- Set up a straw man argument about “conspiracy”
- Ignore answer. Ask stupid question.
- Repeat 1 and 2 in infinite loop
This goes on until you put them on mute.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on The End Of Everything
- conrad ziefle on The End Of Everything
- LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks on Election Results
- LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks on Election Results
- LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks on Election Results
- LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks on Election Results
- Robert Austin on The End Of Everything
- czechlist on Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- arn on The End Of Everything
- Gamecock on The End Of Everything
Major Tom Hartney MBS
Wondering what the MBS stands for. Masters in what?
Masters in BS 🙂
To be fair to Maj Tom, while it’s clear why the climate scientists would want to keep the gravy train rolling, it is difficult to understand why any logical politician would want to kill fossil fuels. I suppose that just shows how many politicians are logical.
They want to kill coal, because oil and gas companies want to take over the market currently served by coal.
Just as big oil and others conspired to demonize nuclear.
There are more steps to it though. Old carbon economy is red state based and red state backed; new carbon economy more diverse. Old carbon economy is delivered by GOP backers; new carbon economy is Dem backers (major part of the Keystone XL fight). Coal fired electric is bought and paid for, new gas fired electric can be sold to highest bidders. Electric auto industry leaders are left leaning. It goes on and on. Im not suggesting that any one of them is the deciding factor, but there is certainly a lot of circumstantial evidence in this regard.
Nuclear is highly regulated, coal is now being highly regulated. Both being slowly strangled to death. Oil and gas on private property being the last energy bastion of independence will soon be taken over by Government and strangled.
Greed knows no reason.
“it is difficult to understand why any logical politician would want to kill fossil fuels. ”
I doubt that any of the politicians REALLY want to kill fossil fuels. It is far more likely that they just want power and money. The way that politics works is this: First you demonize some group/industry/culture/nation/religion/ideology/practice. Only after the public is convinced that the demon is real do the politicians gain the power to control and legislate the demon. In the case of CO2, the benefits in power and money are enormous. Can you imagine how much money would flow into governmental coffers when essentially every bit of energy used is hit with a “climate change surtax”? Additionally, the power to legislate is increased, giving the politicians even more ability to demand — and receive — bigger donations and kickbacks from the industries. This power even extends over companies that do not directly produce fossil fuels. Do you own a construction firm? OK, now you better bribe your legislators so that you are not hit with a CO2 tax to “pay for all the damage that your use of cement is causing.” But why would the petroleum industry want CO2 legislation? First of all it will restrict any new start-ups (competition) in the business. How about this, though? With CO2 regulation, there will be profits to be made in CO2 sequestration. Where, oh where, will we put that CO2? The oil companies can pump it into their old wells. Not only will it force the last oil dredges (which would be otherwise uneconomical to extract) to the surface, but the companies will be paid sequestration fees to do it! Power and money, the two big thrills for sociopaths — and control of CO2 gives them both.
Historically, the great empires of the past have used control of water and agriculture to retain power. Today, the same concept is being extended to control energy usage.
They are going to control water and then agriculture too.
They don’t want to KILL fossil fuels, they want to CONTROL all energy and thus increase government power and ability to tax people. If there’s one thing about government that is completely consistent, it is they want authority over the lives of people. From power comes all things.
One of the reasons given for the lack of work by economists in the area of climate change economics, according to Richard Tol, is governments don’t like the answers that economic research gives so government pre-emptively do not funded.
Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima has ‘killed nuclear power’.
If anything goes wrong, all h*ll breaks out and you can’t undo it so easily if at all.
At least until we come up with a way of doing the same thing without fission or the potential for catastrophic contamination.
# 4: Nuclear energy is not safe.
Truth: Nuclear energy is as safe or safer than any other form of energy available. No member of the public has ever been injured or killed in the entire 50-year history of commercial nuclear power in the U.S. In fact, recent studies have shown that it is safer to work in a nuclear power plant than an office.
http://www.nuclearconnect.org/know-nuclear/talking-nuclear/top-10-myths-about-nuclear-energy
I still have my “Nuclear Energy is Safer than Ted Kennedy’s Car” bumper sticker, and it is still true.
Well most things were far safer than Teds car was as far as Mary Jo was concerned. But then again I guess it just went to show that there can be fatal consequences when you hang with drunks that are known scumbags.
It isn’t the danger it has been portrayed to be but is that not a moot point now really since the well has been poisoned? IMO before we see energy production go nuc in a big way again here in the states it will have to be a process which is:
1. Deemed safe in the public eye
2. Creates little nuclear/toxic waste.
1. Do you really think that is possible with our corrupt media and government? Bananas are deadlier than Three Mile Island.
For example, the radiation exposure from consuming a banana is approximately 1% of the average daily exposure to radiation, which is 100 banana equivalent doses (BED). The maximum permitted radiation leakage for a nuclear power plant is equivalent to 2,500 BED (250 ?Sv), while a chest CT scan delivers 70,000 BED (7 mSv). A lethal dose of radiation treatment is approximately 80,000,000 BED (8 Sv). A person living 10 miles from the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor received 700 BED of exposure to radiation, the equivalent of eating two bananas each day for a year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose
2. The French recycle their waste, so can we.
# 9: Used nuclear fuel is deadly for 10,000 years.
Truth: Used nuclear fuel can be recycled to make new fuel and byproducts [10]. Most of the waste from this process will require a storage time of less than 300 years. Finally, less than 1% is radioactive for 10,000 years. This portion is not much more radioactive than some things found in nature, and can be easily shielded to protect humans and wildlife.
gator
To answer your very first question, I think it will happen eventually. It will have to because there sure doesn’t seem to be any practical alternative in the long run. Our energy needs will continue to grow and fossil fuels are a finite source while renewables cannot and seeming will never fulfill the ever growing need. I have faith that even if the government wishes to stifle invention and progress, in the long run they won’t be able to.
I wish I could share in your optimism rah, but after the last 7 years, I no longer do. I fear that what it would take at this point to right this ship, would also sink it.
rah, Gator,
That is why I think, given Bernie Sander’s Poll, that Vermont and California (home of Barbara Boxer) should be made to do a proof of concept.
I think the idea is something we should all put to U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe the senior member of the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee.
Contact Information
governments want this because governments want to…. play parcheesy…. no thats not it. Governments want to GOVERN!!!
More like RULE would be the word. They tell you what light bulbs you can’t use. They tell you how much water your toilet can use. They tell you what the limits are on your public school kids lunch in some cases. They tell you what you can and can’t do with your land, and have free reign to make sell your real estate to them under the thinnest of veils of the doctrine of eminent domain or even confiscate it without due process with the thinnest of veils of probable cause. They take the wealth your family has earned in a family business when the current owner dies often causing that business to close if the family has not played their ever changing tax games correctly. They tax the already taxed wealth of a person that dies at an exorbitant rate. They use the IRS as a weapon and it cannot be held accountable by the people. The IRS does not even have to define the poorly written laws so that the citizens understand exactly what they have to do to be in compliance. The IRS does not have to answer questions for the citizens it’s taxing and when it does answer questions is not liable in any way for bad information it’s agents/employees may have given the tax payer. The list goes on and one and on and grows about every day.
The difference between our rulers and the mafia, is that the mafia does not claim to be doing things “for your own good!”
Also the Mafia is smart enough to just take you money and leave you free to make more.
The understand the concept of not killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.
True Gail, the key to organized crime is organization and safety. They want a lawful community to work in just like any other business and they make their money (mostly) from those shadier business interests. Our current administration is not even as good at leading that the lousy mob we had in St. Louis back in the 60’s and 70’s.
St Louis still has a mob, it’s just no longer of European descent. I see St Louis had 10 homicides in just 48 hours this week, and all the killers had one thing in common.
I find it hilarious that on my travels across various sites the alarmists flagged up the high price of oil as a sign it is running out, I have seen an article where they think it could go down to $20 dpb.
Below $50- 60 and North sea oil is running at a loss – might make the Scots think again about independence and how they will fund it.
From what I’ve read it seems that an independent Scotland couldn’t have been economically viable even if oil had remained at $100 a barrel.
Speaking of conspiracies, there must be a conspiracy between this blog’s host and Jo Nova – they both look at old newspapers to find out what was normal weather before carbon dioxide ruined everything.
“I went hunting through our wonderful historic Trove archive of old newspaper records. It doesn’t help us make any accurate comparisons, or even tell us about annual averages, but there is a remarkable story of exceptional heat and dryness in January 1877 that few Australians know. Let’s revisit the times of forgotten people who lived when CO2 was perfect and the climate was ideal.”
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/forgotten-extreme-heat-el-nino-of-1878-when-miners-yearned-for-the-years-when-theyd-knock-off-at-44-4c/
Interesting how Maj. Hartney’s questions are never answered in the reproduced “debate”.
The first question was answered and the answer to the 2nd one is so obvious that it should never have needed to be asked. It’s like asking why the government would want to take control of health care! The answer is as obvious to anyone that has an inkling about the fundamental truth about of governments. It goes to the very reason why we have a Bill of Rights! Understand the purpose of the Bill of Rights and you will know the answer to the 2nd question.
Some spectacular dissonance going on there, P
Maybe more prayers like this are needed.
Elderly Prayer
A friend reports hearing a sweet elderly lady in the pew next to him saying a prayer. It was so innocent and sincere that I just had to share it with you:
“Dear Lord: The last four or five years have been very tough. You have taken:
my favorite actor – Paul Newman;
my favorite actress – Elizabeth Taylor;
my favorite singer – Andy Williams;
my favorite author -Tom Clancy;
and now, my favorite comedians – Robin Williams and Joan Rivers.
I just wanted you to know that my favorite politicians are Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and I have a special place in my heart for Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton.
Amen .”
There are two kinds of people who do this: The truely ignorant who really believe what they are saying. For example: Roseanne Barr. Then there are those who know better but are ready and willing to lie through their teeth for their agenda. For example: Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Steve
FYI
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/you-might-be-a-2.html#comments
and comments
It is not that politicians, logical or not, want to KILL anything, it is that they want complete MONOPOLY control so they can control its availability and through it, and control of other necessities, control YOU!!
And kill you if necessary (such as you’re interfering with their power lust).
Reblogged this on Climatism.