Re: The Real Climate Hoax: Climate Change Denial
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind noted the usual evasions and obfuscations presented by:
>>
>> "scurrilous" once again attempted to address the ideas suggested by:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind noted the usual evasions and obfuscations presented by:
>>>>
>>>> "scurrilous" deleted and bleated like a good little sheople when:
>>>>>
>>>>> Harry Hope was quoting from:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From The San Francisco Chronicle, 12/21/09:
>>>>>> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/gleick/detail??blogid=104&entry_id=53957
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The real climate hoax
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By Dr. Peter Gleick
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In all of the recent news about climate change, leaked emails, complex
>>>>>> negotiations, and watered-down agreements in Copenhagen, one fact has't
>>>>>> received enough attention.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The climate "hoax" is real.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only problem is that the real hoax is the effort by climate change
>>>>>> deniers who argue that the climate isn't changing, or that it isn't
>>>>>> because of human actions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is, and it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The science is unambiguous.
>>>>>
>>>>> The science is far from being settled.
>>>>
>>>> Then your comprehension of science is rather meager..
>>>>
>>>> --And utterly without merit..
>>>
>>> But largely better than yours.
>>
>> I doubt it as the basic details you've chosen to gloss over
>> in your rush to judgment refute your bogus conclusion..
>>
>>> Up to now, I never saw any scientifically based contribution from you
>>
>> I think that it's an established fact that you anti-GW sheople
>> are completely uninterested and unqualified to discuss science
>> and I will continue to treat you as such until you demonstrate
>> even a basic comprehension of scientific principles..
>>
>> --Calling you "integrity-challenged" is being rather generous, too..
>
> Run away
False premise noted.. I didn't "run away"..
> Still no science. Never anything scientific
I have no obligation to post "anything scientific" to your
false aspersions and dishonest fallacy pseudo-arguments..
> Once upon a time, I supposed you were scientifically aware
Once upon a time, my graduate adviser worked for Halliburton
and then when he couldn't bullshit his way any further as an
engineering consultant, he took up teaching physics..
Like you, he was a hand-waver and simply lectured from the
textbook, Kreyszig's Advanced Engineering Mathematics, 8th Ed,
but couldn't actually do the labs, calculate the measurement
uncertainties at the start of the semester. I gave him even
more headaches than you're receiving at this point in time,
and even he admitted that I had him by the balls..
Then I caught him and a couple of other profs bragging about
how many students they were failing on fine afternoon. That
got forwarded to the Dean, and the Regents for Higher Education..
Why?
If the professors aren't there, first and foremost, for the
students attending the university, then there is no reason
for them to pretend to be professors of knowledge, is there?
So, when I see scurrilous comments from a deceitful, anti-
science, global warming denier, like yourself in this..
> The science is far from being settled.
I have to question just how much "science" you've actually
studied, because it's glaringly certain how 'settled' the
science is about the global warming hypothesis..
That you've dishonestly chosen to cast cheap rhetoric and
predigested aspersions in the way of this discussion is
but another example of how poor your understanding is.
Example follows..
> The arguments for AGW are as dubious as were those in favor
> of WMD before the invasion of Irak. Same kind of consensus.
*>LOL!<* Another appeal to authority, a logical fallacy
on your lame behalf, as you sputter and mutter over how
this is going to impact your self-centered perspectives
over how impotent your opinions are..
Fact is, the climate is changing, we're dumping huge amounts
of excess gases, stored for millenia underground, and now
we're simply putting it back into the ecosphere at alarming
rates of decadent and ill-thoughted rates of increase..
Worse yet, the real issues that should be discussed about
climate change is the fact that these predictions that are
now being confirmed with even more accurate measurements
and systematic analysis' appear to have all too conservative
as a direct result of such phony criticisms such yours
and other scientifically-illiterate pronouncements against
the man-made climate change hypothesis'..
--See subject header for details..
Man_of_Mind
>
*>LOL!<* You should cast stones in your glass house, little man..
> You show your complete lack of scientific culture.
You exhibit the personality traits of a malignant narcissist..
> Your diversion technique, is your run away eternal trick.
Could you please translate that from gibberish into English?
Thanks, now, as I was saying, before you changed the newsgroups..
*>cricket.wav<*
What was that about "your run away eternal trick"?
Gandalf Grey
"Man_of_Mind" <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hgue7s$ktn$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
It could be syphilitic megalomania.
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind was pointing out the obvious, as it escaped:
>>
>> "scurrilous" deleted and bleated like a good little sheople when:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings bestowed upon:
>>>>
>>>> "scurrilous" deleted and bleated like a good little sheople when:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind noted the usual evasions and obfuscations presented by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "scurrilous" once again attempted to address the ideas suggested by:
>>>>>>> Up to now, I never saw any scientifically based contribution from you
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that it's an established fact that you anti-GW sheople
>>>>>> are completely uninterested and unqualified to discuss science
>>>>>> and I will continue to treat you as such until you demonstrate
>>>>>> even a basic comprehension of scientific principles..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Calling you "integrity-challenged" is being rather generous, too..
>>>>>
>>>>> Run away
>>>>
>>>> False premise noted.. I didn't "run away"..
>>>
>>> Don't use words you even don't understand.
>>
>> *>LOL!<* You should cast stones in your glass house, little man..
>>
>>> You show your complete lack of scientific culture.
>>
>> You exhibit the personality traits of a malignant narcissist..
>
> It could be syphilitic megalomania.
Henh! And here I thought it was just another frightie-rightie
that had gained access to a proxy server over in Europe at an
academic site, pretending to know something about science..
And falling flat on his ass..
--Examples flopping around on the noise floor follow..
Not Sure
> "scurrilous" deleted and bleated like a good little sheople when:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Man_of_Mind noted the usual evasions and obfuscations presented by:
>
> >> "scurrilous" once again attempted to address the ideas suggested by:
>
> >>> Man_of_Mind noted the usual evasions and obfuscations presented by:
>
> >>>> "scurrilous" deleted and bleated like a good little sheople when:
>
> >>>>> Harry Hope was quoting from:
>
> >>>>>> From The San Francisco Chronicle, 12/21/09:
Those emails aren't going away anytime soon, I'm afraid :)
5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09
So how come the only people still talking about them are right wing
Usenet morons?
Benj
wrote:
Ah I guess that settles the issue, doesn't it? If the only people
still talking about them are "morons" then I guess they are of no
significance and we can all safely ignore them and just keep blindly
accepting whatever the "authorities" tell us is true. That makes it
pretty simple for everyone, does it not?
Man_of_Mind
>
>>
>> On 12/23/2009 6:58 PM, Gandalf Grey wrote:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind was pointing out the obvious, as it escaped:
>>>>
>>>> "scurrilous" deleted and bleated like a good little sheople when:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings bestowed upon:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "scurrilous" deleted and bleated like a good little sheople when:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind noted the usual evasions and obfuscations presented by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "scurrilous" once again attempted to address the ideas suggested by:
>>>>>>>>> Up to now, I never saw any scientifically based contribution from you
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think that it's an established fact that you anti-GW sheople
>>>>>>>> are completely uninterested and unqualified to discuss science
>>>>>>>> and I will continue to treat you as such until you demonstrate
>>>>>>>> even a basic comprehension of scientific principles..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --Calling you "integrity-challenged" is being rather generous, too..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Run away
>>>>>>
>>>>>> False premise noted.. I didn't "run away"..
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't use words you even don't understand.
>>>>
>>>> *>LOL!<* You should cast stones in your glass house, little man..
>>>>
>>>>> You show your complete lack of scientific culture.
>>>>
>>>> You exhibit the personality traits of a malignant narcissist..
>>>
>>> It could be syphilitic megalomania.
>>
>> Henh! And here I thought it was just another frightie-rightie
>> that had gained access to a proxy server over in Europe at an
>> academic site, pretending to know something about science..
>>
>> And falling flat on his ass..
>>
>> --Examples flopping around on the noise floor follow..
>
My 'guessing' is the result of many years of experience with
deliberately deceitful right-wing prawn, such as yourself..
> The science is far from being settled
You are incorrect, and regurgitating your right-wing pabulum..
> The arguments for AGW are as dubious as were those in favor
> of WMD before the invasion of Irak
It'd more convincing if you'd learn how to spell Iraq..
> Same kind of consensus.
That would be another example of your 'inverted pyramid thinking'..
--What was that about "your run away eternal trick"?
Man_of_Mind
>>>> So, when I see scurrilous comments from a deceitful, anti-
>>>> science, global warming denier, like yourself in this..
>>>>
>>>>> The science is far from being settled.
>>>>
>>>> I have to question just how much "science" you've actually
>>>> studied, because it's glaringly certain how 'settled' the
>>>> science is about the global warming hypothesis..
>>>>
>>>> That you've dishonestly chosen to cast cheap rhetoric and
>>>> predigested aspersions in the way of this discussion is
>>>> but another example of how poor your understanding is.
>>>>
>>>> Example follows..
>>>>
>>>>> The arguments for AGW are as dubious as were those in favor
>>>>> of WMD before the invasion of Irak. Same kind of consensus.
>>>>
>>>> *>LOL!<* Another appeal to authority, a logical fallacy
>>>> on your lame behalf, as you sputter and mutter over how
>>>> this is going to impact your self-centered perspectives
>>>> over how impotent your opinions are..
>
Not on your behalf.. *>chuckling<*
Example follows..
>>>> Fact is, the climate is changing,
>
> Yes, and it ever changed.
Thanks for again proving my point..
>>>> Fact is, the climate is changing, we're dumping huge amounts
>>>> of excess gases, stored for millenia underground, and now
>>>> we're simply putting it back into the ecosphere at alarming
>>>> rates of decadent and ill-thoughted rates of increase..
>>>>
>>>> Worse yet, the real issues that should be discussed about
>>>> climate change is the fact that these predictions that are
>>>> now being confirmed with even more accurate measurements
>>>> and systematic analysis' appear to have all too conservative
>>>> as a direct result of such phony criticisms such yours
>>>> and other scientifically-illiterate pronouncements against
>>>> the man-made climate change hypothesis'..
>>
>> *>cricket.wav<*
>>
>> What was that about "your run away eternal trick"?
>
> Your opinion, with nothing to support it.
Incorrect, and you deleted the newgroups I've posted this to..
> Just some noise without any argument.
Keep telling on yourself..
> The science is far from being settled.
That would be incorrect, and deliberately deceitful, on your behalf..
> http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml
Peer-reviewed science from Mitretek/noblis?
> http://www.iceagenow.com/Rising_Sea_Level_Claim_a_Total_Fraud.htm
Oh look, it's an interview, not peer-reviewed science..
> http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1997/mean:12/to:2010/trend/plot/wti/from:1997/to:2010
A self-funded personal project by Paul Clark..
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
By RICHARD S. LINDZEN, discredited right-wing pseudo-scientist..
> The arguments for AGW are as dubious as were those in favor
> of WMD before the invasion of Irak. Same kind of consensus.
Nope, that would be another fallacy argument on your behalf..
--Where'd you pick that comparison up, neophyte?
Man_of_Mind
>
> "5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09" replied:
>>
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 20:53:39 -0800, Not Sure wrote:
>>>
>>> Those emails aren't going away anytime soon, I'm afraid :)
>>
>> So how come the only people still talking about them are right wing
>> Usenet morons?
>
> Ah I guess that settles the issue, doesn't it? If the only people
> still talking about them are "morons"
The 'e-mails' were stolen, in a selective manner to try
and misrepresent the internal discussion about using the
'proxy data' of tree-ring analysis, which was included
in the reports..
Let's get back to the original article..
....
From The San Francisco Chronicle, 12/21/09:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/gleick/detail??blogid=104&entry_id=53957
The real climate hoax
By Dr. Peter Gleick
In all of the recent news about climate change, leaked emails, complex
negotiations, and watered-down agreements in Copenhagen, one fact
has't received enough attention.
The climate "hoax" is real.
The only problem is that the real hoax is the effort by climate change
deniers who argue that the climate isn't changing, or that it isn't
because of human actions.
It is, and it is.
The science is unambiguous.
The climate is changing, rapidly, and it is doing so because of our
emissions of greenhouse gases.
I know many people have said this.
I've been saying it for twenty-five years in my research and writings.
But if the phrase "climate hoax" is going to enter the public
vernacular, it should do so in the right way.
So from now on, I intend to use it to refer to the efforts of climate
change deniers to misinform the public and our policy makers.
Some, like Senator James Inhofe (of Oklahoma), love the phrase
"climate hoax."
Fine, but since he is a major elected official perpetrating this hoax
(actually, I think he is probably both a hoax-er and a hoax-ee), let
the words represent his own actions.
He and the other deniers are foisting a hoax on the American people by
misusing and abusing science and by misrepresenting facts for narrow
ideological purposes.
If he and the other climate hoaxers don't think we ought to do
anything about climate change because they fear it will hurt the
economy, or they just can't bear for the government to do anything at
all, fine, they should make that argument.
But instead they pretend the science isn't firm.
It is.
There are plenty of uncertainties about how bad climate change is
going to get, and how fast, and how the impacts will be distributed.
But not about whether the climate is changing or whether humans are
driving those changes.
...................................................................................................................
As temperature and rainfall patterns begin to rapidly change from
climate change, the yields of two of the most important crops in the
United States, corn and soybeans, are expected to be severely damaged
(including in Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe), according a 2009 scientific
paper by Schlenker and Roberts from the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences.
This study suggests that average yields could decrease by 30 to 46%
before the end of the century under the slowest warming scenario and
decrease by 63 to 82% under the most rapid warming scenario.
And the recent lack of action in Copenhagen pretty much ensures we're
going to see the most rapid warming scenario.
The warming the planet is already experiencing already exceeds that
worst scenario.
So it is time to call what the climate deniers are doing by its real
name:
the climate hoax: denying the reality of climate change.
--The science is unambiguous..
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind restpred the opriginal text/context deleted by:
>>
>> "scurrilous" deleted and bleated like a good little sheople when:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind noted the usual evasions and obfuscations presented by:
>>>>
>>>> "scurrilous" once again attempted to address the ideas suggested by:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind noted the usual evasions and obfuscations presented by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "scurrilous" deleted and bleated like a good little sheople when:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Harry Hope was quoting from:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From The San Francisco Chronicle, 12/21/09:
*>LOL!<* IF anything, those 'e-mails' prove that there's quite
some internal debate about scientific data and analysis, which
you 'frightie-righties' are quite incapable of..
Androcles
> On 12/24/2009 12:25 AM, Benj wrote:
>>
>> "5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09" replied:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 20:53:39 -0800, Not Sure wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Those emails aren't going away anytime soon, I'm afraid :)
>>>
>>> So how come the only people still talking about them are right wing
>>> Usenet morons?
>>
>> Ah I guess that settles the issue, doesn't it? If the only people
>> still talking about them are "morons"
>
> The 'e-mails' were stolen,
If they were they've been recovered, now everyone can have a copy.
The number three has been stolen, pi is now .14159265...
5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09
It does. Please feel free to keep flogging the issue.
Milt
You know what I can't figure out?
Why does anyone think it matters whether or not we're causing a change
in the climate? if we're right, then we may be able to mitigate the
damage a century down the road by changing our habits. If we're wrong,
then we're left with clean air and water, better-running, quieter
vehicles, and less damage to the environment. What bastards we are,
huh? As I said in a post I put up on my blog yesterday, I don't buy
the whole Chicken Little thing; I treat those who claim the world is
on the brink because of climate change with roughly the same regard as
those who claim it'll end in 2012 because Jesus or Nostradamus said
so. But for Chrissakes; why on earth would we want to continue being
dependent on burning fossil fuels? They're filthy, they're in
increasingly short supply, and with the Chinese and Indian economies
booming, the pollution problem's only going to get worse. Is it really
a radical idea to generate as much energy as we can using the sun,
wind, tides and the earth's core?
What argument do they think they're winning here?
5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09
wrote:
After 40 years of ceaseless propaganda, the corporations have managed
to inculcate a significant portion of the public to think that
environmental means anti business and anti America.
If these people act nuts, it's because they've been trained to go
against their own best interests, and cognitive dissonence can only
carry one so far.
Man_of_Mind
There is nothing I have to "prove" as it is you that's pretending
that your contrary opinions have to be disproved. That's illogical
on your lame behalf and all your false condescension will not change
the fact that you've been unable to dispute the global warming
hypothesis in a logical and consistently provable manner..
What have you say for your pathetic rationalizations now?
> I read and post in the newsgroups which interest me.
> I ignore your other publications, with unknown pseudos
I have no other "unknown pseudos" and see that as yet another
attempt on your scientifically-illiterate behalf to deflect
this discussion into yet another senseless microdebate..
>>> Just some noise without any argument.
>>
>> Keep telling on yourself..
>
> Void.
Lame..
>>> The science is far from being settled.
>>
>> That would be incorrect, and deliberately deceitful, on your behalf..
>
> Your belief, without any support.
It's not a 'belief' on my behalf, but keep 'projecting' as your
sociopathy is becoming quite the example of right-wing hypocrisies..
>>> http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml
>>
>> Peer-reviewed science from Mitretek/noblis?
>
> Geophysical research letters. Not good for you ?
Abbreviated 'science' with less-than-stringent peer review..
>>> http://www.iceagenow.com/Rising_Sea_Level_Claim_a_Total_Fraud.htm
>>
>> Oh look, it's an interview, not peer-reviewed science..
>
> Better than no science at all
Not by much, especially in your case..
Example follows..
> And the references are pointing to actual science
Really? Did you read any of them before posting the cite?
>>> http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1997/mean:12/to:2010/trend/plot/wti/from:1997/to:2010
>>
>> A self-funded personal project by Paul Clark..
>
> If your cared to examine, the page I referenced here
I did examine that page, it's still not a peer-reviewed
science publication, just an interesting diversions for you..
>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
>>
>> By RICHARD S. LINDZEN, discredited right-wing pseudo-scientist..
>
> Richard Lindzen is a respected scientist
Maybe, but I don't respect his lack of impartiality..
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen
"[Lindzen] is one of the leading global warming skeptics and
is a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory
Council, of the Annapolis Center[1], a Maryland-based
think tank which has been funded by corporations including
ExxonMobil.
>>> The arguments for AGW are as dubious as were those in favor
>>> of WMD before the invasion of Irak. Same kind of consensus.
>>
>> Nope, that would be another fallacy argument on your behalf..
>
> Sorry, but we
"We"? Are you again appealing to some imagined concensus?
*>LOL!<* That the lamest excuse from you yet!..
> we are expecting today the proofs of this anthropogenic global
> warming,
It's already been proven, you're just too cowardly to try
and honestly attempt to challenge the facts in a orderly
manner with some kind of scientific methodology in evidence..
But, you can't, it's beyond your grasp, and you inadvertently admit
that this is the case as you pretend that "the science isn't settled",
"we are expecting today the proofs" and other such appeals to an
imagined set of circumstances that simply do not exist outside
of your fevered beliefs and zealotry..
> just as we were expecting the proofs of mass destruction weapons
Hey, it was just such practices of false pretexts that the
right-wing zealots tried to suppress the findings and the
eventual publications about global warming. By the way, it
failed then, as it fails you now, no matter how ironic the
comparison on your unimaginative behalf..
> I will trust you the day you provide some solid evidence
There is no obligation on my behalf to "provide some solid evidence"
as the science is settled, the the results of continuing studies
have confirmed the hypothesis many times over, and likely will
show that the projected results are perhaps too conservative..
Now, while you are 'free' to express your opinions on this, there
is no obligation on my behalf to share even so much as one of your
false premises. I do not have to accept your deliberate ignorance
of the facts from so many fields of study such that all you can
actually do is suggest and/or insinuate doubts where none exists
in the formal studies of the Earth's climate..
That you would deliberately and dishonestly try to mischaracterize
my responses to your one-dimensional zealotry, such as this..
> Your howlings and your barkings just confort me
..is but simple proof that simply have no interest in actually
discussing the scientific details that I have generously
outlined for you to pursue. It must be "confortable" for
you belief such scientific proof doesn't already exist..
--But, it cripples your efforts to prove it doesn't exist..
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the original text/context/seen-by's of a reply to:
>>
>> "scurrilous" deleted and bleated like a good little sheople when:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind restored the original text/context/seen-by's of a reply to:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/23/2009 6:58 PM, Gandalf Grey wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind was pointing out the obvious, as it escaped:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "scurrilous" deleted and bleated like a good little sheople when:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings bestowed upon:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "scurrilous" deleted and bleated like a good little sheople when:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind noted the usual evasions and obfuscations presented by:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "scurrilous" once again attempted to address the ideas suggested by:
>>>>>>>>>>> Up to now, I never saw any scientifically based contribution from you
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think that it's an established fact that you anti-GW sheople
>>>>>>>>>> are completely uninterested and unqualified to discuss science
>>>>>>>>>> and I will continue to treat you as such until you demonstrate
>>>>>>>>>> even a basic comprehension of scientific principles..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --Calling you "integrity-challenged" is being rather generous, too..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Run away
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> False premise noted.. I didn't "run away"..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't use words you even don't understand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *>LOL!<* You should cast stones in your glass house, little man..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You show your complete lack of scientific culture.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You exhibit the personality traits of a malignant narcissist..
>>>>>
>>>>> It could be syphilitic megalomania.
>>>>
>>>> Henh! And here I thought it was just another frightie-rightie
>>>> that had gained access to a proxy server over in Europe at an
>>>> academic site, pretending to know something about science..
>>>>
>>>> And falling flat on his ass..
>>>>
>>>> --Examples flopping around on the noise floor follow..
>>>
>>> Always guessing wrong on each and every thing, Man with no mind,
>>
>> My 'guessing' is the result of many years of experience with
>> deliberately deceitful right-wing prawn, such as yourself..
>
Yet, you still stubbornly cling to a failed ideology of
guesses, one-dimensional catch-phrases and avoid actually
proving how the scientific methodologies and data are wrong..
In short, your 'say-so' has no scientific merit.. *>LOL!<*
>>> The science is far from being settled
>>
>> You are incorrect, and regurgitating your right-wing pabulum..
>
> I provided you with references proving that
And I've provided references that prove you are wrong..
>>> The arguments for AGW are as dubious as were those in favor
>>> of WMD before the invasion of Irak
>>
>> It'd more convincing if you'd learn how to spell Iraq..
>
> The arguments for AGW are as dubious
Nope, that has been proven wrong..
What remains to be settled is how much of an effect, what kinds
of results will we be seeing in the future. And it seems that
predictions as to those effects will be too conservative..
>>> Same kind of consensus.
>>
>> That would be another example of your 'inverted pyramid thinking'..
>>
>> --What was that about "your run away eternal trick"?
>
> Still asserting your opinions
I am not asserting opinions, unlike yourself..
Example follows..
> You used your run away trick once again. As ever.
No, I've stated plainly that I do not share your false premises
and prejudiced preference for 'denier' propaganda..
--Your lack of objectivity disqualifies you as utterly without merit..
Bruce Richmond
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is 28 F degrees outside right now, overcast with no wind. The five
day forcast is that it will stay about the same for two more days
before getting colder to the tune of 4 F degrees. While solar can
help when the sun is shining it does nothing with heavy cloud cover or
at night. The sun doesn't shine or the wind blow for the electric
company any more than it does for me, and even if it did it would cost
about five times as much for electric heat as I am paying for coal.
Yes, coal, so don't give me any of that crap about sending money to
men that want to kill us. I would love to install a geothermal heat
pump, but the initial cost is way more than I can afford and because
it is powered by electricity it would still cost more to run than what
I pay for coal. My home is well insulated and had new windows
installed two years ago. I keep it about 60 degrees during the day
and let it drop to 50 at night. I don't like it that cold but that is
all I can afford right now. How do you propose I heat my home without
going broke?
5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09
Using coal doesn't make you a villain. WASTING it does.
Look at your landscaping. Do you have trees or a hedge in the
direction the winter winds come from? Deciduous to the south,
conifers to the north? Any unused floor or wall vents that can be
sealed up?
5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09
Bruce Richmond
To hear some talk around here using coal is the worst thing you can
do, even worse than oil.
As for wasting coal, I just came up from picking unburnt and partially
burnt coals out of the ashes. I get all the BTUs out of it that there
are to get. The house is well sealed and the location is protected
from most wind.
> Look at your landscaping. Do you have trees or a hedge in the
> direction the winter winds come from? Deciduous to the south,
> conifers to the north? Any unused floor or wall vents that can be
> sealed up? - Hide quoted text -
The Ugly Republican Brand is Dead
"Bruce Richmond" <bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:447f8523-7f00-42e9...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
I don't really think it's a matter of that. But there are others ways. We're
just not close to being there yet. I'm all for ending our dependence on oil.
Solar and hybird fuels are the ways to go but we're still years off from
mass implementation. But you have to start sometime.
Coal powers us now. No denying that. But, imho, the coal is the Earth's
liver. To mine in causes too many long term affects to the planet that gives
life to us all. Leave it there and find more substainable sources for our
fuel needs in the future.
What's wrong with that?
As for wasting coal, I just came up from picking unburnt and partially
burnt coals out of the ashes. I get all the BTUs out of it that there
are to get. The house is well sealed and the location is protected
from most wind.
If everyone did as you did, that's HUGE... the savings to us and our planet.
Benj
> dependent on burning fossil fuels? They're filthy, they're in
> increasingly short supply, and with the Chinese and Indian economies
> booming, the pollution problem's only going to get worse. Is it really
> a radical idea to generate as much energy as we can using the sun,
> wind, tides and the earth's core?
>
> What argument do they think they're winning here?
What brainless argument are you putting forth here? Libs and greenies
are all born without brains but they still think they are smarter and
more "educated" that the rest of the peons and therefore they see
themselves as the only group qualified to lead the rest of us. Well,
where they will lead us all is straight into hell.
So lets answer your stooopid question. We have to be remain dependent
upon filthy fossil fuels because they are the ONLY, yes, dearie, the
ONLY developed source of energy sufficient to run our current
civilization even if we optimize and streamline it. But somehow all
you lib ignorant morons think that just by using the words "sun" and
"wind" and "tides" and "earths core", (you forgot dams, idiot) that
problems are all "solved". Total and complete nonsense. This is ALL
19th century technology. NONE of it is sufficient to solve our current
energy needs. All it takes (for an educated intelligent person) is to
simply calculate the amount of BTUs flowing down our oil pipelines.
NOTHING, especially 19th century technology has even the slightest
POTENTIAL of coming close let alone be currently viable. Why don't you
tell us all again how "light rail" between cities as was so common in
the 19th century will "save" us all from fossil fuels. Idiot. Excuse
me, but all the "inter-urbans" have failed long ago. Changing the name
doesn't make it any better an idea.
This is exactly what happens when one substitutes politics for reason,
logic, science, and intelligence. The blind lead us all into the pit.
The truth is pretty simple. Oil is a limited resource. Even worse, it
is a WONDERFUL raw material for the chemicals needed by civilization.
It's bound to run out and long before it does, humans will be killing
each other over the rights to the last dregs. And beyond that, it's
totally stooopid to be burning this wonderful material to heat homes
or run cars. The Shah of Iran pointed that out many years ago long
before he was killed to shut him up.
So what to do? There is but ONE viable solution for the present: Start
developing other major stores of fossil fuel energy. These would be
coal and natural gas. Natural gas is, well, a natural for many things.
You can run vehicles with it TODAY. The local gas company runs ALL
their vehicles with it and has for years. It's a relatively clean
source of energy and isn't nearly as useful as oil as raw materials
for most chemical production. Next it is obvious to anyone with a
brain that given the stores of coal, that represents the next savior
of civilization. But coal is full of nasty pollutants and heavy metals
and causes acid rain etc. You can make motor fuel from coal (Hitler
did) but it's more expensive than oil at present. So, kiddies, how do
we "save the world"? Obviously the agenda is laid out for us nice and
neat. The NEXT STAGE must be a switch to coal and there is some,
though not an impossible amount of development to do to achieve "clean
coal" and efficient fuel production and mining with decent reclamation
and energy production without hidious pollution killing us all. It's
right there to be done.
But what do the Lib Green blogers say? Oh they have some pie in the
sky ideas about spending our limited development resources tilting at
windmills or chasing gasses that actually BENEFIT the atmosphere (you
ARE oxygen breathing animals, are you not?) such as CO2. Hence real
solutions to save civilization get ignored while all "scientists"
spend their days "bouncing basketballs to end AGW". Civilization
crashes and burns and you can DAMN WELL BET that when (not IF!) that
happens not one liberal green blogger will step forward to face the
torches and pitchforks with a "I was wrong. Forgive me for being so
stooopid." speech.
But I hear some you you morons screaming. "That is no final solution!"
That only puts off the inevitable. Quite right. But hopefully there
are people now and in the future working in science who are NOT
liberals, who are NOT influenced by political agendas, and who are
willing to look into new directions. A "breathing space" of maybe 200,
300 or even 400 years can mean a LOT in the development of something
more permanent. Hints abound that a "free energy" device is a
possibility. Of course how can you control all the peons of the world
if they can get all the energy they need from some smallish cheapish
"black box" in their basement? You can't. So better for those in power
to squelch the whole thing right now. Better to keep the big houses
and cars for as long as one can, and then when civilization finally
crashes, let it all sink into the new Dark Ages and say, "Well, at
least we had fun!" and apply for the job of Bishop in the new church
of age that will be in charge.
Needless to say, I find no benefit in supporting such ignorant
nonsense as spewed from all those pretending to "care" about our
future while working hard to destroy it. And dare I say it? I don't
think many others here will find much long term benefit from political
nonsense either.
Benj
Coal! Well that makes you an "environmentalist" and puts you ahead of
the curve, does it not? The problem is not coal (it's cheap and
there's plenty for now) but the crap it spews out as you burn it. But
these are all solvable problems! Relatively easily solvable if I may
venture my guess. Yes, perhaps you are not going to invent the
ultimate "clean coal" process for your home, but SOMEONE could! And I
tell you one clear FACT. If all the development time and tax money is
spent chasing nonsense like trying to strip CO2 from the air instead
working on the "clean coal" problem, all our asses are doomed to
repeat the dark ages. And then as you are driving your ox cart to
town, you can thank any Green Lib you meet for their contribution that
gave us the "modern" world. Probably the best way to "thank" them is
with a few strokes of a broadsword.
5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09
wrote:
> "Bruce Richmond" <bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:447f8523-7f00-42e9-899f-
c22b11...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
I'm speaking for myself, and not some nebulous "others". I'm sure they
must be the same one Faux hears. <g>
Economics is the enemy of clean industry, in part because it's rigged
that way. Coal is cheap and very profitable, and the coal industry in in
the forefront of resisting any approach that will reduce coal use, or
even mitigate its emissions.
>
>
>
> I don't really think it's a matter of that. But there are others ways.
> We're just not close to being there yet. I'm all for ending our
> dependence on oil. Solar and hybird fuels are the ways to go but we're
> still years off from mass implementation. But you have to start
> sometime.
>
> Coal powers us now. No denying that. But, imho, the coal is the Earth's
> liver. To mine in causes too many long term affects to the planet that
> gives life to us all. Leave it there and find more substainable sources
> for our fuel needs in the future.
>
> What's wrong with that?
>
I saw a great cartoon the other day. At a global warming conference, and
an irate man is saying to one of the delegates, "What if we make our
world cleaner and more efficient, and healthier, and then find out that
global warming was just a hoax?"
Benj
<k...@LLconservatives.us> wrote:
> To hear some talk around here using coal is the worst thing you can
> do, even worse than oil.
pollution-wise it is worse than oil, but is is clearly the ONLY future
we have for now.
> I don't really think it's a matter of that. But there are others ways. We're
> just not close to being there yet. I'm all for ending our dependence on oil.
> Solar and hybird fuels are the ways to go but we're still years off from
> mass implementation. But you have to start sometime.
Solar, "hybrid" and other nonsense are not "years" off they will NEVER
and can NEVER produce the amounts of energy we need. Please get your
head out of your own ass! It's one thing to run a solar panel by the
side of the road or middle of the desert to power some small
electronic device. Quite another to power all vehicles or the
nationwide power grid. Your implied idea that it's better to do
SOMETHING than to do NOTHING is pure idiocy! When you are in a hole,
the first thing you do is STOP DIGGING. Then FIND THE DIRECTION OUT.
Then DETERMINE HOW TO MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION! Digging randomly will
never get you out. And worse using everyone's money to do it on a
large scale only makes sure everyone is pulled down with you. But
failing together is the touchy-feely thing you like, right?
> Coal powers us now. No denying that. But, imho, the coal is the Earth's
> liver. To mine in causes too many long term affects to the planet that gives
> life to us all. Leave it there and find more substainable sources for our
> fuel needs in the future.
Earth's liver? How moronic a story do you expect us to believe? How
stooopid do you think other people are compared to you? Yes, leaving
coal is a great idea. Get this bung boy: THERE ARE NO SUFFICIENT
SUSTAINABLE SOURCES OF ENERGY WE KNOW OF TO POWER OUR CIVILIZATION FOR
NOW. NONE! Hopefully they can be developed, but 19th century
technology is NOT any answer. I take it you are dreaming of writing a
great novel by candlelight rather than using a computer, the internet
or any other modern technology. You can do that right now. Just shut
your yap, get off the Internet and lock yourself in your bedroom and
have at it. There is plenty of great literature from the candlelight
era you can use as models.
> What's wrong with that?
>
> As for wasting coal, I just came up from picking unburnt and partially
> burnt coals out of the ashes. I get all the BTUs out of it that there
> are to get. The house is well sealed and the location is protected
> from most wind.
>
> If everyone did as you did, that's HUGE... the savings to us and our planet.
Huge? You are moronic, uneducated, and illogical beyond ALL
belief !!!!! Why in hell are all Libs raised with ZERO concept of the
word "quantity". A few unburnt embers WILL NOT, CAN NOT and NEVER WILL
BE ABLE TO "save the planet". You are spouting nothing but
unscientific political garbage. The Republican Party makes more sense
than you! Saving a few lumps of coal is just symbolic nonsense like a
serial killer saying "he's sorry" on TV. Wonderful emotional impact
for all other persons without any education or brains, but completely
meaningless in the large picture.
Hey, LeftWad! QUANTITY! It's a REAL WORD. LOOK IT UP. IT REALLY HAS
ACTUAL MEANING! Please grow a brain and quit embarrassing yourself and
your fellow humans on an international forum.
5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09
It sounds like you're at least making the effort, and that's a good
start. How many cubic feet do you have to heat, and how much coal are
you using?
Bruce Richmond
<k...@LLconservatives.us> wrote:
The plan being presented would force us off coal without offering an
affordable alternative. An unaffordable alternative is not a real
alternative.
> As for wasting coal, I just came up from picking unburnt and partially
> burnt coals out of the ashes. I get all the BTUs out of it that there
> are to get. The house is well sealed and the location is protected
> from most wind.
>
> If everyone did as you did, that's HUGE... the savings to us and our planet.
>
>
>
> > Look at your landscaping. Do you have trees or a hedge in the
> > direction the winter winds come from? Deciduous to the south,
> > conifers to the north? Any unused floor or wall vents that can be
> > sealed up? - Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bruce Richmond
It's about 2000 sq ft and 7.5 ft high, so about 15000 cubic feet. But
the kids are grown and gone so three bedrooms and a play room are kept
closed. It takes about 25 lbs a day to heat when it is 30 F degrees,
50 lbs when it is around 5 deg and 70 lbs at -20 F. I am hoping to
make it through the winter with three ton of coal which has the heat
content of about 600 gal of heating oil. If I was smart I would sell
the place and get something smaller for my wife and myself, but this
is our home, and it's nice to have room to put the kids up when they
come to visit.
>
>
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
I M @ good guy
wrote:
When Coal is made to Liquid (CTL), all the things
other than hydrogen and hydrogen are removed, else
the fuel would destroy an engine in days or weeks.
So coal to liquid is clean coal, I sure hope it
can be made into gasoline, I can't stand the smell
or noise of diesel fuel.
I M @ good guy
Three tons? The last price I remember was $50 a ton.
I think coal is hard to buy here, the internationalist
nuisance ordinances that were rammed through have
made many things illegal.
5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09
> On Dec 25, 11:11 pm, "The Ugly Republican Brand is Dead"
> <k...@LLconservatives.us> wrote:
>
>> To hear some talk around here using coal is the worst thing you can do,
>> even worse than oil.
>
> pollution-wise it is worse than oil, but is is clearly the ONLY future
> we have for now.
Translated: "We're Americans! We make lots of money from this rubbish,
and what's more, we're weak and kind of dumb, so we're going to tell
everyone it can't be done!"
>
>> I don't really think it's a matter of that. But there are others ways.
>> We're just not close to being there yet. I'm all for ending our
>> dependence on oil. Solar and hybird fuels are the ways to go but we're
>> still years off from mass implementation. But you have to start
>> sometime.
>
> Solar, "hybrid" and other nonsense are not "years" off they will NEVER
> and can NEVER produce the amounts of energy we need. Please get your
> head out of your own ass! It's one thing to run a solar panel by the
> side of the road or middle of the desert to power some small electronic
> device. Quite another to power all vehicles or the nationwide power
> grid. Your implied idea that it's better to do SOMETHING than to do
> NOTHING is pure idiocy! When you are in a hole, the first thing you do
> is STOP DIGGING. Then FIND THE DIRECTION OUT. Then DETERMINE HOW TO MOVE
> IN THAT DIRECTION! Digging randomly will never get you out. And worse
> using everyone's money to do it on a large scale only makes sure
> everyone is pulled down with you. But failing together is the
> touchy-feely thing you like, right?
>
Uh huh. Man will never fly to the moon, you can't go faster than the
speed of sound, television is just a passing fad, and you can't make huge
explosions by banging two rocks together. You sound like the guy who
quit his job at the patent office back in the 19th century because
everything that could be invented had been.
>> Coal powers us now. No denying that. But, imho, the coal is the Earth's
>> liver. To mine in causes too many long term affects to the planet that
>> gives life to us all. Leave it there and find more substainable sources
>> for our fuel needs in the future.
>
> Earth's liver? How moronic a story do you expect us to believe? How
> stooopid do you think other people are compared to you? Yes, leaving
> coal is a great idea. Get this bung boy: THERE ARE NO SUFFICIENT
> SUSTAINABLE SOURCES OF ENERGY WE KNOW OF TO POWER OUR CIVILIZATION FOR
> NOW. NONE! Hopefully they can be developed, but 19th century technology
> is NOT any answer. I take it you are dreaming of writing a great novel
> by candlelight rather than using a computer, the internet or any other
> modern technology. You can do that right now. Just shut your yap, get
> off the Internet and lock yourself in your bedroom and have at it. There
> is plenty of great literature from the candlelight era you can use as
> models.
>
Gee, another guy who tries to equate clean living with primitive living.
5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09
I just did some table top calculations, and it looks like you're already
being pretty energy efficient. If you use coal-generated electricity,
you're probably using more coal there, since it takes (roughly) a half a
ton of coal to power a desktop computer for a year.
A place your size, with a sub-arctic winter, could reasonably be expected
to burn between 5 and 7.5 tons of coal a winter.
Nobody expects you to just give up coal without a viable alternative.
But keep looking around the house; there's always things to be found that
will help conserve. If your furnace has a heat exchange with outside,
consider having it exchange into the basement if you have one, and it can
be done safely. Wander around the place one windy day with a candle and
see where drafts are coming in. It's amazing how much you can save with
a caulk gun.
Be mindful of the fact that the three tons of coal you burn results in
about 60 tons of CO2. The US burns over seven TRILLION tons of coal a
year, so you aren't a big part of the problem, but you can keep looking
to help, and hopefully save yourself a little money.
5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09
> On Dec 25, 11:11 pm, "The Ugly Republican Brand is Dead"
> <k...@LLconservatives.us> wrote:
>> "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:447f8523-7f00-42e9-899f-
c22b11...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Spare us the horseshit bubbles. There is no plan to force people off
coal.
Bruce Richmond
wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:24:16 -0800, Bruce Richmond wrote:
> > On Dec 25, 11:11 pm, "The Ugly Republican Brand is Dead"
> > <k...@LLconservatives.us> wrote:
> >> "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> >> news:447f8523-7f00-42e9-899f-
>
The plan that was being pushed was to reduce CO2 production by 80%.
Last time I checked coal was mostly made of carbon which becomes CO2
when burned. While there may not have been any proposal to ban coal
the there have been proposals to tax it to discourage its use in favor
of renewable energy. The reason most users would stop using coal
would be if it got to be more expensive than the alternatives, so the
taxes will be raised till that happens. If not what was the purpose
of the taxes?
Bruce Richmond
wrote:
I'm currently burning about half as much coal as you calculated I
should need. You don't think that maybe I have things pretty well
squared away?
5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09
<bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>On Dec 26, 1:15嚙緘m, "5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
>wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:24:16 -0800, Bruce Richmond wrote:
>> > On Dec 25, 11:11嚙緘m, "The Ugly Republican Brand is Dead"
>> > affordable alternative. 嚙璀n unaffordable alternative is not a real
>> > alternative.
>>
>> Spare us the horseshit bubbles. 嚙確here is no plan to force people off
>> coal.
>>
>
>The plan that was being pushed was to reduce CO2 production by 80%.
Bullshit, bubbles. If all you're going to do is tell wild lies, I
won't waste my time fucking around with you.
>Last time I checked coal was mostly made of carbon which becomes CO2
>when burned.
No shit? You figured that out by yourself?
Fucking marvelous.
While there may not have been any proposal to ban coal
>the there have been proposals to tax it to discourage its use in favor
>of renewable energy. The reason most users would stop using coal
>would be if it got to be more expensive than the alternatives, so the
>taxes will be raised till that happens. If not what was the purpose
>of the taxes?
Such proposals have been made.
They work, too. Londoners got told back in the 50s that HRM was going
to raise the price of soft coal through the roof. This forced them to
switch to hard coal, or some other method of heating altogether.
Result: the "black fogs" of London, which killed up to 4,000 per
episode, went away.
Nobody starved, or even went lacking. They simply adapted.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> As for wasting coal, I just came up from picking unburnt and partially
>> >> burnt coals out of the ashes. 嚙瘢 get all the BTUs out of it that there
>> >> are to get. 嚙確he house is well sealed and the location is protected
5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09
Yeah. I said so right above.
I M @ good guy
<de...@dead.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:56:56 -0800, Benj wrote:
>
>> On Dec 25, 11:11 pm, "The Ugly Republican Brand is Dead"
>> <k...@LLconservatives.us> wrote:
>>
>>> To hear some talk around here using coal is the worst thing you can do,
>>> even worse than oil.
>>
>> pollution-wise it is worse than oil, but is is clearly the ONLY future
>> we have for now.
>
>Translated: "We're Americans! We make lots of money from this rubbish,
>and what's more, we're weak and kind of dumb, so we're going to tell
>everyone it can't be done!"
Ok, tell us how small your carbon footprint is,
smaller than Al Gore's?
Your rant is countered by the huge mass of
innovation and new inventions made in America,
try to prove that wrong.
I M @ good guy
Good post, except:
Where do you get the absurd numbers, the US
only produced a little over one Billion tons last year,
the whole world has not produced seven Trillion tons
in all past history combined.
Milt
wrote:
Careful with the numbers, dude. Check them first. This is as bad as
when Al Gore claimed the earth's core temperature was millions of
degrees.
Check the numbers first and try to figure out if they're plausible
when you hear them. For example; how many trucks would you imagine
would be needed to haul seven trillion tons of anything to wherever it
needs to go to be burned? If a truck can haul 10 tons at a time, that
would be 700 billion truckloads. Even if you could manage to haul two
truckloads a day, you'd still need a billion trucks. I think that
might make for one hell of a traffic jam.
The total amount of coal produced worldwide is about 7 BILLION tons,
and the United States used about 1.1 billion tons of it.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=1&aid=2
We still use too much coal. It's not necessary to make the number
sound incredible. 1.1 billion tons is a pretty awesome number, too.
5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09
wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 11:21:25 -0600, "5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09"
><de...@dead.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:56:56 -0800, Benj wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 25, 11:11�pm, "The Ugly Republican Brand is Dead"
>>> <k...@LLconservatives.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>> To hear some talk around here using coal is the worst thing you can do,
>>>> even worse than oil.
>>>
>>> pollution-wise it is worse than oil, but is is clearly the ONLY future
>>> we have for now.
>>
>>Translated: "We're Americans! We make lots of money from this rubbish,
>>and what's more, we're weak and kind of dumb, so we're going to tell
>>everyone it can't be done!"
>
> Ok, tell us how small your carbon footprint is,
>smaller than Al Gore's?
I can safely say my carbon footprint is smaller than Al Gore's. I
don't fly in jets, for starters.
>
> Your rant is countered by the huge mass of
>innovation and new inventions made in America,
>try to prove that wrong.
>
Thank you. You just made my point for me.
>
>
>
>
>
5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09
wrote:
Sorry, I had a brain fart. The US produces over seven trillion tons
of CO2 a year is what I should have said.
>
>
>
>
5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09
wrote:
Actually, the slip was in sideways thinking. I was conflating CO2
production with coal useage. My mistake.
Spencer Spindrift
You are all missing the point because it's taboo.
Human life on Earth can never be sustainable unless we post-humans
kill several billion people.
Until recently, 18th-19C CE, human population was fairly stable at
around half a billion,
This is about what the world population would be at an average density
of America before it was invaded by Europeans. Using technology we may
be able to double that to a billion but that still means about 6
billion must die. If we post-humans don't do it humanely Nature will
do it cruelly. We have a moral duty to kill......and that's taboo.
Spencer Primate PoE CoE BSc AA AAA A 4 degrees = 7 square
Milt
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:00:49 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com>
That's still only 7 billion, not 7 trillion. Which is still too
much...
>
> >Check the numbers first and try to figure out if they're plausible
> >when you hear them. For example; how many trucks would you imagine
> >would be needed to haul seven trillion tons of anything to wherever it
> >needs to go to be burned? If a truck can haul 10 tons at a time, that
> >would be 700 billion truckloads. Even if you could manage to haul two
> >truckloads a day, you'd still need a billion trucks. I think that
> >might make for one hell of a traffic jam.
>
> >The total amount of coal produced worldwide is about 7 BILLION tons,
> >and the United States used about 1.1 billion tons of it.
>
> >http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=1...
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings bestowed upon:
>>
>> "scurrilous" deleted and bleated like a good little sheople when:
---
>>> we are expecting today the proofs of this anthropogenic global
>>> warming,
>>
>> It's already been proven, you're just too cowardly to try
>> and honestly attempt to challenge the facts in a orderly
>> manner with some kind of scientific methodology in evidence..
>>
>> But, you can't, it's beyond your grasp, and you inadvertently admit
>> that this is the case as you pretend that "the science isn't settled",
>> "we are expecting today the proofs" and other such appeals to an
>> imagined set of circumstances that simply do not exist outside
>> of your fevered beliefs and zealotry..
>>
>>> just as we were expecting the proofs of mass destruction weapons
>>
>> Hey, it was just such practices of false pretexts that the
>> right-wing zealots tried to suppress the findings and the
>> eventual publications about global warming. By the way, it
>> failed then, as it fails you now, no matter how ironic the
>> comparison on your unimaginative behalf..
>>
>>> I will trust you the day you provide some solid evidence
>>
>> There is no obligation on my behalf to "provide some solid evidence"
>> as the science is settled, the the results of continuing studies
>> have confirmed the hypothesis many times over, and likely will
>> show that the projected results are perhaps too conservative..
>>
>> Now, while you are 'free' to express your opinions on this, there
>> is no obligation on my behalf to share even so much as one of your
>> false premises. I do not have to accept your deliberate ignorance
>> of the facts from so many fields of study such that all you can
>> actually do is suggest and/or insinuate doubts where none exists
>> in the formal studies of the Earth's climate..
>>
>> That you would deliberately and dishonestly try to mischaracterize
>> my responses to your one-dimensional zealotry, such as this..
>>
>>> Your howlings and your barkings just confort me
>>
>> ..is but simple proof that simply have no interest in actually
>> discussing the scientific details that I have generously
>> outlined for you to pursue. It must be "confortable" for
>> you belief such scientific proof doesn't already exist..
>>
>> --But, it cripples your efforts to prove it doesn't exist..
>
> That was your last lie. No more try. Game over.
--So, you're tendering your surrender again? I'm not surprised..
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings bestowed upon:
>>
>> "scurrilous" deleted and bleated like a good little sheople when:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings bestowed upon:
>>>>
>>>> "scurrilous" deleted and bleated like a good little sheople when:
Still with the personal attacks, spurious?
Example follows..
> What you say in this newsgroup is just as interesting as the
> barking of a doberman.
So, in other words, you're unable to refute my counter-arguments..
--Your surrender, such as it isn't, is accepted.. Buh-bye..
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings bestowed upon:
>>
>> "scurrilous" deleted and bleated like a good little sheople when:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "scurrilous" once again attempted to address the ideas suggested by:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind noted the usual evasions and obfuscations presented by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "scurrilous" deleted and bleated like a good little sheople when:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From The San Francisco Chronicle, 12/21/09:
>>>>>>>> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/gleick/detail??blogid=104&entry_id=53957
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The real climate hoax
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By Dr. Peter Gleick
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In all of the recent news about climate change, leaked emails, complex
>>>>>>>> negotiations, and watered-down agreements in Copenhagen, one fact has't
>>>>>>>> received enough attention.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The climate "hoax" is real.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only problem is that the real hoax is the effort by climate change
>>>>>>>> deniers who argue that the climate isn't changing, or that it isn't
>>>>>>>> because of human actions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is, and it is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The science is unambiguous.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The science is far from being settled.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then your comprehension of science is rather meager..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --And utterly without merit..
>>>>>
>>>>> But largely better than yours.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt it as the basic details you've chosen to gloss over
>>>> in your rush to judgment refute your bogus conclusion..
>>>>
>>>>> Up to now, I never saw any scientifically based contribution from you
>>>>
>>>> I think that it's an established fact that you anti-GW sheople
>>>> are completely uninterested and unqualified to discuss science
>>>> and I will continue to treat you as such until you demonstrate
>>>> even a basic comprehension of scientific principles..
>>>>
>>>> --Calling you "integrity-challenged" is being rather generous, too..
>>>
>>> Run away
>>
>> False premise noted.. I didn't "run away"..
>>
>>> Still no science. Never anything scientific
>>
>> I have no obligation to post "anything scientific" to your
>> false aspersions and dishonest fallacy pseudo-arguments..
>>
>>> Once upon a time, I supposed you were scientifically aware
>>
>> Once upon a time, my graduate adviser worked for Halliburton
>> and then when he couldn't bullshit his way any further as an
>> engineering consultant, he took up teaching physics..
>>
>> Like you, he was a hand-waver and simply lectured from the
>> textbook, Kreyszig's Advanced Engineering Mathematics, 8th Ed,
>> but couldn't actually do the labs, calculate the measurement
>> uncertainties at the start of the semester. I gave him even
>> more headaches than you're receiving at this point in time,
>> and even he admitted that I had him by the balls..
>>
>> Then I caught him and a couple of other profs bragging about
>> how many students they were failing on fine afternoon. That
>> got forwarded to the Dean, and the Regents for Higher Education..
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> If the professors aren't there, first and foremost, for the
>> students attending the university, then there is no reason
>> for them to pretend to be professors of knowledge, is there?
>>
>> So, when I see scurrilous comments from a deceitful, anti-
>> science, global warming denier, like yourself in this..
>>
>>> The science is far from being settled.
>>
>> I have to question just how much "science" you've actually
>> studied, because it's glaringly certain how 'settled' the
>> science is about the global warming hypothesis..
>>
>> That you've dishonestly chosen to cast cheap rhetoric and
>> predigested aspersions in the way of this discussion is
>> but another example of how poor your understanding is.
>>
>> Example follows..
>
> Bring your best, little Kuntie, the wannabe rock star....
Thank you again for proving my point for me.. By the way,
the band held its sixth rehearsal in the studio this Sunday..
I got a couple of things recorded, before the laptop gave
out, supposedly it's the nVidia chipset that's flawed, but
it sounds more like a hard drive controller throwing RF..
What did you accomplish this weekend, spurious?
> YOU are a PROVEN LIAR.
Nope, that would again be your own sociopathic projection..
--See subject header for important clue, collect the whole set!..
Milt
> "scurrilous" deleted and bleated like a good little sheople when:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings bestowed upon:
>
> >> "scurrilous" deleted and bleated like a good little sheople when:
>
> >>> Man_of_Mind noted the usual evasions and obfuscations presented by:
>
> >>>> "scurrilous" once again attempted to address the ideas suggested by:
>
> >>>>> Man_of_Mind noted the usual evasions and obfuscations presented by:
>
> >>>>>> "scurrilous" deleted and bleated like a good little sheople when:
>
> >>>>>>> Harry Hope was quoting from:
>
> >>>>>>>> From The San Francisco Chronicle, 12/21/09:
If you'd like a laugh, unblock The Stalker and go to the thread on
generating solar power after dark. You will laugh, guaranteed. He's
now suggesting that his toaster might be equipped with a rheostat. I
shit you not.
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind was castigating the malignant ignorance exhibited by:
>>
>> "scurrilous" deleted and bleated like a good little sheople when:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings bestowed upon:
>>>>
>>>> "scurrilous" deleted and bleated like a good little sheople when:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind noted the usual evasions and obfuscations presented by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "scurrilous" once again attempted to address the ideas suggested by:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind noted the usual evasions and obfuscations presented by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "scurrilous" deleted and bleated like a good little sheople when:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Harry Hope was quoting from:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From The San Francisco Chronicle, 12/21/09:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The real climate hoax
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> By Dr. Peter Gleick
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In all of the recent news about climate change, leaked emails, complex
>>>>>>>>>> negotiations, and watered-down agreements in Copenhagen, one fact has't
>>>>>>>>>> received enough attention.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The climate "hoax" is real.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The only problem is that the real hoax is the effort by climate change
>>>>>>>>>> deniers who argue that the climate isn't changing, or that it isn't
>>>>>>>>>> because of human actions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is, and it is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The science is unambiguous.
>>>> So, when I see scurrilous comments from a deceitful, anti-
>>>> science, global warming denier, like yourself in this..
>>>>
>>>>> The science is far from being settled.
>>>>
>>>> I have to question just how much "science" you've actually
>>>> studied, because it's glaringly certain how 'settled' the
>>>> science is about the global warming hypothesis..
>>>>
>>>> That you've dishonestly chosen to cast cheap rhetoric and
>>>> predigested aspersions in the way of this discussion is
>>>> but another example of how poor your understanding is.
>>>>
>>>> Example follows..
>>>
>>> Bring your best, little Kuntie, the wannabe rock star....
>>
>> Thank you again for proving my point for me.. By the way,
>> the band held its sixth rehearsal in the studio this Sunday..
>>
>> I got a couple of things recorded, before the laptop gave
>> out, supposedly it's the nVidia chipset that's flawed, but
>> it sounds more like a hard drive controller throwing RF..
>>
>> What did you accomplish this weekend, spurious?
>>
>>> YOU are a PROVEN LIAR.
>>
>> Nope, that would again be your own sociopathic projection..
>>
>> --See subject header for important clue, collect the whole set!..
>
> If you'd like a laugh, unblock The Stalker and go to the thread on
> generating solar power after dark. You will laugh, guaranteed. He's
> now suggesting that his toaster might be equipped with a rheostat. I
> shit you not.
You asked me not to reply to his tired mental menstruations,
remember? Right now I wouldn't want to ruin a perfectly nice
evening by even thinking of how stupid and venal he is..
--Which is an achievement in The Land of Inhofe..
Milt
> On 12/28/2009 12:37 PM, Milt wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Man_of_Mind was castigating the malignant ignorance exhibited by:
>
> >> "scurrilous" deleted and bleated like a good little sheople when:
>
> >>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings bestowed upon:
>
> >>>> "scurrilous" deleted and bleated like a good little sheople when:
>
> >>>>> Man_of_Mind noted the usual evasions and obfuscations presented by:
>
> >>>>>> "scurrilous" once again attempted to address the ideas suggested by:
>
> >>>>>>> Man_of_Mind noted the usual evasions and obfuscations presented by:
>
> >>>>>>>> "scurrilous" deleted and bleated like a good little sheople when:
>
> >>>>>>>>> Harry Hope was quoting from:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> From The San Francisco Chronicle, 12/21/09:
Good point. Sorry to have even mentioned... it.
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind replied to:
>>
>> On 12/28/2009 12:37 PM, Milt wrote:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind was castigating the malignant ignorance exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> "scurrilous" deleted and bleated like a good little sheople when:
>>>> --See subject header for important clue, collect the whole set!..
>>
>>> If you'd like a laugh, unblock The Stalker and go to the thread on
>>> generating solar power after dark. You will laugh, guaranteed. He's
>>> now suggesting that his toaster might be equipped with a rheostat. I
>>> shit you not.
>>
>> You asked me not to reply to his tired mental menstruations,
>> remember? Right now I wouldn't want to ruin a perfectly nice
>> evening by even thinking of how stupid and venal he is..
>>
>> --Which is an achievement in The Land of Inhofe..
>
> Good point. Sorry to have even mentioned... it.
Henh! Yeah, I'm surrounded by unreasoned, hard-headed
right-wing zealots here in Oklahoo-hum..
--See http://bubbaworld.com/ for details..
Milt
I was perusing "People of Wal-Mart" yesterday and thinking something
similar...
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind replied:
>>
>> On 12/29/2009 6:29 AM, Milt wrote:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind replied to:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/28/2009 12:37 PM, Milt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind was castigating the malignant ignorance exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "scurrilous" deleted and bleated like a good little sheople when:
------
>>>>>> --See subject header for important clue, collect the whole set!..
>>>>
>>>>> If you'd like a laugh, unblock The Stalker and go to the thread on
>>>>> generating solar power after dark. You will laugh, guaranteed. He's
>>>>> now suggesting that his toaster might be equipped with a rheostat. I
>>>>> shit you not.
>>>>
>>>> You asked me not to reply to his tired mental menstruations,
>>>> remember? Right now I wouldn't want to ruin a perfectly nice
>>>> evening by even thinking of how stupid and venal he is..
>>>>
>>>> --Which is an achievement in The Land of Inhofe..
>>>
>>> Good point. Sorry to have even mentioned... it.
>>
>> Henh! Yeah, I'm surrounded by unreasoned, hard-headed
>> right-wing zealots here in Oklahoo-hum..
>>
>
> I was perusing "People of Wal-Mart" yesterday and thinking something
> similar...
You get the picture.. /pun intended/
--From the Graphic Depictions Department..
Bruce Richmond
> On Dec 25, 11:11 pm, "The Ugly Republican Brand is Dead"
>
> <k...@LLconservatives.us> wrote:
> > do, even worse than oil.
>
> > burnt coals out of the ashes. I get all the BTUs out of it that there
> > are to get. The house is well sealed and the location is protected
> > from most wind.
>
>
> Huge? You are moronic, uneducated, and illogical beyond ALL
> belief !!!!! Why in hell are all Libs raised with ZERO concept of the
> word "quantity". A few unburnt embers WILL NOT, CAN NOT and NEVER WILL
> BE ABLE TO "save the planet". You are spouting nothing but
> unscientific political garbage. The Republican Party makes more sense
> than you! Saving a few lumps of coal is just symbolic nonsense like a
> serial killer saying "he's sorry" on TV. Wonderful emotional impact
> for all other persons without any education or brains, but completely
> meaningless in the large picture.
Yes and no. Sifting through ashes from the previous two days produced
about 10 lbs of coal. While that isn't worth much in terms of $ it is
enough to heat my house for about 8 hours. Getting 56 hours of heat
rather than 48 hours out of the same coal means about a 17% increase
in efficiency. While it wont save the planet, which was never my
intent, most would consider that to be more than symbolic nonsense.
It is a cumulative effect of things like that which allow me to heat
my home with about half as much coal as you calculated it could
reasonably take.
Bruce Richmond
> >On Dec 26, 1:15 pm, "5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
> >wrote:
> >> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:24:16 -0800, Bruce Richmond wrote:
> >> > alternative.
>
> >> Spare us the horseshit bubbles. There is no plan to force people off
> >> coal.
>
> >The plan that was being pushed was to reduce CO2 production by 80%.
>
> Bullshit, bubbles. If all you're going to do is tell wild lies, I
> won't waste my time fucking around with you.
Have you read any of the IPCC recomendations? The 80% cut is their
goal for 2050 if not before. While it applies to all man made CO2
sources coal is at the top of the list because it is considered the
dirtiest.
> >Last time I checked coal was mostly made of carbon which becomes CO2
> >when burned.
>
> No shit? You figured that out by yourself?
>
> Fucking marvelous.
Well the AGW alamists don't seem to think burning coal is a good idea.
> >While there may not have been any proposal to ban coal
> >the there have been proposals to tax it to discourage its use in favor
> >of renewable energy. The reason most users would stop using coal
> >would be if it got to be more expensive than the alternatives, so the
> >taxes will be raised till that happens. If not what was the purpose
> >of the taxes?
>
> Such proposals have been made.
Then why did you write, "Spare us the horseshit bubbles. There is no
plan to force people off coal."
> They work, too. Londoners got told back in the 50s that HRM was going
> to raise the price of soft coal through the roof. This forced them to
> switch to hard coal, or some other method of heating altogether.
>
> Result: the "black fogs" of London, which killed up to 4,000 per
> episode, went away.
There is no "black fogs" out here in the sticks, and I can assure you
that burning coal makes a lot less smoke and soot than burning wood,
which is quite common around here.
> Nobody starved, or even went lacking. They simply adapted.
You have yet to offer an affordable alternative. Oil and gas are
fossil fuels and will be taxed along with coal. Wood may be
considered CO2 neutral by some, but not by others. Besides, it is
worse for air quality than coal and the forests will quickly be clear
cut. I can't see the tree huggers putting up with that. Solar or
geothermal require large up front costs that few of us can afford.
Electric is out of sight. So what are you proposing for an
alternative?
>
>
>
>
> >> >> As for wasting coal, I just came up from picking unburnt and partially
> >> >> burnt coals out of the ashes. I get all the BTUs out of it that there
> >> >> are to get. The house is well sealed and the location is protected
> >> >> from most wind.
>
> >> >> If everyone did as you did, that's HUGE... the savings to us and our
> >> >> planet.
>
> >> >> > Look at your landscaping. Do you have trees or a hedge in the
> >> >> > direction the winter winds come from? Deciduous to the south,
> >> >> > conifers to the north? Any unused floor or wall vents that can be
> >> >> > sealed up? - Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bruce Richmond
Didn't mean to get testy but there are plenty out there that *do*
expect us to give up coal and don't care if there is an affordable
alternative.
*us*
fresh air, then pollute it so drastically.
At least coal-fired power plants have scrubbers. Those aren't
really available for home systems.
The use of a filthy but cheaper fuel also allows negligence in
use of weatherproofing that doesn't make sense in the long
run and is particularly wasteful. Burning coal doesn't get more
than about 60% efficient, at best. It doesn't save money.
The ash is a pollutant, too, not just the smoke. The smoke
doesn't merely disappear, either.
Remember: the more those downwind think you're a total
asshole, the less likely they are to say it to your face.
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:22:41 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond <bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>There is [sic] no "black fogs" out here in the sticks ...
Apparently there is not much in the way of education, either.
Are you using bituminous or anthracite, or don't you know?
Maybe you just don't care if you cause others to get cancer.
I've heated homes with coal, and with wood, and the use of
coal leads to much worse pollution, whether you have the
awareness to notice as much or not.
http://www.azocleantech.com/details.asp?newsID=5949
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es9030479
http://www.uicc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15784
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es0716610
Milt
You know what I find fascinating? Is this concept that seems to have
infected the right, in which paying for the mess you make (i.e. taxing
coal) is "forcing" anyone off anything. If you choose to burn coal or
wood or anything else to keep warm, and that burning makes a mess that
needs a clean-up, why should you be exempt from the clean-up?
> > They work, too. Londoners got told back in the 50s that HRM was going
> > to raise the price of soft coal through the roof. This forced them to
> > switch to hard coal, or some other method of heating altogether.
>
> > Result: the "black fogs" of London, which killed up to 4,000 per
> > episode, went away.
>
> There is no "black fogs" out here in the sticks, and I can assure you
> that burning coal makes a lot less smoke and soot than burning wood,
> which is quite common around here.
Yeah, and which has been banned in most populated areas during an
inversion. See, THAT is how you "force" people off coal. You ban it.
Taxation isn't even remotely the same as banning something and
forbidding its use.
>
> > Nobody starved, or even went lacking. They simply adapted.
>
> You have yet to offer an affordable alternative. Oil and gas are
> fossil fuels and will be taxed along with coal. Wood may be
> considered CO2 neutral by some, but not by others.
> Besides, it is
> worse for air quality than coal and the forests will quickly be clear
> cut. I can't see the tree huggers putting up with that.
No one in his right mind considers wood "CO2 neutral," whatever the
hell that's supposed to mean. But it's also a seriously ineffective
and remarkably expensive way to heat the huge homes that are being
built nowadays. Can you imagine trying to heat a 2000 square foot home
with wood? And where are you going to keep the wood before you use
it?
See, wood isn't a problem because it's never been practical to use in
the modern era and its cost is prohibitive for use to heat most homes.
But the extra "tax" isn't charged by the government, so you have no
objection. Fascinating.
> Solar or
> geothermal require large up front costs that few of us can afford.
> Electric is out of sight. So what are you proposing for an
> alternative?
We subsidize oil, coal and natural gas to keep their prices low. Why
couldn't we take the subsidies and let the prices take their natural
course, and use that money to subsidize the upgrade to solar, wind and
geothermal? We have to switch at some point, anyway, because those
resources will eventually run out. Why wait until there's a crisis?
Spencer Spindrift
of whatever...also a billion is different in the UK - Using the UK
billion current pop, is about 7 b.. Sustainable pop. I assert is
500,000 - 1 b..So we need to lose about 6 b..
There is and can be no birth-rate solution, which is where the taboo
kicks in. Either us post-humans kill most humans or nature will do it
more cruelly.
Interesting that my original post on this topic vanished into
cyberspace - just goes to show how powerful the taboo is.
5311 Dead, 444 since 1/20/09
The right has inherited the corporate notion that it's good to
externalize costs. Therefore they feel they have a RIGHT to pollute as
long as someone else pays to clean it up, and have prearranged whines
about how they are being victimized if its suggested they pay some of the
costs.
The trouble is, Richmond is expressing a legitimate problem--a lot of
people pollute because all they can afford is the cheapest and dirtiest
heat available. Up here in the mountains, burning wood is widespread,
and the only reason we don't have a gawdamighty air pollution problem and
denuded slopes is that there's only ten of us per square mile. I would
love to supplement with solar, but can't afford it.
>
>
>> > They work, too. Londoners got told back in the 50s that HRM was
>> > going to raise the price of soft coal through the roof. This forced
>> > them to switch to hard coal, or some other method of heating
>> > altogether.
>>
>> > Result: the "black fogs" of London, which killed up to 4,000 per
>> > episode, went away.
>>
>> There is no "black fogs" out here in the sticks, and I can assure you
>> that burning coal makes a lot less smoke and soot than burning wood,
>> which is quite common around here.
Coal smoke is more toxic, and the amount of CO2 emitted is higher.
Producing wood is a lot less toxic, as well. But you've touched on the
biggest cure there is for pollution: condoms. If the world population
were a half a billion, and spread out, our impact would be much less, and
we wouldn't be the massive threat to ourselves that we now are.
Incidentally, mountain weather is mountain weather, and you get
inversions on winter mornings. The air you breathe is worse than what LA
sometimes still gets, and sometimes is as bad as London used to be. But
London lost up to 0.1% of its population -- call it 12,000 people -- per
year directly to air pollution. What's 0.1% of your local population.
Of course, far more people died indirectly, sickened and weakened by
pollution, and costs for everything from home maintenance to water
purification were higher due to the bad air. Those are bigger costs, but
not as visible, and those probably DO affect your neighbors. And you.
>
> Yeah, and which has been banned in most populated areas during an
> inversion. See, THAT is how you "force" people off coal. You ban it.
> Taxation isn't even remotely the same as banning something and
> forbidding its use.
People are banned from dumping arsenic in streams, too. You don't have a
right to pollute. Society does owes you viable options in heating your
home, but we have a poisoned right wing society that believes social
costs should be externalized, too. Something to think about if you one
of those who thinks police and fire fighters should be privatized and run
on a for profit basis.
Here in California, wood burning and coal burning are not allowed in
populated areas. But if the economic decline continues, and people can't
afford $250 a month electric bills, you'll see it coming back. And a lot
of people will move to unpopulated areas so they CAN burn wood or coal.
Bringing the problems they caused that drove them out with them.
American society will eventually have to start socializing its
responsibilities.
>>
>> > Nobody starved, or even went lacking. They simply adapted.
>>
>> You have yet to offer an affordable alternative. Oil and gas are
>> fossil fuels and will be taxed along with coal. Wood may be considered
>> CO2 neutral by some, but not by others.
>> Besides, it is
>> worse for air quality than coal and the forests will quickly be clear
>> cut. I can't see the tree huggers putting up with that.
>
> No one in his right mind considers wood "CO2 neutral," whatever the hell
> that's supposed to mean. But it's also a seriously ineffective and
> remarkably expensive way to heat the huge homes that are being built
> nowadays. Can you imagine trying to heat a 2000 square foot home with
> wood? And where are you going to keep the wood before you use it?
>
It is in a way. Burning wood emits a lot of CO2. No way around that.
But GROWING wood absorbs CO2. It doesn't excuse it, but it is something
that makes it somewhat better than other carbon-based fuel sources.
> See, wood isn't a problem because it's never been practical to use in
> the modern era and its cost is prohibitive for use to heat most homes.
> But the extra "tax" isn't charged by the government, so you have no
> objection. Fascinating.
>
We had friends from Kentucky in last week who told us pine was going for
$350-$400 a cord. We paid $140 a cord, and if I wanted to put in three
days out in the woods with a chainsaw, I could get it for $7, plus
expenses. Our wood demands are modest--we burn two cords a winter, which
is about a third of what our neighbors use, although some have been
emulating some of our practices. If the local economy recovers, I hope
to be burning less than a cord a winter in a few years. If it doesn't,
then we might either have to live in a cooler house or burn more wood.
>> Solar or
>> geothermal require large up front costs that few of us can afford.
>> Electric is out of sight. So what are you proposing for an
>> alternative?
>
> We subsidize oil, coal and natural gas to keep their prices low. Why
> couldn't we take the subsidies and let the prices take their natural
> course, and use that money to subsidize the upgrade to solar, wind and
> geothermal? We have to switch at some point, anyway, because those
> resources will eventually run out. Why wait until there's a crisis?
>>
Human nature, although I agree 100% with what you're saying.
I M @ good guy
See a doctor!
Bruce Richmond
> It's so ironic that someone would move to the country for the
> fresh air, then pollute it so drastically.
It seems you haven't the slightest idea of what you are talking
about. I live in a small town that was founded by my ancestors 270
years ago.
> At least coal-fired power plants have scrubbers. Those aren't
> really available for home systems.
>
> The use of a filthy but cheaper fuel also allows negligence in
> use of weatherproofing that doesn't make sense in the long
> run and is particularly wasteful.
Again showing you don't know what you are talking about. In this
thread I have written of the extensive measures I have taken to reduce
heat loss from my home.
> Burning coal doesn't get more
> than about 60% efficient, at best. It doesn't save money.
The only part of that you got right was 60%. That is how much coal
costs me compared to oil, which explains why my oil furnace serves as
back-up to my coal stove.
> The ash is a pollutant, too, not just the smoke. The smoke
> doesn't merely disappear, either.
>
> Remember: the more those downwind think you're a total
> asshole, the less likely they are to say it to your face.
I am friends with everyone around me. I am not bothered that they
heat with wood or pellets. If you don't like it just stay away.
Seems you are such an asshole that you don't dare show your name.
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:22:41 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >There is [sic] no "black fogs" out here in the sticks ...
>
> Apparently there is not much in the way of education, either.
>
> Are you using bituminous or anthracite, or don't you know?
Anthracite, but I would consider switching if it would piss you off
>8^)~
> Maybe you just don't care if you cause others to get cancer.
LOL, an alarmist on multiple topics.
*us*
>... haven't the slightest idea ...
If you did, you'd not post as if burning coal
for a household would be a good idea.
>... I live in a small town ...
That's all the more reason you shouldn't be
burning coal.
You must really dislike your neighbors.
>...such an asshole ...
Otherwise you'd do better for your own environment, at least.
It's so ironic that someone would move to the country for the
fresh air, then pollute it so drastically.
At least coal-fired power plants have scrubbers. Those aren't
really available for home systems.
The use of a filthy but cheaper fuel also allows negligence in
use of weatherproofing that doesn't make sense in the long
run and is particularly wasteful. Burning coal doesn't get more
than about 60% efficient, at best. It doesn't save money.
The ash is a pollutant, too, not just the smoke. The smoke
doesn't merely disappear, either.
Remember: the more those downwind think you're a total
asshole, the less likely they are to say it to your face.
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:22:41 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond <bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>There is [sic] no "black fogs" out here in the sticks ...
Apparently there is not much in the way of education, either.
Are you using bituminous or anthracite, or don't you know?
Maybe you just don't care if you cause others to get cancer.
I've heated homes with coal, and with wood, and the use of
coal leads to much worse pollution, whether you have the
awareness to notice as much or not.
http://www.azocleantech.com/details.asp?newsID=5949
Bruce Richmond
If you are trying to say I am a right winger your ass is sucking
wind. Bush was an absolute asshole. I voted for Obama and drive a
Prius.
> If you choose to burn coal or
> wood or anything else to keep warm, and that burning makes a mess that
> needs a clean-up, why should you be exempt from the clean-up?
There's no mess that needs cleaning up. You have a problem with it,
that's too bad.
> > > They work, too. Londoners got told back in the 50s that HRM was going
> > > to raise the price of soft coal through the roof. This forced them to
> > > switch to hard coal, or some other method of heating altogether.
>
> > > Result: the "black fogs" of London, which killed up to 4,000 per
> > > episode, went away.
>
> > There is no "black fogs" out here in the sticks, and I can assure you
> > that burning coal makes a lot less smoke and soot than burning wood,
> > which is quite common around here.
>
> Yeah, and which has been banned in most populated areas during an
> inversion. See, THAT is how you "force" people off coal. You ban it.
> Taxation isn't even remotely the same as banning something and
> forbidding its use.
>
If you make it unaffordable it is the same as a ban. I'll gladly
switch over to electric heat with the electric produced by a nuc
plant, if you are willing to pay the difference in cost. Same goes
for natural gas or a geothermal heat pump. I don't heat with coal to
be an asshole, I do it because it is the most affordable way to heat
my home.
>
> > > Nobody starved, or even went lacking. They simply adapted.
>
> > You have yet to offer an affordable alternative. Oil and gas are
> > fossil fuels and will be taxed along with coal. Wood may be
> > considered CO2 neutral by some, but not by others.
> > Besides, it is
> > worse for air quality than coal and the forests will quickly be clear
> > cut. I can't see the tree huggers putting up with that.
>
> No one in his right mind considers wood "CO2 neutral," whatever the
> hell that's supposed to mean.
Talk to your green friends. The carbon in would is part of the
natural carbon cycle as opposed to the carbon in fossil fuels which
has been out of the cycle. Seems stupid to me too but that's what
they say.
> But it's also a seriously ineffective
> and remarkably expensive way to heat the huge homes that are being
> built nowadays. Can you imagine trying to heat a 2000 square foot home
> with wood? And where are you going to keep the wood before you use
> it?
You must be proud to be so stupid. You seem to be showing off. There
are plenty of folks around here heating bigger homes than that with
wood. If you are willing to do the work of cutting, splitting, etc
then it is the cheapest heat around. The more of that work you have
done for you the less you save. As for where you are going to keep
it, we were discussing living out here in the sticks! You can stack
it in the yard, in a wood shed, in a barn, in your cellar, all knds of
places. It's not like living in a condo with full closets.
> See, wood isn't a problem because it's never been practical to use in
> the modern era and its cost is prohibitive for use to heat most homes.
> But the extra "tax" isn't charged by the government, so you have no
> objection. Fascinating.
You haven't been paying attention have you? I don't heat with wood
because I consider it dirty and too much work for the savings compared
to coal. I might feel different if I had a few acers of woods at my
disposal, but I don't. As for putting a tax on heating with wood,
people around here know the power of a vote.
> > Solar or
> > geothermal require large up front costs that few of us can afford.
> > Electric is out of sight. So what are you proposing for an
> > alternative?
>
> We subsidize oil, coal and natural gas to keep their prices low. Why
> couldn't we take the subsidies and let the prices take their natural
> course, and use that money to subsidize the upgrade to solar, wind and
> geothermal? We have to switch at some point, anyway, because those
> resources will eventually run out. Why wait until there's a crisis?
Coal gets subsidized very little. On a per unit of energy produced
basis the green sources are already getting way more. Coal gets so
little they can cut the subsidies all together for all I care.
mrbawana2u
<baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[who cares?]
1600 posts in dec, loadturd.
You're a pathetic retard.
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind was replying to:
Obviously, you do..
> 1600 posts in dec,
Well, I can't help it if you're not able to keep up..
--Just accept the fact that you're voluntarily retarded..