The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > War on coal driven by deceptive language > Comments

War on coal driven by deceptive language : Comments

By Tom Harris, published 6/6/2014

Now language tricks are being used to justify the unjustifiable in the Obama administration's war on coal, America's least expensive and most abundant energy source.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
...We live in a world driven by ideology …is that alas?
Posted by diver dan, Friday, 6 June 2014 9:16:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a silly and pointless article.
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 6 June 2014 11:03:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thorium is more abundant and less expensive?
I mean, we have enough to power the world for 700 years.
Even less expensive again and endlessly sustainable, is biogas, made from currently wasted waste.
We pump ours out to sea, as millions of annual tons, were it does nothing but harm to the marine environment!
I mean, every nuclear family produces enough waste, to permanently power their homes 24/7.
Including food scraps in the smell free digester process, will create a salable energy surplus. A bonus, is endless free hot water.
And changing the methane powered combustion engine, [20-40% energy coefficient,] for super silent ceramic fuel cells, with an energy coefficient of 80%, will at the very least double the energy output.
And still provide endless free hot water!
There'd be far fewer problems for the Ukraine, if we could just get it and Europe, operating on poo power!
As for coal, well we can still use as much we want, for power and steel making, if only we would grow enough companion algae, to more than offset any emission.
Luckily, some algae are up to 60% oil and the most usable, produce naturally occurring diesel and jet fuel. And, under optimized conditions, they'll double their growth and oil production capacity, every 24 hours
So, it's not a cost burden, but an additional source of revenue!
The waste from this oil extraction, may be useful as animal fodder, or material eminently suitable for food free ethanol production.
A third source of revenue! The sludge from this third process, fine fertilizer.
A forth source of additional revenue!
Traditional nuclear power stations cost 2.5 times more to build, than coal fired ones!
And nuclear doesn't produce any usable Co2 emission, that can with a modest additional outlay, force feed oil producing algae farms as well!
There is always an element of advantage in every seeming disadvantage, but you will never ever see it, with tunnel vision, or with the ideological blinkers on.
So where's the war!?
What is wrong with you people!? Don't you like money!?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 6 June 2014 11:21:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Harris presents us with the view that concern over carbon emissions are confusing and unfounded. They may be – to him and others. When used in the context of atmospheric emissions, carbon refers to greenhouse gases CO2 and CH4 both of which result from the production and combustion of coal. Coal production and combustion are increasing with the result that average global temperature is rising and producing a more extreme climate.

The science on how these gases absorb and re-radiate infra-red light causing a rise in temperature has been well understood for over a century - though clearly not to Mr Harris.
Posted by Agnostic of Mittagong, Friday, 6 June 2014 11:48:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agnostic would you please point to somewhere, other than in a computer, that the temperature has increased. Some nice uncorrected data will do, rather than the model projections that saw the ship of fools locked in the ice that didn't exist.

If you look at the satellite data, the only data not corrupted by "corrections" we see the average temperature has in fact reduced in the last 17 years. That is getting pretty close to the length of time the scam of global warming is based on.

How long will it take for academia to get off the gravy train, & repair the rails.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 6 June 2014 12:06:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Tom, for a timely article.
There has been no global warming for 19 years. The assertion that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases global temperature is proven by observation to be false, and targeting human emissions baseless.

Obama is backing a fraudulent assertion, made without any scientific basis, so he has no alternative but to lie. Referring to carbon as “pollution” is particularly disgraceful, but a fraud-promoter cannot be expected to trouble himself with niceties.

It will be interesting to see how long the remnants of the AGW fraud will be promoted by the fraud backers before it expires completely
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 6 June 2014 2:56:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While it is true that language can be used to distort and demonise, I don't think using "carbon" as shorthand for "carbon dioxide" has any sinister ulterior motive. It is just convenient.
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 6 June 2014 3:19:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why bother to publish this nonsense?

It is a complete waste of time arguing with some people and this author appears to be one such. It takes a certain kind of determination to intentionally ignore the flood of evidence that demonstrates the validity and effects of global heating due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions and to ignore the effects of reducing alkalinity of the oceans on all forms of aquatic life that depend on calcium compounds either as bones or shells. It takes a very thick skin to announce that to the world, ie the real world, where climate change is real, observable and unavoidable.

However, as with many discussions, both sides cannot be correct. The one with the best argument and strongest facts and strongest grip on reality will, in the end, win out.

Tough luck, Tom Harris. You are spruiking for the losing team, but we both know that you won't listen to opinion or reason to the contrary.
Posted by JohnBennetts, Friday, 6 June 2014 9:18:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes , John Bennetts, this flood of evidence, to which you refer, has been examined and so far, despite the outlay of billions, and a huge scientific effort there has been no scientific demonstration of a measurable effect of human emissions on climate. Assertion of anthropogenic global warming is fraudulent.

Unless you are able to refer us to science which shows any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, John, you are a fraud-backer, in the same category as the IPCC, or Michael Mann, of hockey stick infamy.
There is peer reviewed science in this regard:
. Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.
The research, by Chris de Freitas, a climate scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University), finds that the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a key indicator of global atmospheric temperatures seven months later. As an additional influence, intermittent volcanic activity injects cooling aerosols into the atmosphere and produces significant cooling.”
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18243
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 6 June 2014 11:43:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo Lane, I propose we wait until more irrefutable evidence is in!
Say like a 3 metre average rise in ocean levels, and given trends, before the turn of the century?
One hopes that you and your ilk; and their kids, will live to see the day, and be the ones made to pay, to fix it!
Say with a 90%+ tax on every dollar of income, from every citizen; and a complete scrapping of all welfare, which will no longer be affordable, given a 3 metre rise in sea levels, will wipe out around 70% of our domestic economy!
So continue to cheery pick and or, refute credible cogent evidence, and unexamined!
It seems the best way to achieve that, is to bury your head somewhere warm and comfortable.
Take care not to hurt your ears!
Cheers Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Saturday, 7 June 2014 10:18:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhosty,you choose to back the fraud of AGW, to the detriment of society. A bad choice, qualifying you for the Hall of Shame, which Nigel Calder says awaits fraud-backers. Fraud backing is based on ignorance or dishonesty. You choose to ignore the science, so I suppose your basis is ignorance.As Nigel Calder says::“ so many eminent folk from science, politics, industry, finance, the media and the arts to be taken in by man-made climate catastrophe. (In London, for example, from the Royal Society to the National Theatre.) Sadly for them, in the past ten years they’ve crowded with their warmist badges into a Hall of Shame, like bankers before the crash”
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/

There is no science which demonstrates a measurable effect of human emissions on climate. The effect is not measurable, because it is trivial and insignificant. To represent otherwise is fraudulent.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 7 June 2014 11:08:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nothing will convince those who are willingly blind.
I doubt that water lapping at their feet would convince them.
As with all ideologues their dogma has them by the balls and if reality does not fit the dogma then reality must be at fault and to hell with logic and reason. Stupid people best avoided.
Posted by mikk, Saturday, 7 June 2014 11:13:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tom, you didn't mention that President Obama's view on climate change would have been reinforced by the NCA document published last month with over 3,000 references supporting it. Please debunk the paper and references.
Lawrence Krauss, a physicist has just reaffirmed that anthropogenic climate change is occurring on Q&A on Monday night. You would expect a physicist to know a bit more about physics than other professionals.
Whether there is a 97% consensus of scientists who believe in climate change is merely academic, though there has been more than one study to make that suggestion.
It is merely academic on the basis of what is actually happening:
What has caused the bodies of Japanese servicemen to to be washed out to sea in the Marshall Islands, reported June 2014?
Why has the fire season been coming earlier and earlier in Siberia, a wild fire was recorded in April 2014?
What about wildfires in Norway in January 2014?
Can you explain Tom, how water the Inuit had been drinking in Northern Canadas was found to have pathogens (I do have references for these points, a National Geographic reference in this case).
Professor Lesack(2014) in studying the McKenzie River found that temperatures had increased over several decades by 3.2C in Spring, and 5.3C in Winter. Are you suggesting that his study is wrong?
Erosion of coastlines in Alaska no longer protected by ice is occurring; why?
Inuit can no longer travel safely into many areas, why?
Hunting is becoming difficult for the Inuit, why?
Can you explain Tom why fish are being caught off Greenland that are normally caught further South in warmer waters?
Tom you might like to also explain why small ponds/lakes and small shrubs are beginning to form on tundra?
Why does thermokarst failure occur? What happened to the Richardson Highway in Alaska, was that a case of thermokarst failure?
Why is it that we hear that temperatures have stopped increasing when this decade a number of records have been broken?
continued
Posted by ant, Sunday, 8 June 2014 8:50:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued
You might like to reflect on why in the main glaciers are retreating?
Why is it necessary for hydrology to be studied in the Andes?
What illnesses have been moving North and South from tropical and semi tropical areas?
Tom, you belong to the International Climate Science Coalition, so you should be able to easily answer all of these questions.
Posted by ant, Sunday, 8 June 2014 8:51:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The IPCC 5th Assessment Report - Climate Change 2013 includes a condensed summary for policymakers. Buried in the summary is this statement: "The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that
agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed
trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012)".

The statement is essentially saying the warming trend was aligned with the simulated model projections up until 1998 and from then on (1998 + 15 years = 2013) the reality has been quite different.

The IPCC of course cannot rejoice in the observed change or it will be out of business; so the changes are called an anomaly and written off as an inconvenient truth.
Posted by sbr108, Monday, 9 June 2014 9:23:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sbr108, glaciologist complain that computer models are not keeping up with what is happening in the Arctic region. In 2014 there have been huge variations in temperatures from one week to the next reported in parts of Alaska and Greenland; in other words anomalous.
Posted by ant, Monday, 9 June 2014 11:28:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ant - my point is that when you have a trend the deviates from your computer model for 15 years, surely a new trend has emerged. When a change takes place that moves completely away from your model and projections and continues for 15 years, you can't simply write it off as a short term anomaly. Your forward projections are out the window.

The IPCC can't say a new trend has emerged or it negates its whole purpose for existing and that of the new religious faithful.
Posted by sbr108, Monday, 9 June 2014 12:32:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ahhh, still arguing about the wrong problem ?
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 9 June 2014 4:09:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sbr108, in the scheme of things it is more of an academic argument about whether computer models are right or not. As indicated in previous posts we are seeing climate change in action. Nobody has really taken up arguments that show that I'm wrong about the pragmatics of what is happening. If I was commenting on one or two incidents it would be fair to say that climate change is not shown; but there are several which have been developing over a number of years.
The droughts happening in the Amazon in 2005 and 2010 should have been a wake up call.
Even cohenite elsewhere has stated that climate change is happening but caused by the sun. If that were true (references show its not the case) then adaptation needs to begin straight away.
Posted by ant, Monday, 9 June 2014 4:22:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just as well we didn't have climate scientists, [or shonks for short], when the Sahara turned from jungle to desert, or they would have been blaming us then too.

I am just so over garbage bull dust ant. Of course climate changes, that's why the place is not a snow ball. I guess we did that too.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 9 June 2014 5:20:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen stated "... I am just so over garbage bull dust ant."
Yes, Hasbeen, it is very difficult to argue against what is actually happening.
Lord Deben has identified the flooding in Britain earlier this year with anthropogenic climate change. At the same time in the US they were having drought, wildfires, extreme cold and unusual warmth depending on the region. There was a spike in heat stroke deaths in Australia.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/05/uk-floods-could-make-climate-change-action-more-likely-says-lord-deben
Posted by ant, Monday, 9 June 2014 6:28:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Come on ant, for gods sake. Was it people driving SUVs that turned the Sahara from jungle to desert, or lake Mungo from aboriginal paradise to desert?

Do try to get real.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 9 June 2014 8:52:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen, in everything I have written on On Line Opinion I haven't mentioned SUVs once.
Just suggesting somebody might be wrong is a non response, you need to provide evidence.
For example, you need to be able to give a detailed reason why thermokarst failure is not happening. Or, be able to show that the growth of shrubbery and formation of ponds and small lakes are not forming in tundra areas.
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 10 June 2014 7:27:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy