31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda
"More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate."
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734
Cap and Trade and other taxation schemes based upon the farce of Anthropogenic global warming will add hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars of tax burden on American energy consumers. We must reject these schemes and focus on energy independence, not squeezing even more dimes out of the already overburdened members of productive society.
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734
Cap and Trade and other taxation schemes based upon the farce of Anthropogenic global warming will add hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars of tax burden on American energy consumers. We must reject these schemes and focus on energy independence, not squeezing even more dimes out of the already overburdened members of productive society.
Views: 164
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on -
I will not weigh in on the global warming debate because the vast majority of people already have a strong opinion on the existence or lack thereof.
I do believe it is inevitable that the federal government is going to inact some form of climate change regulation(s) within this year. My and my company's objective is for such regulation to be structured in a manner to balance the burden and allow compliance to occur in the most efficient, cost effective manner. The inital version of the Waxman-Markey bill was fair and well written and I just hope most of the provisions can survive the legislative process without being too severely compromised by the coal interests.
I also believe some of this regulation can help address a more important issue - energy consumption. I think most would agree fossil fuels are a limited resource that must be used efficiently and with some thought and planning. Cheap energy is a thing of the past and we need to begin conserving our resources. A big part of that is to begin adding some renewables and encourage improved energy effiency in cars, appliances, homes and power generation. A traditional coal plant has a 30% efficiency while a new natural gas combined cycle power plant has a 50%+ efficiency but the former gets dispatched simply because the power is cheaper. Just think of the potential energy savings and CO2 reduction associated with that alone given coal plants provide ~ 50% of US power.
-
Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on
-
Yeah, and I am sure Russia, China, India Etc. will love it. It is suicide.
-
Permalink Reply by P.G. on
-
Cheap energy is a thing of the past?
What's hard to take is when NG is so inexpensive it isn't worth drilling for!
Especially hard to understand is why is NG this inexpensive when petroleum is SO expensive when they both can be used to do practically the same thing!
To me it seems foolish for the taxpayers and consumers to have to subsidize NG to replace an energy source (coal) that is even less expensive when it could be competing with petroleum instead! Cheap energy may very well become a thing of the past in the future but it doesn't have to be that way right now!
-
Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on
-
PG, my reference to cheap energy was $30/Bbl crude, $1.00/gal gasoline, $2/MMBtu natural gas, etc. Many producers have indicated natural gas prices need to be @ ~ $7/MMBtu to insure adequate supplies and crude is already back above $70/Bbl.
-
Permalink Reply by P.G. on
-
I would think if CNG were in direct competition with petroleum for transportation, rather than just coal on producing electricity, their prices would be comparable. Oil would come down and NG would go up. More than adequate supplies would bring stability and keep each form of energy fairly priced. I'm sure what ever that price eventually would be would be somewhat more than the cost to produce it. I don't think anyone has a problem with someone making a reasonable profit. No one likes to be gouged though!
-
Permalink Reply by sesport on
-
Les - It might be easier for some to understand if you repost here those cost differences that you gave me a few days ago. (coal vs. ng)
Best - sesport :0)
-
Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on
-
Sesport, I did not recall any cost numbers. Are you thinking of emissions levels per MWh of power?
-
Permalink Reply by sesport on
-
Les - It's posted on Gosh Darn's topic about NG prices turning the corner, page 2, about 8th post from the top. Your post is dated June 1.
-
Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on
-
Sesport, I think this is post you were referencing:
"The implementation of a carbon cost of $25/ton CO2 emitted will increase costs of coal fired power by 3.3 cents/Kwh while gas fired power costs will increase by only 1.0 cents/Kwh. Many believe the carbon cost could be more on the order of $75/ton CO2 which would triple the power cost increases. This should make natural gas fuelled power more competitive with coal."
-
Permalink Reply by sesport on
-
That's it! That 3.3 cents vs. 1.0 cents is what hit home for me, maybe it will help some others.
PG - The Little Gypsy plant has now put their plans on hold to switch from ng to petroleum coke for this reason; the cost of ng for power & industry right now is very favorable. From what has been explained to me and what I've read, it will not be more cost effective to produce electricity from coal. (But I'm not the expert, just been trying to get a handle on understanding it for awhile now.)
Even if one doesn't subscribe to the GW/climate change idea, they sure will agree that they don't want to be light in the pockets ($$$$$ wise).
Thanks again, Les - sesport :0)
-
Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on
-
I am sorry, but when many of the worlds top scientists refute global warming with documented studies, I just can't drink the kool-aid. To equate global warming "science" with physics is not only disengenous but downright laughable.
-
Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on
-
How many falsehoods do I have to catch you in before people realize that either.
A. you don't know what your talking about
B. you are attempting to mislead the readers of GHS
Which is it?"
"A report from The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research says that Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away. Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m. A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded."
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/18/2059204
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
Not a member? Get our email.
Groups
-
San Augustine, TX
386 members
-
Natchitoches Parish
399 members
-
Cass County, TX
119 members
-
Franklin County, Texas
8 members
-
Rusk County
97 members
-
Vernon Parish
59 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
242 members
-
Sabine County, Texas
172 members
-
Sabine Parish, LA
455 members
-
Angelina County, TX
87 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
