Uh oh! The planet is cooling
- Thread starter tinfoil
- Start date
Unfortunately we've found ways to do that cleaner, now you have to burn about three times the coal for the same warming effect...
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Really moron? Because I didn't even mention CO2. I could care less about CO2. I have not stated that CO2 doesn't contribute to warming.
I said we need to stop this idiotic "who can we blame" bullshit. Lets reduce pollution. Air, Water, Land.... it does us NO good to pollute any of them. It is bad for our health. By shifting to clean energy we IMPROVE our health.
In addition, a move to clean energy reduces our dependency on foreign energy.... which is good for our national security.
In addition to that.... and do try to pay attention you religious hack.... IF you reduce the use of fossil fuels.... CO2 emmissions go DOWN.
So quit spewing around and projecting your idiotic nonsense of what you THINK my position is.
Go back to any other thread on this subject and you will see that I, unlike you, can focus on the big picture and I am not religiously beholden to CO2.
If one doesn't believe that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming, there's no compelling need to reduce the burning of fossil fuels in the context of pollution. Existing laws and technologies can mitigate the effects of sulfur and particulate matter emissions. We could move to clean coal technology, for example.
There still would be a need to mitigate the need for foreign source dependancy, and continuing the search for emissionless power is not contingent on the need for an unreslient belief in a consensus that may or may not change as we gain more knowledge.
There is also the powerful argument that it can fuel our economy to come up with the next source of power that will lead us into the next millenium and enable the US to remain at the top in economic advantage.
Ignoring all other benefit because you MUST only do it because of CO2, and therefore you must be called to task even if you agree in the goal, just not the "sole" reason for it, becomes a religious mantra and counter productive as well as just plain dumb. Making logical and larger reasons that will effect people now and hopefully drive the goal into more of society is not "bad" or even inconsistent with a belief that global warming could be contributed to by humans.
Believing that hamstringing innovation by limiting the ability of the very society that will likely come up with the solution is counterproductive and foolish certainly isn't inconsistent with a belief we need to do something about it either.
There still would be a need to mitigate the need for foreign source dependancy,
That's why I said if you dont' believe CO2 emission are warming the planet yet you still want to get off foreign oil, the best bet is to use coal and upgrade clean coal technology. Because we have enough domestic coal to last for centuries.
Because, if you don't think CO2 is warming the planet, and if armchair scientists think the global scientific consensus is wrong, then there's no compelling need to back away from fossil fuels.
Except there is again the need to make it emissionless, which it is not now. While we may be able to mitigate some of the emissions, there is still pollution generated even from "clean burning" coal production. Again, the religious need to only mitigate global warming is a foolish limitation.
It also ignores the very large economic benefit. There are many more benefits the US can get from this without religiously focusing on only CO2.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
ROFLMAO....
You crack me up.
Even IF clean coal technology was pollutant free... which it is most certainly not.... you still have the effects of mining on the land, air pollution in the mines themselves etc.... Just out of curiosity... do you even KNOW anything about clean coal tech? Do you realize the costs involved with capturing the carbon? Do you understand that the chemicals don't just magically disappear when the coal is "cleaned"? That they have to be stored or disposed of somewhere? Do you comprehend that they still have to transport the coal?
If you think that there are no pollution considerations other than CO2, then you are an idiot and really shouldn't be discussing this issue.
It reminds me of that SNL skit with Admiral Stockdale shouting "Gridlock!" all the time...
It just needs to be replaced with "CO2!"
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
You really are a moron aren't you?
Neither of us has stated that CO2 doesn't contribute to global warming. We are not arguing with your precious consensus. We are saying focus on the big picture and the CO2 problem will be taken care of.
I notice you haven't managed to answer my question....
Does the reduction of fossil fuel consumption lower CO2 emissions?
The rightwing "sudden" concern with sulfur and particulate matter pollution from fossil fuels is a ruse. It was the rightwing that fought tooth and nail against environmental regulations to mitigate sulfur compound emissions.
Remember how you guys laughed about acid rain? And now your trying to potray yourselves as noble crusadors against sulfur and particulate pollution from fossil fuels? Don't make me laugh.
The "sudden" concern about pollution from fossil fuels is a ruse. You can't admit the rightwing has been wrong for 20 years about CO2. Its similar to how the rightwing can't admit they were wrong about Iraq. They know they were wrong, but they can't admit it publically.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
LMAO.... a very astute analogy.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Translation:
"No, I had no fucking clue that "clean coal tech" was actually still bad for the environment. I was told to shout CO2 everytime someone brought up this subject and now I don't know what to do when someone brings up other related topics"
List of people who can't think past CO2 and understand that there could be even more benefits than that in mitigation of emissions when creating energy:
Cypress
Your an armchair scientist Damo. You have no training or educaion in climate science. You have no more experience in climate science, than you do in neurosurgery. I'll take the nearly universal consensus scientific opinion of the world, over your and superfreak's opinion on this.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
The problem Cypress is that you are far too ignorant to understand our position. Not once have we stated that CO2 doesn't contribute to warming. Not once. Yet you continue to pretend that we have. Why is that Cypress?
Again, you have yet to answer....
Does the reduction/elimination of fossil fuels reduce CO2 emissions?
Its not sufficient to come on here, and proclaim that we don't know one way or the other, if CO2 emissions are warming the planet. That's your position, from what I can tell.
We do know, with 90% empirical certainty that CO2 emissions are warming the planet. Every government on the planet as signed off on that conclusion, through the IPCC.
If you were told by a team of nuerosurgeons that they thought there was a 90% probablity that you had a brain tumour, you wouldn't blow that off and minimize it.