Saturday, September 21, 2013

EPA Rules on Coal Burning Plants: An "ideologically driven fight to tear the capitalist heart out of western civilization"

Earth's Ice Age
No mincing of words in this Investors Business Daily Editorial, "New Rules On Power Plants Will Kill Coal Industry":
The administration finally has released its rules for curbing CO2 emissions from U.S. power plants. Far from being a plan to clean up the environment, it is in fact a road map to de-industrialization and poverty.

The tough new rules that will limit carbon dioxide output from new power plants immediately drew protests from the power industry. No surprise. But if Americans really understood what Obama is doing, they'd be up in arms, too.

Far from being an economically sensible plan to reduce U.S. pollution, this proposal will sharply raise the cost of energy to all Americans, while doing little to improve our environment.
As we face the remainder of the 21st Century, one can but hope that real science will begin to overcome the nearly absolute baloney that is driving us down the path set out by the anti-human zealots who set up these programs that are working - as designed- to bring our country to its knees while doing nothing that makes real sense.

Am I in favor of bringing back the old days of pollution? Not at all. But neither can I support the idiocy of this batch of people who seem driven to take us back to pre-industrial days while ignoring scientific research that poke large holes in their fundamental core beliefs.

Which, I suppose, as others have noted, this is not a scientific debate at all - but a form of a religious attack, which is why the supporters of this ruinous nonsense seems so unswayed by evidence that is contrary to their beliefs.

Want more?

"Gas Leaks in Fracking Disputed in Study", which the the NYTimes cumbersome way of noting that a scientific study has reported that not much methane escapes from fracking operations (see also WaPo's  "Fracking may not be as bad for the climate as we thought").

From the UK Daily Mail, "World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong":  Referring to the famed IPCC, the Daily Mail notes the things that the "leading" climate change crowd has not or cannot explained, if their concerns are, in fact, as "scientifically settled" as has been argued by people who refer to simple folks like me as "deniers" worthy of being declared some sort of climate "heretics" -
But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.

They admit large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250 AD – centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower.

The IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why.

A forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense has simply been dropped, without mention.

This year has been one of the quietest hurricane seasons in history and the US is currently enjoying its longest-ever period – almost eight years – without a single hurricane of Category 3 or above making landfall.
As I have said before, there is evidence that the world has warmed - we no longer have massive glaciers covering Canada and the upper U.S. and most of Europe (see map above) but those glaciers disappeared long before industrial man arose.

Is the world warming now? Hard to tell from the most recent, accurate real reports (as opposed to computer-based theories).

Before we drive ourselves back to the Dark Ages, I would suggest we take a long pause. After all, what if all these "true believers" are wrong?

Just for fun, some facts from our friends at the USGS about glaciers (emphasis added):
  • Glaciers store about 69% of the world's freshwater, and if all land ice melted the seas would rise about 70 meters (about 230 feet).
  • During the last ice age (when glaciers covered more land area than today) the sea level was about 400 feet lower than it is today. At that time, glaciers covered almost one-third of the land.
  • During the last warm spell, 125,000 years ago, the seas were about 18 feet higher than they are today. About three million years ago the seas could have been up to 165 feet higher.
So, just how many coal burning plants were around 125,000 years ago? How about 3 million years ago?

Just saying . . .

Update: The quote in the post header? Read the IBD editorial.

1 comment:

  1. Anonymous10:32 AM

    Clearly the ancient aliens had a coal based economy. Has anybody gotten Von Danniken or History Channel Guy-With-Really-Weird-Hair or Knit Beret Dude on this?

    Anyone that has driven I-35 from San Antonio South has seen the evidence of past sea levels. Those sand bodies on either side of the road are past barrier islands of the Gulf. Drill cores of these bodies show the same structure we see in the modern barrier island system, which is different from other sand bodies.

    Sonar surveys of the continental shelf in the Gulf also reveal submerged sequences of barrier islands to depths of around 150 feet, indicating lower sea levels as well, again verified by coring. Dates on all of these can be verified by radiometric means as well as by fossil assemblages (Pleistocene mammals and other things, even plant pollen). Unless one thinks the ancient astronauts or early homonids or both were into carbon credits, the answer lies elsewhere, in the realm of isostacy, Milankovich Cycles and current changes.

    As one of my profs used to say:"We're not out of the Pleistocene, yet".