India Reopens 100 Coal Mines

[Cardinal Carminative]

Still nothing of substance come from you thus you wasted your time and as usual like all warmist/alarmists ignores the chart.

I pointed out your failure with basic math. So now everyone knows you don't know what you're talking about here.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I pointed out your failure with basic math. So now everyone knows you don't know what you're talking about here.

You didn't post ANY math at all in the thread in reply to my posts.



You also like ALL warmist/alarmists does is ignore the CO2 doubling chart that shows how trivial warm forcing effect it has and have ignored how little CO2 warm forcing effect it has by Molecule alone.

Many see your chronic avoidance as a sign that you can't address it.

 

[Weatherman2020]

And even with all those beer coasters I doubt you have spent as much time studying coal as I have.

Don’t worry. Maybe one day you too can have 2 private jets, 4 mansions, 4 yachts, and a fleet of SUV’s like climate czar Kerry.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I've spent more time with coal and far more intimately than you have.

Try spending a couple years with a petrographic scope doing vitrinite reflectance measurements.

Meanwhile this snob doesn't know how to effectively debate on the topic because he is too busy being an asshole to do it.

Coal use is in a comeback which is why I posted this information while your dismissive snobbiness doesn't address WHY India, China and other countries are doing it.

Coal is a highly successful producer of electric power that can run 24/7 for long periods of time easily.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You didn't post ANY math at all in the thread in reply to my posts.



You also like ALL warmist/alarmists does is ignore the CO2 doubling chart that shows how trivial warm forcing effect it has and have ignored how little CO2 warm forcing effect it has by Molecule alone.

Many see your chronic avoidance as a sign that you can't address it.

Lol. You don’t even understand the mathi did post. Wow.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

if energy ecoloony hating assholes like you stop messing with rational energy decisions we would have a more rapid transition to Nuclear, Thorium and NG away from Coal and Oil but now with that ecoloony resistance has caused India and China to back away from the unsustainable low mass crap back towards high mass energy production decisions of Coal and Gas.

Wow, you're totally winning the argument against the imaginary me you've constructed. Congratulations. Only asshole around here is you fabricating positions of other posters. I'm opposed to nuclear? Go show it. Oh wait, you can't.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Lol. You don’t even understand the mathi did post. Wow.

You say this twice yet you don't tell me where it is.

You suck at this.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Wow, you're totally winning the argument against the imaginary me you've constructed. Congratulations. Only asshole around here is you fabricating positions of other posters. I'm opposed to nuclear? Go show it. Oh wait, you can't.

Well then I am mistaken about your Nuclear position if that is true.

But my main point stands.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You say this twice yet you don't tell me where it is.

You suck at this.

When I said the rf for CO2 was logarithmic with respect to concentration NOT time, that was a mathematical statement.

I think it fascinating that you are so uneducated in this area that you don't even know what people are talking about.

WOW!

 

[Sunsettommy]

When I said the rf for CO2 was logarithmic with respect to concentration NOT time, that was a mathematical statement.

I think it fascinating that you are so uneducated in this area that you don't even know what people are talking about.

WOW!

Which I already answered at post 38 you completely ignored and at post 650 in the other thread you didn't address.

You seem to be afraid of making a simple counterpoint to them just belittle which means you didn't challenge anything.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Which I already answered at post 38 you completely ignored and at post 650 in the other thread you didn't address.

You seem to be afraid of making a simple counterpoint to them just belittle which means you didn't challenge anything.

Ah hahahahahahahahahaha! You're hilarious!

You claimed it was logarithmic with regards to time, I corrected you then you posted something that said EXACTLY WHAT I SAID TO CORRECT YOU.

What is your problem? Did you suffer some sort of traumatic brain injury? If so I'm really sorry.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Ah hahahahahahahahahaha! You're hilarious!

You claimed it was logarithmic with regards to time, I corrected you then you posted something that said EXACTLY WHAT I SAID TO CORRECT YOU.

What is your problem? Did you suffer some sort of traumatic brain injury? If so I'm really sorry.

See you still can't disprove either post I gave you to challenge you instead just scream with a lot of insults and no substance because you don't have anything against them.

You still show no indication on how small the CO2 warm forcing really is that diminishes over with additional CO2 emissions to the atmosphere.

There is a time relationship but you are too stupid to see it which is why nobody is supporting you here because they know it exist.

My two posts remains UNCHALLENGED.

Since you don't even minimally try to debate and scream insults in place of counterpoints over and over which I actually wanted to see because I can learn something but nah you don't even try, you are now on IGNORE.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

See you still can't disprove either post I gave you to challenge you instead just scream with a lot of insults and no substance because you don't have anything against them.

You still show no indication on how small the CO2 warm forcing really is that diminishes over with additional CO2 emissions to the atmosphere.

There is a time relationship but you are too stupid to see it which is why nobody is supporting you here because they know it exist.

My two posts remains UNCHALLENGED.

Since you don't even minimally try to debate and scream insults in place of counterpoints over and over which I actually wanted to see because I can learn something but nah you don't even try, you are now on IGNORE.

Are you still on about this?

LOL.

The guy who thinks there's a time-term in the RF calculation for CO2. LOL. You know you can just post the equation and show me where "time" is in the equation. But that would require you to know what an EQUATION is, what a "logarithmic function" is and how to find ANY of those things.

You can't . Which is kind of sad, but not surprising.

You simply don't understand even the basic math behind this stuff. Wow. I'm sorry but this is just sad.

 

[ding]

Is raising people out of poverty something that is important to you? Or are you simply disingenuously leveraging something that the Left cares about to score points against a topic you disagree with?

Would you like to live in poverty? I know I wouldn’t.

You guys are trying to make a moral argument but you are making the wrong moral argument.

Whether I agree or disagree with the topic is irrelevant. Compared to high energy density fossil fuels low energy density technologies aren’t effective or practical especially in the poorer regions.

 

[ding]

If you want to raise temporarily the unsustainable standard of living and have it ultimately lowered we should burn more fossil fuels, not less.

The poorer regions see it differently.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Would you like to live in poverty? I know I wouldn’t.

And continuing with fossil fuels will only improve their lives for a short while. A bigger bill will come due. Whether YOU believe it or not.

You guys are trying to make a moral argument but you are making the wrong moral argument.

No, you are on the wrong side here. You want immediate growth "damn the consequences" and that isn't healthy.

That won't help people in the long run. As I suspect you really don't much care either way about the poor people in developing countries, but you know you can score points on the "left" because they presumably do.

But what you miss is your "solution" is like giving Sid Vicious a hit of heroin because he's jonesing really badly.

Whether I agree or disagree with the topic is irrelevant. Compared to high energy density fossil fuels low energy density technologies aren’t effective or practical especially in the poorer regions.

Your answer seems to ALWAYS BE "DO NOT INVENT OR DEVELOP THE FUTURE!"

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

The poorer regions see it differently.

Methinks YOU don't want anything to impact YOUR daily life but you know that a bloated, retired overpaid fake engineer won't get any sympathy so you leverage "the poorer regions" as if you give a flip.

If you actually DO care what do you think YOUR OIL COMPANIES should do about the pollution they left in Nigeria?

Exploration for oil was mostly to feed the desires of the wealthy first world at massive expense to the "poorer regions". But you got your $$$ so you are tapped out and can now sit in the cheap seats and demand OTHER PEOPLE care about the poorer regions in order to score cheap political points when in reality it is your fear that YOUR FIRST WORLD RICH ASS will have to adapt to something.

 

[ding]

And continuing with fossil fuels will only improve their lives for a short while. A bigger bill will come due. Whether YOU believe it or not.

Says the person whose life has already been enriched because of fossil fuels.

 

[ding]

No, you are on the wrong side here. You want immediate growth "damn the consequences" and that isn't healthy.

Of course you are making a moral argument.

 

[ding]

That won't help people in the long run. As I suspect you really don't much care either way about the poor people in developing countries, but you know you can score points on the "left" because they presumably do.

Pretty sure they just want to stop living in poverty.