View Full Version : Dear leader vows to bankrupt Carter energy plan!

06-11-2011, 01:35 PM
DEAR LEADER PROMISES TO BANKRUPT THE US COAL INDUSTRY! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ&eurl=http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/showthread.php?t=39989)

06-11-2011, 01:58 PM
I appreciate that the link provided enough of Obama's statement to actually understand what he said (not that you did understand it, but there's always an exception I suppose).

So what did he say about existing coal plants? Exactly nothing. He referred to the situation of a new coal plant's creation, if he succeeded in putting a highly aggressive cap and trade system in place (which passed the House, but now doesn't exist since the House went into a new session, and which the Senate killed by inaction).

This would not have bankrupted the US coal industry, even had it been put in place, which it wasn't, and won't, apparently.

Yes, it DID contradict a part of Carter's energy independence plans (although not by 'bankrupting' a company that did it, more by preventing a company from even contemplating it), but your internal linked title, bankrupting the coal industry, isn't accurate.

There was no thought of a major problem as to global warming at the time Carter made his proposal, and this is the reason for the shift in emphasis away from coal, unless coal-electric generation can be made far cleaner as to CO2 emissions.

06-11-2011, 02:18 PM
You really are naive about the history of climate change scares aren't you.

Although the GW scare wasn't in style in 1976, the GC scare was ... and oddly enough it was claimed to be cause by much the same things as are now blamed for GW.

I didn't agree with Jimmuh much by the end, although I did vote for him in 1976 ... but I do commend him for not getting sucked into the climate change scare tactics.

Actually, every time we have some back to back warm years we have GW scares ... and a couple cold years always brings out the GC scares. There is nothing new here and it has been going on for well over a century.

The truth be told, climate change is unstoppable and completely normal. The Oit's climate has went up and down countless times over the millennia.

Without googling ... do you know when the most recent ice age ended?

06-11-2011, 07:02 PM
I'd guess about 15,000 years ago, but admit I do not really know.

Oddly, perhaps getting the air a lot sootier might do the trick to slow down AGW. Particulate matter, as that thrown up during large scale volcanic eruptions, greatly cools things off via decreased albedo of the atmosphere.

I think it was Krakatoa's eruption that created a 'year without summer,' as global temps plummeted in its aftermath.

06-11-2011, 07:06 PM
Peak GLACIATION was about 18,000 years ago. The glaciation ended maybe 12,500 to 10,000 years ago, but we are STILL in an ice age, I have now read. Interesting.

06-11-2011, 08:12 PM
Kudos for learning.

I used to believe the same thing as you had.

Now, if we began coming out of the last mini ice age 160 years ago, why would anyone be surprised that temps have risen?

This is one of the great defects in the Goremon religion, and it is why the famous "HOCKEY STICK" was found to be a fraud ... they eliminated the medieval warming period.

Others are that the IPCC fudged the CO2 rise ... among many other things they fudged.

06-11-2011, 08:22 PM
To save you the trouble of asking why I say the above:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While Antarctic ice core records supposedly 'prove' a significant increase in CO2 in this period, there are serious problems with this data. Besides the fact that ice bubbles take about 80 years to form and so cannot give a single year accurate measure, the continual freezing, refreezing and pressurization of ice columns may greatly alter the original composition of the air trapped in the bubbles. Nevertheless, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and many others have accepted as meaningful the ice core results that indicate a pre-industrial CO2 level of 280 parts per million (ppm), in comparison with today's 385 ppm.

The most accurate way to determine the atmosphere's average CO2 content is to simply conduct a direct chemical analysis at many different places and times. F<span style='font-size: 11pt'>ortunately, there are more than 90,000 direct measurements by chemical methods between 1857 and 1957.</span> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>However, in what appears to be a case of 'cherry-picking' data to fit a pre-determined conclusion, only the lower level CO2 data were included when the pre-industrial average was calculated.</span> <span style='font-size: 11pt'> This is the average that was used to supposedly 'validate' the long term ice core records on which Al Gore and others depend.</span> ...

In a new scientific paper in the journal Energy and Environment, German researcher Ernst-Georg Beck, shows that<span style='font-size: 14pt'> the pre-industrial level is some 50 ppm higher than the level used by computer models that produce all future climate predictions. Completely at odds with the smoothly increasing levels found in the ice core records, Beck concludes, "Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated, exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942, the latter showing more than 400 ppm."</span></div></div>

OOPSY! (http://newsbusters.org/node/12737)

06-12-2011, 12:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually, every time we have some back to back warm years we have GW scares ... <u>and a couple cold years always brings out the GC scares.</u></div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> There is nothing new here and it has been going on for well <u>over a century.</u> </div></div>

What kind of computers were they using in 1911?

More has changed in the last 100 years than in the previous 400,000 years.


According to that graph, in the last 400,000 years co2 levels have never been higher than now. Care to explain that?
Care to explain that its just by coincidence,[ a 40,000 to 1 shot ],that this rapid rise occured just when mankind became a major pollutant?


06-12-2011, 04:01 AM
Already explained in the above data which you didn't read.

Even assuming your suspect data was correct ... which is quite a stretch based on the available info ... your graph pimps you the way most scaremongers pip the naive.

It shows a graph that doesn't start at zero, so that a mild increase gives the visual impression of a monstrous one.

To finally slay your mythology, during Oit's history it has been cooler than now when CO2 was higher and warmer when CO2 was lower.

BTW ... are you aware that when testifying before congress, Saint Albert of Green Acres ... Peace Prize be upon him ... admitted there was no real correlation between CO2 and temperature increase?

06-12-2011, 05:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Already explained in the above data which you didn't read.</div></div>

Oh , I forgot, its a huge left Wing conspiracy involving 100,000 scientists and all the leaders of the free world.

Q................Be specific.....no chance. ie..........the usual crap.

06-12-2011, 05:32 AM
I can lead you to knowledge, I can't make you think.