Guest post by Alec Rawls
The graphics were changed in the last two days, but Conn Carroll at the Washington Examiner took a screenshot of Obama’s “All of the Above” energy policy page on Tuesday. “Notice anything missing?” he asks:
The updated graphics actually retain the same omission. They still omit the source of almost half of all U.S. electricity generation (coal), and only add the non-existent eco-unicorn called “clean coal”:
Of course what the CO2 alarmists call “dirty coal” is perfectly clean. The only difference is that it produces CO2—that most healthful gas, the beginning of the food chain for all life on earth—which remains alarmingly close to the minimum levels needed to sustain life.
To rid coal-burning emissions of this eco-villain the going cost is $761 per ton of sequestered carbon: “staggeringly, wildly, mind-blowingly higher than any other conceivable measure designed to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.” So still no coal in Obama’s plan. Our existing energy infrastructure is to be jettisoned, as Obama promised in 2008:
If somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.
Obama’s EPA rules already block all new coal plant construction, so his graphics are just looking forward to his true objectives: all-but-coal for now, with oil and nuclear to disappear next.
That slick “clean coal” logo indicates that the coal omission was not a mistake
The Obamatons had the clean-coal stupidity all ready to go, indicating a conscious decision to leave it out. This is reinforced by the absence of the clean-coal logo, not just from their pick-a-topic selector, but also from their header logo. Another of Obama’s eco-pages still has the original header:
That page now includes a clean coal section but the Google cache from May 3rd shows that it was recently added. The people who put these pages together are so anti-coal that they couldn’t even bring themselves to include the utterly phony “clean coal” in their proclaimed “All of the Above” energy strategy. That shows a extraordinary level of zealotry.
Kinda fits with the longstanding “climate denier” smear (recently on display), where people who don’t buy CO2 alarmism are likened to those who deny the holocaust of the Jews during WWII. The alarmists are all projection all the time. Their supposed scientists at the IPCc are omitting virtually all of the evidence for a solar driver of climate from AR5, and here their political leaders are trying to disappear the primary energy source upon which modern society currently relies, yet it is supposedly the rest of us who are conspiring to cover stuff up.
The conniving mind cannot conceive of another mode of being.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@ur momisugly Bryan H – so Alec is inane then for stating that we all know that CO2 causes warming?
Alec Rawls says:
“Tom, you are just so damned ignorant about the most basic issues.”
Exactly; doubled and squared. And Tom says: “Alec is arguing that CO2 is clean, it is natural, and healthful and should not be restricted in any way. In other words more is better.”
That has been my position for years. Tom could look it up.
I challenged Tom to try to credibly deconstruct my testable, falsifiable hypothesis, using the scientific method [that means no computer models, which are not evidence]:
At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere
Tom has not responded. Therefore, the hypothesis remains standing. But Tom is welcome to try to falsify it any time he thinks he is able. If he does, he will be the first to be able to provide testable evidence, per the scientific method, showing global harm due directly to anthropogenic CO2.
Bryan A says:
May 11, 2012 at 2:31 pm
A proof of design reactor was run at Oak Ridge for four years in the 1950’s It was successful enough that the Chinese visited Oak Ridge over 1500 times and hacked into the computer system. They hope to beat the USA to the patent. (I posted all the links some where on WUWT earlier today.)
@DirkH, So you are saying that CO2 always and only acts alone then does it?
Um, if you have not noticed,,,, Jim
Sorry, Tom, does not understand forcing and or feedback.
Have a nice day 🙂
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US
Tom says:
May 11, 2012 at 5:18 pm
…..You are asserting that CO2 causes warming, and warming is good, therefore we should purposely continue releasing massive amounts of it. That is planetary wide Geo-Engineering.
May we agree that is what your are indeed arguing for?
If not – exactly how are you not arguing for planetary wide Geo-Engineering?
______________________________
Oh good grief, drop the alarmist rhetoric.
CO2 is 400 ppm or .0004% and .00019% is ALL the human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere. (If the USA shuts down coal China will replace it with really dirty coal plants so it is actually a lose lose situation)
Now compare that to the OTHER green house gas at 4%, that varies from almost zero on up, that has been actually used for real honest to the diety geo-engineering for thousands of years. Yeah, I am talking about WATER. The ancient Egyptians, Mayans, Aztecs, Anasazi, Chinese… to name just a few, all used irrigation and in some cases terracing and literally filled those terraces with dirt carried up the hillsides in baskets. You can add slash and burn and controlled burning in the mix too. Humans have been “Geo-engineering the planet since Ugla chipped a rock into a tool and started using fire.
But “Geo-engineering” does not start with humans. It starts with life itself when the anaerobes (prokaryotes) put themselves out of business by making the earth “Toxic” with that nasty reactive gas oxygen.
References:
http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/cowen/~GEL115/115CH17oldirrigation.html
http://library.thinkquest.org/16325/y-farm.html
http://www.mexconnect.com/articles/1574-the-ancient-maya-a-commercial-empire
http://cpluhna.nau.edu/Change/waterdevelopment2.htm
http://history.cultural-china.com/en/54History2795.html
http://www.tutorvista.com/content/biology/biology-iii/origin-life/origin-life-steps.php
http://science.jrank.org/pages/1387/Chemical-Evolution.html
Oh my, it seems I was dealing with a Gremlin on my last post. LOL
Republicans can safely bus their campaign workers from WV to Virginia. Leave behind a couple of billboards and the state will safely go to Romney.
NPR has a recent story on a convict (still in prison) from Texas taking over 40% of the vote in the Presidential primary but you have to read the comments to get a sense of denial the Democrats are in. They just couldn’t understand how a bunch of dumb, racist hicks could be SUCH dumb hicks to do that. But they were SURE it wasn’t voters sending Democrats a message.
I mean, what else could POSSIBLY explain it.
DirkH and Bryan A, for information on thorium try
Thorium – World Nuclear Association
Tom says:
May 11, 2012 at 5:29 pm
@ur momisugly Otter – Alec is arguing that CO2 is clean, it is natural, and healthful and should not be restricted in any way. In other words more is better….
_______________________________
Alec is correct.
CO2 levels were starting to get critically low. Most life on earth depends on CO2 that is captured via photosynthesis and turned into usable chemical compounds like sugars, starches and amino acids. CO2 levels had gotten so low in the near geologic past that plants were forced to evolve more efficient means of capturing CO2, that is C3 plants (many of our food plants plus trees) were being replaced by C4 plants and CAM plants.
Coal (and oil) actually represent the carbon dioxide taken out of the air over geologic time periods that actually needs to be put back into the air if carbon based life forms are to continue to exist. In other words hatred of CO2 is actually hatred for life itself.
@ur momisugly Alec – I was so hoping you could educate us exactly how your amazing – and proprietary as of this point – unified law of ideal CO2 levels that take into perfect account all the climate drivers formula works.
Given that you are lobbying for planetary wide Geo-Engineering to increase warming via CO2 as good thing to do, surely you must have figured out precisely how all the extra CO2 exactly interacts with the other GHG in the atmosphere. And given your claim that the sun is actually responsible for the warming, and that GHG can linger for a very long time indeed, that you have figured exactly how the sun will behave several hundreds of years into the formula?
Tom: Trying to reduce CO2 is also “geo-engineering.”
The evidence about CO2’s effect is that it is small, and to the extent that we can put a value on it, positive, thus my position is that we should NOT be trying to geo-engineer less of it. If we were going to do anything pro-active, we should subsidize it, but I am not suggesting we do this. I am against doing anything pro-active with CO2. That requires getting government involved, which imposes huge costs, and CO2’s expected-to-be-small effects are not worth imposing those costs.
>>
Alec Rawls says:
May 11, 2012 at 5:02 pm
Tom, you are just so damned ignorant about the most basic issues.
<<
Actually he qualifies as a classic troll. Why are you feeding him? You’ll notice he doesn’t answer questions posed to him.
And notice that he talks about natural/unnatural events/occurrences. Some forest fires are natural. Should we allow all forest fires to burn? There are natural coal seam fires. Should we burn all coal this way or run some of it through our energy extracting systems. Our coal burning operations also run “cleaner” than natural coal seam fires.
He also carries things to logical extremes–such as too much vitamin D or atmospheric krypton. I’m not sure what he hopes to gain with this nonsense. Next he’ll try to ban water because it causes water intoxication in large doses.
I’d stop wasting time on him.
Jim
Apparently Tom is not capable of falsifying my hypothesis. Therefore, the hypothesis stands. CO2 is harmless and beneficial to the biosphere. More is better.
There is one door leading out of Tom’s dilemma: falsification. If Tom cannot falsify the hypothesis, then he loses the debate.
Tom, reading your comments reminds me of the opening scene in Reservoir Dogs. Mr White (Harvey Kietel) is driving Mr Orange (Tim Roth) away from the heist where Mr Orange has been shot. Mr Orange wants to go to the hospital because he says he’s going to die. Mr White asks Mr Orange if he’s a doctor (the answer is no), and then he says “So, you admit that you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
To cut out a step, whenever you want to use the words “So what you’re really saying is…” consider whether that actually is what the other said or means. You seem to be consistently extending people’s positions beyond what they said.
As far as whether or not our “planetary geo-engineering experiment” is dumb or not depends on the alternative. If the alternative is to unplug our modern society, then based on the sketchiness of the science that supports an alarmist position, I’ll take my chances.
Coal is most definitely not “clean”, although its dirtiness has nothing to do with CO2. On top of the nasty mix of chemicals burning it produces, mining coal is a hazardous and dirty business. I don’t understand why the Obama administration doesn’t stress these aspects of coal, rather than the CO2 production, as reasons for reducing its use.
I would not want to live downwind of a coal burning power plant, however modern. Nuclear? No problem.
@jim – is there something wrong in asking on topic questions of people making assertions.
For example, you take issue with npt putting limits on things but isn’t that what Alec and Gail and Smokey are arguing for?
Did not Alec say CO2 is healthy without qualification.
Bryan A says:
May 11, 2012 at 2:31 pm
“The pro-thorium lobby claim a single tonne of thorium burned in a molten salt reactor (MSR) – typically a liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) – which has liquid rather than solid fuel, can produce one gigawatt of energy. A traditional pressurised water reactor (PWR) would need to burn 250 tonnes of uranium to produce the same amount of energy.”
As well as the shortcomings of this statement noted by Dirk H above, might I point out that a gigawatt is a unit of power? Of course, power is what we actually want from a power station (funny about that – wonder why they are called power stations, not energy stations?). Bryan, I’m sure you’re not the first, nor will you be the last, to confuse power and energy.
Bryan A, my apologies, I see you were quoting someone else, so it is their confusion between power and energy, not yours.
Tom says:
“…is there something wrong in asking on topic questions of people making assertions.”
Plenty, if all you do is ask deceptive questions, and never respond to the questions others ask. Such as your stupid question about: “…npt [sic] putting limits on things but isn’t that what Alec and Gail and Smokey are arguing for?”
Your incessant nitpicking serves no purpose, except to show that you are a crank.
No one is putting ‘no limits’ on anything, tool. You’re just threadbombing.
Please stop letting the Little Bunny affect you all………..
Just sayin, the cut and paste scripts being used on you all should not invoke anything but muted invisibility.
Reminds me of how cloud formation is taken into consideration with climate models. ……
@ur momisugly Smokey says “No one is putting ‘no limits’ on anything, tool”
Smokey says June 22, 2011 at 9:30 am “Conclusion: CO2 is harmless and beneficial. More is better.”
So which one of those assertions is incorrect?
Oh, and perhaps you can show me where you, Alec, Gail and Jim have indicated that that more is not better, or for a limit?
Alec said “Trying to reduce CO2 is also “geo-engineering.”
That is rubbish, that is like saying that stopping polluting is also polluting.
Tom, you nitpicking ass. I have repeatedly given you my hypothesis to try and falsify:
At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere
‘At current and projected…’ is the limit.
You have mental problems. I suppose posting here takes the place of your imaginary friends.
Stopping the use of coal (in particular) and fossil fuels (in general) has the purpose of NOT stopping pollution – because CO2 is NOT a polluting gas nor a harmful gas as it is now, and will be emitted in the future – but stopping CO2 is intended to kill people.
To kill (Western capitalistic) economies.
To harm people and to stop progress towards health, better food clothing and shelter.
Longer, more productive lives.