Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 24   Go Down

Author Topic: The Climate Change Hoax  (Read 116330 times)

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #80 on: March 27, 2017, 09:34:11 am »

... I do worry about the effects of the current USA plans for defunding research, on reliable data collection.

Cheers,
Bart
If others think it's important enough, they'll fund it.  Why should the American tax payer always be the dunce?

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4690
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #81 on: March 27, 2017, 10:21:24 am »

Meanwhile, Trump defunds NASA's Earth observation satellites.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/technology/nasa-cuts-earth-science-1.4040181

We certainly don't need to know the truth, now do we?
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #82 on: March 27, 2017, 02:16:32 pm »

Meanwhile, Trump defunds NASA's Earth observation satellites.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/technology/nasa-cuts-earth-science-1.4040181

We certainly don't need to know the truth, now do we?
The danger here is we rely on satellite images for weather prediction.  If a satellite fails it needs to be replaced.  This is a laughable yet understandable proposal from this administration.
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #83 on: March 27, 2017, 02:31:53 pm »

If others think it's important enough, they'll fund it.  Why should the American tax payer always be the dunce?

Why? Because the USA is (by pulling out of the agreement) aiming to be the no.1 polluter of the atmosphere again?
China, the current no.1, is cutting its emissions (a.o. by switching from coal to nuclear power)".

Have a look at the  "The Paris Agreement" section:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-agreement-idUSKBN16Y1SP

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #84 on: March 27, 2017, 03:23:15 pm »

Why? Because the USA is (by pulling out of the agreement) aiming to be the no.1 polluter of the atmosphere again?
China, the current no.1, is cutting its emissions (a.o. by switching from coal to nuclear power)".

Have a look at the  "The Paris Agreement" section:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-agreement-idUSKBN16Y1SP

Cheers,
Bart
From the agreement: "The Paris Agreement has few binding obligations. It lets all nations set their own goals for fighting climate change and has no penalties for non-compliance." 

First off, as you can see, there are no binding requirements.  Second, why should America be the country to do this expensive research?  How much would you be willing to contribute out of your paycheck  to America will you pay us?  You can send your check to me and I'll forward it to the US Treasury for you.


Thirdly, America is not suddenly going to become a polluter.  We have huge requirements and regulations reducing pollution and methods of construction and manufacturing that effect these things.  Americans don't want to breathe or drink polluted air or water and are in favor of cleaner energy if only that it allows us to live cleaner lives.  But we would rather be in charge of deciding how far and where we want to handle these things.  We don't want other countries telling us what to do.   Just like the British didn't want the gnomes of Brussels telling them what to do, neither do we.  This is our Brexit moment. 
 

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #85 on: March 27, 2017, 09:19:12 pm »

If your environmental impact only affected you, that would be valid.
Logged
Phil Brown

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #86 on: March 27, 2017, 11:50:35 pm »

If your environmental impact only affected you, that would be valid.
Meanwhile, the "Green Climate Fund" that is suppose to take in $100 billion by 2020 to be distributed to help countries effected by climate change has only received pledges of $10 billion.  America is the only country that has actually given pledge money to the fund: $500 million.  So as usual, America winds up being the sap, the dunce, who provides its largess from the American taxpayer while the rest of the world sits on its asses.  We do the same with the U.N. NATO etc.  We're tired of footing the bill.  We're tired of others telling us what we have to give to them. 

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #87 on: March 28, 2017, 06:22:41 am »

Relaxed CO2 Standards in USA

In his latest executive order, President Trump will order his Cabinet to start demolishing a wide array of Obama-era policies on global warming — including emissions rules for power plants, limits on methane leaks, a moratorium on federal coal leasing, and the use of the social cost of carbon to guide government actions. Under Obama, EPA set CO2 standards for anyone who wants to build a new power plant.

The Obama-era standards basically make it impossible to build a new coal-burning facility in the United States unless it can capture its carbon emissions and sequester them underground, a costly and still-nascent technology known as CCS.

http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/3/27/14922516/trump-executive-order-climate
Logged

mbaginy

  • Guest
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #88 on: March 28, 2017, 06:37:49 am »

... America is the only country that has actually given pledge money to the fund: $500 million.  So as usual, America winds up being the sap, the dunce, who provides its largess from the American taxpayer while the rest of the world sits on its asses.  ...

Alan, actually, 43 countries have pledged funds.  And the US have pledged 3 million and 500 million only depending upon the availablity of funds (which could end up meaning anything). 
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #89 on: March 28, 2017, 08:18:28 am »

Alan, actually, 43 countries have pledged funds.  And the US have pledged 3 million and 500 million only depending upon the availablity of funds (which could end up meaning anything). 
Did I miss something? 43 countries pledged.   A pledge is a promise to pay.   Only America actually paid anything.  $500 million.

mbaginy

  • Guest
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #90 on: March 28, 2017, 09:51:48 am »

Did I miss something? 43 countries pledged.   A pledge is a promise to pay.   Only America actually paid anything.  $500 million.
I read the list to show that the US have paid 3 million.  In addition, the US have pledged 500 million with the proviso that funds are available when payday arrives.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #91 on: March 28, 2017, 10:17:32 am »

I read the list to show that the US have paid 3 million.  In addition, the US have pledged 500 million with the proviso that funds are available when payday arrives.
Do you have a link to your figures?  Wikipedia states that only America has actually given funds of $500 million (Obama in2016)  See below.  What have other countries actually given?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Climate_Fund#cite_note-13

Sources of finance[edit]
The Green Climate Fund is intended to be the centrepiece of Long Term Financing under the UNFCCC, which has set itself a goal of raising $100 billion per year by 2020. Uncertainty over where this money would come from led to the creation of a High Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing (AGF) by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon in February 2010. There is no formal connection between this Panel and the GCF, although its report is one source for debates on "resource mobilisation" for the GCF, an item that will be discussed at the Fund's October 2013 Board meeting.[10]
The European Commission does not provide funding to the Green Climate fund. It is EU Member States that directly contribute. Anno 2016, jointly, they have pledged nearly half of the fund's resources: USD 4.7 billion.[11]
The lack of pledged funds and potential reliance on the private sector is controversial and has been criticized by developing countries.[12]
President Obama, in his final 3 days in office, initiated the transfer of a second $500m instalment to the Fund.[13]

mbaginy

  • Guest
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #92 on: March 28, 2017, 01:41:22 pm »

Do you have a link to your figures? 
Alan, the link is activated by clicking the "3 million" in my thread #88.  Then see footnote #8.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #93 on: March 29, 2017, 03:49:33 am »

Relaxed CO2 Standards in USA

In his latest executive order, President Trump will order his Cabinet to start demolishing a wide array of Obama-era policies on global warming — including emissions rules for power plants, limits on methane leaks, a moratorium on federal coal leasing, and the use of the social cost of carbon to guide government actions. Under Obama, EPA set CO2 standards for anyone who wants to build a new power plant.

The Obama-era standards basically make it impossible to build a new coal-burning facility in the United States unless it can capture its carbon emissions and sequester them underground, a costly and still-nascent technology known as CCS.

http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/3/27/14922516/trump-executive-order-climate

Yes. This is the economically destructive aspect of pollution control which Trump is trying to overcome. The technology of coal-fired power plants has now progressed to the point where all the 'real' pollutants, such as sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate carbon, arsenic, mercury, and so on, can be virtually eliminated, or at least reduced to insignificant levels that pose no threat.  Such power plants are known as 'Ultra-supercritical'. They burn the coal at much higher temperatures and pressures. They cost more to build, but burn the coal more efficiently, so the extra construction cost is soon offset by the savings in the cost of the coal used.

http://cornerstonemag.net/setting-the-benchmark-the-worlds-most-efficient-coal-fired-power-plants/

However, eliminating the much more abundant emissions of CO2 is too costly at present. Describing the clean and odourless gas called CO2, as a pollutant, and placing it in the same category as real pollutants that are known with certainty to harm our health, is a very neat trick by the alarmists, to smash the coal industry by making it uneconomical.

Unfortunately, the consequences of this approach to solving the uncertain threat of CO2, are rising energy prices.

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/the-escalating-cost-of-electricity/

What is perhaps not appreciated by most people is that the true cost of energy underpins all human activity and prosperity in our modern societies. A rise in the average cost of energy, world-wide, is equivalent to an average pay cut for everyone, unless such increases in energy costs are offset by increases in efficiency.
Logged

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7397
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #94 on: March 29, 2017, 04:25:16 am »

If others think it's important enough, they'll fund it.  Why should the American tax payer always be the dunce?

Are you also concerned about being the dunce and paying for wars and invading countries based on lies? Just curious...

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #95 on: March 29, 2017, 07:51:31 am »

Yes. This is the economically destructive aspect of pollution control which Trump is trying to overcome. The technology of coal-fired power plants has now progressed to the point where all the 'real' pollutants, such as sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate carbon, arsenic, mercury, and so on, can be virtually eliminated, or at least reduced to insignificant levels that pose no threat.  Such power plants are known as 'Ultra-supercritical'. They burn the coal at much higher temperatures and pressures. They cost more to build, but burn the coal more efficiently, so the extra construction cost is soon offset by the savings in the cost of the coal used.
The Trump rule change is quite irrelevant for two reasons.  1) in order to overturn the Obama EPA rule they have to go through notice and comment rulemaking all over again which is time consuming and 2) the economics are against coal going forward:  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/business/energy-environment/trump-coal-executive-order-impact.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

It's instructive to note that Owensboro KY is retiring their coal burning power plant and building guess what?.....a gas fired one.  So much for big coal in Kentucky.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #96 on: March 29, 2017, 07:54:14 am »

Are you also concerned about being the dunce and paying for wars and invading countries based on lies? Just curious...
Only a mean-spirited person would ask a stupid question like that.

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #97 on: March 29, 2017, 08:02:16 am »

The Trump rule change is quite irrelevant for two reasons.  1) in order to overturn the Obama EPA rule they have to go through notice and comment rulemaking all over again which is time consuming and 2) the economics are against coal going forward:  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/business/energy-environment/trump-coal-executive-order-impact.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

It's instructive to note that Owensboro KY is retiring their coal burning power plant and building guess what?.....a gas fired one.  So much for big coal in Kentucky.
It never had anything to do with restoring coal as an energy source - just a Village People-style photo-op for Trump in a hardhat and another promise to get votes. A year from now miners will still be unemployed and Trump will still be playing golf in Florida.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #98 on: March 29, 2017, 08:13:35 am »

The Trump rule change is quite irrelevant for two reasons.  1) in order to overturn the Obama EPA rule they have to go through notice and comment rulemaking all over again which is time consuming and 2) the economics are against coal going forward:  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/business/energy-environment/trump-coal-executive-order-impact.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

It's instructive to note that Owensboro KY is retiring their coal burning power plant and building guess what?.....a gas fired one.  So much for big coal in Kentucky.
I'm over my limit for New York Times articles. So I can't link to it. Doesn't the removal of Obama's executive order help the coal industry? Trump made a promise to remove certain regulations. He's not responsible for what happens afterwards in the marketplace. I don't think the coal miners are  going to blame him after that. They understand what's happening in the coal industry with competition. They just want some of the pressure taking off of them by the previous administration's executive orders.

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: The Climate Change Hoax
« Reply #99 on: March 29, 2017, 08:45:55 am »

I'm over my limit for New York Times articles. So I can't link to it. Doesn't the removal of Obama's executive order help the coal industry? Trump made a promise to remove certain regulations. He's not responsible for what happens afterwards in the marketplace. I don't think the coal miners are  going to blame him after that. They understand what's happening in the coal industry with competition. They just want some of the pressure taking off of them by the previous administration's executive orders.
Coal mining is becoming mechanized and deep tunnel mining which requires more manpower is disappearing.  Even those former miners who live in Kentucky and West Virginia are under no illusions that these jobs are going to come back.  Coal mining jobs have been on a consistent downward trajectory since 1980 because of strip mining and mountain top removal. 

Coal fired power plants are more expensive to build and run than gas fired plants irrespective of the CO2 rules.  the key pollutants in coal burning are sulfur and nitrogen oxides and heavy metals all of which have to scrubbed out.  You don't have this issue with gas fired plants.  In addition, the price of gas is much cheaper these days.  The export market for coal is shrinking as China is moving to reduce the coal burning that has created the terrible smog in many of its cities.  the whole issue is one of economics and health.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 24   Go Up