Obama kills the coal industry

[gftChris]

Well good.

When are we going to die?

(should I fill up the gas tank today or not?)

WSS

Did you actually watch it? It's not about saying we're going to die. It's saying that the level of CO2 in the air is increasing as a direct consequence of human activity. This has a knock on effect of warming and crazy weather. Eventually, if we do nothing about it, bad (worse) stuff will happen - Venus used to be like earth at one point, and then there was a build up of CO2 in the atmosphere that caused the warming.

 

We can still stop this from happening - not immediately, it's a massive thing to turn around, but it's still possible.

[Westside Steve]

Did you actually watch it? It's not about saying we're going to die. It's saying that the level of CO2 in the air is increasing as a direct consequence of human activity. This has a knock on effect of warming and crazy weather. Eventually, if we do nothing about it, bad (worse) stuff will happen - Venus used to be like earth at one point, and then there was a build up of CO2 in the atmosphere that caused the warming.

 

We can still stop this from happening - not immediately, it's a massive thing to turn around, but it's still possible.

No I didn't watch it. If I had I wouldn't have asked you, right? Anyway like I said before I saw one episode whilst channel surfing and it was kind of a junior high lecture about global warming saving the planet etcetera.

so apparently that is a repeated?

 

And one more time, just for the record, I certainly think the climate is changing some degree and assume mankind has some effect.

WSS

[gftChris]

No I didn't watch it. If I had I wouldn't have asked you, right? Anyway like I said before I saw one episode whilst channel surfing and it was kind of a junior high lecture about global warming saving the planet etcetera.

so apparently that is a repeated?

 

And one more time, just for the record, certainly think the climate is changing some degree and assume mankind has some effect.

WSS

Right, they're appealing to the mainstream, and the mainstream level of science intellect is junior high - I'd make some joke about it being lower in other states, but it's been done to death.

 

It's been mentioned in passing, but this is a whole episode dedicated to examining the evidence, predictions and reality, along with the 'comeback' questions you come across most often. It's a bit political, sure, but the fact that there are still people that need convincing, making it controversial/political astounds me.

[Stewy]

Did you actually watch it? It's not about saying we're going to die. It's saying that the level of CO2 in the air is increasing as a direct consequence of human activity. This has a knock on effect of warming and crazy weather. Eventually, if we do nothing about it, bad (worse) stuff will happen - Venus used to be like earth at one point, and then there was a build up of CO2 in the atmosphere that caused the warming.

 

We can still stop this from happening - not immediately, it's a massive thing to turn around, but it's still possible.

 

Gee, too bad that there weren't people on Venus to stop it....but wait, how could there be global warming without people,especially those evil capitalist people?

Venus warmed because it was supposed to.

 

Global warming happens with or without humans. The earth has warmed and cooled throughout its history and you're a fool to you think you're gonna stop it.

 

Yes, human activity has contributed to the rise in Co2, but I bet they didn't tell you that human contribution amounts to nothing but a fart in a hurricane.

[calfoxwc]

Did you actually watch it? It's not about saying we're going to die. It's saying that the level of CO2 in the air is increasing as a direct consequence of human activity. This has a knock on effect of warming and crazy weather. Eventually, if we do nothing about it, bad (worse) stuff will happen - Venus used to be like earth at one point, and then there was a build up of CO2 in the atmosphere that caused the warming. Chris

*****************************************

Oh, for goodness sake.

The buildup of CO2 ? Worried? Then why not discuss the DESTRUCTION OF MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF ACRES

OUR OUR WORLD's FREAKIN VIRGIN RAINFORESTS ???????????????????????????????????????????

 

That's my biggest beef with "global warning". It's a fraud. Unless woody and Chris think that there were people

on Venus....

[DieHardBrownsFan]

I drive a Subaru Legacy Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle (PZEV) so I do my part.

[calfoxwc]

So, instead of chirping like birdbrains like woody, and others, about why

we have to vote for democrats and higher taxes and more and more fees

and licenses for whatever actiivities, blah blah blah, liberal blah....

 

just once, will a lib "worried about our planet" read up on rainforests?

 

Just once, stop with the global warming nonsense about liberal land "mmgw"....

 

and.......learn.......and.....talk....about....the .....destruction....of ....our world's....RAIN FORESTS !!!!!!!

[calfoxwc]

Every single ignorant wonk who parrots the lib line on "mmgw", so we have to

raise more money to "x"....

 

should just read up on the destruction of the virgin rainforests.

 

Chris knows how to look stuff up on the internet, I'm sure. Maybe he can

contact woodpecker and teach him, too.

 

**********************************************************

http://www.rainforest-facts.com/rainforest-destruction.html

Every year, 15 million hectares of tropical forests are cleared. At that pace, almost all the world's rainforests will be lost in 50 years.

The current climate change is a very serious problem. The most vital role of rainforests today is that they are an enormous help in the fight against global warming.

Burning rainforests, which is one of the ways to destroy them (when clearing land for agriculture), releases carbon dioxide, as do the side effects - decomposition of dead plant matter and oxidation of soils. So rainforest destruction is responsible for 17% of our annual carbon dioxide emission. This is more than all the world's cars, ships and aeroplanes release together.

Through photosynthesis, rainforest plants absorb and store 4.8 billion tonnes carbon dioxide every year - equal to 10% of our annual greenhouse gas emissions, which increase global warming. By saving the forests we save a natural mechanism that removes some of the carbon dioxide that we humans put into the atmosphere.

[calfoxwc]

Maybe that's where Woody comes from. Venus. A long time ago.

 

That would explain his alien, dimwitted views on any subject.

 

Lizard-type woodpecker people ruined Venus. Now there's a theory.

[calfoxwc]

So, Chris, the next time you and your friends at the little coffee shop,

sipping your latte', talk about the impending doom of mmgw, and how gov

needs to regulate our bbq's, cows farting, our cars and lawmowers, and the

regulation must be done by liberals in gov....

 

just once....bring up rainforests. All these bandwagon "super concerned world citizens" keep

yapping about co2.

 

But do they ever give a frak about the rainforests? Nope. We're talkin "political nonsense group-think membership"

methinks.

[calfoxwc]

Now I can go have breakfast.

[gftChris]

Boy did someone rattle your cage!

 

Yes, we need to stop the deforestation for a multitude of reasons - one of the main ones being the effect it has on global warming. Other reasons include the fact that deforested land causes landslides and generally destabilise the terrain (meaning that the farmland it produces gets washed away); habitats of countless species are being destroyed; and there are still people actually living in the rainforest.

 

So next time, cal, you're stood around the barn, sippin' your moonshine, telling all your buddies how you pointed out about rainforests and felt real smug about it, maybe you could realise that this is a known part of the problem, that's also on the agenda.

[Legacy Fan]

As someone who has treated coal miners mouths in the eastern part of the state, I'd prefer not to make these guys lives any more shitty.

 

Developing countries are paying high dollar for coal. Should be a push to switch our power grid to renewable energy (employing many of the same contractors who build and manage coal power plants) while continuing to employ miners to export our valuable resource.

[gftChris]

As someone who has treated coal miners mouths in the eastern part of the state, I'd prefer not to make these guys lives any more shitty.

 

Developing countries are paying high dollar for coal. Should be a push to switch our power grid to renewable energy (employing many of the same contractors who build and manage coal power plants) while continuing to employ miners to export our valuable resource.

To be honest that's the way it'll go - as long as there's a market for coal, countries like America will export it - it's perfectly justifiable from a business sense - while also trying to focus more on renewable energy domestically.

 

I know people always use the 'well you get china and india to stop and we'll stop' kind of line, but it really is up to the developed countries to show that it's economically viable to be run on renewables. Like Germany for example, who set a target of at least 80% (I think) renewables by 2050, with milestones along the way, and are actually ahead of their targets I believe.

[Legacy Fan]

Yup. You're not going to bring China & India to the table with the word "stop." Using "targets" would be much more feasible especially if 'previously developed nations' such as Germany is doing and the US have their target dates well advanced of those developing nations. This promotes a "hey, we understand, but y'all need to get your fucking act together too."

[gftChris]

I agree (this doesn't seem right)

[Legacy Fan]

ha! cheers.

[ballpeen]

Hydro electric is still an option. All you need is a river. There are turbines you can just let float (cabled of course) in a stream in your backyard and generate electric. Large scale dams should still be viable. What about fish/salmon? Build a stepped spillway off to the side that they can swim and jump up.

 

Solar and wind are becoming much more viable because of increases in battery technology. An electric car battery fully charged can power a normal home for a few days.

Sure, it's a option, but you need dams for that to work well. Around here TVA has a very impressive hydro system of dams. Even a pump storage facility. Pump water to the top of the mountain at night when electricity rayes are low, let it flow down the mtn to meet day demand.

http://www.tva.gov/sites/raccoonmt.htm

 

That said, hydro comes nowhere near meeting the demand in this area.

[gftChris]

Sure, it's a option, but you need dams for that to work well. Around here TVA has a very impressive hydro system of dams. Even a pump storage facility. Pump water to the top of the mountain at night when electricity rayes are low, let it flow down the mtn to meet day demand.

http://www.tva.gov/sites/raccoonmt.htm

 

That said, hydro comes nowhere near meeting the demand in this area.

Hydro's nice, but you need a system that can be applied on a wider scale. Or, maybe, it turns out that the wider scale plan is to use whatever natural resources are abundant in the local area. So if you're in a cloudy place with a lot of wind and rivers, don't rely so much on solar. If you're in the sahara, solar would be the way to go.

[MLD Woody]

Lol, Chris brought up climate change and we got the same three responses we always do

 

1) Steve: "Well we are all just gonna die then. Why bother doing anything? Woe is me"

 

2) Cal: "blah blah blah mmgw blah blah dirty libs blah blah THE DESTRUCTION OF VIRGIN RAINFORESTS!"

 

3) Bunker: " The Earth's climate has changed before without humans, stupid. Case closed"

[Westside Steve]

Lol, Chris brought up climate change and we got the same three responses we always do

 

1) Steve: "Well we are all just gonna die then. Why bother doing anything? Woe is me"

 

2) Cal: "blah blah blah mmgw blah blah dirty libs blah blah THE DESTRUCTION OF VIRGIN RAINFORESTS!"

 

3) Bunker: " The Earth's climate has changed before without humans, stupid. Case closed"

Don't sell yourself short judge! We always have Woody's with,uh, nothing, nothing at all.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

Yes, yes. I forgot that one too. The "Woody doesn't say anything" post.

 

I mean, fuck trying to have thought out posts with references, graphs, etc. Fuck trying to explain what we think is happening. Fuck trying to take the scientific side. Fuck taking the time to find the fault in whatever crackpot mmgw article Cal posted. Fuck actually saying more than other posts around me.

 

I think Woody is a dirty lib, so he must only say nothing in his posts....

[Westside Steve]

okay Wood I'll try not to be insulting it all here.

I think you know my position on this pretty well but let me ask you a few questions honestly.

first we know there are scientists who are very alarmed and think it may already be too late.

we have some but think that window of opportunity is a very few years and drastic action needs to be taken quickly. Also some who think the window of opportunity is maybe 15 or so years but still we need to take serious action very very soon. Which, if any, of these three groups do you tend to believe?

My second question is do you believe that the United States can make a significant difference unilaterally and do you think we will make drastic changes soon enough?

Or do you think that all the emerging industrial nations must be on board?

If you mostly agree with the second statement then how do you suppose we ask China and India to put the brakes on their economy?

If we cannot change their minds should we damage our own manufacturing base even more by allowing them to produce quality goods while using fossil fuels?

Or should we refuse to buy less expensive goods and throw our own economy into the grinder?

 

Finally I don't think I have to ask what you or I are willing to change in our lives to make the necessary changes possible. I don't think we would.

 

if you think I'm out of line in any of this please point it out. I'm sorry you are angry and or scared for the planet. I think my comments are within the realm of reality.

 

And yes everybody thinks renewable energy is a fine idea.

 

All I'm asking you to do personally is the point of the flaw in my argument.

Something beyond lol.

 

WSS

[MLD Woody]

okay Wood I'll try not to be insulting it all here.

I think you know my position on this pretty well but let me ask you a few questions honestly.

first we know there are scientists who are very alarmed and think it may already be too late.

we have some but think that window of opportunity is a very few years and drastic action needs to be taken quickly. Also some who think the window of opportunity is maybe 15 or so years but still we need to take serious action very very soon. Which, if any, of these three groups do you tend to believe?

 

 

 

I do think we are past the tipping point where we will see some change. Scientists seem to be in agreement that we will begin to see some of the affects of climate change of the next decades/centuries. For example, a report came out recently about the ice sheet on the west side of Antarctica being past the "point of no return". It will melt and cause a sea level rise of around 4 feet over the upcoming centuries. For instances like this, I do believe it is too late to reserve it.

That being said though, as a whole, it is not to late to limit the damage. We can take actions now to either limit the effect climate change has on the Earth and our civilization, or at the very least just slow it down. Yes, that may be centuries down the road, but we need to start somewhere. Having part of the country completely in denial and listening to politicians instead of scientists did us no good. We put off doing anything for too long. But like I said, better late than never. I still think taking actions now to limit the advancement of climate change will benefit us down the road. Can we reverse or stop any change from happening now? I don't think. But we can still make a difference.

 

My second question is do you believe that the United States can make a significant difference unilaterally and do you think we will make drastic changes soon enough?

Or do you think that all the emerging industrial nations must be on board?

If you mostly agree with the second statement then how do you suppose we ask China and India to put the brakes on their economy?

If we cannot change their minds should we damage our own manufacturing base even more by allowing them to produce quality goods while using fossil fuels?

Or should we refuse to buy less expensive goods and throw our own economy into the grinder?

 

Yes and no. Eventually, to make real change, we will need a system where every nation is on board. Pollution in one country isn't confined to only affecting that country. At the same time, we are a very big and very important country. We have a lot of clout on the world stage and can influence other nations with our actions. We can be the starting point, the main example, and we can go from there. Other nations will follow suit and eventually we will hopefully be able to get emerging industrial nations on board as well.

 

One major way we can do this is through research and development of alternative fuel sources. Our country, and others like us, can continue to develop renewable, effective energy sources. As we develop more realistic options we can present these to the emerging industrial nations and give them an alternative. I don't think they can be expected to cripple their economy with regulations by doing exactly what we did as a fledgling nation. But, if we provide the alternative for them, then they should be able to adopt it in the long run.

 

This won't come through drastic changes. While drastic changes may influence the environment in a positive way the most quickly, I don't believe these are the best solutions. We can't damage our own country that quickly or severely. We can though implement regulations and create emission standards that gradually increase. The free market is not perfect. It is not set up in a way to protect the environment if it damages the bottom line. Regulations, taxes, etc are needed to help reduce these negative emissions as well as make it financially sound to research, develop, and implement newer, cleaner, renewable energy sources. If it is in large company's best interests to do this, we will start to see real advancement in this field. Scientists working on their own can only do so much. Large corporations have the capital needed to turn ideas int reality. Then, with these alternative sources a reality, we can share our advancement with other countries to help reduce their emissions.

 

We can't realistically expect China to adhere to the same regulations we will put ourselves and other countries under. Being their largest market though, we can put import taxes and other things in place to nudge them to reducing emissions. Yes, this will cost us more money. Sacrifices will have to be made. The more countries we get on our side the more we can realistically impose regulations on China. Eventually, thanks to these regulations and the new technologies we have developed, we can see them get to a reasonable level of emissions.

 

Neither us nor China need to "put brakes on their economy." The goal is to impose regulations over time, but keep them steady and working toward the final goal. They'll be imposed at a rate where we can adjust our economy accordingly and we won't be incredibly damaged. I think using terms like "throw our economy into the grinder" are hyperbolic. Look, sacrifices will need to be made, for sure, but they won't cripple us. We need to look long term and stop looking short term. We need to be the bastion of change (along with a few other countries) in the fight to reduce the effects of climate change. We attack other countries to bring them "democracy", which damages us and costs us money. This is almost a similar situation but more pressing and on a global scale. If enough countries get behind this initiative, it would be in China's best interest to start to regulate, to preserve their economy. We in a sense could bully them with a majority if they refuse to comply. But again, I don't see them having the same level of regulation we would to start and I see us helping them by developing the new technology and energy sources required.

 

Finally I don't think I have to ask what you or I are willing to change in our lives to make the necessary changes possible. I don't think we would.

 

if you think I'm out of line in any of this please point it out. I'm sorry you are angry and or scared for the planet. I think my comments are within the realm of reality.

 

And yes everybody thinks renewable energy is a fine idea.

 

All I'm asking you to do personally is the point of the flaw in my argument.

Something beyond lol.

 

WSS

 

Yes, I would be willing to make sacrifices. There isn't much an individual can do though to create change on a larger scale. The best thing we can do is vote for representatives that take this seriously and don't call consensus scientific theories "lies from the pit of hell". I'll be fine financially throughout life, I am in a position where if I had to pay more for some things due to a tax I could. I realize that won't be the same for everyone. But like I said, there isn't much you and I can do. The govt has the power through the regulations they can impose on business. These regulations will then make it so it makes financial sense to develop other forms of energy and cleaner technology.

 

The flaw in your argument is that I don't really see it as an argument. I don't look at this and say "Awe shucks, there isn't anything we can do. There is no point in doing anything anyway." I think that is a dangerous belief. We don't need to be lackadaisical in our approach. We can make a difference over time. Will we see it, or our children, or even their children? Maybe not. But I think it is our duty to not leave the planet uninhabitable for future generations. That starts with some sacrifices today and regulation on businesses that can spearhead the onset of change needed to overcome/limit future damage to our climate.

 

[Osiris]

Boy did someone rattle your cage!

 

Yes, we need to stop the deforestation for a multitude of reasons - one of the main ones being the effect it has on global warming. Other reasons include the fact that deforested land causes landslides and generally destabilise the terrain (meaning that the farmland it produces gets washed away); habitats of countless species are being destroyed; and there are still people actually living in the rainforest.

 

So next time, cal, you're stood around the barn, sippin' your moonshine, telling all your buddies how you pointed out about rainforests and felt real smug about it, maybe you could realise that this is a known part of the problem, that's also on the agenda.

Every time MMGW is discussed on this forum Cal goes off about the rainforests and claims the libs don't care about it. Every time, someone points out that we all agree it's a problem and nobody brings it up because it isn't a point of contention. So just save your response to a text file so you can copy and paste it three weeks from now when we all have this conversation again lol.

[Pumpkin Eater]

How the fuck is an ice sheet past the point of no return? Wouldn't that mean it was already melted? What in the hell are you talking about? In addition, a single sheet of ice will not raise the sea level four feet. Do you have any idea how much water that is?

[Westside Steve]

Every time MMGW is discussed on this forum Cal goes off about the rainforests and claims the libs don't care about it. Every time, someone points out that we all agree it's a problem and nobody brings it up because it isn't a point of contention. So just save your response to a text file so you can copy and paste it three weeks from now when we all have this conversation again lol.

As he should. Its important as well. And yes I think it's largely overlooked especially by who some might call liberals.

Because its hard to find an angle to blame the United States. Or think of a way that it might be helped by jacking up our taxes.

 

But if you really care about the environment the ecosystem is pretty important. It's been said that a couple hundred years ago a squirrel could go from Maine to California and never touch the ground. I'm not sure that's true but the more we clear the planet. .....

 

WSS

[Browns149]

As he should. Its important as well. And yes I think it's largely overlooked especially by who some might call liberals.

Because its hard to find an angle to blame the United States. Or think of a way that it might be helped by jacking up our taxes.

 

But if you really care about the environment the ecosystem is pretty important. It's been said that a couple hundred years ago a squirrel could go from Maine to California and never touch the ground. I'm not sure that's true but the more we clear the planet. .....

 

WSS

s squirrel could still do that. He would just have to stay on the power lines.

[calfoxwc]

libs do care about the rainforests?

 

Odd, not one has ever brought it up when whining about the need

for more taxes to help dems buy votes.....

 

Not once, to my recollection.

 

No money in rainforests alarm. Can't tax and fine the Americans with money over that...

 

figures.

[MLD Woody]

I'll also bring up the point fresh water is important.

 

WHY DO NO CONSERVATIVES ON THIS BOARD EVER TALK ABOUT OUR NEED FOR FRESH WATER! DON'T THEY UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT IT IS! OF COURSE NOT BECAUSE THE LARGE CORPORATIONS THAT BOUGHT THEIR VOTE WON'T LET THEM TALK ABOUT IT! DIRTY CONSERVATIVE! TALK ABOUT OUR LIMITED SUPPLY OF FRESH WATER AND OUR NEED TO PRESERVE IT!!!!!

 

 

....