More record temps

[gslack]

Hey, dumbass: HALF the electricity in America comes from burning coal. All your leftist wet dream fantasies about alternative sources are just that: Fantasies. You have NOTHING that is practical, economical, and scalable. NOTHING.

Your unicorns farting rainbows making this a perfect coal-free world just isn't ever going to happen.

Welcome to reality. I know you don't recognize it.

Take away all the tax money we are spending to subsidize coal and make those who use it pay the cost of cleaning up the mess created burning their product, and suddenly nearly every alternative energy source is more than competitive. The only way coal and oil can compete in the market is where the market has failed to include true and actual costs of use and production and depends upon tax payer money to generate private sales and profits. Are you a free-market capitalist or aren't you?

ANY MONEY used to subsidize coal is done so due to environmental pressures from environmentalist groups and political nonsense.

Whats more coal subsidies would have to be pretty few and far between given that coal fired electricity is still the predominate way we get electricity. LOL, coal subsidies? Where? In Africa where the UN has them over a barrel and forces them to not use their coal?

You freaking eco-morons crack me up. You have half the information given to you from only the sources you are told to trust and then go off rambling about science and now coal subsidies...

 

[Trakar]

Hey, dumbass: HALF the electricity in America comes from burning coal. All your leftist wet dream fantasies about alternative sources are just that: Fantasies. You have NOTHING that is practical, economical, and scalable. NOTHING.

Your unicorns farting rainbows making this a perfect coal-free world just isn't ever going to happen.

Welcome to reality. I know you don't recognize it.

Take away all the tax money we are spending to subsidize coal and make those who use it pay the cost of cleaning up the mess created burning their product, and suddenly nearly every alternative energy source is more than competitive. The only way coal and oil can compete in the market is where the market has failed to include true and actual costs of use and production and depends upon tax payer money to generate private sales and profits. Are you a free-market capitalist or aren't you?

ANY MONEY used to subsidize coal is done so due to environmental pressures from environmentalist groups and political nonsense.

Can you provide compelling evidence in support of these assertions?

Whats more coal subsidies would have to be pretty few and far between given that coal fired electricity is still the predominate way we get electricity.

Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal
http://solar.gwu.edu/index_files/Resources_files/epstein_full cost of coal.pdf

Federal coal subsidies - SourceWatch

"Estimating U.S. Government Subsidies to Energy Sources: 2002-2008" http://www.elistore.org/Data/products/d19_07.pdf

Taxing Energy in the United States: Which Fuels Does the Tax Code Favor?
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/14601.pdf

National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 2009. "Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use," - https://download.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12794#toc [link to full document online simple go to bottom of page and read)

 

[ScienceRocks]

I agree---I don't trust the global temperature data very much outside of the USA and Europe. I find it hard to believe how much weight we put into it all the way back into the 19th century. I mean seriously---how can any sane person do so.

The error must be huge!

 

[FactFinder]

More record temps? Where in Texas? Is that the only place that counts?

 

[edthecynic]

I agree---I don't trust the global temperature data very much outside of the USA and Europe. I find it hard to believe how much weight we put into it all the way back into the 19th century. I mean seriously---how can any sane person do so.

The error must be huge!

They use satellites today for global temps and the satellites show warming every decade. And if you've ever seen a chart of global temps that go back to the 19th century, you would see that the margin of error is greater the farther back you go.

 

[gslack]

Take away all the tax money we are spending to subsidize coal and make those who use it pay the cost of cleaning up the mess created burning their product, and suddenly nearly every alternative energy source is more than competitive. The only way coal and oil can compete in the market is where the market has failed to include true and actual costs of use and production and depends upon tax payer money to generate private sales and profits. Are you a free-market capitalist or aren't you?

ANY MONEY used to subsidize coal is done so due to environmental pressures from environmentalist groups and political nonsense.

Can you provide compelling evidence in support of these assertions?

Whats more coal subsidies would have to be pretty few and far between given that coal fired electricity is still the predominate way we get electricity.

Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal
http://solar.gwu.edu/index_files/Resources_files/epstein_full cost of coal.pdf

Federal coal subsidies - SourceWatch

"Estimating U.S. Government Subsidies to Energy Sources: 2002-2008" http://www.elistore.org/Data/products/d19_07.pdf

Taxing Energy in the United States: Which Fuels Does the Tax Code Favor?
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/14601.pdf

National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 2009. "Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use," - https://download.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12794#toc [link to full document online simple go to bottom of page and read)

Boy oh boy did you put your foot in your mouth... I thought I smelled a clone, and here you go and pull a classic edthecynic...

Your question regarding any evidence I have of my assertions? Really? You want proof that environmentalists groups pressure the coal industry and do so through their government representation? Why Greenpeace and many others make it a selling point that they pressure energy companies and governments for alternative energy sources especially coal.

WOW... LOL

Next part... Exactly where in those links does it reliably show I was wrong in my contention? See your first mistake was citing sourcewatch. They have been caught lying on more than one occasion and I myself have nailed them lying in their articles in this very forum twice..

If you read it carefully you see they used misleading numbers and descriptions to convey a false assumption. And it is an assumption... They said...

"A 2010 report by Synapse Energy Economics, "Phasing Out Federal Subsidies for Coal" found the U.S. federal government provides billions of dollars in subsidies for the coal industry. The report was written by Lucy Johnston (Synapse Energy Economics), Lisa Hamilton (Rockefeller Family Fund), Mark Kresowik (Sierra Club), Tom Sanzillo (TR Rose Associates), and David Schlissel (Schlissel Technical Consulting) and was released on April 13, 2010.
The report identifies four major areas where taxpayer money continues to fund the construction, expansion, and life extension of coal-fired power plants, thus acting as federal coal subsidies:
Financial support for the World Bank and other international financial institutions that finance fossil fuel use and extraction;
U.S. Treasury Department’s backing of tax exempt bonds and Build America Bonds for use in the electric sector;
U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service provision of loans, loan guarantees and lien accommodations to power companies that are investing in new or existing coal plants;
Tax credits, loans and loan guarantees through the U.S. Department of Energy.
The World Bank and other International Finance Institutions
The United States is the largest contributor to the World Bank and a major supporter of other international financial institutions such as the Inter-American Development Bank and the African Development Bank. The United States also provides subsidized financing internationally through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the U.S. Export Import Bank. International financial institutions have helped finance 88 new and expanded coal plants since the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) came into effect in 1994, providing more than $137 billion in direct and indirect financial support for new coal-fired power plants.
Examples of World Bank Funding
Two recent examples of World Bank support for new coal plants include:
The 4,000 MW Tata Ultra Mega Power Project in India, with construction funded by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. It is scheduled to be completed by 2012.
South African power company Eskom’s proposed 4,800 MW Medupi Power Station, one of the largest in the world. The World Bank has approved more than $3 billion and the African Development Bank also provided more than $500 million in financial support for the project."

Why notice right away they start saying "coal" and then say "energy".. Yeah like the way they give tax breaks for solar power and wind?.. LOL nice bit of bullshit there.. Really..

Notice they blame the WORLD BANK? Yeah the UN's own bank there... And notice one of the names they got the data from was the Sierra CLub? Yeah one of them conspiracy theories huh....
Your nest link was to a PDF that tells us basically how expensive coal is to use.. Really? since we aren't privy to the context of this brief nor its source what can we make of it?

The funny thing about that paper is this line...
" Begin phasing out coal and phasing in cleanly
powered smart grids, using place-appropriate
alternative energy sources"

Do basically the entire paper told us coal is cost prohibitive to use as a fuel source, but they don't have any viable alternatives yet so they recommend we begin phasing out coal in favor for an alternative to be named later?

LOL PURE BULLSHIT FROM START TO FINISH!

Dude your third link was to the national academy of sciences download page and I do not care to spank your BS anymore..

You are an ed the eunuch clone. A lot of links to BS that talks in circles and says nothing of value, that have "science" written on it literally none in it. You cite sourcewatch and national academy of sciences... Could their two of you?

 

[gslack]

Coal mining is big business employing many many of the worlds population. Right now it is the most accessible, cost effective, and creates other jobs through its processing and mining.

Subsidies to coal are a direct result of environmental concerns and pressures from the UN, environmental groups and political nonsense. Africa is kept from mining its coal effectively due to these exact pressures from the UN.

Freaking eco-morons post nonsensical crap that tells them the UN's World Bank subsidizes coal and they say "see coal is expensive".. UNfreakingbeleivable.. THe UN subsidizes countries coal industries to minimize coal use just like the eco-morons want and then they try and use that against them to say coal is expensive.... WOW!

 

[daveman]

Hey, dumbass: HALF the electricity in America comes from burning coal. All your leftist wet dream fantasies about alternative sources are just that: Fantasies. You have NOTHING that is practical, economical, and scalable. NOTHING.

Your unicorns farting rainbows making this a perfect coal-free world just isn't ever going to happen.

Welcome to reality. I know you don't recognize it.

Take away all the tax money we are spending to subsidize coal and make those who use it pay the cost of cleaning up the mess created burning their product, and suddenly nearly every alternative energy source is more than competitive. The only way coal and oil can compete in the market is where the market has failed to include true and actual costs of use and production and depends upon tax payer money to generate private sales and profits. Are you a free-market capitalist or aren't you?

Your alternative sources are heavily subsidized. Yet you don't oppose that.

Did you have a point?

 

[Trakar]

Take away all the tax money we are spending to subsidize coal and make those who use it pay the cost of cleaning up the mess created burning their product, and suddenly nearly every alternative energy source is more than competitive. The only way coal and oil can compete in the market is where the market has failed to include true and actual costs of use and production and depends upon tax payer money to generate private sales and profits. Are you a free-market capitalist or aren't you?

Your alternative sources are heavily subsidized. Yet you don't oppose that.

Did you have a point?

Actually, I do oppose the government subsidization of any private profit-making venture; that practice undermines the basic economic principles of a free-market system, and is a corporate welfare system designed to create and sustain market failures. I consider short-term start-up assistance to be a bit more palatable but only barely so, and would prefer that ventures do their own financing rather than progressing to the point of having their record breaking profits being underwritten by the dole of taxpayer monies.

 

[Trakar]

Boy oh boy did you put your foot in your mouth... I thought I smelled a clone, and here you go and pull a classic edthecynic...


Your question regarding any evidence I have of my assertions? Really? You want proof that environmentalists groups pressure the coal industry and do so through their government representation? Why Greenpeace and many others make it a selling point that they pressure energy companies and governments for alternative energy sources especially coal.

WOW... LOL

Your exact statement was "ANY MONEY used to subsidize coal is done so due to environmental pressures from environmentalist groups and political nonsense." I asked you to provide compelling supportive evidence of this assertion,...making additional unsupported assertions does not amount to "supportive evidence" much less compelling supportive evidence.

Next part... Exactly where in those links does it reliably show I was wrong in my contention? See your first mistake was citing sourcewatch. They have been caught lying on more than one occasion and I myself have nailed them lying in their articles in this very forum twice..

My references were not about disproofing assertions you have yet to support (much less proof) they were simply references to research and data which indicates that coal subsidies are neither rare nor inconsiderable, despite another unsupported assertion you made that seems to either misunderstand or seriously misstate the issues at hand with regard to coal and government subsidies.

...Dude your third link was to the national academy of sciences download page and I do not care to spank your BS anymore...

If you had bothered to scroll down the page just a bit you would have seen that it was actually a link to the online hypertext version of the book in question. Most of the National Academy of Sciences publications are available freely online,

If this post is any indication of your reading and science skills it is probably best that you quit embarassing yourself and spend your computer time a little more productively, all the one handed typing and self-spanking are obviously already taking their toll.

 

[Chris]

Record Events for Sat Aug 13, 2011 through Fri Aug 19, 2011
Total Records: 1714
Rainfall: 595
High Temperatures: 423
Low Temperatures: 90
Lowest Max Temperatures: 70
Highest Min Temperatures: 536

HAMweather Climate Center - Record High Temperatures for The Past Week - Continental US View

 

[Wicked Jester]

Record Events for Sat Aug 13, 2011 through Fri Aug 19, 2011
Total Records: 1714
Rainfall: 595
High Temperatures: 423
Low Temperatures: 90
Lowest Max Temperatures: 70
Highest Min Temperatures: 536

HAMweather Climate Center - Record High Temperatures for The Past Week - Continental US View

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News

 

[gslack]

Boy oh boy did you put your foot in your mouth... I thought I smelled a clone, and here you go and pull a classic edthecynic...


Your question regarding any evidence I have of my assertions? Really? You want proof that environmentalists groups pressure the coal industry and do so through their government representation? Why Greenpeace and many others make it a selling point that they pressure energy companies and governments for alternative energy sources especially coal.

WOW... LOL

Your exact statement was "ANY MONEY used to subsidize coal is done so due to environmental pressures from environmentalist groups and political nonsense." I asked you to provide compelling supportive evidence of this assertion,...making additional unsupported assertions does not amount to "supportive evidence" much less compelling supportive evidence.

Next part... Exactly where in those links does it reliably show I was wrong in my contention? See your first mistake was citing sourcewatch. They have been caught lying on more than one occasion and I myself have nailed them lying in their articles in this very forum twice..

My references were not about disproofing assertions you have yet to support (much less proof) they were simply references to research and data which indicates that coal subsidies are neither rare nor inconsiderable, despite another unsupported assertion you made that seems to either misunderstand or seriously misstate the issues at hand with regard to coal and government subsidies.

...Dude your third link was to the national academy of sciences download page and I do not care to spank your BS anymore...

If you had bothered to scroll down the page just a bit you would have seen that it was actually a link to the online hypertext version of the book in question. Most of the National Academy of Sciences publications are available freely online,

If this post is any indication of your reading and science skills it is probably best that you quit embarassing yourself and spend your computer time a little more productively, all the one handed typing and self-spanking are obviously already taking their toll.

Your exact statement was "ANY MONEY used to subsidize coal is done so due to environmental pressures from environmentalist groups and political nonsense." I asked you to provide compelling supportive evidence of this assertion,...making additional unsupported assertions does not amount to "supportive evidence" much less compelling supportive evidence.

LOL, you are really going the semantics route now? Seriously? LOL, dude I thought you were so smart and educated on this.. Wouldn't think you would have to resort to pathetic semantics excuses like this... Remember the point genius... You asked me to prove my assertions, I did so and YOU provided the links.... I suppose I should thank you.

BTW, you forgot my point about subsidies being few and far between given the fact it is the number one energy source for electricity we use. And as your own links confirmed most of those subsidies come from the world bank aka the UN.. Africa ring any bells? Yeah said as much didn't I...

My references were not about disproofing assertions you have yet to support (much less proof) they were simply references to research and data which indicates that coal subsidies are neither rare nor inconsiderable, despite another unsupported assertion you made that seems to either misunderstand or seriously misstate the issues at hand with regard to coal and government subsidies.

BULLSHIT! Why post them if they were not in rebuttal to my assertions? Yeah stop lying dude you stuck your foot in your mouth and pulled an edthecynic.. You posted them from sourcewatch to try and disprove my claims you made an appeal to authority again and this time it was BAD AUTHORITY and ya got stuck with it. And their rarity is based on what you call a subsidy and what you don't call a subsidy. Sourcewatch calls everything a subsidy and they tell you that if you had actually read it. A loan to a governments infrastructure to build or improve a failing or weak energy system, thats a subsidy for coal according to sourcewatch. Doesn't matter that it covers energy as a whole and not just coal to them cause they got an agenda to push and moonbats to fire up... READ THE PAGE YOU CITED!

If you had bothered to scroll down the page just a bit you would have seen that it was actually a link to the online hypertext version of the book in question. Most of the National Academy of Sciences publications are available freely online,

If this post is any indication of your reading and science skills it is probably best that you quit embarassing yourself and spend your computer time a little more productively, all the one handed typing and self-spanking are obviously already taking their toll.

AWWW, you going to cry now?

I didn't read the page after I saw it was to a download page. Simple as that, you want me to read something don't make me jump through hoops. I find your posturing and pretense of knowledge tiresome and pointless. If you had something meaningful that you understood well enough to articulate you would have done so by now.

Another fake scientist with a degree in googology.. You have any idea how many of this exact same alter ego people have tried to use here to try and weasel some unearned respect? Too many to count.. Your persona is not new, nor is it good. Its old, tired and done over and again by people who can do a better acting job than you... Try again.. Maybe next time you can come back as a prepubescent recluse with a thesaurus and a "Bullshit For complete Idiots" book?

 

[Wicked Jester]

Boy oh boy did you put your foot in your mouth... I thought I smelled a clone, and here you go and pull a classic edthecynic...


Your question regarding any evidence I have of my assertions? Really? You want proof that environmentalists groups pressure the coal industry and do so through their government representation? Why Greenpeace and many others make it a selling point that they pressure energy companies and governments for alternative energy sources especially coal.

WOW... LOL

Your exact statement was "ANY MONEY used to subsidize coal is done so due to environmental pressures from environmentalist groups and political nonsense." I asked you to provide compelling supportive evidence of this assertion,...making additional unsupported assertions does not amount to "supportive evidence" much less compelling supportive evidence.

Next part... Exactly where in those links does it reliably show I was wrong in my contention? See your first mistake was citing sourcewatch. They have been caught lying on more than one occasion and I myself have nailed them lying in their articles in this very forum twice..

My references were not about disproofing assertions you have yet to support (much less proof) they were simply references to research and data which indicates that coal subsidies are neither rare nor inconsiderable, despite another unsupported assertion you made that seems to either misunderstand or seriously misstate the issues at hand with regard to coal and government subsidies.

...Dude your third link was to the national academy of sciences download page and I do not care to spank your BS anymore...

If you had bothered to scroll down the page just a bit you would have seen that it was actually a link to the online hypertext version of the book in question. Most of the National Academy of Sciences publications are available freely online,

If this post is any indication of your reading and science skills it is probably best that you quit embarassing yourself and spend your computer time a little more productively, all the one handed typing and self-spanking are obviously already taking their toll.

Dude, they are spelled D-I-S-P-R-O-V-I-N-G........AND........P-R-O-V-E........Not, disproof and proof.

Christ, if the junk scientists you people adore spell as bad as you, no wonder their BS is being debunked by REAL scientists, who are not paid lackeys for Algore.

 

[Trakar]

Dude, they are spelled D-I-S-P-R-O-V-I-N-G........AND........P-R-O-V-E........Not, disproof and proof...

I'm sure that is how you spell those words; I used exactly the terms I intended to. Thank you, however, for your consideration.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I wonder, if way back when they first started recording temperatures they thought the guy who decided it was a good idea to keep a record of the daily temperature was off his rocker?

 

[Old Rocks]

Just Put the Model Down, Roy « Anti-Climate Change Extremism in Utah

The Challenge

I could go on with more nitpicks, but I’m going to stop here, because it should be clear that, once again, Spencer has made a big deal out of something that doesn’t have any evidentiary value. So if, as Spencer claims, “[t]he evidence for anthropogenic global warming being a false alarm does not get much more convincing than this,” then can we please move on? Can Roy PLEASE put his toy model down?

I doubt he will, but maybe he will accept this challenge. Instead of complaining about how biased and awful the peer review system has gotten, he should (at the very least) get a statistician to work with him and do the modeling right, and then submit it for publication in a reputable journal. Personally, I don’t think the work can be saved, even then. However, I think the exercise of working with someone who knows how to properly make statistical inferences would be enlightening for Roy Spencer.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey, dumbass: HALF the electricity in America comes from burning coal. All your leftist wet dream fantasies about alternative sources are just that: Fantasies. You have NOTHING that is practical, economical, and scalable. NOTHING.

Your unicorns farting rainbows making this a perfect coal-free world just isn't ever going to happen.

Welcome to reality. I know you don't recognize it.

Take away all the tax money we are spending to subsidize coal and make those who use it pay the cost of cleaning up the mess created burning their product, and suddenly nearly every alternative energy source is more than competitive. The only way coal and oil can compete in the market is where the market has failed to include true and actual costs of use and production and depends upon tax payer money to generate private sales and profits. Are you a free-market capitalist or aren't you?

You aren't naive enough to believe that when the the money loopholes are taken away that they won't just raise the price to consumers are you? Come on, Trakar, get with the real world and not your utopia that you dream about.

LOL. And they are not presently raising the cost of energy every year? Or do you live in some alternative reality?

 

[daveman]

Take away all the tax money we are spending to subsidize coal and make those who use it pay the cost of cleaning up the mess created burning their product, and suddenly nearly every alternative energy source is more than competitive. The only way coal and oil can compete in the market is where the market has failed to include true and actual costs of use and production and depends upon tax payer money to generate private sales and profits. Are you a free-market capitalist or aren't you?

Your alternative sources are heavily subsidized. Yet you don't oppose that.

Did you have a point?

Actually, I do oppose the government subsidization of any private profit-making venture; that practice undermines the basic economic principles of a free-market system, and is a corporate welfare system designed to create and sustain market failures. I consider short-term start-up assistance to be a bit more palatable but only barely so, and would prefer that ventures do their own financing rather than progressing to the point of having their record breaking profits being underwritten by the dole of taxpayer monies.

Then you acknowledge that your alternative sources aren't economically feasible without being propped up by the government.

And you want to do away with coal in favor of these?

 

[gslack]

Dude, they are spelled D-I-S-P-R-O-V-I-N-G........AND........P-R-O-V-E........Not, disproof and proof...

I'm sure that is how you spell those words; I used exactly the terms I intended to. Thank you, however, for your consideration.

Yeah we know you did moron, but the fact remains you were wrong in that. You said....

"My references were not about disproofing assertions you have yet to support (much less proof) they were simply references to research and data which indicates that coal subsidies are neither rare nor inconsiderable, despite another unsupported assertion you made that seems to either misunderstand or seriously misstate the issues at hand with regard to coal and government subsidies."


Proof = I want proof of that.

Prove = Can you prove that.

Proving = They are proving that.

Now the opposite would be...

Disproof = The burden of disproof lies with you.

Disprove = Can you disprove that?

Disproving = I am disproving that.

Proof is the evidence itself. Prove is what you do or do with that proof.

Get it yet?

Proof is a noun in its natural form. "I want proof of that."

Prove is a verb in its natural form. Or more precisely a transitive verb. Hence prove, proving, proven...

Get it genius? Verb action or state there of, and Noun a person place or thing..

So if you did say what you meant which I personally think you did, it shows how utterly fake your pretense on here has been. WHich is exactly what I knew all along anyway Mr. Bullshitter...