| Coal26-06-2017 16:45 |
James_★★★★★
(2218) |
The link is to an article on Yahoo.com from the AP. It would not be surprising to see more coal used for energy generation. This is one of the reasons why I've been pursuing certain work in climate change. This is because there are also certain things I would like to try to either reduce the harmful components of power plant emissions or to make power plants more efficient which also includes reducing waste heat.
This is because other countries besides the U.S. use coal as a source of energy.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/coal-rise-china-us-india-071347302.html
A list of the heavy metals found in coal and coal waste;
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heavy_metals_and_coal#List_of_Heavy_Metals_in_Coal |
| 27-06-2017 19:23 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
James_ wrote: other countries besides the U.S. use coal as a source of energy.
Fifteen to twenty years ago, the U.S. Dept of Energy was working with communist china to reduce coal fired electric generator emissions. Communist China planned one thousand coal electric generators & produced MORE than their plans. Peabody Coal Company made lots of money in those dealings. |
| 29-06-2017 01:22 |
James_★★★★★
(2218) |
litesong wrote:
James_ wrote: other countries besides the U.S. use coal as a source of energy.
Fifteen to twenty years ago, the U.S. Dept of Energy was working with communist china to reduce coal fired electric generator emissions. Communist China planned one thousand coal electric generators & produced MORE than their plans. Peabody Coal Company made lots of money in those dealings.
That wouldn't surprise me. What I wonder is why the WTO doesn't have penalties for countries with poor environmental records. With the amount of pollution in countries like China and India, etc. weather patterns and ocean currents can spread it to other countries. |
| 29-06-2017 02:38 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21582) |
James_ wrote:
litesong wrote:
James_ wrote: other countries besides the U.S. use coal as a source of energy.
Fifteen to twenty years ago, the U.S. Dept of Energy was working with communist china to reduce coal fired electric generator emissions. Communist China planned one thousand coal electric generators & produced MORE than their plans. Peabody Coal Company made lots of money in those dealings.
That wouldn't surprise me. What I wonder is why the WTO doesn't have penalties for countries with poor environmental records. With the amount of pollution in countries like China and India, etc. weather patterns and ocean currents can spread it to other countries.
What are they gonna do? Start a war?
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 29-06-2017 09:37 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(14389) |
James_ wrote: What I wonder is why the WTO doesn't have penalties for countries with poor environmental records.
... because the WTO is not the one-world government. There is a technical term for the inherent characteristic of countries which precludes your Marxist suggestion: "sovereignty"
.
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
|
| 29-06-2017 16:37 |
James_★★★★★
(2218) |
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: What I wonder is why the WTO doesn't have penalties for countries with poor environmental records.
... because the WTO is not the one-world government. There is a technical term for the inherent characteristic of countries which precludes your Marxist suggestion: "sovereignty"
.
It's not Marxism. The U.S. should be able to restrict it's trade with countries that they deem to have lax environmental policies. From what you say, the U.N. does not have the right to impose sanctions on Iran because it is a sovereign country as well, right ?
Edited on 29-06-2017 16:42 |
| 29-06-2017 22:07 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: What I wonder is why the WTO doesn't have penalties for countries with poor environmental records.
... because the WTO is not the one-world government. There is a technical term for the inherent characteristic of countries which precludes your Marxist suggestion: "sovereignty"
.
It's not Marxism. The U.S. should be able to restrict it's trade with countries that they deem to have lax environmental policies. From what you say, the U.N. does not have the right to impose sanctions on Iran because it is a sovereign country as well, right ?
The U.N. does not have rights to impose their will upon anything. Each nation has the right to determine its own trade policies.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 29-06-2017 22:53 |
James_★★★★★
(2218) |
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: What I wonder is why the WTO doesn't have penalties for countries with poor environmental records.
... because the WTO is not the one-world government. There is a technical term for the inherent characteristic of countries which precludes your Marxist suggestion: "sovereignty"
.
It's not Marxism. The U.S. should be able to restrict it's trade with countries that they deem to have lax environmental policies. From what you say, the U.N. does not have the right to impose sanctions on Iran because it is a sovereign country as well, right ?
The U.N. does not have rights to impose their will upon anything. Each nation has the right to determine its own trade policies.
Does the U.N. impose sanctions n Iran or not. I am not debating rights. I do not think that I asked if a country has the right to pollute as much as possible so that it can produce cheaper goods for export. This would give such a country an unfair trade advantage. The WTO is supposed to help level the playing field for all countries so it would be within the WTO's rights to penalize countries for polluting in order to mass produce cheap exports. |
| 29-06-2017 23:14 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: What I wonder is why the WTO doesn't have penalties for countries with poor environmental records.
... because the WTO is not the one-world government. There is a technical term for the inherent characteristic of countries which precludes your Marxist suggestion: "sovereignty"
.
It's not Marxism. The U.S. should be able to restrict it's trade with countries that they deem to have lax environmental policies. From what you say, the U.N. does not have the right to impose sanctions on Iran because it is a sovereign country as well, right ?
The U.N. does not have rights to impose their will upon anything. Each nation has the right to determine its own trade policies.
Does the U.N. impose sanctions n Iran or not. I am not debating rights. You ARE debating rights. The U.N. does not trade with Iran, so it can't impose any sanctions against them.
James_ wrote:
I do not think that I asked if a country has the right to pollute as much as possible so that it can produce cheaper goods for export. Believe it or not, it does. First, if the pollution were to affect other nations, it is between those nations to resolve the issue. Second, pollution is not a way to produce cheaper goods. You make cheaper goods by being more efficient, not more inefficient (which results in pollution).
James_ wrote:
This would give such a country an unfair trade advantage. Not at all. They get to live with the consequences of their own pollution. Remember they will be the most polluted area since they are originating it. The level playing field is the free market of trade.
James_ wrote:
The WTO is supposed to help level the playing field for all countries so it would be within the WTO's rights to penalize countries for polluting in order to mass produce cheap exports.
Free trade is the level playing field. No one can impose a 'level' playing field. Any such attempt imposes favoritism. You are describing Marxism.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 30-06-2017 03:54 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14389) |
James_ wrote: It's not Marxism. The U.S. should be able to restrict it's trade with countries that they deem to have lax environmental policies.
Put the goalposts back. I'll wait.
Is the US the WTO?
James_ wrote: From what you say, the U.N. does not have the right to impose sanctions on Iran because it is a sovereign country as well, right ?
Correct. Iran is free to ignore the UN. Didn't you know?
.
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 30-06-2017 15:58 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed:
James_ wrote:
litesong wrote: Fifteen to twenty years ago, the U.S. Dept of Energy was working with communist china to reduce coal fired electric generator emissions. Communist China planned one thousand coal electric generators & produced MORE than their plans. Peabody Coal Company made lots of money in those dealings.
That wouldn't surprise me. What I wonder is why the WTO doesn't have penalties for countries with poor environmental records. With the amount of pollution in countries like China and India, etc. weather patterns and ocean currents can spread it to other countries.
What are they gonna do? Start a war?
15% to 20% of west coast U.S. pollution comes from communist china(always small letters). communist china(always small letters) has already started a war against the world.... this time with pollution. With no regrets, communist china (always small letters) murdered, tortured & starved to death 100 million of its own BROTHERS SISTERS CHILDREN & BABIES to stamp communism on the foreheads of the remaining Chinese People. Presently, communist china (always small letters) prematurely wars & kills 1 to 2 million Chinese people per year with pollution. communist china (always small letters) has no regrets warring against & killing other nationalities with pollution.
Edited on 30-06-2017 16:06 |
| 30-06-2017 16:27 |
James_★★★★★
(2218) |
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: What I wonder is why the WTO doesn't have penalties for countries with poor environmental records.
... because the WTO is not the one-world government. There is a technical term for the inherent characteristic of countries which precludes your Marxist suggestion: "sovereignty"
.
It's not Marxism. The U.S. should be able to restrict it's trade with countries that they deem to have lax environmental policies. From what you say, the U.N. does not have the right to impose sanctions on Iran because it is a sovereign country as well, right ?
The U.N. does not have rights to impose their will upon anything. Each nation has the right to determine its own trade policies.
Does the U.N. impose sanctions n Iran or not. I am not debating rights. You ARE debating rights. The U.N. does not trade with Iran, so it can't impose any sanctions against them.
James_ wrote:
I do not think that I asked if a country has the right to pollute as much as possible so that it can produce cheaper goods for export. Believe it or not, it does. First, if the pollution were to affect other nations, it is between those nations to resolve the issue. Second, pollution is not a way to produce cheaper goods. You make cheaper goods by being more efficient, not more inefficient (which results in pollution).
James_ wrote:
This would give such a country an unfair trade advantage. Not at all. They get to live with the consequences of their own pollution. Remember they will be the most polluted area since they are originating it. The level playing field is the free market of trade.
James_ wrote:
The WTO is supposed to help level the playing field for all countries so it would be within the WTO's rights to penalize countries for polluting in order to mass produce cheap exports.
Free trade is the level playing field. No one can impose a 'level' playing field. Any such attempt imposes favoritism. You are describing Marxism.
I think it's funny that you claim to live in the U.S. and then will defend china's right to freely pollute. And more pollution doesn't mean less effecient. Just look at Ruston, Wa., it's next to Tacoma by Point Defiance. It's an EPA Superfund Site.
This means during a drought they will water their lawns. And the ground itself ? If people grow vegetables they can't eat them, too polluted. Yet you don't seem to be aware of Asarco.
As the Governor of Alaska said, she could practically see Russia from her front porch. And you said you could practically spit in the Puget Sound. And Global Warming is good for Russia for the time being. Praveelno ? Da, Ya doomayu tak. |
| 30-06-2017 16:35 |
James_★★★★★
(2218) |
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed:
James_ wrote:
litesong wrote: Fifteen to twenty years ago, the U.S. Dept of Energy was working with communist china to reduce coal fired electric generator emissions. Communist China planned one thousand coal electric generators & produced MORE than their plans. Peabody Coal Company made lots of money in those dealings.
That wouldn't surprise me. What I wonder is why the WTO doesn't have penalties for countries with poor environmental records. With the amount of pollution in countries like China and India, etc. weather patterns and ocean currents can spread it to other countries.
What are they gonna do? Start a war?
15% to 20% of west coast U.S. pollution comes from communist china(always small letters). communist china(always small letters) has already started a war against the world.... this time with pollution. With no regrets, communist china (always small letters) murdered, tortured & starved to death 100 million of its own BROTHERS SISTERS CHILDREN & BABIES to stamp communism on the foreheads of the remaining Chinese People. Presently, communist china (always small letters) prematurely wars & kills 1 to 2 million Chinese people per year with pollution. communist china (always small letters) has no regrets warring against & killing other nationalities with pollution.
Am thinking any more that Into the Night might actually be a Russian national. I haven't seen a moderator like 'him' before.
Moderators usually have their own perspective while Into Himself seems to have no perspective.
@litesong and Tim the Plumber,
Some perspective. If CO2 is an intensifier then it could help gases to store energy at night. Then during the day it could help to excite those gases releasing their stored energy. Then if melting glaciers on Greenland, in Alaska, etc. reduce the mass on the North American and Eurasian tectonic plates in the Arctic then an increase of heat being released from under water geologic activity can be increased. That seems to be what science suggests. And with natural gas, it's waste heat might be considered as well.
Edited on 30-06-2017 17:34 |
| 30-06-2017 22:42 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: What I wonder is why the WTO doesn't have penalties for countries with poor environmental records.
... because the WTO is not the one-world government. There is a technical term for the inherent characteristic of countries which precludes your Marxist suggestion: "sovereignty"
.
It's not Marxism. The U.S. should be able to restrict it's trade with countries that they deem to have lax environmental policies. From what you say, the U.N. does not have the right to impose sanctions on Iran because it is a sovereign country as well, right ?
The U.N. does not have rights to impose their will upon anything. Each nation has the right to determine its own trade policies.
Does the U.N. impose sanctions n Iran or not. I am not debating rights. You ARE debating rights. The U.N. does not trade with Iran, so it can't impose any sanctions against them.
James_ wrote:
I do not think that I asked if a country has the right to pollute as much as possible so that it can produce cheaper goods for export. Believe it or not, it does. First, if the pollution were to affect other nations, it is between those nations to resolve the issue. Second, pollution is not a way to produce cheaper goods. You make cheaper goods by being more efficient, not more inefficient (which results in pollution).
James_ wrote:
This would give such a country an unfair trade advantage. Not at all. They get to live with the consequences of their own pollution. Remember they will be the most polluted area since they are originating it. The level playing field is the free market of trade.
James_ wrote:
The WTO is supposed to help level the playing field for all countries so it would be within the WTO's rights to penalize countries for polluting in order to mass produce cheap exports.
Free trade is the level playing field. No one can impose a 'level' playing field. Any such attempt imposes favoritism. You are describing Marxism.
I think it's funny that you claim to live in the U.S. and then will defend china's right to freely pollute.
What are you gonna do? Start a war?
James_ wrote:
And more pollution doesn't mean less effecient. Generally it does. Pollution is a waste of resources.
James_ wrote:
Just look at Ruston, Wa., it's next to Tacoma by Point Defiance. It's an EPA Superfund Site. Because of an inefficiently run smelter.
James_ wrote:
This means during a drought they will water their lawns. Most people water their lawns during hot weather in western Washington. We haven't a drought here in as long as I can remember. What they call a 'drought' here is really just water mismanagement.
James_ wrote:
And the ground itself ? If people grow vegetables they can't eat them, too polluted. People grow vegetables in Ruston and they eat them.
James_ wrote:
Yet you don't seem to be aware of Asarco. I am quite aware of Asarco. It was inefficient. It couldn't make it in the marketplace due to a variety of factors.
James_ wrote:
As the Governor of Alaska said, she could practically see Russia from her front porch. She never said that. A comedian on Saturday Night Live did.
James_ wrote:
And you said you could practically spit in the Puget Sound. I can.
James_ wrote:
And Global Warming is good for Russia for the time being. What global warming?
Define 'global warming' without using circular arguments, links, or quotes.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 01-07-2017 01:32 |
James_★★★★★
(2218) |
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: What I wonder is why the WTO doesn't have penalties for countries with poor environmental records.
... because the WTO is not the one-world government. There is a technical term for the inherent characteristic of countries which precludes your Marxist suggestion: "sovereignty"
.
It's not Marxism. The U.S. should be able to restrict it's trade with countries that they deem to have lax environmental policies. From what you say, the U.N. does not have the right to impose sanctions on Iran because it is a sovereign country as well, right ?
The U.N. does not have rights to impose their will upon anything. Each nation has the right to determine its own trade policies.
Does the U.N. impose sanctions n Iran or not. I am not debating rights. You ARE debating rights. The U.N. does not trade with Iran, so it can't impose any sanctions against them.
James_ wrote:
I do not think that I asked if a country has the right to pollute as much as possible so that it can produce cheaper goods for export. Believe it or not, it does. First, if the pollution were to affect other nations, it is between those nations to resolve the issue. Second, pollution is not a way to produce cheaper goods. You make cheaper goods by being more efficient, not more inefficient (which results in pollution).
James_ wrote:
This would give such a country an unfair trade advantage. Not at all. They get to live with the consequences of their own pollution. Remember they will be the most polluted area since they are originating it. The level playing field is the free market of trade.
James_ wrote:
The WTO is supposed to help level the playing field for all countries so it would be within the WTO's rights to penalize countries for polluting in order to mass produce cheap exports.
Free trade is the level playing field. No one can impose a 'level' playing field. Any such attempt imposes favoritism. You are describing Marxism.
I think it's funny that you claim to live in the U.S. and then will defend china's right to freely pollute.
What are you gonna do? Start a war?
James_ wrote:
And more pollution doesn't mean less effecient. Generally it does. Pollution is a waste of resources.
James_ wrote:
Just look at Ruston, Wa., it's next to Tacoma by Point Defiance. It's an EPA Superfund Site. Because of an inefficiently run smelter.
James_ wrote:
This means during a drought they will water their lawns. Most people water their lawns during hot weather in western Washington. We haven't a drought here in as long as I can remember. What they call a 'drought' here is really just water mismanagement.
James_ wrote:
And the ground itself ? If people grow vegetables they can't eat them, too polluted. People grow vegetables in Ruston and they eat them.
James_ wrote:
Yet you don't seem to be aware of Asarco. I am quite aware of Asarco. It was inefficient. It couldn't make it in the marketplace due to a variety of factors.
James_ wrote:
As the Governor of Alaska said, she could practically see Russia from her front porch. She never said that. A comedian on Saturday Night Live did.
James_ wrote:
And you said you could practically spit in the Puget Sound. I can.
James_ wrote:
And Global Warming is good for Russia for the time being. What global warming?
Define 'global warming' without using circular arguments, links, or quotes.
правда! очeнь xopoшьo!
Why I have to wonder about you is that you seem to have no interest in discussing climate change. Yet you keep wishing to control people's thoughts and how they think. I find that disturbing.
What Russians would miss is that once the planet starts cooling again they will be hit first and hit the hardest. Even if that takes another 500 years the cooling will last for 10's if thousands of years. In the mean time the Siberian Steppes would become like eastern Washington State. Basically everything east of the Ural Mtns. Would.
Edited on 01-07-2017 01:55 |
|
| 04-07-2017 22:12 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
litesong wrote: Fifteen to twenty years ago, the U.S. Dept of Energy was working with communist china to reduce coal fired electric generator emissions. Communist China planned one thousand coal electric generators & produced MORE than their plans. Peabody Coal Company made lots of money in those dealings.
Corrections:
Fifteen to twenty years ago, the U.S. Dept of Energy was working with communist china(always small letters) to reduce coal fired electric generator emissions. communist china (always small letters) planned one thousand coal electric generators & produced MORE than their plans. Peabody Coal Company made lots of money in those dealings. |
| 05-07-2017 20:30 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: What I wonder is why the WTO doesn't have penalties for countries with poor environmental records.
... because the WTO is not the one-world government. There is a technical term for the inherent characteristic of countries which precludes your Marxist suggestion: "sovereignty"
.
It's not Marxism. The U.S. should be able to restrict it's trade with countries that they deem to have lax environmental policies. From what you say, the U.N. does not have the right to impose sanctions on Iran because it is a sovereign country as well, right ?
The U.N. does not have rights to impose their will upon anything. Each nation has the right to determine its own trade policies.
Does the U.N. impose sanctions n Iran or not. I am not debating rights. You ARE debating rights. The U.N. does not trade with Iran, so it can't impose any sanctions against them.
James_ wrote:
I do not think that I asked if a country has the right to pollute as much as possible so that it can produce cheaper goods for export. Believe it or not, it does. First, if the pollution were to affect other nations, it is between those nations to resolve the issue. Second, pollution is not a way to produce cheaper goods. You make cheaper goods by being more efficient, not more inefficient (which results in pollution).
James_ wrote:
This would give such a country an unfair trade advantage. Not at all. They get to live with the consequences of their own pollution. Remember they will be the most polluted area since they are originating it. The level playing field is the free market of trade.
James_ wrote:
The WTO is supposed to help level the playing field for all countries so it would be within the WTO's rights to penalize countries for polluting in order to mass produce cheap exports.
Free trade is the level playing field. No one can impose a 'level' playing field. Any such attempt imposes favoritism. You are describing Marxism.
I think it's funny that you claim to live in the U.S. and then will defend china's right to freely pollute.
What are you gonna do? Start a war?
James_ wrote:
And more pollution doesn't mean less effecient. Generally it does. Pollution is a waste of resources.
James_ wrote:
Just look at Ruston, Wa., it's next to Tacoma by Point Defiance. It's an EPA Superfund Site. Because of an inefficiently run smelter.
James_ wrote:
This means during a drought they will water their lawns. Most people water their lawns during hot weather in western Washington. We haven't a drought here in as long as I can remember. What they call a 'drought' here is really just water mismanagement.
James_ wrote:
And the ground itself ? If people grow vegetables they can't eat them, too polluted. People grow vegetables in Ruston and they eat them.
James_ wrote:
Yet you don't seem to be aware of Asarco. I am quite aware of Asarco. It was inefficient. It couldn't make it in the marketplace due to a variety of factors.
James_ wrote:
As the Governor of Alaska said, she could practically see Russia from her front porch. She never said that. A comedian on Saturday Night Live did.
James_ wrote:
And you said you could practically spit in the Puget Sound. I can.
James_ wrote:
And Global Warming is good for Russia for the time being. What global warming?
Define 'global warming' without using circular arguments, links, or quotes.
правда! очeнь xopoшьo!
Why I have to wonder about you is that you seem to have no interest in discussing climate change.
Define 'climate change' without using circular arguments, links, or quotes.
You can't.
This is a religion, not science. Science has no theories about stuff you can't define.
James_ wrote:
Yet you keep wishing to control people's thoughts and how they think.
You think I have ultimate powers, eh?
Only YOU can control how you think.
James_ wrote:
I find that disturbing.
If you find logic, math, philosophy, and science disturbing, you seem to be easily disturbed.
James_ wrote:
What Russians would miss is that once the planet starts cooling again they will be hit first and hit the hardest. Cooling again? How do you know what the planet is doing? It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy.
James_ wrote:
Even if that takes another 500 years the cooling will last for 10's if thousands of years.
Speculation. You don't know any of this.
James_ wrote:
In the mean time the Siberian Steppes would become like eastern Washington State.
Basically everything east of the Ural Mtns. Would.
Speculation. You don't know what is going to happen. Are you reading chicken entrails to divine the future?
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 07-07-2017 16:56 |
James_★★★★★
(2218) |
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: What I wonder is why the WTO doesn't have penalties for countries with poor environmental records.
... because the WTO is not the one-world government. There is a technical term for the inherent characteristic of countries which precludes your Marxist suggestion: "sovereignty"
.
It's not Marxism. The U.S. should be able to restrict it's trade with countries that they deem to have lax environmental policies. From what you say, the U.N. does not have the right to impose sanctions on Iran because it is a sovereign country as well, right ?
The U.N. does not have rights to impose their will upon anything. Each nation has the right to determine its own trade policies.
Does the U.N. impose sanctions n Iran or not. I am not debating rights. You ARE debating rights. The U.N. does not trade with Iran, so it can't impose any sanctions against them.
James_ wrote:
I do not think that I asked if a country has the right to pollute as much as possible so that it can produce cheaper goods for export. Believe it or not, it does. First, if the pollution were to affect other nations, it is between those nations to resolve the issue. Second, pollution is not a way to produce cheaper goods. You make cheaper goods by being more efficient, not more inefficient (which results in pollution).
James_ wrote:
This would give such a country an unfair trade advantage. Not at all. They get to live with the consequences of their own pollution. Remember they will be the most polluted area since they are originating it. The level playing field is the free market of trade.
James_ wrote:
The WTO is supposed to help level the playing field for all countries so it would be within the WTO's rights to penalize countries for polluting in order to mass produce cheap exports.
Free trade is the level playing field. No one can impose a 'level' playing field. Any such attempt imposes favoritism. You are describing Marxism.
I think it's funny that you claim to live in the U.S. and then will defend china's right to freely pollute.
What are you gonna do? Start a war?
James_ wrote:
And more pollution doesn't mean less effecient. Generally it does. Pollution is a waste of resources.
James_ wrote:
Just look at Ruston, Wa., it's next to Tacoma by Point Defiance. It's an EPA Superfund Site. Because of an inefficiently run smelter.
James_ wrote:
This means during a drought they will water their lawns. Most people water their lawns during hot weather in western Washington. We haven't a drought here in as long as I can remember. What they call a 'drought' here is really just water mismanagement.
James_ wrote:
And the ground itself ? If people grow vegetables they can't eat them, too polluted. People grow vegetables in Ruston and they eat them.
James_ wrote:
Yet you don't seem to be aware of Asarco. I am quite aware of Asarco. It was inefficient. It couldn't make it in the marketplace due to a variety of factors.
James_ wrote:
As the Governor of Alaska said, she could practically see Russia from her front porch. She never said that. A comedian on Saturday Night Live did.
James_ wrote:
And you said you could practically spit in the Puget Sound. I can.
James_ wrote:
And Global Warming is good for Russia for the time being. What global warming?
Define 'global warming' without using circular arguments, links, or quotes.
правда! очeнь xopoшьo!
Why I have to wonder about you is that you seem to have no interest in discussing climate change.
Define 'climate change' without using circular arguments, links, or quotes.
You can't.
This is a religion, not science. Science has no theories about stuff you can't define.
James_ wrote:
Yet you keep wishing to control people's thoughts and how they think.
You think I have ultimate powers, eh?
Only YOU can control how you think.
James_ wrote:
I find that disturbing.
If you find logic, math, philosophy, and science disturbing, you seem to be easily disturbed.
James_ wrote:
What Russians would miss is that once the planet starts cooling again they will be hit first and hit the hardest. Cooling again? How do you know what the planet is doing? It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy.
James_ wrote:
Even if that takes another 500 years the cooling will last for 10's if thousands of years.
Speculation. You don't know any of this.
James_ wrote:
In the mean time the Siberian Steppes would become like eastern Washington State.
Basically everything east of the Ural Mtns. Would.
Speculation. You don't know what is going to happen. Are you reading chicken entrails to divine the future?
quoting into the dark ages;
>> James_ wrote:
I find that disturbing.
If you find logic, math, philosophy, and science disturbing, you seem to be easily disturbed. <<
I find your attempts at mind control disturbing. Most people don't understand the concept of reverse psychology which you employ on a regular basis.
Почемьу ? Я не панимаю ! я вас не когда не буду зрозумыти !
And I think it's funny when you say this;
>> Only YOU can control how you think. <<
And yet you keep trying to "condition" me to think as you want/wish/desire me to do. I think this is FUNNY !!! My father taught me how Nazi's in WW II used the same principles that you are using when you post to me. He wasn't German but they did occupy his country.
And I do see where you routinely post that science is not verified, peer reviewed or use a consensus. And since "Holy Links" are not allowed then I have to accept what you say, right ? I know better. And I also know when peer review is not based on "Good Science".
So Into the Dark Ages, where do you really live ? Мать Россия ? Your attempts at claiming to live in the Puget Sound region came up weak. You could live there and if you do then I have to believe that you are into spirituality and use climate change as a way to recruit people to your own beliefs.
Who'd ever think that Russians and "spiritual" people would have something in common ? |
| 07-07-2017 19:32 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: What I wonder is why the WTO doesn't have penalties for countries with poor environmental records.
... because the WTO is not the one-world government. There is a technical term for the inherent characteristic of countries which precludes your Marxist suggestion: "sovereignty"
.
It's not Marxism. The U.S. should be able to restrict it's trade with countries that they deem to have lax environmental policies. From what you say, the U.N. does not have the right to impose sanctions on Iran because it is a sovereign country as well, right ?
The U.N. does not have rights to impose their will upon anything. Each nation has the right to determine its own trade policies.
Does the U.N. impose sanctions n Iran or not. I am not debating rights. You ARE debating rights. The U.N. does not trade with Iran, so it can't impose any sanctions against them.
James_ wrote:
I do not think that I asked if a country has the right to pollute as much as possible so that it can produce cheaper goods for export. Believe it or not, it does. First, if the pollution were to affect other nations, it is between those nations to resolve the issue. Second, pollution is not a way to produce cheaper goods. You make cheaper goods by being more efficient, not more inefficient (which results in pollution).
James_ wrote:
This would give such a country an unfair trade advantage. Not at all. They get to live with the consequences of their own pollution. Remember they will be the most polluted area since they are originating it. The level playing field is the free market of trade.
James_ wrote:
The WTO is supposed to help level the playing field for all countries so it would be within the WTO's rights to penalize countries for polluting in order to mass produce cheap exports.
Free trade is the level playing field. No one can impose a 'level' playing field. Any such attempt imposes favoritism. You are describing Marxism.
I think it's funny that you claim to live in the U.S. and then will defend china's right to freely pollute.
What are you gonna do? Start a war?
James_ wrote:
And more pollution doesn't mean less effecient. Generally it does. Pollution is a waste of resources.
James_ wrote:
Just look at Ruston, Wa., it's next to Tacoma by Point Defiance. It's an EPA Superfund Site. Because of an inefficiently run smelter.
James_ wrote:
This means during a drought they will water their lawns. Most people water their lawns during hot weather in western Washington. We haven't a drought here in as long as I can remember. What they call a 'drought' here is really just water mismanagement.
James_ wrote:
And the ground itself ? If people grow vegetables they can't eat them, too polluted. People grow vegetables in Ruston and they eat them.
James_ wrote:
Yet you don't seem to be aware of Asarco. I am quite aware of Asarco. It was inefficient. It couldn't make it in the marketplace due to a variety of factors.
James_ wrote:
As the Governor of Alaska said, she could practically see Russia from her front porch. She never said that. A comedian on Saturday Night Live did.
James_ wrote:
And you said you could practically spit in the Puget Sound. I can.
James_ wrote:
And Global Warming is good for Russia for the time being. What global warming?
Define 'global warming' without using circular arguments, links, or quotes.
правда! очeнь xopoшьo!
Why I have to wonder about you is that you seem to have no interest in discussing climate change.
Define 'climate change' without using circular arguments, links, or quotes.
You can't.
This is a religion, not science. Science has no theories about stuff you can't define.
James_ wrote:
Yet you keep wishing to control people's thoughts and how they think.
You think I have ultimate powers, eh?
Only YOU can control how you think.
James_ wrote:
I find that disturbing.
If you find logic, math, philosophy, and science disturbing, you seem to be easily disturbed.
James_ wrote:
What Russians would miss is that once the planet starts cooling again they will be hit first and hit the hardest. Cooling again? How do you know what the planet is doing? It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy.
James_ wrote:
Even if that takes another 500 years the cooling will last for 10's if thousands of years.
Speculation. You don't know any of this.
James_ wrote:
In the mean time the Siberian Steppes would become like eastern Washington State.
Basically everything east of the Ural Mtns. Would.
Speculation. You don't know what is going to happen. Are you reading chicken entrails to divine the future?
quoting into the dark ages;
>> James_ wrote:
I find that disturbing.
If you find logic, math, philosophy, and science disturbing, you seem to be easily disturbed. <<
I find your attempts at mind control disturbing. Most people don't understand the concept of reverse psychology which you employ on a regular basis.
Почемьу ? Я не панимаю ! я вас не когда не буду зрозумыти !
And I think it's funny when you say this;
>> Only YOU can control how you think. <<
And yet you keep trying to "condition" me to think as you want/wish/desire me to do. I think this is FUNNY !!! My father taught me how Nazi's in WW II used the same principles that you are using when you post to me. He wasn't German but they did occupy his country.
And I do see where you routinely post that science is not verified, peer reviewed or use a consensus. And since "Holy Links" are not allowed then I have to accept what you say, right ? I know better. And I also know when peer review is not based on "Good Science".
So Into the Dark Ages, where do you really live ? Мать Россия ? Your attempts at claiming to live in the Puget Sound region came up weak. You could live there and if you do then I have to believe that you are into spirituality and use climate change as a way to recruit people to your own beliefs.
Who'd ever think that Russians and "spiritual" people would have something in common ?
You do realize you're shooting down your own argument, don't you?
Why does one make an argument?
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 07-07-2017 20:35 |
James_★★★★★
(2218) |
Into the Night wrote:
You do realize you're shooting down your own argument, don't you?
Why does one make an argument?
My, aren't you the clever one. Accusing other people of using circular arguments when all you can do is repeat yourself. You'd make a good Christian. They know how to say they're saved and you're not. I don't think Jesus ever said that.
And people will miss the logic of your attempted brain washing. If I say anything to defend myself against you then I am creating an argument. Yet if I do not defend myself then I would need to give in to you, right ? Right !
This is from Jeremiah 39:
17 But I will rescue you on that day, declares the Lord; you will not be given into the hands of those you fear. 18 I will save you; you will not fall by the sword but will escape with your life, because you trust in me, declares the Lord.'"
Christians fail to understand that will save is future tense while saved you is past tense. This means when Christians say that they are saved that they are with the Lord. And as J 39:17 suggests, rather than going to Hell they would go to where the Lord wants them to be. That is saved, past tense.
And as you say, Jim, you have to submit yourself to me because this is a climate discussion forum and not a religious forum which you have turned it into so people can follow Into the Dark Ages. I think it is because of people like you that it doesn't matter to me if there is a God or not. You're just looking for someone to exploit. As for me, I'll probably end up in Hell because the lord couldn't save me from people like you. |
| 17-07-2017 23:12 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
James_ wrote:
The link is to an article on Yahoo.com from the AP. It would not be surprising to see more coal used for energy generation. This is one of the reasons why I've been pursuing certain work in climate change. This is because there are also certain things I would like to try to either reduce the harmful components of power plant emissions or to make power plants more efficient which also includes reducing waste heat.
This is because other countries besides the U.S. use coal as a source of energy.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/coal-rise-china-us-india-071347302.html
A list of the heavy metals found in coal and coal waste;
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heavy_metals_and_coal#List_of_Heavy_Metals_in_Coal
James - if you're interested in "helping" your ideas will have no weight whatsoever unless you get a college degree. That's a rather pitiful attitude of the upper class but that is what it is.
So GET a degree and then get an advanced degree. And that is speaking as someone that has been very competent in his field but has been hindered my entire life because I don't have a degree and was too stubborn to get one simply for show. |
| 17-07-2017 23:51 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You do realize you're shooting down your own argument, don't you?
Why does one make an argument?
My, aren't you the clever one. Accusing other people of using circular arguments when all you can do is repeat yourself. A repetitive argument is not necessarily a circular one.
He's not even making a circular argument. He's making a paradox.
James_ wrote:
You'd make a good Christian. You think so? Thank you!
James_ wrote:
They know how to say they're saved and you're not. I do not say that. I point out the fallacies of those who do make that argument. It usually results in them condemning Christ to hell. It's often quite funny to watch.
James_ wrote:
I don't think Jesus ever said that. He didn't.
James_ wrote:
And people will miss the logic of your attempted brain washing. I don't wash brains. It's too messy.
James_ wrote:
If I say anything to defend myself against you then I am creating an argument. Correct.
James_ wrote:
Yet if I do not defend myself then I would need to give in to you, right ? Right ! No, you can go on believing what you believe. I have no power to force a change in your beliefs or any argument you present.
James_ wrote:
This is from Jeremiah 39:
...deleted non-sequitur portion...
And as you say, Jim, you have to submit yourself to me because this is a climate discussion forum and not a religious forum which you have turned it into so people can follow Into the Dark Ages.
All theories start out as circular arguments. Some are falsifiable and are tested and become scientific theories. The rest remain circular arguments. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'.
Failure to recognize the circular argument for what it is is a fallacy. It is why the Church of Global Warming is a religion. Every theory about it returns to the initial circular argument, just as any religion is based upon.
James_ wrote:
I think it is because of people like you that it doesn't matter to me if there is a God or not. I really don't care.
James_ wrote:
You're just looking for someone to exploit. Do you think I am exploiting you???
James_ wrote:
As for me, I'll probably end up in Hell because the lord couldn't save me from people like you.
Sounds like you're already in hell.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |