Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
15 hours ago.
by Kendall78
harryanderson
#1

Thankfully, the anti-science propaganda campaign surrounding man-made climate change seems to have lost some of its effect.

Are you seeing storm clouds on the horizon? Two recent studies suggest that the latest anti-science campaign is following its forerunners--the propaganda campaigns attempting to refute science that tobacco causes cancer, that CFC's caused the hole in the ozone layer, and so on—into oblivion. Global warming denial seems to have climbed to a peak in 2010, and global warming acceptance is now climbing. This bodes well for rational public policy.

 
 

Member Comments

harryanderson

“There is no reason to sequester CO2.”

So I guess that puts you in the third group I mentioned earlier—those who oppose Peng’s call for action because they believe anthropogenic CO2 isn’t causing rapid climate change.

I agree with AaronS that Peng has written “an excellent commentary.” However, like I mentioned before, I fear it can’t be implemented because too many groups on both sides of the debate will oppose it.

And that’s bad news for those of us who love WV and want to see her citizens prosper.

Posted 400 days ago.

harryanderson

So, Tiredofit, do you feel that Peng, in calling for government funding to develop CCS technology for coal, is part of the “progressive/socialist agenda”?

Posted 400 days ago.

harryanderson

I agree with Peng when he says, “we need focused government support, particularly to develop and demonstrate technologies for carbon capture and storage (CCS).”

However, I think it may not be practical to implement his plan. I fear some groups would strongly object:

Libertarian small-government types, at least those from non-coal states, might oppose such government intervention in the marketplace, not to mention the big government spending required.

Some who live in urban areas might oppose it out of cultural disdain. They might see it as benefiting a group with which they see themselves at odds.

Those who believe anthropogenic CO2 isn’t causing rapid climate change might consider it a waste.

I belong to none of these 3 groups. I’m all for making us winners in what Peng calls the “race on to raise coal-burning efficiency while reducing its carbon footprint.”

Posted 401 days ago.

harryanderson

Pent sees it as an engineering problem. I agree.

Posted 401 days ago.

There is an excellant commentary by Syd S. Peng. Suprisingly, it's received no attention from those who oppose coal so strongly.

h t t p : / / w w w .newsandsentinel****/page/content.detail/id/577462/Coal--A-fuel-for-our-future. h t m l?nav=5055

Posted 401 days ago.

moderation

Come on Harry,.....it's the banking industry, huh !

Posted 405 days ago.

Whether you have a desire or not Harry, I strongly believe there are many on the extreme left who do have that desire. I just hope I never live to see it.

Posted 405 days ago.

harryanderson

That was speculation. If cap-and-trade is to be implemented globally, it will take a great power to enforce it.

Maybe I should have refrained from speculating.I certainly have no plans or desires to see global government implemented.

Posted 407 days ago.

I'm still waiting on Harry to explain this global government of his.

Posted 407 days ago.

Global government?

Posted 407 days ago.

harryanderson

To be clear, my recent posts about E-M's motivations are speculations, and not based on inside information.

Regardless of motivation, E-M and Shell accept AGW. And E-M, for one, is proposing a solution. We should expect them to propose a solution favorable to them.

Posted 407 days ago.

harryanderson

Exactly. And if it's globally instituted, and global government creates new markets out of "making fossil fuels available to parts of the world that don't have it," then E-M will be in a sweet spot. Especially if said gov't limits drilling; they already have lots of wells.

So maybe they're admitting AGW exists, and positioning themselves to profit from it while many of us, by refusing to admit AGW exists and advancing our cause, are positioning ourselves to pay the profits they hope for.

Posted 407 days ago.

harryanderson

Exactly. And if it's globally instituted, and global government creates new markets out of "making fossil fuels available to parts of the world that don't have it," then E-M will be in a sweet spot. Especially if said gov't limits drilling; they already have lots of wells.

So maybe they're admitting AGW exists, and positioning themselves to profit from it while many of us, by refusing to admit AGW exists and advancing our cause, are positioning ourselves to pay the profits they hope for.

Posted 407 days ago.

Cap and trade allows him to pass fixed cost along to customers.

Posted 407 days ago.

harryanderson

Of course Exxon-Mobil has an agenda, and you’ve just pointed it out.

Tillerson’s agenda is “making fossil fuels available (read selling) to parts of the world that don't have it" in spite of knowing that “human-made emissions have contributed to altering the planet's climate.”

And, of course, they support cap-and-trade because it will enable them to continue selling oil. I suspect E-M would be unalterably opposed to cap-and-trade if they weren’t convinced that burning fossil fuels was contributing to AGW.

That’s why I said 37 days ago that I wasn’t sure cap-and-trade is the best solution. It may be the best for E-M, but I’m not sure it’s the best for the rest of us. I fear it will raise prices by creating shortages. If the price goes up, E-M gains, but we lose.

The point I was making still stands: Exxon-Mobil’s CEO has admitted that CO2 is altering the climate.

Posted 408 days ago.

From your article Harry...

Exxon Mobil, once one of the staunchest critics of climate change research, has acknowledged under Tillerson's leadership that human-made emissions have contributed to altering the planet's climate. The company now supports taxing carbon emissions.

Still, Tillerson said issues such as global poverty were more pressing than climate change, and billions of people without access to energy would benefit from oil and gas supplies.

"They'd love to burn fossil fuels because their quality of life would rise immeasurably," he said.

"You'd save millions upon millions of lives by making fossil fuels available to parts of the world that don't have it," he added.

...As I told you 37 days ago, Exxon/Mobile has an agenda in their change regarding climate change.

Posted 408 days ago.

harryanderson

“Well the freaking oil companies have the money to make the truth come out.”

They sure do have the money, and they are making the truth come out. As I pointed out on this thread 37 days ago, at least 2 big oil companies—Exxon-Mobil and Shell—are now truthfully admitting that anthropogenic CO2 poses a problem.

ww w.reuters.co m/article/2012/06/27/us-exxon-climate-idUSBRE85Q1C820120627

ww w.shell.co m/global/environment-society/environment/climate-change.html

Posted 408 days ago.

harryanderson

“Compression of population centers and controls of food and water resources are gonna be significant issues in any case.”

Unless the warming trend is arrested, that’s quite true. Whether it be voluntary or coerced (by either mankind or environmental change), it’s coming.

Posted 408 days ago.

harryanderson

Meanwhile, amidst the hubbub and hoopla…

…climate scientists have become even more convinced that anthropogenic CO2 is harming the planet. New information is “steadily squeezing out the arguments by a small minority of scientists that natural variations in the climate might be to blame.”

ww w.trust.or g/item/20130816133815-ao2wt/?source=hptop

The laws of physics are impervious to hubbub and hoopla.

Posted 408 days ago.

moderation

Compression of population centers and controls of food and water resources are gonna be significant issues in any case.

Posted 408 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or