So now burning coal is good for the environment

[BJJ-Blue]

"WASHINGTON — China's soaring coal consumption in the last decade held back global warming as sulfur emissions served as a coolant, according to a study that takes head-on a key argument of climate skeptics.

While 2005 and 2010 are tied as the hottest years on record, skeptics have charged that an absence of a steady rise from 1998 to 2008 disproves the view that people are heating up the planet through greenhouse gas emissions.

Robert Kaufmann, a professor at Boston University, said he was motivated to conduct the study after a skeptic confronted him at a public forum, telling him he had seen on Fox News that temperatures had not risen over the decade.

"Nothing that I had read that other people have done gave me a quick answer to explain that seeming contradiction, because I knew that carbon dioxide concentrations have risen," Kaufmann told AFP.

The US-Finnish study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, named a culprit -- coal.

The burning of coal jumped in the past decade, particularly in China, whose economy has grown at breakneck pace. Coal emits sulfur, which stops the Sun's rays from reaching the Earth."

Source: (complete article)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jGJC93jCEX0EZ80katgzOO_K1cpg?docId=CNG.9dbab 75e3418bf50a4b7b8244b8b6207.b41

[SimonM]

No, you just can't read.

[BJJ-Blue]

No, you just can't read.

How so? The 'scientist' said coal burning actually cooled the Earth. Am I wrong there?

I just cant understand how and why people defend these hucksters. Their story keeps changing to fit their agenda. A true scientist uses the data to draw conclusions, they don't alter data and their previous findings to fit a predrawn conclusion.

[SimonM]

Try reading beyond the headline of the article you posted. I know, reading is hard, but do try and keep up. Oh and don't bother replying. You're back on my ignore list again, I only pulled you off momentarily to see precisely what idiocy you'd linked to this time.

Turns out the link wasn't the idiocy, just your ability to read.

[Drake]

"WASHINGTON — China's soaring coal consumption in the last decade held back global warming as sulfur emissions served as a coolant, according to a study that takes head-on a key argument of climate skeptics.

While 2005 and 2010 are tied as the hottest years on record, skeptics have charged that an absence of a steady rise from 1998 to 2008 disproves the view that people are heating up the planet through greenhouse gas emissions.

Robert Kaufmann, a professor at Boston University, said he was motivated to conduct the study after a skeptic confronted him at a public forum, telling him he had seen on Fox News that temperatures had not risen over the decade.

"Nothing that I had read that other people have done gave me a quick answer to explain that seeming contradiction, because I knew that carbon dioxide concentrations have risen," Kaufmann told AFP.

The US-Finnish study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, named a culprit -- coal.

The burning of coal jumped in the past decade, particularly in China, whose economy has grown at breakneck pace. Coal emits sulfur, which stops the Sun's rays from reaching the Earth."

Source: (complete article)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jGJC93jCEX0EZ80katgzOO_K1cpg?docId=CNG.9dbab 75e3418bf50a4b7b8244b8b6207.b41

Perhaps the most ridiculous article I've read in a while.

[BJJ-Blue]

Try reading beyond the headline of the article you posted.

I did read it. He tried to backtrack and say coal still was bad, but the gist of his argument was the burning coal LOWERED temperatures. This is the polar opposite of what we've been being told for decades now.

Here is a sourced example from the National Resource Defence Coucil:

"Q:What causes global warming?

A:Carbon dioxide and other air pollution that is collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Coal-burning power plants are the largest U.S. source of carbon dioxide pollution -- they produce 2.5 billion tons every year. Automobiles, the second largest source, create nearly 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually."

Source:
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp


Perhaps the most ridiculous article I've read in a while.

I agree. Again, how they keep changing their story to fit their conclusion and yet still have people snowed is beyond me.

[Drake]

4 billion tons of CO2 can't be good.

The problem is how to stop the process without ruining the economy.

[Syn7]

uuummm....



what???


fukc offf.....




:p

[Syn7]

4 billion tons of CO2 can't be good.

The problem is how to stop the process without ruining the economy.

the problem is how to even start the process with all that lobby money comming in... coal is a major part of the political backbone... on both sides of the aisle... even if douchebag liberal sap suckers would like to put it all on republicans... the truth is that a tone of more conservative liberals take the money too... cant see a change till its forced on us by some bad news... then we'll argue about it while we burn... then we all die... happy happy joy joy...

i mean, i hope not... but really, whats more likely? man decides money dont matter, everyone should be equal and we'll start picking up trash??? or we just continuer downhill at exponentially increasing speeds...

[BJJ-Blue]

the problem is how to even start the process with all that lobby money comming in... coal is a major part of the political backbone...

That, and the fact it would hurt segments of our population who work in that industry. You ban coal production in the US, and West Virginia's unemployment rate will skyrocket, for example. Drake was correct when he pointed out the economic issues as well.

[Zenshiite]

Let's just say putting sulfur into the atmosphere and blocking the sun's rays ain't exactly good either.

[SimonM]

Which the article says actually.

It's sort of presented by the article as being a matter of "hey, this poison keeps things cooler than they'd be without it." But the article doesn't avoid the fact that it's a POISON!

One day people will come to their senses and use a combination of wind, solar and limited new-generation nuclear for power generation and I'll be a lot happier.

[BJJ-Blue]

Which the article says actually.

It's sort of presented by the article as being a matter of "hey, this poison keeps things cooler than they'd be without it." But the article doesn't avoid the fact that it's a POISON!

Which is what the article said. And I never denied that. But I pointed out the fact that we've been told for decades now that buring coal increases the Earth's temperature and now we are being told it lowers the Earth's temperature.

[GLW]

Actually, that is NOT what you are being told.

The problem is that you never seem to read enough of the article or dig far enough into other resources to get to the actual information.

Greenhouse gases (GHG) are the things that are contributing to climate change and are the things that man CAN do something about. They are also the things that we do a lot of polluting with.

They include water vapor (gaseous H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and ozone (O3).

The coal burned in China was VERY high in Sulfur and caused sulfur emissions. Sulfur is NOT a GHG and DOES reflect radiation (ie. light and heat) back into space when it is in the atmosphere. Thus, sulfur in the atmosphere DOES have a cooling effect.

However, this cooling effect is temporary whereas the GHG impact is over a much longer period of time. In addition, adding sulfur emissions to the atmosphere has much worse effects on humans in a very immediate time.

For example, if you put sulfur into the atmosphere and then pass it through water vapor, you get H2SO3 or H2SO4 - ie. sulfuric or sulfurous acid. This is also known as ACID RAIN of one type...the other being when you end up with chlorine in the atmosphere and pass it through water vapor and end up with HCl - hydrochloric acid. (Both of these are very common lab experiments that you would encounter in any undergraduate chemistry lab. I know I made both H2SO3 and HCl in lab using this method.)

Coal and oil of the type that has been used in China has been a problem and is illegal to use unless you have some significant scrubbers to deal with the sulfur emissions. This has been the case for quite a long time.

In addition, oil that has a high sulfur content is a big problem when you try to refine it. The sulfur tends to mess up the catalysts and ruin things that are VERY expensive to maintain...like the Catcraker units.

So, just burning sulfur to offset out GHG cools for a short while, gives us acid rain and other problems, and in the long run, is out of the atmosphere after doing its damage and the GHG is STILL there.

So, selective reading without any background in science or engineering - as you have shown - can be at best misinforming and at worst, a disaster.

Back to your usual rant....

[SoCo KungFu]

Actually, that is NOT what you are being told.

The problem is that you never seem to read enough of the article or dig far enough into other resources to get to the actual information.

Greenhouse gases (GHG) are the things that are contributing to climate change and are the things that man CAN do something about. They are also the things that we do a lot of polluting with.

They include water vapor (gaseous H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and ozone (O3).

The coal burned in China was VERY high in Sulfur and caused sulfur emissions. Sulfur is NOT a GHG and DOES reflect radiation (ie. light and heat) back into space when it is in the atmosphere. Thus, sulfur in the atmosphere DOES have a cooling effect.

However, this cooling effect is temporary whereas the GHG impact is over a much longer period of time. In addition, adding sulfur emissions to the atmosphere has much worse effects on humans in a very immediate time.

For example, if you put sulfur into the atmosphere and then pass it through water vapor, you get H2SO3 or H2SO4 - ie. sulfuric or sulfurous acid. This is also known as ACID RAIN of one type...the other being when you end up with chlorine in the atmosphere and pass it through water vapor and end up with HCl - hydrochloric acid. (Both of these are very common lab experiments that you would encounter in any undergraduate chemistry lab. I know I made both H2SO3 and HCl in lab using this method.)

Coal and oil of the type that has been used in China has been a problem and is illegal to use unless you have some significant scrubbers to deal with the sulfur emissions. This has been the case for quite a long time.

In addition, oil that has a high sulfur content is a big problem when you try to refine it. The sulfur tends to mess up the catalysts and ruin things that are VERY expensive to maintain...like the Catcraker units.

So, just burning sulfur to offset out GHG cools for a short while, gives us acid rain and other problems, and in the long run, is out of the atmosphere after doing its damage and the GHG is STILL there.

So, selective reading without any background in science or engineering - as you have shown - can be at best misinforming and at worst, a disaster.

Back to your usual rant....

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l117/sharingan134/brofist.jpg

[BJJ-Blue]

The coal burned in China was VERY high in Sulfur and caused sulfur emissions. Sulfur is NOT a GHG and DOES reflect radiation (ie. light and heat) back into space when it is in the atmosphere. Thus, sulfur in the atmosphere DOES have a cooling effect.

Tell you what, you put up a sourced quote of a pro-warming scientist saying this BEFORE this article and I'll eat crow. And when I say BEFORE, I mean 5 or more years before now. If these 'scientists' are so smart, they surely would have seen this coming, right? ;)


So, selective reading without any background in science or engineering - as you have shown - can be at best misinforming and at worst, a disaster.

Actually someone using selective and/or altered data with a background in science is even worse.

And fyi, I do work in engineering. And one of the first things I learned was NEVER to alter or hide data. You present the data, then draw conclusions. Not the other way around.

[GLW]

dirt simple :

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201107050010

Unlike you, I do not pull citations out of thin air.

Granted, MediaMatters is Left leaning. But most of your citations are Rightist...as in Faux News sponsored.

I COULD find other sources, and have..but this was the easiest and most succinct to cite in the 10 seconds you are worth.

[GLW]

And to be honest, I deliberately did NOT post the citation in the first post to let you ASK for it and reveal that you have invested so much into your preformed opinion that you will not do the simple google exercise to look for such a simple thing.

And you went me one better and asked for only ONE citation. So, pony up with an admission that it IS out there and Faux News is misrepresenting the issues again.

[SimonM]

Actually, that is NOT what you are being told.

The problem is that you never seem to read enough of the article or dig far enough into other resources to get to the actual information.

Greenhouse gases (GHG) are the things that are contributing to climate change and are the things that man CAN do something about. They are also the things that we do a lot of polluting with.

They include water vapor (gaseous H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and ozone (O3).

The coal burned in China was VERY high in Sulfur and caused sulfur emissions. Sulfur is NOT a GHG and DOES reflect radiation (ie. light and heat) back into space when it is in the atmosphere. Thus, sulfur in the atmosphere DOES have a cooling effect.

However, this cooling effect is temporary whereas the GHG impact is over a much longer period of time. In addition, adding sulfur emissions to the atmosphere has much worse effects on humans in a very immediate time.

For example, if you put sulfur into the atmosphere and then pass it through water vapor, you get H2SO3 or H2SO4 - ie. sulfuric or sulfurous acid. This is also known as ACID RAIN of one type...the other being when you end up with chlorine in the atmosphere and pass it through water vapor and end up with HCl - hydrochloric acid. (Both of these are very common lab experiments that you would encounter in any undergraduate chemistry lab. I know I made both H2SO3 and HCl in lab using this method.)

Coal and oil of the type that has been used in China has been a problem and is illegal to use unless you have some significant scrubbers to deal with the sulfur emissions. This has been the case for quite a long time.

In addition, oil that has a high sulfur content is a big problem when you try to refine it. The sulfur tends to mess up the catalysts and ruin things that are VERY expensive to maintain...like the Catcraker units.

So, just burning sulfur to offset out GHG cools for a short while, gives us acid rain and other problems, and in the long run, is out of the atmosphere after doing its damage and the GHG is STILL there.

So, selective reading without any background in science or engineering - as you have shown - can be at best misinforming and at worst, a disaster.

Back to your usual rant....

Awsome Pwnage!

See, this man CAN read. Thank you GLW.

[BJJ-Blue]

And to be honest, I deliberately did NOT post the citation in the first post to let you ASK for it and reveal that you have invested so much into your preformed opinion that you will not do the simple google exercise to look for such a simple thing.


http://mediamatters.org/blog/201107050010

Unlike you, I do not pull citations out of thin air.

I COULD find other sources, and have..but this was the easiest and most succinct to cite in the 10 seconds you are worth.

You have to try again. You must have missed a key part of my request. I will put the part you missed in red:


Tell you what, you put up a sourced quote of a pro-warming scientist saying this BEFORE this article and I'll eat crow. And when I say BEFORE, I mean 5 or more years before now. If these 'scientists' are so smart, they surely would have seen this coming, right? ;)

And to clairfy, I want a pro-warming scientist going on record well before this new data came out (5 years or more) saying that due to China's coal burning, the Earth's temp would be dropping in the future.

See, you just posted a rebuttal to the current story. I didn't ask for that. I'm on record saying these 'scientists' predictions are never right. So if you can produce a pro-warming scientist predicitng that the Earth would be COOLING due to China's coal burning several years before now, I'll have to admit they got one prediction right.

In short, I'm looking for a pro-warming scientist predicting 5+ years ago that the data we found just this week was going to happen.

[BJJ-Blue]

Awsome Pwnage!

See, this man CAN read. Thank you GLW.

Hardly. He did not produce what was requested. So though he can read, he appears to have missed part of my written request. Now if he actually finds what I've asked for, I'll have gotten 'Pwned'. ;)

[GLW]

He would have to know what a WORD is to eat it.

Five or more years...the data on Coal burning in China was not there then...so invalid request.

The data on the effects of burning sulfur and coal or sulfur and oil products in regards to SO2 and acid rain WAS known.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/acid_rain.shtml -note this was the first google result I found and it is dated 2002

http://www.moorlandschool.co.uk/earth/atmosphere.htm

for the simple science and the fact that it has been known influence temperatures for a LONG time

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0004698178900951

and abstract from 2003....

The recent news from China shows that the burning of sulfur SLOWED the temperature rise globally - meaning that what we see now would be even worse had it not been for the SO2 released into the atmosphere...

It would please me to no end to have you try to breathe in a bit of SO2... especially since I have been trained to stay away from helping those who fall due to releases in a refinery (when you see the man go down, he is most likely already dead and to go to him without a respirator will mean you can add yourself to the casualty list).

The problems of sulfur in the atmosphere goes back much further :

one from 1976 :
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3987147.html

N mention of the temperature rise but it was known then as well that sulfur and SO2 reflect radiated heat and light.

What that means is that if you have volcanoes generating heat on a planet (like Venus) and you have a lot of SO2 in the atmosphere, the heat is trapped on the planet. If you do not have a major source of heat on the planet and put SO2 in the atmosphere, the heat the comes from outside the planet - ie. sunlight...will be somewhat blocked.

After that simplistic interaction, the end results get VERY complex since the number of variables for the set of differential equations that it would take - and the multi-variable analysis required - would require supercomputers to even begin to make fully accurate small scale predictions.

However, this does not alter the fact that we are and have been screwing up our environment..and folks like you refuse to admit that things can and should be done about it...simply because you are selfish and greedy. The root reason for taking no action always, in the end, boils down in EVERY argument I have seen to "The cost" and "The change in lifestyle" "The impact on business" and "You CAN'T prove it 100%"

Now, to continue this approach, YOU produce an argument that does not hinge on one of those items...and it must be an argument you actually understand. (meaning, if you choose to try science, you have to know something about the chemistry and physics you are spouting. Sorry, I actually DO know a bit about that. Engineering degrees require you to have a good amount of chemistry, physics, thermodynamics. and even economics and statistics.)

[Syn7]

That, and the fact it would hurt segments of our population who work in that industry. You ban coal production in the US, and West Virginia's unemployment rate will skyrocket, for example. Drake was correct when he pointed out the economic issues as well.

its worth short term or even long term economic pain to save ourselves from killing our planet...

like drake said, warming or not, all that CO2 cannot be a good thing... it's just so out of balance that even if we dont know why its bad(we do know) its safe to assume its bad... everything about nature tells us of a special balance... anytime we throw that outta wack, we are gonna be hurting ourselves one way or another...

[Syn7]

You have to try again. You must have missed a key part of my request. I will put the part you missed in red:



And to clairfy, I want a pro-warming scientist going on record well before this new data came out (5 years or more) saying that due to China's coal burning, the Earth's temp would be dropping in the future.

See, you just posted a rebuttal to the current story. I didn't ask for that. I'm on record saying these 'scientists' predictions are never right. So if you can produce a pro-warming scientist predicitng that the Earth would be COOLING due to China's coal burning several years before now, I'll have to admit they got one prediction right.

In short, I'm looking for a pro-warming scientist predicting 5+ years ago that the data we found just this week was going to happen.

the amount of cooling from chinas coal does not offset all the GHG that are causing warming... and they are temporary whereas the GHG are much more long term... even if we asked china to provide all the worlds power in a bid to offset GHG we would not only see economic ruin and chinese rule, but also chinese and countries around china would suffer major medical problems... its not a solution by any means...

also blue, to admit one is to admit the other... if you want to believe this coal cools then you need to believe the others warms us up... you cant call a certain science bullsh1t and then use it is ammo for another aspect of the argument...

[Syn7]

He would have to know what a WORD is to eat it.

Five or more years...the data on Coal burning in China was not there then...so invalid request.

The data on the effects of burning sulfur and coal or sulfur and oil products in regards to SO2 and acid rain WAS known.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/acid_rain.shtml -note this was the first google result I found and it is dated 2002

http://www.moorlandschool.co.uk/earth/atmosphere.htm

for the simple science and the fact that it has been known influence temperatures for a LONG time

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0004698178900951

and abstract from 2003....

The recent news from China shows that the burning of sulfur SLOWED the temperature rise globally - meaning that what we see now would be even worse had it not been for the SO2 released into the atmosphere...

It would please me to no end to have you try to breathe in a bit of SO2... especially since I have been trained to stay away from helping those who fall due to releases in a refinery (when you see the man go down, he is most likely already dead and to go to him without a respirator will mean you can add yourself to the casualty list).

The problems of sulfur in the atmosphere goes back much further :

one from 1976 :
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3987147.html

N mention of the temperature rise but it was known then as well that sulfur and SO2 reflect radiated heat and light.

What that means is that if you have volcanoes generating heat on a planet (like Venus) and you have a lot of SO2 in the atmosphere, the heat is trapped on the planet. If you do not have a major source of heat on the planet and put SO2 in the atmosphere, the heat the comes from outside the planet - ie. sunlight...will be somewhat blocked.

After that simplistic interaction, the end results get VERY complex since the number of variables for the set of differential equations that it would take - and the multi-variable analysis required - would require supercomputers to even begin to make fully accurate small scale predictions.

However, this does not alter the fact that we are and have been screwing up our environment..and folks like you refuse to admit that things can and should be done about it...simply because you are selfish and greedy. The root reason for taking no action always, in the end, boils down in EVERY argument I have seen to "The cost" and "The change in lifestyle" "The impact on business" and "You CAN'T prove it 100%"

Now, to continue this approach, YOU produce an argument that does not hinge on one of those items...and it must be an argument you actually understand. (meaning, if you choose to try science, you have to know something about the chemistry and physics you are spouting. Sorry, I actually DO know a bit about that. Engineering degrees require you to have a good amount of chemistry, physics, thermodynamics. and even economics and statistics.)

as much as i appreciate the data and the argument, don't bother with blue on this one. He's already made up his mind. He showed that with his constant reference to his past predictions. All based on other peoples words, of course. I don't hate blue the way some cats here do, but I do notice he seems to be quick to believe sound bites and quotes.

[BJJ-Blue]

also blue, to admit one is to admit the other... if you want to believe this coal cools then you need to believe the others warms us up... you cant call a certain science bullsh1t and then use it is ammo for another aspect of the argument...

Let's try this yet again. :rolleyes: I'll get a few things straight, then ask for what I'm looking for again.

Sulfer is bad. I know this. And nowhere did I say it's a good thing. I should have titled the thread better, yes, but notice I did not say sulfer was good and only good.

So I want a 'scientist' on record more than 5 years ago saying something to the effect of, 'Right now the planet is warming. But China is burning sulfer-rich coal which will actually repel sunlight thus cooling the planet. This will become apparent around 2011. And though the sulfer will temporarily cool the planet, it has many other negative effects on humans and the environment.' Give me something like that, a past prediction that based on the recent data was correct.


as much as i appreciate the data and the argument, don't bother with blue on this one. He's already made up his mind. He showed that with his constant reference to his past predictions. All based on other peoples words, of course. I don't hate blue the way some cats here do, but I do notice he seems to be quick to believe sound bites and quotes.

You're going around in circles here.

I posted other people's Earth Day 1970 predictions about global warming/climate change, but that's about it. And those guys were dead wrong. And they were scientists and professors. So how you can say I'm the one who is quick to believe sound bites and quotes is beyond me. I was a skeptic who was proven right. Heck, Jamieson was trying to tell us how those false predictions were actually right. :rolleyes: If anyone has their minds made up its the believers in this hoax. They keep either changing/altering the data to fit their agenda, or when they are wrong they trot out yet another excuse as to why they were wrong.

[BJJ-Blue]

its worth short term or even long term economic pain to save ourselves from killing our planet...

I have news for you, China doesn't have an EPA. So the more regulations we pass, the more factories, plants, and manufacturing goes to China. And they have no regulations! At least we have SOME. So wouldn't common sense dictate that we do what we can here, but we don't overdo it and force manufacturing to China? Wouldn't you rather have factories, etc operating under some regulations rather than no regulations? Because those are your only two choices. The manufacturing will get done, it's just a question of where it will get done. Which option do you prefer?

[GLW]

laughable...

To paraphrase blue boy :

"Oh, you met my stated question but not the way I wanted since you addressed the issue I asked...SO...I will change the rules and keep changing the question no matter what..."

Of course, he never attempts to answer a question directly put to him and has not shown any true understanding of the history, issues, technology, or science involved in his many soundbite fed rants.

BORING...

Purpose of my original post : To clarify the information blue boy posted in his feeble attempt to inject Faux News talking points everywhere.

Purpose achieved.

Purpose 2 : To demonstrate that blue boy has limited understanding of the issue he posted on and only really understands it in a simplistic, soundbite, Faux News inspired way.

Purpose demonstrated.

Bored now. Blue boy is too predictable when met with any information he can't readily process via his Faux News right wing frame.

[BJJ-Blue]

"Oh, you met my stated question but not the way I wanted since you addressed the issue I asked...SO...I will change the rules and keep changing the question no matter what..."

No he did not. Nowhere was there a 'scientist' saying the Earth would be cooling around 2011 because of China's coal burning 5 years or more ago. All that was posted was info that sulfer had other bad effects, and that it could cool. Nowhere did they say it would offset the non-sulfer coal and thus cool the Earth.


Of course, he never attempts to answer a question directly put to him and has not shown any true understanding of the history, issues, technology, or science involved in his many soundbite fed rants.

I showed plenty of understanding of history. I used predictions from over 40 years ago. As for science, I just looked at the data after said predictions and showed those chicken littles were dead wrong. And what soundbites do you refer to?


Purpose of my original post : To clarify the information blue boy posted in his feeble attempt to inject Faux News talking points everywhere.

Do what?! I haven't even sourced FoxNews on this thread at all. FYI, speaking of boring, you guys saying I quote/use/source/parrot/etc FoxNews is getting BORING. I only use them when no other outlet covers a particular story. My original post was a Google news story FYI.


Purpose 2 : To demonstrate that blue boy has limited understanding of the issue he posted on and only really understands it in a simplistic, soundbite, Faux News inspired way.

Huh? I showed predictions made in 1970 that were totally wrong. How is that FoxNews inspired? Are CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc saying that those 1970 predictions were actually right and only Fox says they were wrong?


Bored now. Blue boy is too predictable when met with any information he can't readily process via his Faux News right wing frame.

I processed the fact that NONE of those 1970 predictions came true. And I'm trying to get a prediction that actually came true about China's sulfer coal causing cooling. And you can't find ONE. Not even ONE. So thus I've made an educated decision to believe global warming is a hoax. Yet you accuse me of having an agenda and not being able to think for myself. :confused:

I'm not the sucker who keeps following these 'scientists' who can't even hit a moving target. You guys are. It's quite strange that when religion is mentioned, liberals laugh at those who follow people like Pat Robertson who keeps making false predictions, yet they keep following these 'scientists' who keep making false predictions. I'm consistant, I call BOTH sides hoaxters.

[SimonM]

This message is hidden because BJJ-Blue is on your ignore list.

Yep, real compelling argument there. :p

[Syn7]

well, as much as i would like to take credit for this find, it was from xiao...

heres your link:

http://www.ted.com/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_ideas_on_climate_change.h tml

its like 4 years old, not 5... and its not exactly what we are talking here, but it applies... but lets not bicker over the small sh1t... its a fresh clip... who doeswnt love TEDtalks, right?

anyways, he discusses using sulphates to cool the earth, and this idea is much older than 5 years... watch and learn, this aint nuthin new...

[Syn7]

I have news for you, China doesn't have an EPA. So the more regulations we pass, the more factories, plants, and manufacturing goes to China. And they have no regulations! At least we have SOME. So wouldn't common sense dictate that we do what we can here, but we don't overdo it and force manufacturing to China? Wouldn't you rather have factories, etc operating under some regulations rather than no regulations? Because those are your only two choices. The manufacturing will get done, it's just a question of where it will get done. Which option do you prefer?

i see what you mean, but i disagree... if americans are so greedy and unpatriotic that they arent willing to make the sacrifice needed to save the planet then maybe we dont DESERVE to survive... regardless of chinas actions... people always talk about this careful balance and how we have to hold back progress in order to profit in order to save the world and the american way of life... its all bullsh1t... all of it... most americans are overly paranoid about dumb sh1t and don't even think of the stuff that really threatens...

[Syn7]

Yep, real compelling argument there. :p

best one so far, aye!!!!

[SoCo KungFu]

There ya go. 1998

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442(1999)012%3C3004%3ATCCSWA%3E2.0.CO%3B2

[BJJ-Blue]

i see what you mean, but i disagree... if americans are so greedy and unpatriotic that they arent willing to make the sacrifice needed to save the planet then maybe we dont DESERVE to survive... regardless of chinas actions... people always talk about this careful balance and how we have to hold back progress in order to profit in order to save the world and the american way of life... its all bullsh1t... all of it... most americans are overly paranoid about dumb sh1t and don't even think of the stuff that really threatens...

What do you disagree on? Are you saying China has an EPA? Or that they have more regulations than we do? Or that manufacturing is not moving more and more to China and out of the US?

And we are sacrificing. How you can say we aren't is beyond me. But you still don't get it. If we put into effect every regulation the militant environmentalists want, it would get WORSE. Then China would get almost all manufacturing. And in ~20 years or so they will pass the US in terms of the world's biggest economy. So it will get worse. We do need a "careful balance". If we under-regulate, it will get worse here (if you believe the frauds I admit), but if you over-regulate, the plants go to China and the problem gets much worse.

How can you say we are "paranoid" when we are losing jobs monthly, and unemplyment is already at 9.2% is crazy. That's not being paranoid, that's what's really happening. It's the real world. Your hatred of profits and business is why you are what you are. Stop believing socialists like Barack Obama and whack-jobs like Paul Ehrlich who hasn't ever made a correct prediction. Look at the good businesses do: they employ people, many give to charity, and they provide goods and services that Americans (and the rest of the world) want. Stop focusing on the negatives and look at the positives they do.

[BJJ-Blue]

http://www.ted.com/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_ideas_on_climate_change.h tml



http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442(1999)012%3C3004%3ATCCSWA%3E2.0.CO%3B2

The first link locked up about 7 minutes in, and the 2nd one wouldn't load, it gave me an error message. I'm at work and I can try at home later.

I will say that in those first 7 minutes I didn't hear a word about China or sulfer-rich coal. Maybe he says that later though.

[SoCo KungFu]

The first link locked up about 7 minutes in, and the 2nd one wouldn't load, it gave me an error message. I'm at work and I can try at home later.

I will say that in those first 7 minutes I didn't hear a word about China or sulfer-rich coal. Maybe he says that later though.

Funny how that works. Because it loads for me just fine. It takes about 15 seconds. Its 27 pages, pdf.

[BJJ-Blue]

Funny how that works. Because it loads for me just fine. It takes about 15 seconds. Its 27 pages, pdf.

I'll have to try it at home. I will read the links, I don't debate/discuss issues and not read the other sides sources, etc. You can't educate yourself by refusing to take in other opinions, facts, papers, etc just because they arent on 'your side'. I'll read them, hopefully tonight at home.

[SoCo KungFu]

I'll have to try it at home. I will read the links, I don't debate/discuss issues and not read the other sides sources, etc. You can't educate yourself by refusing to take in other opinions, facts, papers, etc just because they arent on 'your side'. I'll read them, hopefully tonight at home.

NVM I read your post wrong. I thought it said you couldn't read it at home and you'd try at work, which would be a rather "coincidental" happening. But I can understand work filters messing up a download.

But seriously this is like the first thing that pops up in google scholar under climate change and sulfur emissions. No offense but did you even try to look before asking?

[Syn7]

The first link locked up about 7 minutes in, and the 2nd one wouldn't load, it gave me an error message. I'm at work and I can try at home later.

I will say that in those first 7 minutes I didn't hear a word about China or sulfer-rich coal. Maybe he says that later though.

he talks about using sulphides to cool the planet and how the info has been readilly available since johnson was in the big chair...

its not specifically about china, its about the science that your story was based on... sorry, i was under the impression that you wanted to bring it back a lil bit and review the steps that led to what you posted... the TED talk more than addresses the issue... with a bit of brains and a few minutes you should have trouble in seeing how it applies to your post...

[SoCo KungFu]

So I have time to fly to South America, climb a volcano and bang a hot Ecuadorian in triumph and yet still no response huh? Figured as much....