C'mon 'pubs...I want my kids to be able to breathe

[Millenium Vette]

Originally Posted by TxAg

What's the saying? You can fo0l some of the people some of the time...

Uhhhh, remember the "teleprompter thing".....

[Cybercowboy]

Originally Posted by jaxgator

Thanks for posting that speech.

It's really good, isn't it? I wish I could get more people to read it. The part about confirmation bias is so right-on that it's painful. For instance, in nearly every one of these threads somebody says something along the lines of "Well, we should be against pollution! I don't want dirty air."

Because they think pollution is bad, they then accept anything pro-MMGW because they perceive it as being confirmation of their belief system. They never even bother to consider that MMGW is about, primarily, CO2 and not pollution. CO2 isn't pollution, it is plant food. And they don't realize that all this money and effort that goes into things like Carbon Credits, expensive "green technology", and so forth could actually be used instead to actually address actual pollution.

I'm not immune to confirmation bias, nobody is. It's just that, at a very early point in this MMGW thing, I identified it as pseudoscience. Nothing I've seen since has changed that belief. These "experts" have been wrong about every single catastrophic prediction they've made. There are trillions of dollars at stake. One can always sniff out pseudoscience when the said "cure" is the redistribution of wealth from rich nations to poor nations and the lowering of the standards of living for everyone. That has been the "progressive" agenda for a very long time. It's not a coincidence.

When it comes to pollution, rich nations are much cleaner than poor nations. So the solution, it would seem, would be to make poor nations rich too. But they aren't for that, not at all, because to the progressives rich nations are too affluent, to uppity. Way too much economic and personal freedom there. Way too much of that icky capitalism.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Millenium Vette

... but these threads always get sidetracked to politics ...

Sidetracked?

Look at the thread title. It started there...



Will, please stop using facts, graphs, and numbers. liberals only understand arguments in terms of rainbows, flowers, and unicorns.

[Millenium Vette]

Originally Posted by Cybercowboy

It's really good, isn't it? I wish I could get more people to read it. The part about confirmation bias is so right-on that it's painful. For instance, in nearly every one of these threads somebody says something along the lines of "Well, we should be against pollution! I don't want dirty air."

Because they think pollution is bad, they then accept anything pro-MMGW because they perceive it as being confirmation of their belief system. They never even bother to consider that MMGW is about, primarily, CO2 and not pollution. CO2 isn't pollution, it is plant food. And they don't realize that all this money and effort that goes into things like Carbon Credits, expensive "green technology", and so forth could actually be used instead to actually address actual pollution.

I'm not immune to confirmation bias, nobody is. It's just that, at a very early point in this MMGW thing, I identified it as pseudoscience. Nothing I've seen since has changed that belief. These "experts" have been wrong about every single catastrophic prediction they've made. There are trillions of dollars at stake. One can always sniff out pseudoscience when the said "cure" is the redistribution of wealth from rich nations to poor nations and the lowering of the standards of living for everyone. That has been the "progressive" agenda for a very long time. It's not a coincidence.

When it comes to pollution, rich nations are much cleaner than poor nations. So the solution, it would seem, would be to make poor nations rich too. But they aren't for that, not at all, because to the progressives rich nations are too affluent, to uppity. Way too much economic and personal freedom there. Way too much of that icky capitalism.

It is very good. I made sure to save it to my documents so it doesn't get shit canned. I plan on re-reading it several times over the next few days to get more out of it and be able to use it. My friends will also be getting copies of it.

[Millenium Vette]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

Sidetracked?

Look at the thread title. It started there... .

You probably think I don't know much about teleprompters either....

[jaxgator]

Originally Posted by Cybercowboy

It's really good, isn't it? I wish I could get more people to read it. The part about confirmation bias is so right-on that it's painful. For instance, in nearly every one of these threads somebody says something along the lines of "Well, we should be against pollution! I don't want dirty air."

Because they think pollution is bad, they then accept anything pro-MMGW because they perceive it as being confirmation of their belief system. They never even bother to consider that MMGW is about, primarily, CO2 and not pollution. CO2 isn't pollution, it is plant food. And they don't realize that all this money and effort that goes into things like Carbon Credits, expensive "green technology", and so forth could actually be used instead to actually address actual pollution.

I'm not immune to confirmation bias, nobody is. It's just that, at a very early point in this MMGW thing, I identified it as pseudoscience. Nothing I've seen since has changed that belief. These "experts" have been wrong about every single catastrophic prediction they've made. There are trillions of dollars at stake. One can always sniff out pseudoscience when the said "cure" is the redistribution of wealth from rich nations to poor nations and the lowering of the standards of living for everyone. That has been the "progressive" agenda for a very long time. It's not a coincidence.

When it comes to pollution, rich nations are much cleaner than poor nations. So the solution, it would seem, would be to make poor nations rich too. But they aren't for that, not at all, because to the progressives rich nations are too affluent, to uppity. Way too much economic and personal freedom there. Way too much of that icky capitalism.

A very good read indeed and I couldn't agree with you more.

This paragraph really stood out to me...

Originally Posted by Matt Ridley

So what’s the problem? The problem is that you can accept all the basic tenets of greenhouse physics and still conclude that the threat of a dangerously large warming is so improbable as to be negligible, while the threat of real harm from climate-mitigation policies is already so high as to be worrying, that the cure is proving far worse than the disease is ever likely to be. Or as I put it once, we may be putting a tourniquet round our necks to stop a nosebleed.

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

The coal and petro industries have paid off enough people with scientific backgrounds to go out and intentionally mislead the public into thinking there is not a consensus in the scientific community as to the causes of climate change.

There is. And its us.

There are also ways to remove green houses gasses from emissions that don't cost that much and create jobs in the process.

China has taken the lead in manufacturing these new technologies because the US has been stymied by corporations pushing their political power to crush efforts to implement change. Its the same thing that happened with solar power. Go look and see who makes all the solar power cells now.

It always amazes me that the same people that are so pro life can completely ignore how their actions will effect their children and future generations.

Phil, you are ASStoundingly ignorant .......and here I thought I heard it all....

you simply GOTTA be joking......

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by TxAg

Impact? Yes.

To the scale Al Gore and his ilk would have us believe? No.

I fart, I have an impact. My farts aren't going to turn the earth into a sauna.

That's not what your S/O says....

[VatorMan]

Originally Posted by TxAg

Forget sole cause. Man isn't even the major cause.

Volcanoes lead.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Millenium Vette

I have taken the liberty to remove most of the political statements from Phil's quote to focus on the statements I left in there, which I find interesting and would like to know more about. Even though I don't buy into the MMGW stuff, I am all for making things cleaner and more efficient, whether they are cars, trains, or factories, etc. Phil does seem to have great knowledge about how to accomplish that, but these threads always get sidetracked to politics and then the rhetoric begins (from both sides). I would like to know more about how we can pollute less and how to clean up already polluted things such as groundwater.

We can pollute less by closing coal plants and opening up more nuclear plants, wind farms and solar power stations. The change to the infrastructure would employ tens of thousands of Americans.

Filtering our industrial waste water prior to it being discharged would boost businesses that fabricate water treatment technologies again creating more jobs.

There is no such thing as clean coal and as much as the coal industry likes to push this idea, there isn't a single coal power plant in the world that anyone could look at and consider "clean".

In China, climate change is not an ideological issue. It’s accepted as reality. They have moved on from the discussion to implementation. China views this as a growth sector, and they want to lead this sector

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/bu...t/09clean.html


Regarding my comment on the solar cells - China Leads the World in Solar Cell Exports - The China research portal at iSuppli provides the latest events & updates in China automotive industry. Our expert analysis keeps you updated with the recent manufacturing news. To know more call us at 1.

[Millenium Vette]

Thomas Sowell: Global Warming Manufactured by Intellectuals? - YouTube

[sxeC6]

Greenhouse warming is one thing and a topic which, obviously can be highly debated, but can anyone truly accept the pollution of their environment by other humans?

Can you imagine what cities would be like if vehicles had no emission controls and still used leaded fuel? Anyone been to LA in the late 60's? I can remember as a boy pictures of Pittsburgh blanketed in a deadly smog from the steel mills or Lake Erie so polluted that there where no fish.

We can not close our eyes and allow that time to return. I think that's the point the OP was endeavoring to make.

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

We can pollute less by closing coal plants and opening up more nuclear plants, wind farms and solar power stations. The change to the infrastructure would employ tens of thousands of Americans.

Filtering our industrial waste water prior to it being discharged would boost businesses that fabricate water treatment technologies again creating more jobs.

There is no such thing as clean coal and as much as the coal industry likes to push this idea, there isn't a single coal power plant in the world that anyone could look at and consider "clean".

In China, climate change is not an ideological issue. It’s accepted as reality. They have moved on from the discussion to implementation. China views this as a growth sector, and they want to lead this sector

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/bu...t/09clean.html


Regarding my comment on the solar cells - China Leads the World in Solar Cell Exports - The China research portal at iSuppli provides the latest events & updates in China automotive industry. Our expert analysis keeps you updated with the recent manufacturing news. To know more call us at 1.

Dead rong yet again.....and the reasons are obvious.....

[Millenium Vette]

Originally Posted by sxeC6

Greenhouse warming is one thing and a topic which, obviously can be highly debated, but can anyone truly accept the pollution of their environment by other humans?

Can you imagine what cities would be like if vehicles had no emission controls and still used leaded fuel? Anyone been to LA in the late 60's? I can remember as a boy pictures of Pittsburgh blanketed in a deadly smog from the steel mills or Lake Erie so polluted that there where no fish.

We can not close our eyes and allow that time to return. I think that's the point the OP was endeavoring to make.

Originally Posted by Flatbush Harry

Biggest jump ever seen in global warming gases - Yahoo! News

I guess he should have picked a different article then....

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by sxeC6

Greenhouse warming is one thing and a topic which, obviously can be highly debated, but can anyone truly accept the pollution of their environment by other humans?

Can you imagine what cities would be like if vehicles had no emission controls and still used leaded fuel? Anyone been to LA in the late 60's? I can remember as a boy pictures of Pittsburgh blanketed in a deadly smog from the steel mills or Lake Erie so polluted that there where no fish.

We can not close our eyes and allow that time to return. I think that's the point the OP was endeavoring to make.

No sense in rich running carberated cars, so FI cured that problem, it should be running 17+ to one on A/F but no, the EPA has that pooch screwed, we should put lead back into gasoline....pick up many points on compression and power, and fuel economy....we could cut our crude oil consumption by almost 20% overnight by those steps....just as we increased it in the 70's by all this bullshit hippy mentality crybaby crap.....

I don't believe in pissing in every stream, but damn if I think draining the reservoir is necessary when someone does.....

[Cybercowboy]

Originally Posted by sxeC6

Greenhouse warming is one thing and a topic which, obviously can be highly debated, but can anyone truly accept the pollution of their environment by other humans?

Can you imagine what cities would be like if vehicles had no emission controls and still used leaded fuel? Anyone been to LA in the late 60's? I can remember as a boy pictures of Pittsburgh blanketed in a deadly smog from the steel mills or Lake Erie so polluted that there where no fish.

We can not close our eyes and allow that time to return. I think that's the point the OP was endeavoring to make.

Ah, confirmation bias at work again!

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by mrvette

Dead rong yet again.....and the reasons are obvious.....

Gene, instead of making asinine comments, why don't you and the rest of the people here who disagree explain in detail why the information is "rong".

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

We can pollute less by closing coal plants and opening up more nuclear plants, wind farms and solar power stations. The change to the infrastructure would employ tens of thousands of Americans.

Source and proof of your "tens of thousands" jobs claim?

This is typical bullshit, ignorant liberal math at it's finest. Yes. You would create thousands of jobs with those programs. Of course you forget to mention that there are currently ~90,000 Americans employed in the coal industry that you would be putting out on their asses.

Only a liberal could feed $1,000 into a slot machine, get a $20 payout and call it a win.

Originally Posted by Joecooool

In China, climate change is not an ideological issue. It’s accepted as reality. They have moved on from the discussion to implementation. China views this as a growth sector, and they want to lead this sector

Seriously? You are pointing at China and implying that we should emulate them? Have you ever been to manufacturing facilities in China? I have been to many of them... auditing them is part of my job.

Child/forced labor, employees working 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, ZERO safety standards, a full month's pay taken as a disciplinary action for being late, rolling power outages, zero sanitation, etc, etc, etc. I could write lists of things that would fill this page.

Please... go to China and take a look at the companies you are praising rather than getting your information from some bullshit anti-American liberal editorial like you always do. If you really think that we should strive to be more like China, you are completely clueless.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by TxAg

Back up your claim.

FYI, you might want to read up on this before you say there is no such thing as "clean coal".

Clean coal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you even bother to read stuff before you post it or just assume it has what you are backing your stance on?

From YOUR link -

Clean coal and the environment

See also: Environmental effects of coal

According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the burning of coal, a fossil fuel, is a significant contributor to global warming. (See the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report). As 25.5% of the world's electrical generation in 2004 was from coal-fired generation (see World energy resources and consumption), reaching the carbon dioxide reduction targets of the Kyoto Protocol will require modifications to how coal is utilized.[12]

Sequestration technology has yet to be tested on a large scale and may not be safe or successful. Sequestered CO2 may eventually leak up through the ground, may lead to unexpected geological instability or may cause contamination of aquifers used for drinking water supplies.[13] There are also concerns that plans to pump some of the sequestered CO2 into certain oil and gas reserves, to help make the fuels easier to pump out of the ground, will lead to increased concentrations of CO2 in potential fuel supplies. This would have to be removed or released during the refining process.[14]

Technologies related to reducing the environmental impact of extracting energy from coal do not address environmental impacts of coal mining. Examples of environmental impacts of coal mining include the Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill.

I'd say that pretty much backs up my claim that there is no such thing as "clean coal".

[Millenium Vette]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

We can pollute less by closing coal plants and opening up more nuclear plants, wind farms and solar power stations. The change to the infrastructure would employ tens of thousands of Americans.

Filtering our industrial waste water prior to it being discharged would boost businesses that fabricate water treatment technologies again creating more jobs.

There is no such thing as clean coal and as much as the coal industry likes to push this idea, there isn't a single coal power plant in the world that anyone could look at and consider "clean".

In China, climate change is not an ideological issue. It’s accepted as reality. They have moved on from the discussion to implementation. China views this as a growth sector, and they want to lead this sector

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/bu...t/09clean.html


Regarding my comment on the solar cells - China Leads the World in Solar Cell Exports - The China research portal at iSuppli provides the latest events & updates in China automotive industry. Our expert analysis keeps you updated with the recent manufacturing news. To know more call us at 1.

I may differ in my opinion of China and their trustworthiness when it comes to environmental matters, but I can agree that coal is dirty. I don't think it is realistic or necessary to shut down every coal plant out there, but I have kept a boat at a marina next to a coal plant so I know they can be messy. Even when the plant has modern pollution controls you still have to deal with the coal dust.

I can agree with you on nuclear power. I am no expert, but I understand the world has come a long ways since the days of Three Mile Island. The question I have is how do we overcome the anti-nuclear movement that will impede every attempt to build a new plant? Wind power looks like it might work, but how many windmills do we need to erect to power our cities and what do we do when the wind doesn't blow? Don't they also kill a lot of birds with those huge blades? That has to piss the bird watchers off to no end. Solar power is interesting, but how much power can it supply and what do we do when the sun isn't shining?

What about natural gas plants? They seem to be cleaner than coal, but I heard that we would run out of natural gas in the next 35 years.



Oh, wait, never mind. I now remember where I saw that statement. It was from some energy shortage expert who was a guest on the Mike Douglas show back in the 1970's when President Nixon was still in office.....