"One obvious lesson of Muller’s study is that coal should be banned immediately and its mining and distribution should be criminalized. We put people in prison for a little pot, but let the coal industry destroy the earth. A few brave souls are protesting environmentally destructive ways of mining coal. But we should all be protesting the poisonous stuff itself."
And without coal how are you going to run the factories to build all of those wind turbins? or solar panels?
How about recycled hydrocarbons? We have the technology to recycle garbage, agricultural wastes, scrap wood, and other complex hydrocarbons into oil, methane, carbon, and fertilizer without pollution. The cost is about 15% of the energy in the hydrocarbons. In this way, we continue to use our gasoline and oil based sources of energy without tapping the fossil fuels like coal and petroleum. That way we recycle the carbon that is in the atmosphere and biomass without adding to the carbon burden from fossil sources.
Yes Larry I am familiar with the process, the Germans used a similat process in WW2 to turn coal into liquid fuel for their military. Nearly everthing that isn't glass, rock or metal can be converted. We should be expanding the use of this process as much as we can...Think of it...No landfills all of our trash turned into fuel.
A long ways off to be a substitute for fossil fuels.
During WWII, the taxi cabs in Australia and New Zealand towed little charcoal burners behind them. The charcoal burners converted the charcoal to gas which powered the taxi cabs.
Thanks George for the link. Indeed the last coring is not yet completely analyzed but it is found out that there is now water in some areas of the ice cap which accelerates the melting of it.
I do like "skeptiks" but only when they stick to reality not trying to promote any posited theory obviously to the benefit of a few.
Of course, we shall be facing what appears to be cycles on some defined period of time. At any time, when making a photography of the cycle line, any one can discuss on which "side" of it we are and such discussion, on a rather short period of time can always be justified IF OUR CHECKING SYSTEMS would not be, in some way, out of our own thinking system.
The Koch, etc., have no interest at all into future generations and are only concerned to enhance their present profits. This is how any industry works as it responds to the so-called "marginal economy" and which states that the last item out of the chain determines the whole profit. Under such conditions no one is willing to raise the production cost on the last items out of the chain because it would mean "bad management" and therefore "non reliable production".
It seems stupid, however this is due to the human psychology which HATES any change. Europe is starting to fund hybrid and full electric cars because, on one hand there is need for help to the industry but, mainly, because pollution consequences are becoming more expensive than providing some 25% (USD 8,400) discount on the end user sale price of a full electric car.
"Many people in Germany are no longer able to pay their electricity bills. Skyrocketing electricity prices are making electricity unaffordable for a large number of Germans. The past year over 600,000 households had their power switched off in Germany because they can’t afford the skyrocketing electric bills."
And this is from the country with one of the strongest economies in the E.U.
I do like "skeptiks" but only when they stick to reality not trying to promote any posited theory obviously to the benefit of a few.
As the article notes, the real skeptics are the scientists, who challenge every assertion and test it until they can reasonably rule out any alternatives. When it gets to the point where the sum total of the data unequivocally lead to one conclusion, then it can be accepted. That is where we are with climate change. Over 100 years of science, nearly 100,000 peer-reviewed research papers, virtually every climate scientist, every major scientific organization, and well known basic physics demonstrate unequivocally that we are warming the planet.
Denialists simply deny this reality. They do so without any iota of skepticism or critical thinking. Which is why they cite anonymous blogs supported by fossil fuel lobbyists, right wing political blogs and newspapers, and a handful of scientists who generally have fewer research publications and who always - always - are associated with fossil fuel and/or libertarian funded lobbying organizations.
In short, real scientists are inherently skeptical, so when the data are so overwhelming that they agree, the public can be assured that the conclusion is unequivocal. Denialists are not at all skeptical, accepting without question every idiotically false and obviously unscientific fake conclusion posted by non-science political bloggers. Scientists publish their work and it stands up to scrutiny. Denials write blogs, lie incessantly, and nothing they do can pass even the simplest laugh test.
This post looked at recent research regarding how climate denialists are also prone to conspiracy theories.
The fact is Dan we are not going to run our factories without coal oil or nuclear not yet at least and probably not for at least a couple of hundred years. We are too industrialized just take a look at how many factories rely on the energy that is produced by the fossil and nuclear and not just for producing Wind Turbines or Solar Panels they are just a small part of any modern industry anywhere in the world.
We are talking of a vast change over on a scale not seen before that will affect every home every business in any country in the world.
I have noticed you mention Germany, last year Mercat, we call her that in Europe panicked after the Japanese tragedy and brought in measures to phase out nuclear. It did not take long for Mercat to backtrack when it was pointed out that her country would go quickly down the pan without nuclear.
They are still using both now; however, we are seeing a notable date 2014 in which all coal subsidies in Europe will finish if you think that the German people are suffering now just think what they will be suffering when the cost of that little subsidy ends.
Wind turbines forget that little experiment 3,800 wind turbines in the UK produce just 0.2 % of the energy used in the UK how many wind turbines have we to build to get anywhere near what we need?
Solar not a bad way to get energy from but still expensive and still need subsidising. I have it on my roof but this summer I am still pulling quite a bit from the main grid, as most days this year have been dull and grey.
Everything is in its infancy and sometimes we humans tend to run before we can walk, and this is what we are doing right now.
we are not going to run our factories without coal oil or nuclear not yet at least and probably not for at least a couple of hundred years.
Well, duh.
See, this is denialism - create a completely extreme straw man as an excuse to avoid taking responsibility.
As noted in the article, innovative businesses are already working toward renewable-based energy sources. Some of these resources are already offering major advantages for innovative companies. As each resource matures there will be many new advances that will improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Given the lack of support and the downright animosity shown by those protecting their fossil fuel benefactors, the fact that renewables are already becoming more cost-effective is a great portent of the great things we can accomplish when we put our minds toward improving the future.
This is how innovation works.
Not by denying the science and then creating idiotic straw men to bash as an alternative to honestly dealing with reality.
Dan, of course we will any sensible person can see this the trouble is there are not many sensible people like yourself and myself, we see this every time we make a comment.
But we are not Shaw, We are of those who understand the issue and the challenges. We are not of your clan, the sheeple incapable of independent thought and prostrating yourselves before the AlGore's of the world chanting..."We are NOT worthy"!
George: they are not as "sensible" they want us to believe ... and try to convince themselves to be!
Of course, no one ever denied that there is a climate change, no one ever denied that, worldwide, drinkable water in becoming scarcer and scarcer, no one ever have denied that the poles' ice is melting, no one denies that catastrophic weather is increasing. What they deny is that they are contributing to such problem and are partially accountable for it.
The problem with these people is that they want to postpone for self convenience reasons any intent to correct, as earliest as possible, the manmade source, which contributes to this climate change.
How come? On the perspective that in the meantime, as per example any hybrid car, we are still going to use oil and coals as energy sources and that any new source implies expenses. New laws could compell corporations to incurr in heavy expenditures in order to filter the smokes generated by the actual energy sources.
They are still on the Ford, Taylor and Taylorism, mindset as demonstrated by Chaplin in "Modern Times": one must not go sh#t anytime, because it breaks the chain of production. For this you will have to wait on the production line for it to stop.
These guys have a similar thought and do not want any source's power change until their bosses give them the order to go ahead.
If one get sick or dies, in the meantime (due to pollution, to degraded health) as there is unemployment ... they may even replace the employee at lower wages. A penny is a penny ...
Otherwise, it would cost too much to their bosses. As a matter of fact the cleaning of fossil energy, the search and test of new sources, implies expenditures while their bosses prefer to use in lobbying, in bribery and in financing electoral campaigns (illegal?) which are far more "productive" as far as their portfolios are concerned.
By the way, there are only 80,000 workers employed in coal mining in the US. There are 100,000 workers in solar energy and a similar number in wind. I suspect West Virginia and western Pennsylvania could have a lot of jobs in wind turbines, and those states and the federal government should help brave coal workers make the transition.
Smart innovative companies are leading the way to the future.
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
Please select the part of the post you are reporting.
Please select why you are reporting this content.
Please enter a description.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 20
And without coal how are you going to run the factories to build all of those wind turbins? or solar panels?
See Thermal Conversion Process for example.
Nearly everthing that isn't glass, rock or metal can be converted.
We should be expanding the use of this process as much as we can...Think of it...No landfills all of our trash turned into fuel.
A long ways off to be a substitute for fossil fuels.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h-L0bCbAgY&feature=player_embedded
which is confirmed by the other Nasa's satellite: http://www.futura-sciences.com/fr/news/t/oceanographie-1/d/en-video-icebergs-geants-en-antarctique-apres-le-tsunami-japonais_32763/
I do like "skeptiks" but only when they stick to reality not trying to promote any posited theory obviously to the benefit of a few.
Of course, we shall be facing what appears to be cycles on some defined period of time. At any time, when making a photography of the cycle line, any one can discuss on which "side" of it we are and such discussion, on a rather short period of time can always be justified IF OUR CHECKING SYSTEMS would not be, in some way, out of our own thinking system.
The Koch, etc., have no interest at all into future generations and are only concerned to enhance their present profits. This is how any industry works as it responds to the so-called "marginal economy" and which states that the last item out of the chain determines the whole profit. Under such conditions no one is willing to raise the production cost on the last items out of the chain because it would mean "bad management" and therefore "non reliable production".
It seems stupid, however this is due to the human psychology which HATES any change. Europe is starting to fund hybrid and full electric cars because, on one hand there is need for help to the industry but, mainly, because pollution consequences are becoming more expensive than providing some 25% (USD 8,400) discount on the end user sale price of a full electric car.
"Germany’s Green Energy Policy Hit Households Hard"
"Many people in Germany are no longer able to pay their electricity bills. Skyrocketing electricity prices are making electricity unaffordable for a large number of Germans. The past year over 600,000 households had their power switched off in Germany because they can’t afford the skyrocketing electric bills."
And this is from the country with one of the strongest economies in the E.U.
As the article notes, the real skeptics are the scientists, who challenge every assertion and test it until they can reasonably rule out any alternatives. When it gets to the point where the sum total of the data unequivocally lead to one conclusion, then it can be accepted. That is where we are with climate change. Over 100 years of science, nearly 100,000 peer-reviewed research papers, virtually every climate scientist, every major scientific organization, and well known basic physics demonstrate unequivocally that we are warming the planet.
Denialists simply deny this reality. They do so without any iota of skepticism or critical thinking. Which is why they cite anonymous blogs supported by fossil fuel lobbyists, right wing political blogs and newspapers, and a handful of scientists who generally have fewer research publications and who always - always - are associated with fossil fuel and/or libertarian funded lobbying organizations.
In short, real scientists are inherently skeptical, so when the data are so overwhelming that they agree, the public can be assured that the conclusion is unequivocal. Denialists are not at all skeptical, accepting without question every idiotically false and obviously unscientific fake conclusion posted by non-science political bloggers. Scientists publish their work and it stands up to scrutiny. Denials write blogs, lie incessantly, and nothing they do can pass even the simplest laugh test.
This post looked at recent research regarding how climate denialists are also prone to conspiracy theories.
We are talking of a vast change over on a scale not seen before that will affect every home every business in any country in the world.
I have noticed you mention Germany, last year Mercat, we call her that in Europe panicked after the Japanese tragedy and brought in measures to phase out nuclear. It did not take long for Mercat to backtrack when it was pointed out that her country would go quickly down the pan without nuclear.
They are still using both now; however, we are seeing a notable date 2014 in which all coal subsidies in Europe will finish if you think that the German people are suffering now just think what they will be suffering when the cost of that little subsidy ends.
Wind turbines forget that little experiment 3,800 wind turbines in the UK produce just 0.2 % of the energy used in the UK how many wind turbines have we to build to get anywhere near what we need?
Solar not a bad way to get energy from but still expensive and still need subsidising. I have it on my roof but this summer I am still pulling quite a bit from the main grid, as most days this year have been dull and grey.
Everything is in its infancy and sometimes we humans tend to run before we can walk, and this is what we are doing right now.
In other words, only the richest among us can recognize the reality and have the means to survive.
Well, duh.
See, this is denialism - create a completely extreme straw man as an excuse to avoid taking responsibility.
As noted in the article, innovative businesses are already working toward renewable-based energy sources. Some of these resources are already offering major advantages for innovative companies. As each resource matures there will be many new advances that will improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Given the lack of support and the downright animosity shown by those protecting their fossil fuel benefactors, the fact that renewables are already becoming more cost-effective is a great portent of the great things we can accomplish when we put our minds toward improving the future.
This is how innovation works.
Not by denying the science and then creating idiotic straw men to bash as an alternative to honestly dealing with reality.
I think you are probably right, we can do some hybriding which will help but we will be using fossil fuels for the foreseeable future.
We are of those who understand the issue and the challenges.
We are not of your clan, the sheeple incapable of independent thought and prostrating yourselves before the AlGore's of the world chanting..."We are NOT worthy"!
Of course, no one ever denied that there is a climate change, no one ever denied that, worldwide, drinkable water in becoming scarcer and scarcer, no one ever have denied that the poles' ice is melting, no one denies that catastrophic weather is increasing. What they deny is that they are contributing to such problem and are partially accountable for it.
The problem with these people is that they want to postpone for self convenience reasons any intent to correct, as earliest as possible, the manmade source, which contributes to this climate change.
How come? On the perspective that in the meantime, as per example any hybrid car, we are still going to use oil and coals as energy sources and that any new source implies expenses. New laws could compell corporations to incurr in heavy expenditures in order to filter the smokes generated by the actual energy sources.
They are still on the Ford, Taylor and Taylorism, mindset as demonstrated by Chaplin in "Modern Times": one must not go sh#t anytime, because it breaks the chain of production. For this you will have to wait on the production line for it to stop.
These guys have a similar thought and do not want any source's power change until their bosses give them the order to go ahead.
If one get sick or dies, in the meantime (due to pollution, to degraded health) as there is unemployment ... they may even replace the employee at lower wages. A penny is a penny ...
Otherwise, it would cost too much to their bosses. As a matter of fact the cleaning of fossil energy, the search and test of new sources, implies expenditures while their bosses prefer to use in lobbying, in bribery and in financing electoral campaigns (illegal?) which are far more "productive" as far as their portfolios are concerned.
Baaa....Baaa....Baaa.
If you only had the ability of independent thought.
Smart innovative companies are leading the way to the future.