultimate energy saving potential and quality of output.
I'm not looking for discussion, I'm just dismissing your comment as ridiculous. Here's a simple question though if you want specifics.....Tell me how many cfls you'd have to be running in your parents' house 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to save even $100 in a month, let alone $200 or $300............The answer to that question should illustrate my original point.
i went through thier house and identified 380 or so sockets that could be replaced with CFLs. I went out and spent $100 on CFLs, that got me about 20 various sized CFLs at home depot. we installed them in the most highly utilized lighting areas and the next two months showed a decrease in cost from just under $1000 to somewhere in the 600s. they boast 75% energy reduction and we replaced primarily halogens. where are you confused?
Well, I'm confused in several ways by your claims.
Firstly, unless your name is Queen Elizabeth, i doubt you have 380 light bulbs in your house.
I'm not sure what you mean by "sockets".....
At 6 hours lighting a day, the 20 CFLs you refer to are saving you approximately 160KWH per month which translates to between $16 and $25 a month depending on what your utility charges per KWH. Of course I'm just an electrical engineer working for an electrical utility, what would I know.
yes, my parents own a 6400 sq ft home and a 1000 sq ft pool house. there are 380+ available places to put a lightbulb (i.e. sockets). halogens aparently use energy even when off cause of some transformer component. suppose my dad reported initial savings of X, was impressed and increased his 20 bulb investment to 200 (and didnt tell me). according to your math that would save 8KWH per bulb per month (assuming roughly equal usage) and $160 to $240 saved per month. factor in -- see next
the placebo effect (conscious less usage to confirm hypothesis) and its easy to see how I could guesstimate off hand that he reduced the bill $400 over 2 months. no, i dont have the bill in front of me, yes he saved a tidy sum of money. no my estimate is not scientifically verifiable. i'm happy that you are an engineer, but that really has nothing to do with me correctly or incorrectly verifying a number that my dad suggested to me last year.
Well, that being said, and assuming your remaining load is more or less fixed, meaning you don't use electric heating or A/C, you may have something there. BTW, it occurs to me that you seem awfully bent on the green for someone who lives in a 7400 ft2 home. What gives?
they do their best not to run climate control, as stated, gparents is another thing. i will fully concede that the numbers arent as fully explainable as i asserted they might be, but I stand by my case for our general accomplishments. what gives? it appears that you operate under the assumption that assets and care for the environment are inversely related, not the case for myself. as well i live a 400sq ft basement in daly city, not there. thanks for the disc. i took away some good info
or, reading your "what gives" comment again, you might think we are "al goreing" it and preach energy whatever and then consume a bunch. that is them, i try to help where i can. again, good chat, take care
If I still sound confused, feel free to enlighten me some more on this magical $400 reduction. Here's a suggestion, switch back to incandescent bulbs next month. I guarantee you your bill will still decrease.
I'll ask once again, as kindly as possible. considering finite resources, increasing pollution (not considering GW) and oil conflict, what sir, do you propose we do to ensure the long term safety, health, sustainability and manageability of the American population (and to a greater extent any and all stakeholders of the U.S.) and their energy needs? please, in 500 characters or less...fully cited.
With all due respect, a "fully cited", careful answer to your question can't be done in 500 words (let alone *characters*), and would probably take more like dozens of pages. There is no silver bullet. Conservation, diversification, etc. are all worthwhile efforts. Your suggestions are fine, but I would add nuclear, domestic oil, and oil shale. Solar and wind are fine as supplements, but the technology doesn't exist for them to provide it all.
yea, i gotcha, that was more sarcasm in response to your picking apart my responses because there is so little space to make a legitimate, cited point. for instance, i say something about cfls...and thats it (cause there is no space) and you cite that cfls "arent the answer" etc. so, once again, spirited debate, take care, we'll see how it turns out....
I'll concede that those advancing the GW theory have some science that should be investigated. It just amazes me that the other side considers all opposing scientific views to be "un-scientific" on their face. Modern science was built on skepticism, not petty dogmas like enviros try to advance.
so whats your solution? resources are inevitably FINITE and already noticeably waning. pollution (air, h20, soil contaminants) is increasing (irrespective of GW) I am dying to hear your response, because so far it has been myself and others pitching solutions and you saying "no sir."
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Fine -- so there is opposing data. The solution is for us to determine what correct scientific conclusions result, not to shout down the opposition with epithets.
Yes, "investment" -- I know economics isn't the strong suit of dogmatic enviros, but there are trade-offs in real life. If we spend trillions building windmills, we can't spend that money elsewhere, helping either mankind *OR* the environment.
wether climate change is caused by us or not we have to act like it it is because if it turns out to be and we keep treating the earth like i treat your mothers asshole we're all fucked
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hilarious. Glad to see that you're treating the issue with seriousness...
So your position is that we should bankrupt the country on the mere chance that we're causing it? So even though the science clearly shows that the sun is much more responsible for changes in global temperatures (on Earth and other planets), we should adopt your dogmatic philosophical position because you "might be right"?
And it's our side that's called "anti-science", when you guys want to ignore the data.
Um, who says that we'd bankrupt the country pursuing alternatives? All the current economic indicators seem to suggest that they'd be more profitable than coal, anyway. That's right: solar and wind can be produced and operated more cheaply than coal. Look into it.
Finally, global warming is not the only objection. Even if we were to grant you your absurd pseudo-science, you'd still have the problem that coal is not renewable, and therefore not sustainable in any case.
If wind and solar were better than coal (with today's technology), then companies would already be investing in them (without government stepping in). If they can compete on a level playing field, I have no objection.
Wind and solar have their own environmental impacts, BTW, far more intrusive than nuclear -- so why don't enviros back nuclear?
Tens of thousands of scientists (including large numbers of climatologists) disagree with GW. It's not "pseudo-science".
It is better, it's just cheaper. And energy companies are already investing their own unsubsidized money into wind power. It's actually starting to become big business now.
I don't know which "it" (coal or wind) you're referring to in your first sentence. Wind has staggeringly large upfront costs (not to mention the environmental impact of hundreds of square miles of wind farms) and requires costly regular maintenance (to the turbines). My point was that if wind was cheaper than coal, energy companies would have already switched.
I'll say again -- if wind can compete on a level playing field, I have little objection (except for the ugly windfarms).
The cost of energy produced by coal is subsidized by the federal government making it artificially cheaper. Wind and solar don't isn't subsidized as much making it a bit more expensive. But when you get down to it we aren't really comparing the true cost of coal vs wind/solar. To do that we would have to include additional environmental costs related to global warming. At the end of December Munich RE, which insures insurance companies, stated that global warming is causing more
natural disasters which is costing insurance companies more and forcing them to raise their rates. When you throw in the complete cost. I think you'll find that solar and wind is cheaper.
I don't like government meddling in the free market much, so I say end the subsidies for coal or balance the playing field (but don't write a blank check). Are you factoring in the environmental impacts of solar and wind? Wind farms are huge, and solar cell manufacture is a dirty process.
I don't care much what an insurance company thinks about the scientific question of whether carbon emissions impacts global temperature. The "science" being used by GW advocates is specious, at best.
I don't know what else I can tell you about global warming that hasn't been already said. There are thousands of climatologists and paleoclimatologists that have been studying our climate for years and decades. They all have come to the conclusion that global warming is happening and that it is either a bad thing or a very bad thing. Saying that these scientists are alarmist is like saying your dentist is an idiot because you don't like dental drills. Your teeth will still rot.
There are tens of thousands of climatologists and scientists that disagree with the man-made GW theory. I say the others are "alarmist" because they're shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. It wasn't too long ago they were warning us about the dangers of global cooling.
Anyone who tells you "the debate is over" is trying to grab large amounts of money for their "research", or large amounts of power for their political, philosophical, or environmental goals.
The "climatologists and scientists" that you refer to are either not scientists at all or people with degrees outside of the field of climate science with a political agenda who think they know what they are talking about. The people doing this research are honest hard working people, many of whom didn't believe in global warming until the past 5 years. Casting aspersions at their character doesn't change the situation.
That's funny -- you accuse me of "casting aspersions" and then your only refutation of the other scientists is to do your own aspersion-casting. Why is it that they are only "actual scientists" if they agree with you? The only people whose character I questioned are those claiming "the debate is over" (not a very "scientific" position, if you ask me, especially for something as technically debated as anthropogenic GW).
Do the "scientists" and "climatologists" that support your position have articles published in peer reviewed journals? If so what are their names and relevant articles? Please provide links to any relevant work. If you can't, I stand by my claims.
Do a Google search for "peer reviewed global warming skeptic" and see how many links you get. The very first link (to "Pete's Place") has links to what looks like about 200 articles. It took me all of a minute to find it -- did you even look, or do you just accept as gospel everything Gore tells you?
Honestly, to say there isn't credible dissent is just sticking your head in the sand.
I asked for peer reviewed journal articles. Not a google search. See the thing is, when pressed for details people who don't believe in global warming can't come up with actual evidence but only claims and statements. Most of the articles mentioned there don't actually support a claim that global warming doesn't exist, or they aren't legitimate science. Take the article "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide".
This "article" has been heavily criticized for not being peer reviewed. In fact it was written by the same people that published it. This would suggest that there is no review of the "articles" quality at all. It was published by the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons which makes me wonder what these physicians and surgeons are doing in the medical practices that gives them the time to write about global warming. Turns out it is a politically motivated group that has been heavily
criticized by the US National Cancer Institute, the World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, National Public Radio, Chemical and Engineering News, Quakwatch, etc...
Just by citing a fallacious article like the one I mention casts serious doubts about either the quality or veracity of Pete's Place.
So I ask you (again) is there a particular article, in Pete's Place or elsewhere, that you feel supports your claim that global warming doesn't exist. And no google searches this time.
Awesome -- I'm getting lectured about science from someone who thinks that using the technological tools available (like Google) isn't appropriate. If you don't like that one article, then try any of the other 200 or so there.
Further, the GW alarmists need to do more than show the earth is warming. They (you) must also show that we caused it, that we can do anything about it, that the consequences warrant the effort, and that it is the best use of resources to fight this particular problem.
Look, I've written for scientific journals, and "peer reviewing" doesn't mean it's inerrant, so don't think that's a magical wand. I'm also not impressed that you can cherry-pick one article and put your political spin on it (BTW, being criticized by the left-leaning NPR doesn't mean squat when it comes to science). You're trying to "poison the well" and claim that one article spoils the rest. Nice try.
While anti ACC scientists such as yourself pontificate about the economic security of inaction on the issue of cutting our carbon emissions, more evidence pours in pointing towards the warming effects of increased concentrations of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere that we put there.
That false sense of security and continued inaction translates to economic disaster in places hit hardest by climate changen such as small islands like the one i call home.
@omarspence -- ad hominem attacks won't work, sorry. Economics is a necessary part of the debate, even if dogmatic greenies choose to ignore it. Evidence is quite the contrary -- things aren't warming, we're entering a cooling trend, and no significant link between CO2 emissions and temperatures has been demonstrated.
Climate change is a constant of history, and will continue to be so, regardless of human actions. It is grossly narcissistic to think we can overwhelm the effects of the sun.
What does it matter if I used Google or a card catalog to find the articles? "Can't come up with actual evidence", "aren't legitimate science"... hilarious. Two hundred articles, from journals like "Science", "Physical Geography", "Climate Research", "American Geophysical Society". Again, apparently if they don't subscribe to your environmental dogma, they don't qualify. That's not science you're advocating, it's religion.
It's not that I don't like google, it's a great tool. I use it all the time. The problem is that you stated that there were thousands of climatologists that don't think that there is global warming. I asked you to name one and you gave me a google search and a webpage for climate change skeptics. I've looked through Pete's Place and all the cited research is either old (Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?), actually does claim that global warming is happening
(Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles), is related but doesn't actually mean that global warming isn't happening (A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850), or was written by people of questionable credentials and published in questionable journals (as I've already pointed out). So I don't accept that you gave me 200 articles.
The well was poisoned before I ever showed up. You stated that there are thousands of climatologists that don't believe in global warming and you haven't given me one. So I'll give you one that does believe in global warming and has the research to back it up. Drop the name Lonnie Thompson into Google Scholar. You could also check out the book Thin Ice by Mark Bowen which describes his research.
WILMINGTON, Del. �?? Gov. Ruth Ann Minner has directed Delawares state climatologist to stop using his title in public statements on climate change, citing a clash of views on global warming and confusion over the positions ties to the administration.
Minner, who made the directive in a letter, described the move as a way to clarify the role of David R. Legates, a prominent skeptic of views that human activities are warming the planet and triggering climate shifts.
the greenhouse effect has been proven to be false the science absolutely proves this. Now that we know barry sotero is a lying kenyan why are we not demanding he be impeached?
logan1776 1 year ago
Then kill it. But the catch is you gotta stop using it before you can destroy it. All you are showing at the moment is that your propaganda is more worthwhile than your cause.
jashby27 1 year ago
I find it slanderous for somebody who has probably never had to preform real labor to pass judgment on my profession. You can eat all that they are feeding you, that is your choice, however it is not as cut and dry as you would like it to be. If you want to drive your point home, take some initiative. Walk outside your house and switch the main disconnect on your house, and leave it off. Be a real crusader, don't sit at your keyboard and speculate.
jashby27 1 year ago
@jashby27
Yes, that's a favorite Catch-22 of lackeys for modern industrialism -- i.e. that if you want to criticize the industrial destruction of the environment, you can only do it without using any industrial products. Got paper and pencil? No, no, those were made in a factory too!
In other words, "If you don't like our apocalyptic hegemony, then get off the internet and shut up."
No thanks. We need to kill the coal industry before it kills us.
wfmkk 1 year ago
Coal Kills: Coal is just as deadly as radiation from a nuclear bomb. Coal has been killing Americans for centuries. Coal should be considered a terrorist weapon not an energy source. Coal contains arsenic, lead, mercury, candium, cyanide, copper, polycyclic hydrocarbons and much more. Most EPA superfunds contain coal waste left to be cleaned up with our tax dollars. The only way to make coal clean is to leave it in the ground forever. Clean coal advertising is terrorism at its best.
Rubenleesims 1 year ago
One of the best ways to save the environment is to elect Officials that will focus on reducing immigration.
In America, nearly all the population growth in the last 40 years has been via immigration, over 100 million more and we are on track to go to 500 million in a few decades. The world does not need 300 million more American consumers and America does not need 300 million more immigrants. Go to Numbersusa for more info on immigration and to fax your senators for free.
mrhulot101 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The cheapest way to stop global climate change is not converting to
solar power or buying a hybrid car. It's putting on a condom.
That's the conclusion of a London School Of Economics study showing money spent on contraception is five times more efficient than money spent on clean energy technologies. It backs up a recent Oregon State University study tha
t concludes overpopulation and massive immigration is the single biggest threat to the environment." NUMBERSUSA(DOT)COM
rocketsredglare101 2 years ago
man made global warming is a racket
logan1776 2 years ago
yeah? so then why don't you go into your garage, close all the doors and windows, and turn your car on?
defaultartist 2 years ago
Really. You paid much? Maybe some florida beach front property, huh?
perpiotrredman 2 years ago
@logan1776 Yup, just like evolution, the heliocentric solar system, and all other scienctific consensuses,...ooooh, you were being seriousl weren't you?
SmilingJack100 1 year ago
p.s al gore is not a climate expert either but many of the debunkers of man made global warming are
logan1776 2 years ago
Name one. I only know of two contrary theories to AGW (neither one of which "debunks" AGW), both of which are not widely accepted after a number of years of peer review and study. They have not proven to account for what is happening:
watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI
Name me a single "debunker" of AGW who is an actual climatologist who has published peer-reviewed research that you claim "debunks" AGW.
Al Gore is not a climate expert. But over 90% of "climate experts" agree with AGW.
Pandonodrim 2 years ago
Al Gore didn't come up with climate change, he made a DOCUMENTARY about it presenting the results from research that SCIENTISTS conducted. He is a SPOKESPERSON for the scientists.
Those so called debunkers are fakes paid by oil companies or persons out of touch with the whole picture NOW with regard to climate change and base their theories on part of the picture or on outdated information.
omarspence 2 years ago
Power companies trying to maintain profit share, another problem with capitalism, people will continue to do wrong and even manipulate the truth for money.
Too bad no matter what happens, even if they could actually invent a clean coal, too bad we still strip-mine and use moutain top removal to get the coal.
Why do we still allow moutain top removal? Coal is bad but the method they use to get it is worse.
/watch?v=rZxVNnFXNpE&feature=PlayList&p=E0B7E9C70D19A314&index=3
doesitmatter2you 2 years ago
doesitmatter2you : other planets in our solar system ARE getting hotter, the global warming racket crowd DO have ulterior motives, please watch "the great global warming swindle" wherein LEADING EXPERTS in there field dispute al gores film(by the way blood and gore corporation are going to make a killing on eco-fascist legislation) also the film details how in the 1970's many sresearchers in grant money competition would add global warming to research cause politicians more likely to give grant
logan1776 2 years ago
"The Great Global Warming Swindle" is a scam and has long been debunked as such. It was made by energy-backed groups and is comprised of falsified interviews and junk science. It has been changed numerous times since its initial release and is still completely criticized for its misinformation and lies.
Pandonodrim 2 years ago
The Great Global Warming Swindle" has not been debunked ,indeed YOU have been debunked you spread lies saying that man makes global warning attempting to justify lowering our quality of life so elites casn steal all our wealth I dont want to be a "good turk" I want LIBERTY/RESTORE THE REPUBLIC
logan1776 2 years ago
LOL
Making completely baseless accusations without any proof is not "debunking." Absolutely nothing you have said in any way contradicts my facts - all you are spouting is an emotional and irrational response. You have no proof, you have no facts.
I haven't lied about anything. AGW is real. It is indisputable. It has to be unless you disagree with these two statements:
1. Burning fossil fuels releases CO2
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
Do you find either incorrect? If so prove it.
Pandonodrim 2 years ago
More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.
logan1776 2 years ago
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,"
logan1776 2 years ago
Dude, why all the one-quote posts, put them together.
As I've already said that petition is bunk and has been long de-bunked. You haven't cited your quotes, and you haven't provided a single peer-reviewed example (or even a reference to one) that contradicts AGW. A "petition" does not count, especially a bogus one.
All your quotes are debunked. Please give me sources so I can provide you with the de-bunking information (if you even care).
Pandonodrim 2 years ago
"Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
logan1776 2 years ago
p.s. this is simply copy and pasting from a story of which there are literally 100's of 1000's all of which show you are either iggnorant of real science or you LIE
logan1776 2 years ago
It's amusing that you accuse me of being "iggnorant" (sic) of "real science or (I) LIE" but you provide zero scientific evidence to back your claims.
Please provide scientific sources before you respond again. Once more, a bs petition does not count as a "scientific source."
Pandonodrim 2 years ago
You can check this out for starters:
watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I
Pandonodrim 2 years ago
Yes it has, even by itself - they've changed parts of it numerous times because people pointed out the flagrant lies and errors presented in it. Check this out for more:
watch?v=boj9ccV9htk
As for that bogus Inhofe petition, check this out:
watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I
Note that these videos are quick overviews. You can easily find more in depth research on your own by actually investigating these issues, instead of just accepting denialist propaganda like you are right now.
Pandonodrim 2 years ago
thnx for the vids I shall research
logan1776 2 years ago
@logan1776 I am really afraid to ask, but how, exactly has the repbuclic of the united states gone anywhere that it needs to be restored? Last I checked we had free and fair elections and just had a couple and are going to have some more, all on schedule, in november,.
SmilingJack100 1 year ago
The world scientist do not all agree on the matter become some energy companies payed every single one of them to, they agree because it is fact.
hithlum 2 years ago
I know that. That's why they all support AGW. There are, however, a number of "scientists" (few of them climatologists) who are shills for the energy industry.
Pandonodrim 2 years ago
UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN.
logan1776 2 years ago
Too bad there are tens of millions of scientists in the world. Even when the Earth was proved to be round there was scientists that declared the world still flat. They were wrong.
Even when the sun was delcared to be the center of the galaxy there was scientists that said nope the earth is the center.
There will always be scientists that deny new advancements. That is science though, even when people deny, the evidence can be objectively repeated and produce the same results.
doesitmatter2you 2 years ago
does it matter 2 you: the science is clear , man made global warming is a lie perpetuated by scum who are either trying to make a buck off it (carbon tax, al gores 10 dollar light bulbs..etc) or are scum who believe in eugenics(killling people off, babies are evil...etc) REAL scientists state that we are ijn a warming trend much like the ones the earth has gone through in the past due to SOLAR fluctuations
logan1776 2 years ago
This so-called list of 650 "scientists" is a pet project by Sen. Inhofe - probably the worst senator to ever serve in the United States Congress, and the undying shame of Oklahoma for generations to come.
The "list" has long been debunked and is not what you claim it to be. Most of the people on it are not climatologists, many of the people have requested their names be removed (and they haven't). Some of the names are of people that don't even seem to exist!
Pandonodrim 2 years ago
wonder how much coal was used in the making of this commercial? half of americas electrical grid is connected to coal plants. is everybody ready to get rid of half of the electrical appliances in there house and at work, remember, this is reality.
dhartin 2 years ago
The point is replacing coal with SOMETHING ELSE not switching them off just like that. Most coal plants are aging, decrepit and inefficient. The price of coal is artificially low and does not factor in the environmental costs which are tremendous although difficult to show up on balance sheets. The truth is, coal needs to be done away with, anything environmentally unsustainable is economically unsustainable as well.
omarspence 2 years ago
Coal energy is cheaper... try telling that to your doctor in 20 years when you have skin cancer. coal=global warming
Jayman7o72 2 years ago
Great campaign. But capturing and storing CO2 emissions by new coal power plants is not a future destination! Just stop produce this emissions and stop make new coal power plants.
readymedia 2 years ago
So lets not research ways to have clean coal because it's dirty? Well what do you suggest as a safe, clean alternative? I went to the website and there is no information about that... just a lot of quotes and statistics... nothing of any real substance. This whole campaign comes off as a joke to me. My interest was peaked with the commercial but apparently I can't get any other information unless I give my e-mail address and "join the cause." I'm interested on your thoughts about alternatives.
jibblemite 3 years ago
Clean coal is expensive, impractical, and is not an immediate solution to the energy crisis. Solar, wind, and hydroelectric power produce more energy than bio fuels, coal, or nuclear power. They're also cleaner, renewable, and we have the technology for them NOW!
phoenixatom 3 years ago 3
What's wrong with nuclear power exactly? It seems to be the the most effective and cleanest energy solution for areas that cannot use wind, solar, or hydro power.
Also wind and solar power require much more space to reach the equivalent amount of power output by a nuclear reactor.
concordat 2 years ago
Or you could allow for huge tax relief to home owners with independent energy solutions (i.e. solar or wind power that they maintain themselves, off the grid). Solar technology has come a long way since the 90's and is pretty space efficient nowadays. While wind seems to take up a lot of space, it is tiny compared to all the underground nuclear waste that would be built up if the world switched over (think landfills x 1000...but radioactive).
phoenixatom 2 years ago
Newer reactors recycle more and more of their waste, and I am not saying that its the ultimate solution. I'm saying energy production should diversified, with each region deriving power from a source that its geography allows.
Nuclear waste disposal is a serious issue but the technology shouldn't be written off entirely.
concordat 2 years ago
I agree with you on that it shouldn't be completely written off. It's just that with nuclear power, there is a very small margin that allows for error.
phoenixatom 2 years ago
Nuclear waste remains radioactive for tens of thousands of years. That's longer than mankind's recorded history.
There is an answer. USE LESS ENRGY!
ArtThroughtheAges 2 years ago
But if you're not in contact with radiation it can't hurt you.
Here's a little interesting fact: the longer it takes an isotope to decay, the less radioactive it is. And not all radiation is created equally. X-rays and gamma rays are more deadly than the little alpha particles that the uranium in a granite countertop gives off.
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
incorrect, actually. #1, the reason radioactivity is dangerous is its free-flying nature. Next time yo get an x-ray, note that the person (hiding behind the screen) is wearing a lead protector suit. #2 a product that remains radioactive for TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS....where do you think they're going to put that stuff? Your backyard? My backyard?
Who's backyard?
USE LESS ENERGY
ArtThroughtheAges 2 years ago
You are correct that radioactive material can be dangerous if not properly handled and stored, but France uses nuclear for 75% of their energy, so clearly these issues have been resolved.
dsbikes 2 years ago
the issues with nuclear waste has not been settled at all. Imagine for a moment that you live in a house, and there's nothing else there at all. Now, put a can of nuclear waste in the corner of your garage. Let's say it's about as big as a cke can. Every day, a new one is there. The garage fills, you move to the den for staorage. the cans keep coming. You start putting them in a closet, they keep coming.
The earth is your house, our great great great grandchildren are you
ArtThroughtheAges 2 years ago
France disagrees, as do the facts. The amount of waste generated by a family of four over their *lifetime* would fit into a soda can. The scales in your analogy don't agree with the actual figures.
As for your other post, I'm much more open to the arguments against coal that come from the straight pollution aspects. The reality is that wind and solar aren't viable alternatives with current technology, and acts of Congress and big piles of money can't change that as fast as some think.
dsbikes 2 years ago
I'll give you part credit. The analogy works, only, I don't have the math quite rigt. Then again, I was in the middle od a letter to a gal I know in Florida and reading mail from someone calling me a lot of uncalled for cuss words for my politics.
I've never done the sprcific math, BUT, the model is true.
Unless we enter into a great war that kills all (or most) of us off, in which case, moxnix. Using less means more than the initial view seems. If we ALL used less, the coal wouldn't be needed
ArtThroughtheAges 2 years ago
The math goes like this: the waste produced for each person's lifetime of electricity is about 3oz. That's about 1 billion ounces for the whole country (per generation). That translates into filling up a Best Buy store every 100 years. That is a tiny amount of waste, especially when compared with the thousands of square miles of land that would be rendered unusable by wind farms and/or solar panel arrays.
dsbikes 2 years ago
try now to see not one hundred years, but rather a thousand years.
And then tens of thousands of years.
Where do you imagine that stuff will be going to?
Go ahead...please take a guess.
ArtThroughtheAges 2 years ago
I was letting you do the math from there. In a thousand years, we would fill ten "Best Buy" stores. That's a *tiny* amount of waste, compared to the other options. Do you really think in a thousand years there won't be some other breakthrough technology that will make all of this a moot discussion?
Where do I imagine it will go? It will still be contained in the same place we left it, like all the other waste we create. What's your point?
dsbikes 2 years ago
They don't really have a suggestion.
But those of us who are "part of the cause" have a number of ideas. For one, both solar and wind energy have now reached a technological point where, in many cases, they can be operated more cheaply than "dirty" coal. And unlike "clean coal," they're available now.
Further, there's a number of other technologies that, while not currently cheaper than "dirty coal," could be likely developed to viability for a lower research investment than "clean coal."
theseattlechick 2 years ago
solar = infinite...is that hard to understand? 80 miles by 80 miles of solar panels will power the whole US. think thats a lot? Drive through Nevada and reconsider. once you have the infrastructure, it is a passive system (no mining, drilling, refining etc.) with the same maintanence as any other energy source. no substance? just so you know, everything that exists is based on numbers and statistics. if that doesnt work for you, its cause your dumb
sonofluger 2 years ago
Just want everyone to keep in mind that a move beyond ANY technology (like coal) should be done CAREFULLY...not investing full trust in government...
Certainly, clean energy is desirable, but what is far MORE desirable is a preservation of our WANING socioeconomic liberties...(inflation taxes, Carbon Taxes, etc...no wonder SAVINGS in this country are pitiful)
Always mind your Austrian Economics!
chaztikov 3 years ago
By moving beyond coal, the United States could avoid a legacy of smog-filled skies, acid rain, polluted waterways, contaminated fish, and scarred landscapes. This could each year save some 25,000 lives, reduce respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, avert potential neurological damage for 630,000 babies, and erase a health care bill of over $160 billion.
telephusion 3 years ago
in reality...every war, every death, every problema was caused by man's personal interests, and now we face another problema this one about money and a planet that needs to be saved!!!!!!react people!!!coal industry just as every other industry looks for money not for a better place to everyone else!!!!!
viniceo 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
English illustrates solves the invention which the Earth warms, does not use the innovation which all energies possibly generate electricity your government, must be the national person makes this innovation if you did not understand that I said anything I ask you to tell you the National intelligence Organization completes this innovation I do not spend money to give your country In you In you tude character a661333
a661333 3 years ago
I get it! The coal made his nose dirty, so their is no such thing as CLEAN coal! It's all dirty!
phira360 3 years ago
Let's just burn fossil fuels forever until the skies turn black and the average life expectancy goes back to what it was in the dark ages. Jeesus people, we have the technology to be smarter, let's use it.
McCainPalinSucksAss 3 years ago 4
Actually with the 700 degree surface temperatures and permanent, hypersonic planet girdling hurricanes, I'm afraid your lifespan estimates would be really optimistic.
iamafractal 3 years ago
i think this is a good advertisement.. send this video to a lot of people and people will start getting the point..
opinionscelebs 3 years ago
If we spew too much of it, then the world will see another anoxic period where methane (from the deep) fowls the air to a point where only micro species can survive (and converts it into yet another vast store of carbon fuels) `~'
Ya, that's what massive volcanism does.
As for nuclear vs solar, go concentrated solar thermal with 24 hr heat storage. Couldn't be much more $ than nuclear AND WOULD CREATE MILLIONS OF MORE JOBS because it's just sunlight and billions of mirrors, lines, ect!
fireofenergy 3 years ago
CHANGE MEANS CHANGE.
whyoregon 3 years ago
this is a wake up call for the world before we die of our mistakes
leon900000 3 years ago
coal that gets bruned creates more pollution than cars and trucks on the road.
BeNGALi4LFE 3 years ago
Could you run this in australia? the coal industry is running ads about how clean they are.
newn0z 3 years ago
Save the world!!!
xYunhoLoverx 3 years ago
guba dott com (slash) watch (slash) 3000098856
go to that and take a look, just type it in ur browser. it wont let me provide the link. get another view of global warming besides al gores before you say he's right. just give that documentary a chance, you gave al gores one.
justinkk2005 3 years ago
stupid, corrupted...this politicians are the worst...clean coal my ass....
deathknight1313 3 years ago
it's just an actor, but a parody of a very real and serious problem
wurlybird9 3 years ago
So true
erichgamba 3 years ago
Who cares about breathing, good water, healthy foods or kids without birth defects!
If you stop strip mining, drilling everywhere, plastic packaging we will all die because the economy will be hurt by all these restrictions!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL LOL LOL
tainoaz 3 years ago
cercl
tedebambu 3 years ago
If warming the planet isn't enough for you to care how about asthma rate increase from air pollution or cancerogens and other results from coal pollution. Not to mention the fact that coal WILL RUN OUT EVENTUALLY. It's common knowledge that sustainable technology is the cheapest, most long lasting way to go but people are still stuck in the stone age. Hasn't our technological advance gotten us anywhere?!?!
xschuesslerx 3 years ago 3
This is the part I never quite understood. Even if you DON'T believe in global warming, which is really something hard to deny now, how can anyone go against a renewable, non-ending source of energy that is cheaper in the long run and not reliant on unstable countries! Good comment.
LordHashma 3 years ago
Okay, what the heck are you talking about in the first place? Coal isn't renewable, dipwad. If we don't reverse our damage to the earth's atmosphere (damage mostly due to coal) in the next couple of years, it'll be too late.
Leo4evr 3 years ago
Um, I was talking about solar, wind...I didn't understand why people were against those, not coal. I think you just misunderstood my comment.
recrenton 3 years ago
Um, I was talking about solar, wind...I didn't understand why people were against those, not coal. I think you just misunderstood my comment.
LordHashma 3 years ago
By the way, I meant solar and wind under renewable, not coal!
recrenton 3 years ago
Wind and solar will cost trillions. The reason they aren't getting attention is because they *aren't* cheaper (i.e., feasible).
BTW, I'm all for nuclear, but most enviro-wackos hate the thought of that also, though it's more proven than wind or solar (France uses it for 3/4 of their power).
dsbikes 3 years ago
I wholeheartedly agree with the nuclear idea. People only think of Chernobyl when they are told about it, which is a shame.
LordHashma 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Someone remind me again, how much has the earth warmed in the last 100 years? Oh, right, one degree. And it was warmer than this before we started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
"Global warming" (now called "climate change", since the globe isn't actually warming) == "junk science" used by enviro-wackos to drive through their radical agenda.
dsbikes 3 years ago
You're right, one degree and we're already seeing the result of that. We also know that the TRENDS are upward and increasing (so you're wrong about that). Oh yeah, your comment on that other video that the earth is flat is wrong too.
We also know that continued rises in temperature, in line with current trends, will see us trapped by tipping points into a whole new situation where we will not be able to reign in global warming. So please get some facts and proper analysis.
kimberleycalling 3 years ago
guba dott com (slash) watch (slash) 3000098856
go to that and do your own "analysis"
justinkk2005 3 years ago
LOL . . . why do you people bother.
kimberleycalling 3 years ago
whats that suppose to mean? You dont live around coal or the people that mine it. Life thrives off Co2. without it there would b no life on earth. volcano spews alot more than we ever could, so its not like we r goin 2 stop carbon emissions when its natural. What isnt natural is dumping mercury into the ocean and putting plastic into landfills, now that i'm all abotu cleaning up, but not c02. Its ridiculous, go ahead stop coal and then come see thousands starving in east ky. c02 is natural.
justinkk2005 3 years ago
The people that mine coal should (must) be redeployed in construction of infrastructure associated with clean renewables. Surely they'd prefer that? Coal miners wont have jobs if your economy is ruined and outstripped by nations which develop, use and sell renewable technologies.
Of course life on earth requires CO2 but it's way out of balance and getting worse due to human activity. Volcanoes are one thing but sustained output by humans is another thing altogether.
kimberleycalling 3 years ago
"Results" like localized changes from year to year? That's called "weather". The TRENDS are actually going the other way (ocean temps decreasing).
The proper analysis is that there are serious scientific and economic questions about our effects on the climate, our ability to change the effects, the results of any warming, not to mention whether the earth would be better off warmer than it is now anyway.
dsbikes 3 years ago
There is a ton of robust, peer reviewed, interconnected and unifying evidence - ie. proof, that you are wrong. The ocean is not cooling and the TRENDS are that the planet is warming.
Your analysis is wrong because it's based on faulty (or non-existent) data. We have caused climate change, so we do have the ability to repair the problem. Oh yeah, the earth would be so much better off warmer still and with a mass extinction event and a climate which causes massive human suffering. Yeah, right.
kimberleycalling 3 years ago
NOAA's oceanic buoys report data that contradict your assertions, but they're probably giving "faulty" data. The climatologists at ICECAP (Google it) are also probably giving "faulty" data. Does "faulty" just mean "it disagrees with your agenda"?
Even if it could be proven that we caused it, that doesn't mean we can necessarily undo it, or that it is a good investment to do so. Economists think the trillions of dollars could be better spent elsewhere to benefit humanity.
dsbikes 3 years ago
I can hold up a heap of evidence which opposes the data that you've presented.
"a good investment to do so"? You chicken shit.
The entire human species is not worth the destruction of the Antarctic food chain, the world's rainforests, the world's coral reefs, the world's alpine environments and the world's intertidal habitats. It just simply isn't as important as all those other species which stand to go extinct. We have a moral obligation to fix the damage.
kimberleycalling 3 years ago
From Nature:
LIVERMORE, Calif., June 19 (UPI) -- U.S.-led research suggests ocean temperature and sea level increases between 1961and 2003 were 50 percent greater than estimated in a 2007 report.
An international team of researchers compared climate models with improved observations that show sea levels rose by 1.5 millimeters per year during the period, equating to an approximately 2 1/2-inch increase in ocean levels during the 42-year period.
kimberleycalling 3 years ago
"This is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak," said LLNL climate scientist Peter Gleckler. "Our ability to quantify structural uncertainties in observationally based estimates is critically important. This study represents important progress."
The team also included researchers from the Center for Australian Weather and Climate Research and the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Center.
kimberleycalling 3 years ago
Precisely -- Peter's "ability to quantify" is at the heart of the problem. Computer models are highly sensitive to inputs and assumptions about the system. His "uncertainties and "estimates" can be adjusted to reach a variety of conclusions.
dsbikes 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
NOAA reported a recent decrease in the ocean temps. Wow -- conflicting data -- it's almost like climate systems are too large and complex for us to fully understand...
I though Prophet Gore predicted a 20-foot rise in the oceans. At 1.5mm/year, that would take something like 4000 years.
dsbikes 3 years ago
a 1C degree rise in GLOBAL ocean temp will cause enough ice to shed that weather systems will change. as well, certain waters become uninhabitable by some populations, overly habitated by others. eco diversity goes down, food supplies alter, human populations are effected. you read ONE study with conflicting data? forget gore, there are plenty of reasons to change our energy sourcing.
sonofluger 2 years ago
The planet has been warming and cooling for thousands of years before people started driving their "evil" SUVs, and somehow the whole thing managed itself just fine without our intervention. In short, I don't accept your "chicken little" assertions.
Also, you are assuming a connection between global warming and carbon emissions, which is still *highly* speculative at this point.
dsbikes 2 years ago
co2 is a gas (and not the only gas in question). gasses insulate (check your double paned windows) more gas...more insulation. more insulation, more heat trapped within the atmosphere...and on. your approach "do nothing because we have no PROOF" is like waiting for hitler to invade poland or quitting smoking after your lung cancer diagnosis. there is more co2 in the atmosphere than ANY period in history (as measured by air trapped in ice cap pockets) offer me science, not your doubts
sonofluger 2 years ago
Water vapor is the predominant greenhouse gas -- do you want to eliminate that? Also, your analogy doesn't hold up, even if I accepted your premise. More insulation doesn't always equal higher temperatures. Cover yourself with five blankets or twenty, you probably won't notice much heat difference.
So you think we should spend trillions on speculative science when it's not conclusive? Why not build giant lasers to shoot meteors, JUST IN CASE a huge one might hit us.
dsbikes 2 years ago
1) Empirical FACT: GHGs in the atmosphere absorb and re-radiate long
wave radiation (heat) headed away from the earth. Elementary physics.
2) Empirical FACT: The re-radiation is in a random direction, so about
1/2 of what would have gone into space is aimed back towards earth. Elementary geometry.
3) Empirical FACT: The concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere is
rapidly increasing due primarily to agricultural activities and fossil
fuel burning. Elementary chemistry.
sonofluger 2 years ago
4) Empirical FACT: This leads to a "greenhouse" heating effect on the
earth. Elementary logic.
5) Controversy: There are many other effects, like reflective clouds,
heat absorbing black soot, the earth's rotational wobble, sun spots,
etc. that could also tip the scales one way or the other, but to the
extent that they are understood, most accelerate warming, and none fully
offset the effects of GHGs.
sonofluger 2 years ago
None of your facts detail the extent of the heating effect from GHGs -- your chain of reasoning breaks down in your step #4. Solar activity is the primary cause, as has been demonstrated by science, the claims of radical enviro dogmatists notwithstanding.
dsbikes 2 years ago
yes, in 500 words or less describe global warming with specific fact and detail...."none of your facts detail..." dude, you have no facts. i get it, your a pseudo-intellectual skeptic with 4 or 5 points that poke holes in the argument, you stick to your guns. however, you give no respect to your debating opponent(s) by offering a remote semblance of fact, just anecdotes and doubt while requiring expansive detail for your satisfaction. i know, ignorance is bliss...have fun with that
sonofluger 2 years ago
At least you understand that 500 characters isn't enough to have a meaningful debate. You are right -- if I was in charge, I *would* require significant proof and detail before committing trillions of dollars. I'm sorry, but grade-school science reasoning isn't going to cut it. If you think windmills will solve all our problems, then I believe it is you who are living in a state of ignorance.
dsbikes 2 years ago
check my posts. i don't engage in conversation re: or supporting windmills. you still have yet to offer a fact. you only address the points that suit you. your constant referral to "trillions" is unfounded, where do you derive that number? know what, ill come to your side for a sec, global warming is a bad arg., because it is completely ineffective for being unable to be explained WITH grade school logic. "cost savings" has been my cause, as CFLs save money, last longer and hurt nothing.
sonofluger 2 years ago
The facts are that global temperatures trend more closely with solar activity than with CO2 levels. I heard "trillions" from an economist (don't remember source), to convert our power grid to exotics like solar and wind (that still can't produce enough) and build the windfarms and solar arrays.
CFLs are fine, except they contain mercury (poisonous), can't be used in all places incandescents are, and don't last as long as reported. Conservation is great, but it won't solve the problem.
dsbikes 2 years ago
every aspects of CFLs can be recycled, including mercury. CFLs have models to fit NEARLY every socket, they will shortly be everywhere. source on "don't last as long" or est life? i like your "cant remember source" too, very persuasive. solar is in fact, a very attractive long term option. because some people cant see past quarterly gains, this investment is painted as unattractive...see next post
sonofluger 2 years ago
the US Dep. of Energy says the amount of solar energy that hits earths surface per hour is > than the total amount of energy the entire human pop req. in a year. Also, estimates are that 100 sq mi. of solar panels placed in the S.W. U.S. could power the country. the US census indicates a projected population growth of less than 1% a year for the next 50 years WITH a declining growth rate. when comparing nuclear waste containment vs. solar panels, a clear LONG TERM winner emerges.
sonofluger 2 years ago
"Estimates" - be careful about ridiculing my lack of source when you use this vague term. Anyway, you can't just build a solar array and plug in an extension cord -- energy transmission is a huge problem. Further, solar can't provide "base load" energy (it's dark at night and you can't just charge up some batteries). The amount of nuclear waste produced for 10,000 years of powering the country would fit into far less than one square mile. Read "Power to Save the World" by Gwyneth Cravens.
dsbikes 2 years ago
yea, est...from the US dep of energy, your source? again, nothing. solar can store in batteries, the grid and pumped-storage hydro. nukes? how many you wanna build, 100 by mccains count, thatll be cheap right? gonna build homes right next to that 1 mile (or within 100)? NIMBY. Miss cravens in a journalist, not where i go for scientific advice. 2 words ENERGY PORTFOLIO, solar AND petro AND geo therm AND tidal AND wind..not coal
sonofluger 2 years ago
What do I care how many they build? They're safe and have less environmental impact than a windfarm or solar array. None of the options will be cheap. You can put it in my backyard -- those things are HEAVILY regulated and controlled.
I agree, we need a variety of measures taken. It seems we just disagree about the long-term use of nuclear and the short-term use of coal. Like it or not, we'll likely be using coal for a while, until other options are realized (constructed).
dsbikes 2 years ago
word. i've enjoyed our debate, but i think its time to put this one to bed. I dont see GW as a singular reason to do anything. I look at the spectrum of issues and favor change of the current methods, it appears you agree to some extent. I am more optimistic about the potential of particularly solar and feel the need to remove the weakest card from the hand: coal and its "clean" counterpart. i learned a lot, take care
sonofluger 2 years ago
Thanks for the discussion. For the sake of our country, I hope you're right, that "renewables" will be a "good buy" and be able to deliver. I'm still hoping our politicians will realize that many practical (engineering, economic, etc.) considerations must be taken along the way.
dsbikes 2 years ago
My personal experience with CFLs (we replaced nearly every bulb in the house with them) isn't a scientific study, but is a valid data-point. Mercury is poisonous to humans, so if you break one, you must take great care in the cleanup. CFLs don't work well in many environments (read the package).
Do you think changing lightbulbs is the answer? Lighting accounts for a small fraction of a household's energy use. You'd be better off making appliances more energy-efficient.
dsbikes 2 years ago
you are crazy. you break a lot of lightbulbs? be careful. you cry that CFLs are not all that, then cite your personal experience? huh, my house saved 40% on electric. many environments? what like, underwater? no lightbulbs arent the answer...again, 500 words or less...and you pretty much missed my solar point. again, only what you care to see. recycle, cfls, shorter showers, drive the speed limit, buy local produce, dont drink bottled h20, public transit...minor changes add up.
sonofluger 2 years ago
You didn't save 40% on your electric bill by changing lightbulbs alone, or you don't have any major appliances. Read the package -- they're not good for cold environments (e.g., outside, refrigerators), less efficient (and incur more wear) when used for short (<15min) durations. I bought them to save some money, but they're not some magical light source. Personally, I'm waiting for LED technology to improve (they don't wear out and they're ultra-efficient).
dsbikes 2 years ago
had to comment on this one, didnt see it till now. i think my statement on 40% deserves some adds. i was referring to my parents house. we did an experiment of sorts, jan $1000 power bill, install cfls, feb 700 something, march, in the 600's. over the course of 2 months, power dropped roughly 40%. this could be partially due to less heating, partially due to other things...but, it was significantly lower than the historic for the same month with one major change, cfls.
sonofluger 2 years ago
also, these cfls were replacing a lot of halogen recessed lights which are notorious energy suckers. my dad didnt realize when he built the house of the incredible cost that comes with high intensity lighting. as for the astronomical bill in general, my gparents live there and use energy like its already renewable. youre right, LED is the best option considering ultimate energy saving potential and quality of output.
sonofluger 2 years ago
This comment is just plain idiocy.
wunwinglo 2 years ago
i'd be happy to engage in some sort of discussion about the idiocy of my comments, but you probably have to be a little more specific
sonofluger 2 years ago
I'm not looking for discussion, I'm just dismissing your comment as ridiculous. Here's a simple question though if you want specifics.....Tell me how many cfls you'd have to be running in your parents' house 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to save even $100 in a month, let alone $200 or $300............The answer to that question should illustrate my original point.
wunwinglo 2 years ago
i went through thier house and identified 380 or so sockets that could be replaced with CFLs. I went out and spent $100 on CFLs, that got me about 20 various sized CFLs at home depot. we installed them in the most highly utilized lighting areas and the next two months showed a decrease in cost from just under $1000 to somewhere in the 600s. they boast 75% energy reduction and we replaced primarily halogens. where are you confused?
sonofluger 2 years ago
Well, I'm confused in several ways by your claims.
Firstly, unless your name is Queen Elizabeth, i doubt you have 380 light bulbs in your house.
I'm not sure what you mean by "sockets".....
At 6 hours lighting a day, the 20 CFLs you refer to are saving you approximately 160KWH per month which translates to between $16 and $25 a month depending on what your utility charges per KWH. Of course I'm just an electrical engineer working for an electrical utility, what would I know.
wunwinglo 2 years ago
yes, my parents own a 6400 sq ft home and a 1000 sq ft pool house. there are 380+ available places to put a lightbulb (i.e. sockets). halogens aparently use energy even when off cause of some transformer component. suppose my dad reported initial savings of X, was impressed and increased his 20 bulb investment to 200 (and didnt tell me). according to your math that would save 8KWH per bulb per month (assuming roughly equal usage) and $160 to $240 saved per month. factor in -- see next
sonofluger 2 years ago
the placebo effect (conscious less usage to confirm hypothesis) and its easy to see how I could guesstimate off hand that he reduced the bill $400 over 2 months. no, i dont have the bill in front of me, yes he saved a tidy sum of money. no my estimate is not scientifically verifiable. i'm happy that you are an engineer, but that really has nothing to do with me correctly or incorrectly verifying a number that my dad suggested to me last year.
sonofluger 2 years ago
Well, that being said, and assuming your remaining load is more or less fixed, meaning you don't use electric heating or A/C, you may have something there. BTW, it occurs to me that you seem awfully bent on the green for someone who lives in a 7400 ft2 home. What gives?
wunwinglo 2 years ago
they do their best not to run climate control, as stated, gparents is another thing. i will fully concede that the numbers arent as fully explainable as i asserted they might be, but I stand by my case for our general accomplishments. what gives? it appears that you operate under the assumption that assets and care for the environment are inversely related, not the case for myself. as well i live a 400sq ft basement in daly city, not there. thanks for the disc. i took away some good info
sonofluger 2 years ago
or, reading your "what gives" comment again, you might think we are "al goreing" it and preach energy whatever and then consume a bunch. that is them, i try to help where i can. again, good chat, take care
sonofluger 2 years ago
If I still sound confused, feel free to enlighten me some more on this magical $400 reduction. Here's a suggestion, switch back to incandescent bulbs next month. I guarantee you your bill will still decrease.
wunwinglo 2 years ago
I'll ask once again, as kindly as possible. considering finite resources, increasing pollution (not considering GW) and oil conflict, what sir, do you propose we do to ensure the long term safety, health, sustainability and manageability of the American population (and to a greater extent any and all stakeholders of the U.S.) and their energy needs? please, in 500 characters or less...fully cited.
sonofluger 2 years ago
With all due respect, a "fully cited", careful answer to your question can't be done in 500 words (let alone *characters*), and would probably take more like dozens of pages. There is no silver bullet. Conservation, diversification, etc. are all worthwhile efforts. Your suggestions are fine, but I would add nuclear, domestic oil, and oil shale. Solar and wind are fine as supplements, but the technology doesn't exist for them to provide it all.
dsbikes 2 years ago
yea, i gotcha, that was more sarcasm in response to your picking apart my responses because there is so little space to make a legitimate, cited point. for instance, i say something about cfls...and thats it (cause there is no space) and you cite that cfls "arent the answer" etc. so, once again, spirited debate, take care, we'll see how it turns out....
sonofluger 2 years ago
I'll concede that those advancing the GW theory have some science that should be investigated. It just amazes me that the other side considers all opposing scientific views to be "un-scientific" on their face. Modern science was built on skepticism, not petty dogmas like enviros try to advance.
dsbikes 2 years ago
so whats your solution? resources are inevitably FINITE and already noticeably waning. pollution (air, h20, soil contaminants) is increasing (irrespective of GW) I am dying to hear your response, because so far it has been myself and others pitching solutions and you saying "no sir."
sonofluger 2 years ago
not me. I think that even without the words global warming, I have enough sense to know when we are poisonning ourselves.
I'm with you that we aren't the cause of glaobal warming, but, we ARE guilty of spewing poison into the air, the water, all over the planet
ArtThroughtheAges 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fine -- so there is opposing data. The solution is for us to determine what correct scientific conclusions result, not to shout down the opposition with epithets.
Yes, "investment" -- I know economics isn't the strong suit of dogmatic enviros, but there are trade-offs in real life. If we spend trillions building windmills, we can't spend that money elsewhere, helping either mankind *OR* the environment.
I suppose next I'll be called a "speciesist"...
dsbikes 3 years ago
wether climate change is caused by us or not we have to act like it it is because if it turns out to be and we keep treating the earth like i treat your mothers asshole we're all fucked
icharuswing 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hilarious. Glad to see that you're treating the issue with seriousness...
So your position is that we should bankrupt the country on the mere chance that we're causing it? So even though the science clearly shows that the sun is much more responsible for changes in global temperatures (on Earth and other planets), we should adopt your dogmatic philosophical position because you "might be right"?
And it's our side that's called "anti-science", when you guys want to ignore the data.
dsbikes 3 years ago
Um, who says that we'd bankrupt the country pursuing alternatives? All the current economic indicators seem to suggest that they'd be more profitable than coal, anyway. That's right: solar and wind can be produced and operated more cheaply than coal. Look into it.
Finally, global warming is not the only objection. Even if we were to grant you your absurd pseudo-science, you'd still have the problem that coal is not renewable, and therefore not sustainable in any case.
theseattlechick 2 years ago
If wind and solar were better than coal (with today's technology), then companies would already be investing in them (without government stepping in). If they can compete on a level playing field, I have no objection.
Wind and solar have their own environmental impacts, BTW, far more intrusive than nuclear -- so why don't enviros back nuclear?
Tens of thousands of scientists (including large numbers of climatologists) disagree with GW. It's not "pseudo-science".
dsbikes 2 years ago
It is better, it's just cheaper. And energy companies are already investing their own unsubsidized money into wind power. It's actually starting to become big business now.
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
I don't know which "it" (coal or wind) you're referring to in your first sentence. Wind has staggeringly large upfront costs (not to mention the environmental impact of hundreds of square miles of wind farms) and requires costly regular maintenance (to the turbines). My point was that if wind was cheaper than coal, energy companies would have already switched.
I'll say again -- if wind can compete on a level playing field, I have little objection (except for the ugly windfarms).
dsbikes 2 years ago
The cost of energy produced by coal is subsidized by the federal government making it artificially cheaper. Wind and solar don't isn't subsidized as much making it a bit more expensive. But when you get down to it we aren't really comparing the true cost of coal vs wind/solar. To do that we would have to include additional environmental costs related to global warming. At the end of December Munich RE, which insures insurance companies, stated that global warming is causing more
alaire1 2 years ago
natural disasters which is costing insurance companies more and forcing them to raise their rates. When you throw in the complete cost. I think you'll find that solar and wind is cheaper.
alaire1 2 years ago
I don't like government meddling in the free market much, so I say end the subsidies for coal or balance the playing field (but don't write a blank check). Are you factoring in the environmental impacts of solar and wind? Wind farms are huge, and solar cell manufacture is a dirty process.
I don't care much what an insurance company thinks about the scientific question of whether carbon emissions impacts global temperature. The "science" being used by GW advocates is specious, at best.
dsbikes 2 years ago
I don't know what else I can tell you about global warming that hasn't been already said. There are thousands of climatologists and paleoclimatologists that have been studying our climate for years and decades. They all have come to the conclusion that global warming is happening and that it is either a bad thing or a very bad thing. Saying that these scientists are alarmist is like saying your dentist is an idiot because you don't like dental drills. Your teeth will still rot.
alaire1 2 years ago
There are tens of thousands of climatologists and scientists that disagree with the man-made GW theory. I say the others are "alarmist" because they're shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. It wasn't too long ago they were warning us about the dangers of global cooling.
Anyone who tells you "the debate is over" is trying to grab large amounts of money for their "research", or large amounts of power for their political, philosophical, or environmental goals.
dsbikes 2 years ago
The "climatologists and scientists" that you refer to are either not scientists at all or people with degrees outside of the field of climate science with a political agenda who think they know what they are talking about. The people doing this research are honest hard working people, many of whom didn't believe in global warming until the past 5 years. Casting aspersions at their character doesn't change the situation.
alaire1 2 years ago
That's funny -- you accuse me of "casting aspersions" and then your only refutation of the other scientists is to do your own aspersion-casting. Why is it that they are only "actual scientists" if they agree with you? The only people whose character I questioned are those claiming "the debate is over" (not a very "scientific" position, if you ask me, especially for something as technically debated as anthropogenic GW).
dsbikes 2 years ago
Do the "scientists" and "climatologists" that support your position have articles published in peer reviewed journals? If so what are their names and relevant articles? Please provide links to any relevant work. If you can't, I stand by my claims.
alaire1 2 years ago
Do a Google search for "peer reviewed global warming skeptic" and see how many links you get. The very first link (to "Pete's Place") has links to what looks like about 200 articles. It took me all of a minute to find it -- did you even look, or do you just accept as gospel everything Gore tells you?
Honestly, to say there isn't credible dissent is just sticking your head in the sand.
dsbikes 2 years ago
I asked for peer reviewed journal articles. Not a google search. See the thing is, when pressed for details people who don't believe in global warming can't come up with actual evidence but only claims and statements. Most of the articles mentioned there don't actually support a claim that global warming doesn't exist, or they aren't legitimate science. Take the article "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide".
alaire1 2 years ago
This "article" has been heavily criticized for not being peer reviewed. In fact it was written by the same people that published it. This would suggest that there is no review of the "articles" quality at all. It was published by the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons which makes me wonder what these physicians and surgeons are doing in the medical practices that gives them the time to write about global warming. Turns out it is a politically motivated group that has been heavily
alaire1 2 years ago
criticized by the US National Cancer Institute, the World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, National Public Radio, Chemical and Engineering News, Quakwatch, etc...
Just by citing a fallacious article like the one I mention casts serious doubts about either the quality or veracity of Pete's Place.
alaire1 2 years ago
So I ask you (again) is there a particular article, in Pete's Place or elsewhere, that you feel supports your claim that global warming doesn't exist. And no google searches this time.
alaire1 2 years ago
Awesome -- I'm getting lectured about science from someone who thinks that using the technological tools available (like Google) isn't appropriate. If you don't like that one article, then try any of the other 200 or so there.
Further, the GW alarmists need to do more than show the earth is warming. They (you) must also show that we caused it, that we can do anything about it, that the consequences warrant the effort, and that it is the best use of resources to fight this particular problem.
dsbikes 2 years ago
Look, I've written for scientific journals, and "peer reviewing" doesn't mean it's inerrant, so don't think that's a magical wand. I'm also not impressed that you can cherry-pick one article and put your political spin on it (BTW, being criticized by the left-leaning NPR doesn't mean squat when it comes to science). You're trying to "poison the well" and claim that one article spoils the rest. Nice try.
dsbikes 2 years ago
Who pays you, exxon mobil perhaps?
While anti ACC scientists such as yourself pontificate about the economic security of inaction on the issue of cutting our carbon emissions, more evidence pours in pointing towards the warming effects of increased concentrations of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere that we put there.
That false sense of security and continued inaction translates to economic disaster in places hit hardest by climate changen such as small islands like the one i call home.
omarspence 2 years ago
@omarspence -- ad hominem attacks won't work, sorry. Economics is a necessary part of the debate, even if dogmatic greenies choose to ignore it. Evidence is quite the contrary -- things aren't warming, we're entering a cooling trend, and no significant link between CO2 emissions and temperatures has been demonstrated.
Climate change is a constant of history, and will continue to be so, regardless of human actions. It is grossly narcissistic to think we can overwhelm the effects of the sun.
dsbikes 2 years ago
What does it matter if I used Google or a card catalog to find the articles? "Can't come up with actual evidence", "aren't legitimate science"... hilarious. Two hundred articles, from journals like "Science", "Physical Geography", "Climate Research", "American Geophysical Society". Again, apparently if they don't subscribe to your environmental dogma, they don't qualify. That's not science you're advocating, it's religion.
dsbikes 2 years ago
It's not that I don't like google, it's a great tool. I use it all the time. The problem is that you stated that there were thousands of climatologists that don't think that there is global warming. I asked you to name one and you gave me a google search and a webpage for climate change skeptics. I've looked through Pete's Place and all the cited research is either old (Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?), actually does claim that global warming is happening
alaire1 2 years ago
(Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles), is related but doesn't actually mean that global warming isn't happening (A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850), or was written by people of questionable credentials and published in questionable journals (as I've already pointed out). So I don't accept that you gave me 200 articles.
alaire1 2 years ago
The well was poisoned before I ever showed up. You stated that there are thousands of climatologists that don't believe in global warming and you haven't given me one. So I'll give you one that does believe in global warming and has the research to back it up. Drop the name Lonnie Thompson into Google Scholar. You could also check out the book Thin Ice by Mark Bowen which describes his research.
alaire1 2 years ago
WILMINGTON, Del. �?? Gov. Ruth Ann Minner has directed Delawares state climatologist to stop using his title in public statements on climate change, citing a clash of views on global warming and confusion over the positions ties to the administration.
Minner, who made the directive in a letter, described the move as a way to clarify the role of David R. Legates, a prominent skeptic of views that human activities are warming the planet and triggering climate shifts.
logan1776 2 years ago
The only economic costs associated with GW will be the trillions wasted by alarmists and those who listen to their "chicken little" ("the sky is fall