• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clinton gets question from West Virginia coal worker

Maybe you guys who go along with that liberal tendency to use government to "tell" people what they have to do should just take the next step and start executing people. You could start with the coal miners, take out the oil and gas workers next...and eventually narrow things down to what ever other people - world-wide of course - that you don't give a rat's ass about.

My suggestion would be to target politicians and the people who they accept money from...but that's just me.

It's guaranteed to reduce the world's carbon footprint.

That's the difference between a rational and irrational mind.
 
How about a slower transition towards renewable energy while we try and figure out what renewable energies works or not. Implementing laws to shut down coal is totally ignorant without a readily usable energy to replace it that doesn't break the wallet of working Americans. Your asshole president never thought about that before he acted, and he has wasted many millions of taxpayer dollars on many now bankrupt green energy schemes. Meanwhile......many families are losing their homes because of your jack wad president.

Our utility company has quietly and slowly been making the transition to green energy for the last ten years and it's proving to be quite a success. These things don't happen overnight...but I think Obama did the right thing pushing green energy over coal.
 
Our utility company has quietly and slowly been making the transition to green energy for the last ten years and it's proving to be quite a success. These things don't happen overnight...but I think Obama did the right thing pushing green energy over coal.

I love anything green that works Moot. I am not against any form of renewable. I would love to see in a car, or small pickup that I don't have to put gasoline in. What I am saying is, Obama jumped the gun by not allowing a slower transition from coal, and ended up hurting many people. But he turned around and wasted millions on failed grants/loans
 
Maybe you guys who go along with that liberal tendency to use government to "tell" people what they have to do should just take the next step and start executing people. You could start with the coal miners, take out the oil and gas workers next...and eventually narrow things down to what ever other people - world-wide of course - that you don't give a rat's ass about.

My suggestion would be to target politicians and the people who they accept money from...but that's just me.

It's guaranteed to reduce the world's carbon footprint.

Why do you feel the compulsion to turn a very serious issue into a joke? Also, it's not the government telling people what they must do, it the world of science which the government does and should listen to. If you have a way to make happen what must happen in short order without the involvement of governments world wide we are all ears.
 
Why do you feel the compulsion to turn a very serious issue into a joke? Also, it's not the government telling people what they must do, it the world of science which the government does and should listen to. If you have a way to make happen what must happen in short order without the involvement of governments world wide we are all ears.
If something must happen, it will happen with or without government requirements.
I do not share your sense of urgency. The energy company profit centers were split up by antitrust decades ago, so the refineries and distributions are separated
from the exploration extraction. The refinery operators will select whichever feedstock allows them to make their finished product at the highest profit.
At about $90 a barrel, they will switch to making their own feedstock from water, CO2, and electricity.
The volatility of oil prices has long been a thorn in the side of the energy companies, creating excessive risks, and hiring/firing waves.
This will happen without any government involvement, any type of carbon credit or taxes, will only feed the largeness of government and enrich the energy companies.
The US, can build and export the technology that can allow hydrocarbon energy storage, to bring the rest of the world up to first world energy standards.
Storing all that energy as hydrocarbons will halt the increase in atmospheric CO2, as a side effect, weather it was an issue or not.
Organic oil will still have uses, just not as fuel.
 
Why do you feel the compulsion to turn a very serious issue into a joke? Also, it's not the government telling people what they must do, it the world of science which the government does and should listen to. If you have a way to make happen what must happen in short order without the involvement of governments world wide we are all ears.

The world of science doesn't tell anybody to do anything. The world of science doesn't impose crippling regulations on industries. That's all stuff the government does.

In any case, as we've seen so many times (the world is cooling, the world is warming, we are all going to starve by such and such year, the mayan calendar says kiss your ass goodbye, etc) the world of science isn't always all it's cracked up to be. Maybe the best thing for us would be if those leftists who constantly try to get the government to enact their agenda just stopped listening to the world of science.
 
Clinton confronted by laid-off coal worker at West Virginia campaign stop | Fox News

Why do these people think their families are more important than the environment? It just boggles my mind that people can be so selfish and not see the big picture?

the irony is hilarious.

your ideological view is to spend now, and pass the buck on to future generations. you support a system that rewards consuming and punishes saving and investment. you support a system that supports increased consumption for the masses, and you support paying for it by putting unborn generations in debt. then you claim to be stewards of the future.

give it a rest. you are a populist moron that can't see the forest through the trees.
 
The world of science doesn't tell anybody to do anything. The world of science doesn't impose crippling regulations on industries. That's all stuff the government does.

In any case, as we've seen so many times (the world is cooling, the world is warming, we are all going to starve by such and such year, the mayan calendar says kiss your ass goodbye, etc) the world of science isn't always all it's cracked up to be. Maybe the best thing for us would be if those leftists who constantly try to get the government to enact their agenda just stopped listening to the world of science.

Right, because the Mayan Calendar was supported by scientists? There was a very brief time in the 70s when a few scientists said the world was cooling, this is not the same as 99% of scientists saying the earth is warming at an alarming rate, and if we don't do something, our lineage will face our denial. They have been saying that for decades, and the evidence has only become undeniable. Even Republicans now admit global warming is real, they just refuse to do anything about it. They have the same mode of thought as you- we shouldn't force people to do things simply to protect the planet.

This sort of thinking makes quite literally no sense though. We are talking about a planet that we all have to live on, that our kids and grandkids will also have to live on. This is not an individual issue; it is a global one. If the government does not legislate renewable energy leaning laws, industries that coal mine, etc. will continue to do so as long as they are making money. It may be ugly, people will lose their jobs, but hopefully they will have jobs to go to in RE. The point is, the ends justify the means. Unless you would like to be responsible for the extinction of life on this planet?
 
Right, because the Mayan Calendar was supported by scientists? There was a very brief time in the 70s when a few scientists said the world was cooling, this is not the same as 99% of scientists saying the earth is warming at an alarming rate, and if we don't do something, our lineage will face our denial. They have been saying that for decades, and the evidence has only become undeniable. Even Republicans now admit global warming is real, they just refuse to do anything about it. They have the same mode of thought as you- we shouldn't force people to do things simply to protect the planet.

This sort of thinking makes quite literally no sense though. We are talking about a planet that we all have to live on, that our kids and grandkids will also have to live on. This is not an individual issue; it is a global one. If the government does not legislate renewable energy leaning laws, industries that coal mine, etc. will continue to do so as long as they are making money. It may be ugly, people will lose their jobs, but hopefully they will have jobs to go to in RE. The point is, the ends justify the means. Unless you would like to be responsible for the extinction of life on this planet?

Sorry, but I will never advocate using the government to disrupt real lives just because...


the-sky-is-falling-2-chicken-little.jpg
 
Do you think political agendas for AGW and lies about the coal industries are more important than good paying US jobs?

Good is not a term I'd use for a coal miners job. They need retraining and relocating if required. Their children will thank us for it. We don't need to "lie" about coal it is the most polluting of fossil fuels and will turn us all into idiots from mercury poisoning if we don't stop using it.
 
People don't care about the big picture when their family is starving, or when the electricity is going to be shut off because their out of work and can't find another job.

That's why an entity must exist to stand for the greater good. Individuals will always place their interests above all else. The reason the greater good is of paramount importance in this case is due to the magnitude of the problem. Global warming will negatively impact billions of people worldwide as well as damaging the natural environment to an irreversible degree. We simply must at all cost reduce global CO2 emissions, and do so very substantially. The only reason not to understand this is a consequence of science denial.
 
Do you think political agendas for AGW and lies about the coal industries are more important than good paying US jobs?

First of all they are not lies. They are the realities of how planetary atmospheres and surfaces respond to the addition of greenhouses gases. Effectively dealing with the cause of global warming far outweighs the importance of a relatively few good paying US jobs versus the welfare of the global environment and it's 7,000.000.000+ people. It's not even a remotely close contest.
 
Global warming will negatively impact billions of people worldwide as well as damaging the natural environment to an irreversible degree. We simply must at all cost reduce global CO2 emissions, and do so very substantially. The only reason not to understand this is a consequence of science denial.
What you are doing is commingling the Science that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
with the speculation the the warming from the extra CO2 will cause additional
warming from amplified feedback.
The catastrophic predictions are all based on the CO2 warming plus the amplified feedback warming being about 3 C or above for a doubling of CO2.
Even the IPCC's key concepts in climate Science makes this distinction.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf

If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,
with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared
radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm−2. In other words, the
radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration
would be 4 Wm−2. To counteract this imbalance, the temperature
of the surface-troposphere system would have to increase by 1.2°C
(with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of other changes.
In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the climate system
is much more complex.
This portion is real Science.
It is believed that the overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies
the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C.
A significant part of this uncertainty range arises
from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.
This portion is speculation, which is why they started the sentence with It is believed.
There overall aggregate effect of doubling the CO2 level is likely a minor positive feedback,
with a final ECS of about 1.8 °C.
There should be some serious discussion about where and when the warming is occurring.
So far the majority of the warming is in winter evenings, in the northern hemisphere.
It is speculation, that this type of warming spread over two centuries would negatively
impact billions of people worldwide, or damaging the natural environment to an irreversible degree.
We should get off of Fossil based fuels, because they are a finite supply with large cost swings,
not because of CO2.
 
Last edited:
What you are doing is commingling the Science that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
with the speculation the the warming from the extra CO2 will cause additional
warming from amplified feedback.
The catastrophic predictions are all based on the the CO2 warming plus the amplified feedback warming
being about 3 C or above for a doubling of CO2.
Even the IPCC's key concepts in climate Science makes this distinction.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf


This portion is real Science.

This portion is speculation, which is why they started the sentence with It is believed.
There overall aggregate effect of doubling the CO2 level is likely a minor positive feedback,
with a final ECS of about 1.8 °C.
There should be some serious discussion about where and when the warming is occurring.
So far the majority of the warming is in winter evenings, in the northern hemisphere.
It is speculation, that this type of warming spread over two centuries would negatively
impact billions of people worldwide, or damaging the natural environment to an irreversible degree.
We should get off of Fossil based fuels, because they are a finite supply with large cost swings,
not because of CO2.

The most likely equilibrium climate sensitivity is more like 2.8C not 1.8C. You are correct that the potential range is constrained to within 1.5 - 4.5C. There is no reason to conclude the upper part of that range is any more or less likely than the lower.

However, we have this year passed the 1C threshold for the first time and the warming will continue on upward. We will pass a doubling of CO2 over the 280ppm pre-industrial level sometime mid century on current emission trajectories. Because the global temperature has not equalized with the radiative forcing currently present there remains another ~0.5C of future warming in the pipeline due to past emissions. So we are at an equilibrium temperature of ~1.5C already and we have only just passed 400ppm. Even 2.0C of warming means sea level rise measured in feet, forcing the loss of coastal habitat and the move of billions of people.
 
The most likely equilibrium climate sensitivity is more like 2.8C not 1.8C. You are correct that the potential range is constrained to within 1.5 - 4.5C. There is no reason to conclude the upper part of that range is any more or less likely than the lower.

However, we have this year passed the 1C threshold for the first time and the warming will continue on upward. We will pass a doubling of CO2 over the 280ppm pre-industrial level sometime mid century on current emission trajectories. Because the global temperature has not equalized with the radiative forcing currently present there remains another ~0.5C of future warming in the pipeline due to past emissions. So we are at an equilibrium temperature of ~1.5C already and we have only just passed 400ppm. Even 2.0C of warming means sea level rise measured in feet, forcing the loss of coastal habitat and the move of billions of people.
Only if the ECS is in the mid to high range, which is all based on speculation.
It is not like real science where we can measure something, say how we measured it, and then someone else
duplicate the steps and validate the same measurement.
The vast size of the range, speaks to their confidence.
Do you understand that the quantum reaction that causes CO2 to be a greenhouse gas,
(I.E. the adsorption band at 15 um) is indiscriminate? If a 15 um photon strikes a CO2
molecule at ground state, it will absorb and re-emit. no decisions, no choice.
Yet the effect caused from this quantum interaction shows diurnal asymmetry, seasonal asymmetry,
and even quite a bit of hemispheric asymmetry.
The observed warming seems to be centered in the evenings of the cooler months.
seasonal_Asy.jpg
This is very selective behavior for a molecule that is almost everywhere, and a photon that is almost
always present.
 
Back
Top Bottom