Why do people deny science?

[Bfgrn]

Ahhhhhhhhh............ the peaceful and knowldgeable left! So adept at debating! NOT! They really are just adept at being abusive.

REPORTED.

PM Rules:

Posting information gained through private messages is prohibited unless specific permission is granted in a public forum and/or to a USMB staff member from the member who is a participant in the PM conversation.

PM's are only viewed by the Recipients unless Reported to the Staff. We respect your privacy. Should you have a specific problem or issue, Report it, we are here to help.

USmessageboard.com maintains the privacy of its’ users and will not access Private Messages unless ordered to do so by a Court of Law.

Piss off you pussy. If you post some foul shit like that to someone it is good that you get exposed for the disgusting piece of shit you are.

Sunshine didn't tell the whole story. My reply was to a neg rep she sent me. I was minding my own business, but she couldn't refute my post, so she used the coward's tool

 

[Oddball]

Parts per million is how atmospheric gases are measured. The difference between .07 ppm of benzene and .7 ppm is the difference between measuring it and walking away after measuring it.

Where do you think the harmful level of CO2 is? And when does that level become catastrophic?

1) Benzine is neither necessary and beneficial to flora nor a necessary trigger for breathing of fauna...You did know that CO2 is necessary to trigger the breathing reflex, didn't you?

2) Even the worst of the worst case scenarios don't have CO2 concentrations rising from the current .039% to .39%, ergo that part of the question is entirely invalid.

3) Nobody -but nobody- can say for certain what the results of an increase of a scant few PPM of CO2 will or won't be....It's only the alarmist warmerist cranks who are predicting utter and total catastrophe....That should tell you something.

Try again.

I used benzene measurements as an example of the incremental and "infinitesimal fractions" you seem all to quickly to dismiss. And rather than examine the science, you further dismiss it as coming from alarmist warmerist (sic) cranks.

The 'science' coming from the very industries pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is the only 'science' that refutes the vast body of evidence to the contrary. What does that tell you?

You're still comparing apples and atom bombs...Benzine is not a gas necessary for life, CO2 is....Moreover, the infinitesimal uptick in percentage in atmospheric CO2 is neither neither toxic nor foretells any catastrophe.

Your "vast body of evidence to the contrary" is based on computer modeling (not scientific) and peer review, which is entirely political not scientific.....The "science" is self-refuting as there is little to no scientific method involved in its compilation.

 

[Nosmo King]

1) Benzine is neither necessary and beneficial to flora nor a necessary trigger for breathing of fauna...You did know that CO2 is necessary to trigger the breathing reflex, didn't you?

2) Even the worst of the worst case scenarios don't have CO2 concentrations rising from the current .039% to .39%, ergo that part of the question is entirely invalid.

3) Nobody -but nobody- can say for certain what the results of an increase of a scant few PPM of CO2 will or won't be....It's only the alarmist warmerist cranks who are predicting utter and total catastrophe....That should tell you something.

Try again.

I used benzene measurements as an example of the incremental and "infinitesimal fractions" you seem all to quickly to dismiss. And rather than examine the science, you further dismiss it as coming from alarmist warmerist (sic) cranks.

The 'science' coming from the very industries pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is the only 'science' that refutes the vast body of evidence to the contrary. What does that tell you?

You're still comparing apples and atom bombs...Benzine is not a gas necessary for life, CO2 is....Moreover, the infinitesimal uptick in percentage in atmospheric CO2 is neither neither toxic nor foretells any catastrophe.

Your "vast body of evidence to the contrary" is based on computer modeling (not scientific) and peer review, which is entirely political not scientific.....The "science" is self-refuting as there is little to no scientific method involved in its compilation.

Toxicity is not the issue. No one thinks that an increase in CO2 level will lead to a toxic situation. But an increase in CO2 levels will effect the atmosphere in so much as how much water the atmosphere can hold as a result. How much heat can the atmosphere hold as a result of the additional water.

You seem to think that increased levels of CO2 means toxicity. That's not right. No one is going to become asphyxiated due to higher CO2 levels.

And science is a matter of peer review. That's how the cold fusion experiments of the late 1990s were refuted. A mistake in math, a variation in a control, an unrecorded or unduplicatible result is what peer review is all about.

 

[Oddball]

Anything in greater than normal concentrations can become hazardous. If you change the composition of the atmosphere by pumping in more of any gas, the consequences can be disastrous. If oxygen content exceeds 24% it doesn't mean that we have a better atmosphere because of the extra oxygen. It means we are coming close to an explosive situation. We need water to live, but ask the Titanic passengers if too much water is a good thing.

Just because something is not a carcinogen or even a toxin does not make it benign.

It is impossible (other than in a lab setting) to generate enough CO2 to become toxic. It would be easier to die of water poisoning than to die of CO2 poisoning. A lot easier.

You'll have to try harder there mr. I'm so reasonable. I do find it amusing that nearly all of you AGW revisionists claim that it is the religious right who are against your theory when the official position of the Catholic Church is yours.

So...who are the religious nutters?

Yep....it's YOU!

Toxicity is not the impending problem. Altering the composition of the atmosphere and thus effecting the climate is the problem. No one worries that CO2 will effect the respiratory health of living beings. It's the composition of the atmosphere that is the question.

Moving the goalposts from toxic to "effecting" the climate is the problem.

And speaking of moving the goalposts, virtually every atmospheric event that comes down the pike gets blamed on anthropogenic Goebbels warming.

Too hot?...Goebbels warming.
Too cold?..Goebbels warming.
Drought?...Goebbels warming.
Deluge?...Goebbels warming.
No snow?...Goebbels warming.
Blizzards?...Goebbels warming.
Lots of hurricanes?...Goebbels warming.
No hurricanes?...Goebbels warming.

A complete list of things caused by global warming

This means that the claim of anthropogenically caused Goebbels warming fails yet another scientific acid test: Falsifiability.

And only those grasping at straws and lacking real knowledge bring in the utterly ridiculous strawman of faith into the scientific argument.

The ones grasping at straws are the ones who constantly invoke arguments of faith over those of science...That trait belongs entirely to the warmerists.

 

[Oddball]

I used benzene measurements as an example of the incremental and "infinitesimal fractions" you seem all to quickly to dismiss. And rather than examine the science, you further dismiss it as coming from alarmist warmerist (sic) cranks.

The 'science' coming from the very industries pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is the only 'science' that refutes the vast body of evidence to the contrary. What does that tell you?

You're still comparing apples and atom bombs...Benzine is not a gas necessary for life, CO2 is....Moreover, the infinitesimal uptick in percentage in atmospheric CO2 is neither neither toxic nor foretells any catastrophe.

Your "vast body of evidence to the contrary" is based on computer modeling (not scientific) and peer review, which is entirely political not scientific.....The "science" is self-refuting as there is little to no scientific method involved in its compilation.

Toxicity is not the issue. No one thinks that an increase in CO2 level will lead to a toxic situation.

Then why is it that the warmerists keep comparing CO2 to toxins and call it a pollutant?

 

[Nosmo King]

It is impossible (other than in a lab setting) to generate enough CO2 to become toxic. It would be easier to die of water poisoning than to die of CO2 poisoning. A lot easier.

You'll have to try harder there mr. I'm so reasonable. I do find it amusing that nearly all of you AGW revisionists claim that it is the religious right who are against your theory when the official position of the Catholic Church is yours.

So...who are the religious nutters?

Yep....it's YOU!

Toxicity is not the impending problem. Altering the composition of the atmosphere and thus effecting the climate is the problem. No one worries that CO2 will effect the respiratory health of living beings. It's the composition of the atmosphere that is the question.

Moving the goalposts from toxic to "effecting" the climate is the problem.

And speaking of moving the goalposts, virtually every atmospheric event that comes down the pike gets blamed on anthropogenic Goebbels warming.

Too hot?...Goebbels warming.
Too cold?..Goebbels warming.
Drought?...Goebbels warming.
Deluge?...Goebbels warming.
No snow?...Goebbels warming.
Blizzards?...Goebbels warming.
Lots of hurricanes?...Goebbels warming.
No hurricanes?...Goebbels warming.

A complete list of things caused by global warming

This means that the claim of anthropogenically caused Goebbels warming fails yet another scientific acid test: Falsifiability.

And only those grasping at straws and lacking real knowledge bring in the utterly ridiculous strawman of faith into the scientific argument.

The ones grasping at straws are the ones who constantly invoke arguments of faith over those of science...That trait belongs entirely to the warmerists.

Here's where an understanding of science comes in handy. "Toxicity" refers to the health effects brought about by a substance on individual beings. What climate change models demonstrate is the increased levels of greenhouse gases like CO2 effect the ATMOSPHERE, not a poisoning of individual beings.

And what clever word play! "Goebbels warming" shows you have not only the most open of minds, receptive to knowledge and understanding, but a firm grasp on the issue! Kudos!

 

[Nosmo King]

You're still comparing apples and atom bombs...Benzine is not a gas necessary for life, CO2 is....Moreover, the infinitesimal uptick in percentage in atmospheric CO2 is neither neither toxic nor foretells any catastrophe.

Your "vast body of evidence to the contrary" is based on computer modeling (not scientific) and peer review, which is entirely political not scientific.....The "science" is self-refuting as there is little to no scientific method involved in its compilation.

Toxicity is not the issue. No one thinks that an increase in CO2 level will lead to a toxic situation.

Then why is it that the warmerists keep comparing CO2 to toxins and call it a pollutant?

Dosage. Everything is toxic in high enough doses. But no one fears CO2 as a toxin. CO2 changes the basic composition of the atmosphere if added in sufficient amounts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

From global warming to fluoride: Why do people deny science? - Salon.com

The clouds of a thunderstorm roll over neighborhoods heavily damaged in a tornado in Moore, Oklahoma, May 23, 2013. (Credit: Reuters/Lucas Jackson)

Excerpted from "Denial: Self-Deception, False Beliefs, and the Origins of the Human Mind"

The potent combination of our powerful intelligence with our massive reality denial has led to a dangerous world. Less obvious, but in the long term more dangerous, are threats resulting directly or indirectly from technological developments that have permitted us to increase our numbers well beyond the carrying capacity of the natural world. More efficient agriculture and the invention of artificial fertilizers permitted humans to produce food sufficient to support numbers that would be unthinkable for other animals of our physical size. Public health measures, vaccinations, antibiotics, and other medical advances also permitted population numbers to explode. The world is overpopulated already and is becoming more so at an alarming rate. And although we pay lip service to the resulting problems, we do relatively little to address their root causes. Indeed, some religions continue to promote the unrestrained propagation of their flocks. Planet Earth is sick, with a bad case of “infection by humans.”...

... Why is it that ordinary citizens do not sit up and take notice of the danger? Unfortunately, the focus remains mostly on “global warming” instead of on the bigger concern—that we are disrupting the planet’s climate in completely unpredictable ways.

The intelligent and the educated are letting the stupid and the greedy kill our planet.

"The intelligent and the educated are letting the stupid and the greedy kill our planet."



1. Let’s take a look at who is ‘anti-science’: 93 % of scientists acknowledge the necessity of animal research, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 48% of Democrats. Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

a. Nuclear power plants? 70 % of scientists favor, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 45% of Democrats Ibid.

b. The National Academy of Sciences found that genetically engineered food is safe. So say more Republicans (48%) than Democrats (42%) Who?s More Anti-Science: Republicans or Democrats? - Reason.com



2. “Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are”…with respect to belief in astrology, the need for control groups, probability, antibiotics, exposure to radioactivity….Check out the list at The Audacious Epigone: Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are

a. Razib Khan reanalyzed the data and found that conservatives and liberals are roughly equal in their knowledge of science, but that both are more knowledgeable than moderates.
Berezow and Campbell, “Science Left Behind,” p. 212.



So….Republicans/conservatives less science literate or knowledgeable? Hardly. But do Democrats/liberals win the decibel battle…..seems likely.

 

[Oddball]

Toxicity is not the issue. No one thinks that an increase in CO2 level will lead to a toxic situation.

Then why is it that the warmerists keep comparing CO2 to toxins and call it a pollutant?

Dosage. Everything is toxic in high enough doses. But no one fears CO2 as a toxin. CO2 changes the basic composition of the atmosphere if added in sufficient amounts.

It doesn't matter....CO2 is neither a toxin nor a pollutant.....Comparing it with toxins and pollutants is a red herring.....Moreover, even the most outrageous claims by the scaremongers don't have CO2 levels rising to levels anywhere near toxicity.

Dismissed.

 

[Sunshine]

From global warming to fluoride: Why do people deny science? - Salon.com

The clouds of a thunderstorm roll over neighborhoods heavily damaged in a tornado in Moore, Oklahoma, May 23, 2013. (Credit: Reuters/Lucas Jackson)

Excerpted from "Denial: Self-Deception, False Beliefs, and the Origins of the Human Mind"

The potent combination of our powerful intelligence with our massive reality denial has led to a dangerous world. Less obvious, but in the long term more dangerous, are threats resulting directly or indirectly from technological developments that have permitted us to increase our numbers well beyond the carrying capacity of the natural world. More efficient agriculture and the invention of artificial fertilizers permitted humans to produce food sufficient to support numbers that would be unthinkable for other animals of our physical size. Public health measures, vaccinations, antibiotics, and other medical advances also permitted population numbers to explode. The world is overpopulated already and is becoming more so at an alarming rate. And although we pay lip service to the resulting problems, we do relatively little to address their root causes. Indeed, some religions continue to promote the unrestrained propagation of their flocks. Planet Earth is sick, with a bad case of “infection by humans.”...

... Why is it that ordinary citizens do not sit up and take notice of the danger? Unfortunately, the focus remains mostly on “global warming” instead of on the bigger concern—that we are disrupting the planet’s climate in completely unpredictable ways.

The intelligent and the educated are letting the stupid and the greedy kill our planet.

"The intelligent and the educated are letting the stupid and the greedy kill our planet."



1. Let’s take a look at who is ‘anti-science’: 93 % of scientists acknowledge the necessity of animal research, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 48% of Democrats. Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

a. Nuclear power plants? 70 % of scientists favor, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 45% of Democrats Ibid.

b. The National Academy of Sciences found that genetically engineered food is safe. So say more Republicans (48%) than Democrats (42%) Who?s More Anti-Science: Republicans or Democrats? - Reason.com



2. “Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are”…with respect to belief in astrology, the need for control groups, probability, antibiotics, exposure to radioactivity….Check out the list at The Audacious Epigone: Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are

a. Razib Khan reanalyzed the data and found that conservatives and liberals are roughly equal in their knowledge of science, but that both are more knowledgeable than moderates.
Berezow and Campbell, “Science Left Behind,” p. 212.



So….Republicans/conservatives less science literate or knowledgeable? Hardly. But do Democrats/liberals win the decibel battle…..seems likely.

I think you are right about that. The right is more concerned with coming up with ways to feed the people we currently have on the planet and and those we will will have within the next century. No one argues that there are too many people for the planet to support, but short of some super virus, killing them off just isn't going to work. KY is a red state for sure. In this end we have fertile farmland and farming is the big family business in most families. If you drive down the highway, you see, for the lack of a better term, markers at various intervals in some of those fields. The ones who have those markers are working with the University of KY Extension Service testing new varieties of grain. Most of them double crop, and they also use 'no till' technology which they were testing in the 1960. Perhaps not the older people in the families, but certany most of the younger ones have gone to college to study agriculture because farming is a science and the farmers here are business people. If we are going to feed the population of this earth or even just those in our own country for the next 50 years, we have to have better methods and technologies. The stupid redneck farmer is a popular myth amongst the left who do not hesitate to use the products produced or get as much of it as they can for free.

 

[Bfgrn]

From global warming to fluoride: Why do people deny science? - Salon.com

The clouds of a thunderstorm roll over neighborhoods heavily damaged in a tornado in Moore, Oklahoma, May 23, 2013. (Credit: Reuters/Lucas Jackson)



The intelligent and the educated are letting the stupid and the greedy kill our planet.

"The intelligent and the educated are letting the stupid and the greedy kill our planet."



1. Let’s take a look at who is ‘anti-science’: 93 % of scientists acknowledge the necessity of animal research, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 48% of Democrats. Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

a. Nuclear power plants? 70 % of scientists favor, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 45% of Democrats Ibid.

b. The National Academy of Sciences found that genetically engineered food is safe. So say more Republicans (48%) than Democrats (42%) Who?s More Anti-Science: Republicans or Democrats? - Reason.com



2. “Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are”…with respect to belief in astrology, the need for control groups, probability, antibiotics, exposure to radioactivity….Check out the list at The Audacious Epigone: Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are

a. Razib Khan reanalyzed the data and found that conservatives and liberals are roughly equal in their knowledge of science, but that both are more knowledgeable than moderates.
Berezow and Campbell, “Science Left Behind,” p. 212.



So….Republicans/conservatives less science literate or knowledgeable? Hardly. But do Democrats/liberals win the decibel battle…..seems likely.

I think you are right about that. The right is more concerned with coming up with ways to feed the people we currently have on the planet and and those we will will have within the next century. No one argues that there are too many people for the planet to support, but short of some super virus, killing them off just isn't going to work. KY is a red state for sure. In this end we have fertile farmland and farming is the big family business in most families. If you drive down the highway, you see, for the lack of a better term, markers at various intervals in some of those fields. The ones who have those markers are working with the University of KY Extension Service testing new varieties of grain. Most of them double crop, and they also use 'no till' technology which they were testing in the 1960. Perhaps not the older people in the families, but certany most of the younger ones have gone to college to study agriculture because farming is a science and the farmers here are business people. If we are going to feed the population of this earth or even just those in our own country for the next 50 years, we have to have better methods and technologies. The stupid redneck farmer is a popular myth amongst the left who do not hesitate to use the products produced or get as much of it as they can for free.

Science literate or knowledgeable? WOW. I guess propaganda is science and knowledge.

Kentucky...a prime example of how polluters and cartels have so subverted the political landscape that taxpayers are paying them. In return, they get destroyed communities, destroyed roads and their kids have respiratory problems, high incidents of cancer and chronic asthma.

But right wing regressives in America will find any excuse to cower to the dirty energy cartels.

The Impact of Coal on the Kentucky State Budget
Executive Summary

Rapid and dramatic changes in the world’s approach to energy have major implications for Kentucky and its coal industry. Concerns about climate change are driving policy that favors cleaner energy sources and increases the price of fossil fuels. The transition to sustainable forms of energy is becoming a major economic driver, and states are moving aggressively to develop, produce and install the energy technologies of the future. Long reliant on coal for jobs and electricity, Kentucky faces major challenges and difficult choices in the coming years.

These energy challenges come in the midst of Kentucky’s state fiscal crisis and sluggish economic performance. The gap between Kentucky’s revenues and expenditures makes it increasingly difficult to sustain existing public services. A recent University of Kentucky report notes that Kentucky ranks 44th among states in per capita income, just as in 1970, while other southern states like North Carolina and Georgia have out-performed the Commonwealth in recent years.1 Eastern Kentucky still includes 20 of the 100 poorest counties in the United States measured by median household income.2

In this critical energy, fiscal and economic context, it is increasingly important for Kentuckians to understand the role and impact of coal in our state. Coal provides economic benefits including jobs, low electricity rates and tax revenue. But the coal industry also imposes a number of costs ranging from regulatory and public infrastructure expenses to environmental and health impacts.

Coal and the Budget

The Impact of Coal on the Kentucky State Budget tells one aspect of the story of coal’s costs and benefits. The report provides an analysis of the industry’s fiscal impact by estimating the tax revenues generated by coal and the state expenditures associated with supporting the industry. We estimate for Fiscal Year 2006 Kentucky provided a net subsidy of nearly $115 million to the coal industry (see Figure 1).

Coal is responsible for an estimated $528 million in state revenues and $643 million in state expenditures. The $528 million in revenues includes $224 million from the coal severance tax and revenues from the corporate income, individual income, sales, property (including unmined minerals) and transportation taxes as well as permit fees. The $643 million in estimated expenditures includes $239 million to address the industry’s impacts on the coal haul road system as well as expenditures to regulate the environmental and health and safety impacts of coal, support coal worker training, conduct research and development for the coal industry, promote education about coal in the public schools and support the residents directly and indirectly employed by coal. Total costs also include $85 million in tax expenditures designed to subsidize the mining and burning of coal.

More

 

[Sunshine]

"The intelligent and the educated are letting the stupid and the greedy kill our planet."



1. Let’s take a look at who is ‘anti-science’: 93 % of scientists acknowledge the necessity of animal research, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 48% of Democrats. Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

a. Nuclear power plants? 70 % of scientists favor, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 45% of Democrats Ibid.

b. The National Academy of Sciences found that genetically engineered food is safe. So say more Republicans (48%) than Democrats (42%) Who?s More Anti-Science: Republicans or Democrats? - Reason.com



2. “Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are”…with respect to belief in astrology, the need for control groups, probability, antibiotics, exposure to radioactivity….Check out the list at The Audacious Epigone: Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are

a. Razib Khan reanalyzed the data and found that conservatives and liberals are roughly equal in their knowledge of science, but that both are more knowledgeable than moderates.
Berezow and Campbell, “Science Left Behind,” p. 212.



So….Republicans/conservatives less science literate or knowledgeable? Hardly. But do Democrats/liberals win the decibel battle…..seems likely.

I think you are right about that. The right is more concerned with coming up with ways to feed the people we currently have on the planet and and those we will will have within the next century. No one argues that there are too many people for the planet to support, but short of some super virus, killing them off just isn't going to work. KY is a red state for sure. In this end we have fertile farmland and farming is the big family business in most families. If you drive down the highway, you see, for the lack of a better term, markers at various intervals in some of those fields. The ones who have those markers are working with the University of KY Extension Service testing new varieties of grain. Most of them double crop, and they also use 'no till' technology which they were testing in the 1960. Perhaps not the older people in the families, but certany most of the younger ones have gone to college to study agriculture because farming is a science and the farmers here are business people. If we are going to feed the population of this earth or even just those in our own country for the next 50 years, we have to have better methods and technologies. The stupid redneck farmer is a popular myth amongst the left who do not hesitate to use the products produced or get as much of it as they can for free.

Science literate or knowledgeable? WOW. I guess propaganda is science and knowledge.

Kentucky...a prime example of how polluters and cartels have so subverted the political landscape that taxpayers are paying them. In return, they get destroyed communities, destroyed roads and their kids have respiratory problems, high incidents of cancer and chronic asthma.

But right wing regressives in America will find any excuse to cower to the dirty energy cartels.

The Impact of Coal on the Kentucky State Budget
Executive Summary

Rapid and dramatic changes in the world’s approach to energy have major implications for Kentucky and its coal industry. Concerns about climate change are driving policy that favors cleaner energy sources and increases the price of fossil fuels. The transition to sustainable forms of energy is becoming a major economic driver, and states are moving aggressively to develop, produce and install the energy technologies of the future. Long reliant on coal for jobs and electricity, Kentucky faces major challenges and difficult choices in the coming years.

These energy challenges come in the midst of Kentucky’s state fiscal crisis and sluggish economic performance. The gap between Kentucky’s revenues and expenditures makes it increasingly difficult to sustain existing public services. A recent University of Kentucky report notes that Kentucky ranks 44th among states in per capita income, just as in 1970, while other southern states like North Carolina and Georgia have out-performed the Commonwealth in recent years.1 Eastern Kentucky still includes 20 of the 100 poorest counties in the United States measured by median household income.2

In this critical energy, fiscal and economic context, it is increasingly important for Kentuckians to understand the role and impact of coal in our state. Coal provides economic benefits including jobs, low electricity rates and tax revenue. But the coal industry also imposes a number of costs ranging from regulatory and public infrastructure expenses to environmental and health impacts.

Coal and the Budget

The Impact of Coal on the Kentucky State Budget tells one aspect of the story of coal’s costs and benefits. The report provides an analysis of the industry’s fiscal impact by estimating the tax revenues generated by coal and the state expenditures associated with supporting the industry. We estimate for Fiscal Year 2006 Kentucky provided a net subsidy of nearly $115 million to the coal industry (see Figure 1).

Coal is responsible for an estimated $528 million in state revenues and $643 million in state expenditures. The $528 million in revenues includes $224 million from the coal severance tax and revenues from the corporate income, individual income, sales, property (including unmined minerals) and transportation taxes as well as permit fees. The $643 million in estimated expenditures includes $239 million to address the industry’s impacts on the coal haul road system as well as expenditures to regulate the environmental and health and safety impacts of coal, support coal worker training, conduct research and development for the coal industry, promote education about coal in the public schools and support the residents directly and indirectly employed by coal. Total costs also include $85 million in tax expenditures designed to subsidize the mining and burning of coal.

More

There is no coal mining in this end of the state, the primary industries are agriculture and tourism. We know we have oil underneath us here, but no one has gone for it yet. There are several oil wells in central KY. But mining supports little towns in areas where farming isn't possible and there are really few alternatives for people there to earn a living.

I grew up in KY, and I have traveled it top to bottom, end to end, so I know more than 'just what I read.' Therefore, for your information, and hopefully your edification, coal mining in KY has been a BIG issue in Kentucky for about as long as I can remember. But like China, this country is going to use the resources it has, even coal. So you might as well just suck it up. And your opinions don't make you any better than anyone else, because you still consume the goods and services the production of which you claim is killing the environment.

Oh, and you accused me of not being able to debate. Since when has calling someone a 'C**t' become the preferred manner of debate. If wanted to be abusive I could be, I just choose not to. And I'm guessing you only know about 8 curse words which makes you functionally illiterate.

 

[Bfgrn]

I think you are right about that. The right is more concerned with coming up with ways to feed the people we currently have on the planet and and those we will will have within the next century. No one argues that there are too many people for the planet to support, but short of some super virus, killing them off just isn't going to work. KY is a red state for sure. In this end we have fertile farmland and farming is the big family business in most families. If you drive down the highway, you see, for the lack of a better term, markers at various intervals in some of those fields. The ones who have those markers are working with the University of KY Extension Service testing new varieties of grain. Most of them double crop, and they also use 'no till' technology which they were testing in the 1960. Perhaps not the older people in the families, but certany most of the younger ones have gone to college to study agriculture because farming is a science and the farmers here are business people. If we are going to feed the population of this earth or even just those in our own country for the next 50 years, we have to have better methods and technologies. The stupid redneck farmer is a popular myth amongst the left who do not hesitate to use the products produced or get as much of it as they can for free.

Science literate or knowledgeable? WOW. I guess propaganda is science and knowledge.

Kentucky...a prime example of how polluters and cartels have so subverted the political landscape that taxpayers are paying them. In return, they get destroyed communities, destroyed roads and their kids have respiratory problems, high incidents of cancer and chronic asthma.

But right wing regressives in America will find any excuse to cower to the dirty energy cartels.

The Impact of Coal on the Kentucky State Budget
Executive Summary

Rapid and dramatic changes in the world’s approach to energy have major implications for Kentucky and its coal industry. Concerns about climate change are driving policy that favors cleaner energy sources and increases the price of fossil fuels. The transition to sustainable forms of energy is becoming a major economic driver, and states are moving aggressively to develop, produce and install the energy technologies of the future. Long reliant on coal for jobs and electricity, Kentucky faces major challenges and difficult choices in the coming years.

These energy challenges come in the midst of Kentucky’s state fiscal crisis and sluggish economic performance. The gap between Kentucky’s revenues and expenditures makes it increasingly difficult to sustain existing public services. A recent University of Kentucky report notes that Kentucky ranks 44th among states in per capita income, just as in 1970, while other southern states like North Carolina and Georgia have out-performed the Commonwealth in recent years.1 Eastern Kentucky still includes 20 of the 100 poorest counties in the United States measured by median household income.2

In this critical energy, fiscal and economic context, it is increasingly important for Kentuckians to understand the role and impact of coal in our state. Coal provides economic benefits including jobs, low electricity rates and tax revenue. But the coal industry also imposes a number of costs ranging from regulatory and public infrastructure expenses to environmental and health impacts.

Coal and the Budget

The Impact of Coal on the Kentucky State Budget tells one aspect of the story of coal’s costs and benefits. The report provides an analysis of the industry’s fiscal impact by estimating the tax revenues generated by coal and the state expenditures associated with supporting the industry. We estimate for Fiscal Year 2006 Kentucky provided a net subsidy of nearly $115 million to the coal industry (see Figure 1).

Coal is responsible for an estimated $528 million in state revenues and $643 million in state expenditures. The $528 million in revenues includes $224 million from the coal severance tax and revenues from the corporate income, individual income, sales, property (including unmined minerals) and transportation taxes as well as permit fees. The $643 million in estimated expenditures includes $239 million to address the industry’s impacts on the coal haul road system as well as expenditures to regulate the environmental and health and safety impacts of coal, support coal worker training, conduct research and development for the coal industry, promote education about coal in the public schools and support the residents directly and indirectly employed by coal. Total costs also include $85 million in tax expenditures designed to subsidize the mining and burning of coal.

More

There is no coal mining in this end of the state, the primary industries are agriculture and tourism. We know we have oil underneath us here, but no one has gone for it yet. There are several oil wells in central KY. But mining supports little towns in areas where farming isn't possible and there are really few alternatives for people there to earn a living.

I grew up in KY, and I have traveled it top to bottom, end to end, so I know more than 'just what I read.' Therefore, for your information, and hopefully your edification, coal mining in KY has been a BIG issue in Kentucky for about as long as I can remember. But like China, this country is going to use the resources it has, even coal. So you might as well just suck it up.

Oh, and you accused me of not being able to debate. Since when has calling someone a 'C**t' become the preferred manner of debate. If wanted to be abusive I could be, I just choose not to. And I'm guessing you only know about 8 curse words which makes you functionally illiterate.

No matter what part of Kentucky you live in, your tax dollars are subsidizing polluters and cartels that destroy communities, destroy roads and destroy the health of fellow citizens. Liberals are outraged by injustice and injury. Conservatives only have an epiphany when it's their kids or family dying or being debilitated by severe respiratory injury.

My paternal family is from the Corbin/London area. My aunt owned a farm and his brother drove a produce truck.

Debate?
Well her's the rub Sunshine...you chose not to debate, you decided instead to use the right wing coward's tool, the neg rep. I never send out neg reps for anything a person posts...NEVER. I believe in the first amendment. And I wear big boy pants so I can defend myself. But I ALWAYS return a cowardly neg rep. If you don't like my comment, then next time don't start it. It's really that simple.

 

[Nosmo King]

Then why is it that the warmerists keep comparing CO2 to toxins and call it a pollutant?

Dosage. Everything is toxic in high enough doses. But no one fears CO2 as a toxin. CO2 changes the basic composition of the atmosphere if added in sufficient amounts.

It doesn't matter....CO2 is neither a toxin nor a pollutant.....Comparing it with toxins and pollutants is a red herring.....Moreover, even the most outrageous claims by the scaremongers don't have CO2 levels rising to levels anywhere near toxicity.

Dismissed.

Of course CO2 levels aren't rising to the level of toxicity. The toxic nature of CO2 isn't the issue. No one is going to die from a toxic level of CO2.

But put enough CO2 into the atmosphere and the atmosphere changes. More water is retained in it. Heat is absorbed by it.

Get your head out of toxicity and look at the bigger picture.

 

[Oddball]

Put enough X in the atmosphere and it changes....Truisms prove nothing.

The atmosphere holding more water means that there is more cloud cover, which in turn reflects more radiation away from the planet, mitigating the phenomenon....Also, more clouds mean more precipitation, which I hear is essential for all the plant life on the planet, which in turn -well I'll be dipped- absorbs more CO2.

The planets ecosystem is not static...Methinks someone needs to pull their head out of something here and it ain't me, sport.

 

[MisterBeale]

I'm afraid prophets of old have predicted this. This has more to do with our deforestation and pollution of the oceans than of heavy manufacturing and automobiles. We are victims of cosmic law here, very few care to investigate the complicated interwoven mechanics of nature. Now, the fact that we have let a few evil men with inter-bred blood-lines with allegiance to Lucifer try to create a global government and tax the poor to fill their coffers, while printing propaganda like this? We have been warned.

Most people that study this issue probably have no idea WHAT a carbon sink is, nor have any clue that it has more affect on the total amount of CO2 than what we produce. But I guess that is an intentional goal of the global elite's propaganda.

"The earth dries up and withers,
the world languishes and withers;
the heavens languish together with the earth.
The earth lies polluted under its inhabitants;
for they have transgressed laws, violated the statutes
broken the everlasting covenant.
Therefore a curse devours the earth,
and its inhabitants suffer for their guilt."

~the prophet Isaiah (c.760-690 B.C.)

Forests As global warming worsens and temperatures rise, the forests become more stressed and susceptible to fire, pests and diseases. [23] This in turn may cripple temperate forests' ability to absorb carbon dioxide.


Boreal forests, which cover 17% of the Earth's land surface area, are found in Alaska's south-central and interior regions............ Models consistently project large-scale transformation of Arctic landscapes, where the northern edge of the boreal forest advances into the tundra. Even with these projections, concerns for Alaska's boreal forests from projected climate changes include: a loss in the moisture needed for forest growth; insect-induced tree mortality; increased risk of large fires; interference with the reproduction of white spruce, a biological and economic concern; and the changes caused by permafrost thaw e.g., slumping of land and wetland development from thaw water.......... It has been suggested that the past 20 years have seen the greatest moisture stress and lowest productivity of the 20th century through much of the interior boreal forest.............. Forest fire frequency and intensity have increased markedly since 1970. The 10-year average of boreal forest burned in North America, after several decades of around 2.5 million acres, has increased steadily since 1970 to more than 7 million acres annually.

Loss of Reflective Capability of Ice Ice and snow both strongly reflect the sun's rays, keeping the earth cool. But as global warming melts glaciers, as well as ice in Greenland, the Arctic and Antarctic, it exposes land and water. Land and water, being darker surfaces reflect less solar heat back out into space, allowing the atmosphere to absorb more warmth. In fact, ice absorbs less than half the sunlight that falls on it, but ocean surfaces absorb about 90%.[57] As can be expected, more ice and snow will melt.

Water Vapor In the Atmosphere Increasing Water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas on the planet, but its increasing presence is the result of evaporation caused by the warming, in turn, caused by carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases. (See NOAA's National Climate Data Center (NCDC) FAQ page) As the Earth heats up relative humidity is able to increase, allowing the planet's atmosphere to hold more water vapor, causing even more warming, thus a positive feedback scenario. Because the air is warmer, the relative humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to 'hold' more water when its warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere, says the NCDC. There is much scientific uncertainty as to the degree this feedback loop causes increased warming, inasmuch as the water vapor also causes increased cloud formation, which in turn reflects heat back out into space.

Disappearing Plankton The ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide may be at risk. Presently oceans are absorbing about 2 billion tons of carbon annually [3] . A report in Nature, August 1995, suggests that the oceans may be losing fixed nitrogen, an essential fertilizer that allows phytoplankton to grow. Phytoplankton absorb and fix carbon that is then transferred to the deep ocean. If in fact the oceans are losing nitrogen as they warm, they will tend to absorb less carbon, boosting the rate of carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere. [24]
Plankton are a major carbon sink in addition to the forests, other green plants, the permafrost, the earth's soil and atmosphere. Plankton take in about half of all the world's CO2, using the carbon for growth, while releasing oxygen during the process of photosynthesis. During the past 20 years there has been a stark decline, more than 9%, in primary production of plankton, while in the same period plankton of the North Atlantic has decreased by 7%. Less plankton; less carbon uptake.

Loss of Carbon Sink: Warming Tundra & Thawing Permafrost
Permafrost relates to areas where the ground is frozen all year round, except for the upper layer that melts and freeze each year.

Permafrost may be continuous, discontinuous, or more sporadic - and then typically in mountain areas.

Rising temperatures in the Arctic are melting the permafrost, causing it to release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. About 14 per cent of the world's carbon is stored in the permafrost of Arctic lands. Permafrost, which is a solid structure of frozen soil and on which can be used to build homes and other buildings, can, with rising temperatures, turn into a soft material causing subsidence and damage to buildings and structures. But worse yet is if, as a positive feedback, it loses its characteristic as a carbon sink and begins leaking carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

http://www.ecobridge.org/climate_roulette.html

These are just excerpts, but reading the whole article makes one realize how small a part of the picture man's release of CO2 is. Taxing the common man for his use of energy IS not going to solve the problem. The problem lay with our core attitudes, such as having the latest and greatest things are good. Obsessing over economic growth is good.

Why do we allow GMO's and factory farming? Why do we allow industrial fishing?

I still have a cathode ray TV, and I picked another perfectly good one up for when this one craps out. I still think VHS tapes are fine. My phone is over ten years old, and my cell is too. How many of these AGW global warmer freaks need the latest IPhone? Hypocrites I tell you, all of them. Do you use your PC till the CPU craps out, or do you get a new one because it is old and not up to date? If the later, THEN YOU ARE THE PROBLEM. What year is your car? If you bought a new one because the old one made you LOOK bad, then YOU are the problem. If on the other hand, it is from the 90's, congratulations, you are part of the solution. Some may say that the new cars are more efficient, but my auto mechanic tells me that the energy savings in the production of new cars IS NOT made up for by the use of them; especially when you consider all the new exotic toxic materials they had to destroy the Earth to get, and the pollution caused from the manufacturing by-products. My car doesn't have a computer in it, does yours? Those computers have lots of harmful pollutants. The less computers and gadgets you own in your life, the less polluted the Earth will be. YOU HAVE NO IDEA how toxic computers, IPhones, tablets, and all those gadgets are, nor how valuable the exotic materials are in them if you recycle them.

 

[XPostFacto]

Why can't the AGWCult ever show us a single repeatable experiment of how an additional wisp of CO2 drives up temperature and spawns hurricanes and tornadoes?

They always provide lots of graphs, but it takes data to create these graphs. Whenever I asked the folks to provide the data that was used to create the graph, they would respond that it was on said website that they provided, but I never could locate that data, even though I was told it was on that site.

 

[Saigon]

Dosage. Everything is toxic in high enough doses. But no one fears CO2 as a toxin. CO2 changes the basic composition of the atmosphere if added in sufficient amounts.

It doesn't matter....CO2 is neither a toxin nor a pollutant.....Comparing it with toxins and pollutants is a red herring.....Moreover, even the most outrageous claims by the scaremongers don't have CO2 levels rising to levels anywhere near toxicity.

Dismissed.

Of course CO2 levels aren't rising to the level of toxicity. The toxic nature of CO2 isn't the issue. No one is going to die from a toxic level of CO2.

But put enough CO2 into the atmosphere and the atmosphere changes. More water is retained in it. Heat is absorbed by it.

Get your head out of toxicity and look at the bigger picture.

You are absolutely right, of course, and I am sure Oddball also knows that you are right - but don't expect him to admit it.

People invest a lot of pride in their positions on climate change. I often see posters here arguing points they know hold no water.

 

[bripat9643]

It doesn't matter....CO2 is neither a toxin nor a pollutant.....Comparing it with toxins and pollutants is a red herring.....Moreover, even the most outrageous claims by the scaremongers don't have CO2 levels rising to levels anywhere near toxicity.

Dismissed.

Of course CO2 levels aren't rising to the level of toxicity. The toxic nature of CO2 isn't the issue. No one is going to die from a toxic level of CO2.

But put enough CO2 into the atmosphere and the atmosphere changes. More water is retained in it. Heat is absorbed by it.

Get your head out of toxicity and look at the bigger picture.

You are absolutely right, of course, and I am sure Oddball also knows that you are right - but don't expect him to admit it.

People invest a lot of pride in their positions on climate change. I often see posters here arguing points they know hold no water.

He's not right. AGW is a myth. CO2 is not a pollutant and it's not toxic. In fact, it's beneficial to plant life..

 

[Saigon]

BriPat -

He's not right. AGW is a myth. CO2 is not a pollutant and it's not toxic. In fact, it's beneficial to plant life..

This is something that we can test right now.

Water is not toxic, right? Plants need it, right?

Go and drink about 25 litres of water during the next hour, and tell us what happens.