A reversal for coal plant

Can someone put together a list of Dems and environmentalists Sierra Clubers advocating drilling in ANWR & offshore, or using our abundance of coal. I am sure you will find they either oppose all new energy or worse they constantly seek legal battles to stop this energy to save mother earth.

Lets try to deal with reality a bit on this site.

Thank you Al Gore and your fictional movie.

Tell Bill McKidden the polar bears are doing just fine and matter a fact better population then ever before.

Then tell him to have some more cough syrup.

"Climate Confusion" is really a great book about global warming by Roy Spencer.

To be clear a mistake the left makes about global warming is the word "science". There is no science about the weather and the global warming hysteria, it is based on opinions and theories. In addition the latest from NASA is were entering a global cooling period. Al Gore forgot to tell ya that in his movie.

Keep fighting for free markets.

Even though it may not look like global warming or smell like global warming or even feel like it-
trust me its global warming.

"the planet has a fever".-Al Gore

All data shows the earth has not warmed since 1998.

Global warming comes down to this for the believers;
I believe in global warming because I just do thats why!

Kinda like God-people have no proof but they have faith.

Jon J wrote:

<quoted text>
When have you ever seen a clown like that substantiate a claim?

There's a first time for everything. I think it's funny when these right wingers start throwing out a bunch of claims that they've heard on Fox TV or AM radio. Then when you ask them for the facts to back up their claims, they can't produce them. Which just proves that they are parroting ideas they got from elsewhere, and they haven't done any investigating to form their own opinion.

Are we still waiting for some lefty to explain how the ice melted from the ice age?

This global warming garbage is suppose to have soo much substance.

Then again, thats why Al Gore had to make a fictional movie instead of dealing with the truth.

The facts never lie!

Teddy Kennedy wrote:

Are we still waiting for some lefty to explain how the ice melted from the ice age?
This global warming garbage is suppose to have soo much substance.
Then again, thats why Al Gore had to make a fictional movie instead of dealing with the truth.
The facts never lie!

Care to post a few of those facts?

does al gore have an once of credibility.

NASA now says were entering a cooling period. I wish they would make up their minds.
I prefer warming becuz then we have lower heating bills and longer golf seasons.

its not all gloom and doom.

samIam wrote:

NASA now says were entering a cooling period.

Really? Please link to what NASA actually says.

google it. based your opinions on facts not the emotional based argument the left tells you. study both sides of the debate before making up you mind...colleges, news channels
& time magazine only give you half this story. in the end its more politics then substance.

Barney wrote:

<quoted text>
Really? Please link to what NASA actually says.

samIam wrote:

google it.

Translation: You're making it up. Please link to NASA claiming what you say they claim.

samIam wrote:

based your opinions on facts not the emotional (sic) based argument the left tells you. study both sides of the debate before making up you (sic) mind...colleges, news channels& time magazine only give you half this story. in the end its (sic) more politics then (sic) substance.

I know this may be hard for you to accept, but climate change theory is not an "emotion (sic) based argument" told to us by "the left". It is a scientific theory based upon substantial evidence, and the strong consensus on it has developed over many decades after first having little acceptance in the scientific community.

You would do well to avail yourself of the abundant amount of scientific material available on the Internet which explains the theory very well.

Now please give the exact words NASA used with respect to "cooling" and a link to where the quote comes from. You say that one should study these things on one's own, so obviously you came upon this notion about what NASA claimed somehow. Please share the source of this notion.

Here's what NASA actually said:

A cool-water anomaly known as La Niña occupied the tropical Pacific Ocean throughout 2007 and early 2008. In April 2008, scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced that while the La Niña was weakening, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation—a larger-scale, slower-cycling ocean pattern—had shifted to its cool phase.

This image shows the sea surface temperature anomaly in the Pacific Ocean from April 14–21, 2008. The anomaly compares the recent temperatures measured by the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite with an average of data collected by the NOAA Pathfinder satellites from 1985–1997. Places where the Pacific was cooler than normal are blue, places where temperatures were average are white, and places where the ocean was warmer than normal are red.

The cool water anomaly in the center of the image shows the lingering effect of the year-old La Niña. However, the much broader area of cooler-than-average water off the coast of North America from Alaska (top center) to the equator is a classic feature of the cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The cool waters wrap in a horseshoe shape around a core of warmer-than-average water.(In the warm phase, the pattern is reversed).

Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. The shift in the PDO can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns.“This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.“The persistence of this large-scale pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”

Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, "These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it."

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/New...

That does not match your claim.

Barney wrote:

<quoted text>
Translation: You're making it up. Please link to NASA claiming what you say they claim.
<quoted text>
I know this may be hard for you to accept, but climate change theory is not an "emotion (sic) based argument" told to us by "the left". It is a scientific theory based upon substantial evidence, and the strong consensus on it has developed over many decades after first having little acceptance in the scientific community.
You would do well to avail yourself of the abundant amount of scientific material available on the Internet which explains the theory very well.
Now please give the exact words NASA used with respect to "cooling" and a link to where the quote comes from. You say that one should study these things on one's own, so obviously you came upon this notion about what NASA claimed somehow. Please share the source of this notion.

The decades of studies were first global cooling then global warming. Now global warming being masked by cooling ocean currents.

If you did not know that NASA declared that we will soon be entering a global cooling period, then your studies are a bit behind. A so called consensus does not equal fact or science-you know that. They had a major convention in New York recently and top scienetists from around the world shared there opionions on the global warming hoax.

Because as hard as it is for you to understand this, man made global warming cannot be proven.
It lies in the theory and opinion section.

That is why the British Court ruled that Al Gore lied regularily is his movie because the facts are not there. Only opinions.

Keep drinking the kool aid or better yet tell me how the ice from the "ice age" melted without man and his made global warming SUV's?

Reasons to Support Global warming baloney;

Saves money. Fewer icy roads means fewer accidents. Fewer accidents lowers insurance rates for everybody.
-
Reduction of landfills. Less salt on highways means cars will last longer. Saves money and reduces land fill.
-
Fewer shipwrecks. Smaller icebergs mean fewer ship wrecks.(Ever heard of the Titanic?)
-
Conserves fuel. Warmer winters means lower fuel consumption for home heating and less warming up the car on cold days before you get in.
-
Better health. Warmer weather lends itself to more outdoor activities which promotes better health in children and adults. Less snow skiing means fewer fatal collisions with trees.
-
Cleaner oceans. Melting ice caps produces an abundance of clean, cool water for the earth's oceans.
-
Less violence. Less snow means fewer snowball fights which is often the enter level activity for violence among children.(we're certain there is some study somewhere that can prove this)
-
Saves animals. Fewer frozen lakes will result in fewer dogs walking out onto frozen lakes and falling through the ice. And fewer firefighters will have to risk their lives saving these dumb animals.
-
Less forced migration for birds. Fewer birds will be forced to fly south for the winter. Old people will probably still do it but birds will be able to find more food up north.
-
Safer for Children. Fewer icy metal poles means fewer tongues stuck to them. Less sledding means fewer accidents.
-
Expands rainforests. Rainforests don't do well in snow and ice. Warmer climates will eventually promote rainforest expansion.
-
Better education. Fewer snow days means more time spend in public school learning from wacky liberals about all the horrible things America does. Wait a minute. Scratch this off.

Let's see. We place our faith in science to make long term predictions about the weather. Hmmm. If they can't get it right when forecasting local climate three days out, why do we think scientists can predict the entire planetary climate for the next few decades? Shouldn't they learn to accurately predict a weekend of rain before they predict a long term, global crisis that disrupts the civilized world?

--Roger Fields, Environmental Anti-Activist

CyBear wrote:

<< U.S. coal prices are equal to $1.98 for each million British thermal units of energy, compared with $12.51 for fuel oil and $6.91 for natural gas, data compiled by Bloomberg show. >>
Your data are about a year old.
As of Friday, natgas was $11.53 for June, and fuel oil (diesel #2 heating oil) was $26.39 per MBtu. Coal is $4.27 per MBtu.
Still, this is a LOT cheaper than wind.

***Wind ($23.37) v. Gas (25 Cents)***

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1210554279305...

Congress seems ready to spend billions on a new "Manhattan Project" for green energy, or at least the political class really, really likes talking about one. But maybe we should look at what our energy subsidy dollars are buying now.

Some clarity comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent federal agency that tried to quantify government spending on energy production in 2007. The agency reports that the total taxpayer bill was $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like. That's double in real dollars from eight years earlier, as you'd expect given all the money Congress is throwing at "renewables." Even more subsidies are set to pass this year.

Wind turbines only produce electricity intermittently - but consume it continuously:
__________

A Problem With Wind Power
[www.aweo.org/windbackup.html]

Juan McLame wrote:

<quoted text>
***Wind ($23.37) v. Gas (25 Cents)***
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1210554279305...
Congress seems ready to spend billions on a new "Manhattan Project" for green energy, or at least the political class really, really likes talking about one. But maybe we should look at what our energy subsidy dollars are buying now.
Some clarity comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent federal agency that tried to quantify government spending on energy production in 2007. The agency reports that the total taxpayer bill was $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like. That's double in real dollars from eight years earlier, as you'd expect given all the money Congress is throwing at "renewables." Even more subsidies are set to pass this year.
Wind turbines only produce electricity intermittently - but consume it continuously:
__________
A Problem With Wind Power
[www.aweo.org/windbackup.html]

The Dems have one word for energy, "No".

No oil, no coal, no nuclear.

Wind and solar may help in the long term but offer no relief for todays high energy prices. We know this, ethonal has sure been a failure.

if every illegal would just bring in one barrel of crude with them... we'd have even more reasons to pass 'comprehensive immigration reform'.

I tell ya what-dems would say no to that too.
all in the name of man made global warming