Discussion of Robin Garr's Coals review

[Robin Garr]

By the way, none of this climate change debate should be taken as critical of Coals' delicious use of clean-burning anthracite in tiny quantities. In the overall scheme of things, LG&E's coal-burning facilities just downwind are probably of considerably more concern ...

This is not true. I'm I the only one who remembers the "global freezing" predictions from the 70's and early 80's?

Was that ever mainstream? I think you'll find that "global warming" as a serious hypothesis goes back at least to the early postwar era. It was certainly a topic of discussion during the International Geophysical Year in 1958 and the first Earth Day in ... 1960?

Yes it was mainstream. It was so mainstream that some of the "scientists" trying to convince us of global freezing, are today trying to convince us with equal ferocity about global warming.

Part of the problem is that "warming" invites ill-informed jokes when people confuse overall trends with local phenomena. "Chaotic global climate change" probably more accurately reflects what we're seeing over the past few decades.

Yes. The story keeps changing because the global warming theories keep diverging from the facts. The only thing that doesn't change is the "need" for government take over to fix whatever needs fixing, even if what needs fixing is not understood.

Sure, maybe we don't know enough to prove it, but that sounds to me an awful lot like fundies chanting "EE-volution is only a theory."

Yeah, except that there's more evidence of evolution than global warming. Like WAAAAAAAY more evidence. And it doesn't depend on computer models that can be tweaked to say whatever the programmer wants them to say. And the "fundies" and "evolutionists" are not trying to completely remake our system of economics under UN authority. So, the analogy isn't apt, other than in the sense of wanting to be seen standing with the cool kids instead of the "fundies".

With one serious study recently suggesting that the tipping point for atmospheric CO2 could come as soon as 2020, the time for delay and continued debate is past.

I wouldn't worry about that. The CO2 levels have historically been much higher in the past, before humans even existed. In that time, the Earth was much more verdant and fertile, probably because CO2 is plant food, not pollution.

Yes, July was hot, but this summer so far is something like the 38th hottest on record. With August forecast to be cooler than average for most of the US, it may end up being 40th, 45th, something like that. Arctic ice levels aren't dropping precipitously like they were supposed to, polar bears aren't drowning like they were supposed to be, deep oceans aren't warming like they were supposed to, more heat is being lost into space than was previously thought to be the case...

The argument for delay is a very basic one that's used in the insurance industry all the time: if the cost to insure something against catastrophe is bigger than the cost of dealing with the consequences, you don't insure. Given that there is zero agreement in the scientific community about how much warming we can expect (estimates range from 1 to 7 degrees C over the next few decades) and about how much of that warming we'd be able to avoid even with massive expenditures on green technology (the most optimistic estimates I've seen amount to a fraction of 1 degree C), the smart option is to not wreck the global economy and deal with climate change as it happens, if it happens.

Yes, July was hotter. My electric bill for July of this year was almost $80 more than July of last year!!!

The irony of using evolution as a comparison is in that those who "believe" in global warming are much akin to those who "believe" in creationism. Both views are based on more on faith than reason. Global warming adherants do have a religious zeal to their arguments.

The deniers of global warming are missing one important fact.

The average temperature of the earth (both air and water) has risen every decade for the past 100 years and the rate of increase has doubled over that time. I don't care if this is the 5th or 500th hottest summer on record in Louisville Ky. The earth is getting warmer. That is an indisputable proven FACT. Thermometers don't lie.

You can spend the rest of your life arguing WHY the temperature is going up (natural causes, cycles, human intervention etc. etc.) but to say it isn't happening means you're either not paying attention or you're just plain old crazy stupid.

I won't judge which.

climate change isn't really even a debate anymore in scientific communities as it was a decade ago.
it's happening and all the denial in the world won't change that. i'm not saying we should cripple the economy with knee-jerk reactions, but at least face the truth and maybe start making some changes?

By the way, none of this climate change debate should be taken as critical of Coals' delicious use of clean-burning anthracite in tiny quantities. In the overall scheme of things, LG&E's coal-burning facilities just downwind are probably of considerably more concern ...

agreed. sorry to hijack this thread! coal just happens to be one of my buzz words.lol.

Taking the family for lunch again today!

The deniers of global warming are missing one important fact.

The average temperature of the earth (both air and water) has risen every decade for the past 100 years and the rate of increase has doubled over that time. I don't care if this is the 5th or 500th hottest summer on record in Louisville Ky. The earth is getting warmer. That is an indisputable proven FACT. Thermometers don't lie.

You can spend the rest of your life arguing WHY the temperature is going up (natural causes, cycles, human intervention etc. etc.) but to say it isn't happening means you're either not paying attention or you're just plain old crazy stupid.

I won't judge which.

This is wrong. There was significant cooling in the first half of the 20th century, again in the seventies and early eighties. And actually, the temperature hasn't been increasing according to satellite measurements ( the most accurate ones) over the last 10 years. That's what temperatures seem to do, they go up and down.

It's not that thermometers don't lie, it's that the folks just don't let the thermometers speak for themselves, they've got to go back and apply all these adjustments which always seem to increase the reported temperatures, strangely enough.

climate change isn't really even a debate anymore in scientific communities as it was a decade ago.
it's happening and all the denial in the world won't change that. i'm not saying we should cripple the economy with knee-jerk reactions, but at least face the truth and maybe start making some changes?

This is true if you only listen to Al Gore. If you read more widely, you would realize that there really is a vigorous debate on this subject.

climate change isn't really even a debate anymore in scientific communities as it was a decade ago.
it's happening and all the denial in the world won't change that. i'm not saying we should cripple the economy with knee-jerk reactions, but at least face the truth and maybe start making some changes?

This is true if you only listen to Al Gore. If you read more widely, you would realize that there really is a vigorous debate on this subject.

There is a vigorous debate: between the scientific community and those who, for ideological reasons, don't want to believe the scientific community. All scientists don't agree on anything, but the conclusion that human beings are contributing to global warming is as non-controversial in the scientific community as is natural selection (whoops!). You can find scientists who disagree, but they are, as the saying goes, the exceptions that prove the rule.

BTW, I would love to lower our dependence on coal, but I can't figure restaurant usage is a big factor.

BTW, I would love to lower our dependence on coal, but I can't figure restaurant usage is a big factor.

I really don't understand people who want to lower our dependence on coal. In the past it had a bad image for a reason but new coal fired plants are just as clean as any other fossil fuel generating facility. The only other source of fuel for large facilities is nuclear which is another issue completely.

Coal is a readily available resource in America whose use would greatly reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. It also is available at a reasonable price that is fairly stable compared to other sources of energy. Coal gasification, a technology that has actually been around since WWII can produce large quantities of fuel for automobiles. Although using the electricity produced by coal to generate hydrogen to be used in fuel cells is a much cleaner way to fuel the automotive industry.

Why should we try to reduce our dependence on America's fuel?

There is a vigorous debate: between the scientific community and those who, for ideological reasons, don't want to believe the scientific community.

This is typical. Everyone who disagrees with you is doing for "ideological" reasons. There can not be different interpretations of the data. There can not be different data to evaluate. It's all "ideological".

All scientists don't agree on anything, but the conclusion that human beings are contributing to global warming is as non-controversial in the scientific community as is natural selection (whoops!). You can find scientists who disagree, but they are, as the saying goes, the exceptions that prove the rule.

This is wrong. It's just another way of trying to marginalize those with whom you disagree. I thought the debate was over 5 years ago? Seems like that was a mistake then. Just like it's a mistake now.

BTW, I would love to lower our dependence on coal, but I can't figure restaurant usage is a big factor.

Yeah, for some reason, a lot of folks seem to prefer buying energy from despotic, terrorist supporting regimes. With coal, we keep the money in the country and out of the hands of despots; and plus, we provide jobs to many Americans.

BTW, I would love to lower our dependence on coal, but I can't figure restaurant usage is a big factor.

I really don't understand people who want to lower our dependence on coal. In the past it had a bad image for a reason but new coal fired plants are just as clean as any other fossil fuel generating facility. The only other source of fuel for large facilities is nuclear which is another issue completely.

Coal is a readily available resource in America whose use would greatly reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. It also is available at a reasonable price that is fairly stable compared to other sources of energy. Coal gasification, a technology that has actually been around since WWII can produce large quantities of fuel for automobiles. Although using the electricity produced by coal to generate hydrogen to be used in fuel cells is a much cleaner way to fuel the automotive industry.

Why should we try to reduce our dependence on America's fuel?

to state that coal is clean is nothing short of delusional and probably derived from the coal industry's multi million dollar add campaign to convince america that coal hurts no one. clean coal is the biggest oxy-moron ever. just off of cane run road there is a dump that contains hundreds of thousands of gallons of coal ash. coal ash that is a proven carcinogen and is just one mud walled failure away from flooding hundreds of homes with toxic cancer causing chemicals.no matter how "clean" you think a coal plant is, it still produces massive amounts of coal ash. ask residents in prp how "clean" coal is after last months blasting of coal ash into thier yards by lg&e
.
what foreign energy to power our homes are you referring to? oil? last i checked, there were no oil fueled power plants. unless you have a coal powered car, i really don't see your point.