Texans, I'm Madder Than Hell and You Should Be Too!

Carbon Dioxide is not the issue in coal fired plant emissions. The issue is sulfur. Depending on the grade of coal, lignite, bituminous and anthracite, the levels of sulfur emitted vary.

Lignite is a poor quality but readily available coal, with a high sulfur content and low carbon content results in lower energy content.

Bituminous is better, but anthracite is the best grade. Low sulfur content and high carbon content, a piece of anthracite coal burns with no soot or smoke. The problem is anthracite, because of its high carbon and low sulfur content, is found deep within the earth where the risks of cave in and other accident run considerabley higher than the prospects for mining lignite.

Coal gasification right now is closer to a joke than reality. China has the coal gasification infrastructure to make the tecnique possible, and this is due to their tremendous amount of research in coal gasification over tyhe past four decades, because they have very very little oil.

The timetables for coal gasification run on the decades for industry wide implementation here in the US, considering the Chinese have few coal gasification plants running on a commercial scale themselves.

LNG/LPG is a better alternative, though with LNG the situation turns into a "i want your energy, just not in my backyard". Politics will inhibit, naturally, any alternative to the traditional coal fired plant, as well as the remaining effeciency and potential effeciency upgrade to current plants over coal gasification.

Originally posted by etotheitheta
Carbon Dioxide is not the issue in coal fired plant emissions. The issue is sulfur. Depending on the grade of coal, lignite, bituminous and anthracite, the levels of sulfur emitted vary..

Carbon dioxide IS the issue when it comes to our atmosphere and global warming. The amount of co2 in our atmosphere is much, much higher than ever before. When there's too much co2, eventually human and animal life all die out.
Since you can never get the carbon out of coal, it means that coal burning will just continue to add to the co2. This is the most important thing to realize about global warming, it's the co2 in the greenhouse effect.

Originally posted by shooterbrody
libra,

The 2 posts related to timeline involving infoholic speak to your intentional haphazzard reasearch stlye as to find (or make up) what ever "scientific" facts you choose to post.

FACT
CO2 is not a hazardous air pollutant

www.epa.gov...

FACT
CO2 is essential for O2 to be present in our atmosphere as O2 is not made anywhere except in nature from plantlife

biology.clc.uc.edu...


FACT
Biological effects of global change could vary substantially across the globe

www.ucar.edu...

FACT
Texas has 28 threatened and endangered plant species

www.endangeredspecie.com...

So according to these known FACTS, your new power plants in Texas will discharge CO2, which will be used to feed plantlife, as plantlife sees CO2 as both nutritious and delicious. Some of this plantlife will undoubtably be endangered as Texas has 28 species of endangered planlife. These new power plants could be key in providing life giving CO2 to these endangered plants and saving these plants from the brink of extinction. I believe anyone who is against saving endangered plantlife is an antiplantite.

Libra, are you an antiplantite?

There you go again, twisting the facts. No, co2, in and of itself is not toxic. We currently are at about .5% co2 in our atmosphere. If we keep adding co2 to the atmosphere, at somewhere between 2% to 4% of co2 in the atmosphere, humans and animals will die. The planet will continue heating up and a rise of even a few degrees will make a huge difference, even though it may not seem like a big deal. We're talking the temperature of the planet, here. If your temperature goes up a few degrees, you're very sick. Birds and other animals are already starting to relocate because even 1 or 2 degrees mans vast changes here on earth. And that's with only about 1 to 1 1/2 degrees change in temperature.

It's not what co2 does by itself that makes it dangerous, it's when it is in huge concentrations, like it is now. And as for your 28 endangered plants surviving, no they wouldn't. If we have that much co2 in the air, the earth will eventually get too warm to support plantlife, added to the fact that water is disappearing from the earth. I know all about the melting glaciers, and yes they do add to the rising level of the sea. But I'm talking fresh water that is drinkable, and necessary for the plants to survive. Without water, plants die.

Just a hint here, shooterbrody, the more you keep writing, the more your ignorance shows. This is basic science that I learned in 6th grade. Give it up, you don't know what you're talking about and the Libra has run circles all around you. You've been listening to your corporate employers, and they will try to justify their coal burning.

Originally posted by shooterbrody
The 2 posts related to timeline involving infoholic speak to your intentional haphazzard reasearch stlye as to find (or make up) what ever "scientific" facts you choose to post.

Weak. Why do you even bother posting here? Your repeated resorts to ad hominem (personal) attacks are childish at best. It's a wonder that you haven't been banned yet. Seriously. From now on, any time you put crap like this in your post, my reply is going to be a link to ad hominem until you learn how to debate like an adult.

Originally posted by shooterbrody
CO2 is not a hazardous air pollutant

No, actually, it is a hazardous pollutant, but the Bush administration has so far refused to acknowledge it as such, citing the same tired and tepid arguments that only people with deep financial interests in fossil fuels can accept. Canada's EPA does list it on their list of Toxic substances. So has The European Union.

Additionally, you are attempting to attribute the wrong concern to CO2. The concern is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, not a poison, though an over-saturation of CO2 in the air will cause decreased mental and physical faculties and eventual asphixiation. But have no fear, there are PLENTY of other hazardous pollutants released by coal plants that do appear on your list, as well as the other two.

Let's see what else coal burning plants release:
#+ - Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
#+ - Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)
#+ - Nitrogen Oxides (such as NO2)
#+* - Mercury
# - Silicon Fly Ash (tiny spheres of glass that hold radioactive isotopes quite well)
#+* - Arsenic
#+* - chromium

* - Radon
#+* - Lead
#* - Chlorine
# - Sodium


# - Items that appear on the European Pollutant Emission Register (EPER).
+ - Items that appear on the Canadian Environmental Protection Agency Register (CEPAR).
* - Items that appear on the United States EPA 188 sheet.


It should be obvious just from the list above how far behind the times the EPA is in terms of their list of pollutants.

FURTHER, because of the following radioactive isotopes created and/or released during the coal-burning process, the radiation output of a coal plant is equivolent to 100 times that of a nuclear power plant.

Uranium (235 and 238)
Thorium
Radium
Polonium
Potassium-40

In point of fact, the potential energy of just the Uranium released by coal exceeds the actual energy produced from coal burning.

However, back to CO2 for a moment, in America, ten states have filed a lawsuit to force the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from the nation's power plants.

As I have hopefully demonstrated, just because CO2 isn't on the EPA's 188 list, doesn't mean it isn't widely recognized by our allies and at least 20% of our states as a hazardous pollutant that must be regulated. Even the EPA itself is currently working on programs to try and control and sequester CO2, despite it not being on their list.

Originally posted by shooterbrody
CO2 is essential for O2 to be present in our atmosphere as O2 is not made anywhere except in nature from plantlife

This argument is almost as weak as your ad hominem attacks.



There is more CO2 in our atmosphere than in the last 500,000 years, and possibly in all of Earth's history. Conversely the global rate of deforestation is staggering. Here's an example for the United States alone, where we actually have some degree of regulations against deforestation.



In other words, there's far more than enough CO2 for what few trees are left, and the gap between the decreasing demand from plants for CO, versus the increasing supply of CO2 from humans is increasing exponentially.

Originally posted by shooterbrody
Biological effects of global change could vary substantially across the globe

Irrelevant. The immediate hazards from the coal-burning plants in Texas will be felt first in Texas, and the long-term effects, while global, will still also affect Texas. And in a fantasy-land where none of the consequences of these coal plants would ever harm Texas, our contribution to damage in other places cannot simply be ignored.

Originally posted by shooterbrody
Texas has 28 threatened and endangered plant species

Also irrelevant. As previously mentioned, there's more than enough CO2 to go around, and the addition of the 18 coal burning plants will do absolutley nothing to help the endangered species, and the other pollutants they generate will only add to the problem, as well as add other plants and animals to the list.

Originally posted by shooterbrody
Libra, are you an antiplantite?

That's the most retarded ad hominem accusation I've seen yet from you. I can't even call that grasping at straws, because it'd be an insult to the straws.

Originally posted by forestlady

Originally posted by etotheitheta
Carbon Dioxide is not the issue in coal fired plant emissions. The issue is sulfur. Depending on the grade of coal, lignite, bituminous and anthracite, the levels of sulfur emitted vary..

Carbon dioxide IS the issue when it comes to our atmosphere and global warming. The amount of co2 in our atmosphere is much, much higher than ever before. When there's too much co2, eventually human and animal life all die out.
Since you can never get the carbon out of coal, it means that coal burning will just continue to add to the co2. This is the most important thing to realize about global warming, it's the co2 in the greenhouse effect.

You and all the animals can breathe in as much carbon dioxide as you like as long as it does not interfere with oxygen intake. There is nothing to indicate "human and animal life all die out" because of a .01% change in the .04% carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere by volume.

Yes, the idea is to burn the coal, create heat, creat steam and drive turbines and generators. CO2 is an integral part of this operation.

libra,

Okay, first off, lose the 'tude. We had begun a pretty good dialogue, and it's starting to turn nasty again.

You are adapt at giving advice but, not at using said advice.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of wikipedia, but when you're demanding an answer as specific as how the DOE calculates the CO2 Coefficient from the burning of coal in power plants, I think it's a safer bet to go with the source, and not the middle-man.

I see. Wiki is ok when you use it for your disinfo campaign.

No, actually, it is a hazardous pollutant, but the Bush administration has so far refused to acknowledge it as such, citing the same tired and tepid arguments that only people with deep financial interests in fossil fuels can accept. Canada's EPA does list it on their list of Toxic substances. So has The European Union.

Again with the pulled out of thin air disinfo. The bush admin does not control the epa.
Additionally wasn't this thread about Texas? Hmm Texas is not a state in Canada or Europe. Gee thought a smart fella like you would have known that.

# - Items that appear on the European Pollutant Emission Register (EPER).

I already addressed most of these earlier in this thread. Yes we in the big boogeyman coal industry monitor these as regulated by the epa. Again I could care less what the euros or canucks think.

FURTHER, because of the following radioactive isotopes created and/or released during the coal-burning process, the radiation output of a coal plant is equivolent to 100 times that of a nuclear power plant.

Source please.

The agency argues the law does not authorize them to regulate emissions to reduce global warming, and maintains there is not enough scientific data to support such a move.

Gee, guess that explains your problem with the epa.

There is more CO2 in our atmosphere than in the last 500,000 years, and possibly in all of Earth's history.

Hey again with the Wiki double standard.
And how original more disinfo.
I quoted a scientific study years in the making which had the conclusion that warming was cyclic. And you respond with broadbrush loonisy.

Conversely the global rate of deforestation is staggering.

Hey some plant food(CO2) can remidy that!

And in a fantasy-land

Why am I not surprised at your response to cold hard scientific data.

Libra, are you an antiplantite?

No more rediculous than most of your disinfo.

Shooterbrody,

I'm ignoring the more asinine parts of your posts from here on out. Life's too short to play "take the bait" on every ad hominem attack you use. Filtering away the elementary-school BS you keep putting in your posts, here's the lies that are left that you claim so boldly.

Originally posted by shooterbrody
The bush admin does not control the epa.

Actually, it does. In both the personnel it appoints to EPA offices (along with Parks & Rec, and Fish & Wildlife), through executive orders, and through the changing of rules and regulations. Since you can't be bothered to read up on these sorts of things before you start spouting ignorance, here's just a few links and summaries.

from The Seattle Post Intellingencer
Concerns arise over Bush's pick for EPA job
WASHINGTON -- President Bush has nominated Granta Nakayama, a partner in a law firm whose clients include W.R. Grace, BP, Dow Chemical and DuPont, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency's far-flung enforcement division.

from Eric Schaeffer (former Director of the EPA's Office of Regulatory Enforcement)

"...The Bush administration quickly set about weakening the Clean Air Act, stoking public fears of energy shortages and blackouts as a rationale for leniency (even though 2001 was a record year for power plant expansion). White House staff and the Energy Department, working closely with lobbyists for the same companies we had sued, directed EPA to expand loopholes that allow 40- or 50-year-old power plants to continue pumping out 12 million tons of sulfur dioxide a year, without implementing modern pollution controls..."

from The Washington Post
"The Environmental Protection Agency will no longer have to consult with wildlife agencies before deciding whether pesticides are likely to harm threatened or endangered species, according to rules issued by the Bush administration yesterday."

from Truthout Issues
Bush Declares Eco-Whistleblower Law Void for EPA Employees
The Bush administration has declared itself immune from whistleblower protections for federal workers under the Clean Water Act, according to legal documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). As a result of an opinion issued by a unit within the Office of the Attorney General, federal workers will have little protection from official retaliation for reporting water pollution enforcement breakdowns, manipulations of science or cleanup failures.

Citing an "unpublished opinion of the [Attorney General's] Office of Legal Counsel," the Secretary of Labor's Administrative Review Board has ruled federal employees may no longer pursue whistleblower claims under the Clean Water Act. The opinion invoked the ancient doctrine of sovereign immunity which is based on the old English legal maxim that "The King Can Do No Wrong." It is an absolute defense to any legal action unless the "sovereign" consents to be sued.

The opinion and the ruling reverse nearly two decades of precedent. Approximately 170,000 federal employees working within environmental agencies are affected by the loss of whistleblower rights.

And that's just what I found inside 30 seconds worth of searching. Anyone with one finger and access to Google can find reams and reams of solid hard core proof that the Bush Administration does control the EPA. Every presidential administration has that capability.

Originally posted by shooterbrody
Additionally wasn't this thread about Texas? Hmm Texas is not a state in Canada or Europe. Gee thought a smart fella like you would have known that.

The reason I brought up Canada and the EU is because they are our strategic and economic allies, first world nations, and the people of all three share the same common interests globally in both environmental, health, and human rights concerns. If Canada and the EU have declared something to be a pollutant, there's a pretty damn good reason for it, and if one is left to wonder why the U.S. hasn't, one need look no further than the Bush admnistrations damage to the EPA.

Originally posted by shooterbrody
I already addressed most of these earlier in this thread. Yes we in the big boogeyman coal industry monitor these as regulated by the epa. Again I could care less what the euros or canucks think.

Let me put this into terms an isolationist can hopefully comprehend:

Your across the street neighbor starts deciding to burn tires and trash in their yard, and your house is upwind. Your next door neighbor has a pool they haven't done upkeep on in years, it's turned into an opaque swampy mess that breeds hordes of disease ridden mosquitos. Neither care what you think.

Something tells me you wouldn't be so cavalier about being in that situation.

Originally posted by shooterbrody

FURTHER, because of the following radioactive isotopes created and/or released during the coal-burning process, the radiation output of a coal plant is equivolent to 100 times that of a nuclear power plant.

Source please.

I've linked it at least three times through this thread, probably more so. Since you obviously never read it, I question the point of linking it again, but here it is. I'll even quote the relevant paragraph for you, since I know you won't bother reading it on your own.

from The Oak Ridge National Laboratory
For comparison, according to NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95, population exposure from operation of 1000-MWe nuclear and coal-fired power plants amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year for nuclear plants. Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.

Originally posted by shooterbrody

There is more CO2 in our atmosphere than in the last 500,000 years, and possibly in all of Earth's history.

Hey again with the Wiki double standard.
And how original more disinfo.
I quoted a scientific study years in the making which had the conclusion that warming was cyclic. And you respond with broadbrush loonisy.

Broadbrush "loonisy", you say?

Carbon dioxide level highest in 650,000 years

"Today we're over 380 ppm," he said. "That's higher than we've been for over a million years, possibly 30 million years."

Carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 800,000 years

Ice bubbles reveal biggest rise in CO2 for 800,000 years

Analysis of this core shows that current atmospheric concentrations of CO2--380 parts per million (ppm)--are 27 percent higher than the highest levels found in the last 650,000 years.

If anything, I was overly conservative in my estimate of 500,000 years.

Not that the parts of yours I quoted were that great to begin with, but the rest of your post is baiting tripe and ad hominem attakcs not even worth responding to. You can expect this response repeatedly until you begin to debate like an adult instead of a petulant little child.

thelibra, your statements are malsuited to the debate and contain a great deal of bogus understanding. Your small rant about virgin forests being destroyed shows an akward attempt at potraying an issue that does not exist. Virgin forest means never been cut down, it does not mean we are 'losing trees'. In fact, loggers plant new trees for just about every tree they cut. In 15 years, most of these trees have matured. This has nothing to do with coal fired plants.

The EPA is a taxing arm of the executive branch. Its primary objective is to think of new ways to force companies to comply with environmental regulations: to spend money to meet these new rules. This means taxes. On the very rare occasion does the EPA do anything significant for the environment. Outside of reducing certain aerosol sprays and tetraethyllead, the EPA sits on its ass all year thinking of ways to collect taxes.

Originally posted by etotheitheta
Your small rant about virgin forests being destroyed shows an akward attempt at potraying an issue that does not exist.

Deforestation doesn't exist? I'm sorry, I just want to be clear if that's what you're attempting to say, or are you specifically referring to the example of virgin forests?

Just in case, here's a few hard stats:

"Although the precise area is debated, each day at least 80,000 acres (32,300 ha) of forest disappear from Earth. At least another 80,000 acres (32,300 ha) of forest are degraded." (source)

"Overall, FAO estimates that 10.4 million hectares of tropical forest were permanently destroyed each year in the period from 2000 to 2005, an increase since the 1990-2000 period, when around 10.16 million hectares of forest were lost. Among primary forests, annual deforestation rose to 6.26 million hectares from 5.41 million hectares in the same period." (source)

"Just a few thousand years ago, tropical rainforests covered as much as 12 percent of the Earth’s land surface, or about 6 million square miles (15.5 million square km), but today less than 5 percent of Earth's land is covered with these forests (about 2.41 million square miles or 625 million hectares)." (source)

"The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that 53,000 square miles of tropical forests (rain forest and other) were destroyed each year during the 1980s. Of this, they estimate that 21,000 square miles were deforested annually in South America, most of this in the Amazon Basin. Based on these estimates, an area of tropical forest large enough to cover North Carolina is deforested each year!" (source)

"The SADC, which in 2002 experienced food crisis, lost a total of 2.2 million hectares of forests between 1990 and 2000, according to Malawi government official statistics." (source)

Originally posted by etotheitheta
Virgin forest means never been cut down, it does not mean we are 'losing trees'.

Fair enough. Feel free to discard the Virgin Forests chart and I've given you five new references to the rate of deforestation instead.

Originally posted by etotheitheta
In fact, loggers plant new trees for just about every tree they cut.

Unsubstantiated, unsupported, and largely untrue. In some areas with strict enough and enforced enough regulations they will cycle forests, but this is absolutely not the case the majority of the time or even on average, and as I've just shown, certainly not the case in South America or Africa.

Originally posted by etotheitheta
This has nothing to do with coal fired plants.

I couldn't agree more, but if you'll re-read the thread carefully, I wasn't the one to bring up the ridiculous assumption that coal plants were good for the environment just because trees process CO2. The only reason I touched upon the forests thing in the first place was in the off-chance that someone could be fooled by such a weak argument.

Originally posted by etotheitheta
On the very rare occasion does the EPA do anything significant for the environment. Outside of reducing certain aerosol sprays and tetraethyllead, the EPA sits on its ass all year thinking of ways to collect taxes.

This has certainly been the case over the last 6 years, and only emphasizes my point that, under the Bush administration, the EPA has been largely impotent and hollow. However, this has not always been the case. Under the previous administration, great strides forward were being made right up until the Florida recount in 2000.

by Eric Schaeffer (former Director of the EPA's Office of Regulatory Enforcement)
Just after the 2000 election, while the nation's attention was focused on the Florida recount, my colleagues at the Environmental Protection Agency and Justice Department celebrated a dramatic victory of their own. Two of the country's largest utilities had just agreed to cut pollution from their old, coal-fired power plants by two-thirds, or more than half a million tons a year. As director of the EPA's Office of Regulatory Enforcement since 1997, I helped to bring lawsuits against some of the nation's largest electric utilities. The government charged these companies with violating the Clean Air Act by expanding their coal-fired electric plants without controlling emissions such as nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide--noxious gases that cause smog, asthma, lung cancer, and premature death. The post-election settlement with Cinergy and Dominion was a landmark, pressuring other companies to follow suit and clean up their act as well.

The EPA is currently the only thing standing between us and poisoned water and air. It may not be a great tool, but it's the only one we have at the moment. I have zero illusions about how badly it needs to be repaired and improved, and compared to Canada's or Europe's equivolent organizations, ours is a joke. Again, though, it is the only tool we have, and it wasn't completely broken until the Bush administration.

Hard stats are nothing compared to scrupulous and thourough investigation.

What is the environment exactly?

You, thelibra, argue coal fired plants are bad for the environment, but yet we do not have a clear and coherent definition of environment in this case. For humans, and their immediate surroundings, coal fired plants are beneficial; to the tweedledum algae of cyrstal lake, coal fired plants may not be so good. It is all a matter of perspective which in the case of energy, suites humans best. It is our only and primary responsiblity to look out for ourselves, and anything else is an added bonus tacked onto humanism and environmentalism.

Originally posted by etotheitheta
Hard stats are nothing compared to scrupulous and thourough investigation.

I think it's fair to say I've investigated this pretty thoroughly.

Originally posted by etotheitheta
What is the environment exactly?

I'm not an English teacher. If you don't know what the environment is, then I suggest you use a little of those investigative skills you mentioned and read a dictionary.

Originally posted by etotheitheta
For humans, and their immediate surroundings, coal fired plants are beneficial;

No, they aren't. The only benefit we gain is electricity, which we can get from other sources. If you re-read the posts in this thread, you will see why coal plants are bad for humans and the immediate surroundings in every other way.

Originally posted by etotheitheta
It is our only and primary responsiblity to look out for ourselves, and anything else is an added bonus tacked onto humanism and environmentalism.

This is the part that people such as yourself and Rick Perry fail to understand.
Environmentalism isn't about hugging baby seals and saving whales. It is about the long-term approach towards ensuring the survival of our species. Really, when you get right down to it, the Earth will be fine without us. Once we kill ourselves off, some new life will take over and the Earth will shrug us off like it did countless other species before us. The point of environmentalism is to prolongue that day, and maybe afford the next generation of humans a chance at creating yet another generation.

I'm not talking about saving some algae in a pristine lake somewhere. I'm talking about preventing Big Power from destroying the air and countryside of Texas with poisonous and greenhouse gasses and radioactive particulates. If those 18 power plants are added, that's exactly what's going to happen.

Hmmm....
Guess it depends on whose data you rely on as to global warming.
www.eurekalert.org...

COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.

"We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment," he said.

If you re-read the posts in this thread, you will see why coal plants are bad for humans and the immediate surroundings in every other way.

If you believe these scientists, you will see why that is such a ignorant statement.

Shooterbrody, did you even read the article you quoted? You've not only taken their comments out of context, but have credited this article as "proof" that coal plants are harmless, when the article has nothing to do with coal. Something tells me you're doing this on purpose at this point. No one could be this ignorant in real life.

The article you quoted states that real-time data from south polar tip of Antarctica did not match certain climate model predictions. Wow. Groundbreaking information, that. Equally vague statements to the same effect would be "the weatherman got some predictions wrong last year" and "hurricane season wasn't as bad as some people thought it would be."

Further, the article clearly states that

"...This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth."

It also goes on to state that...

"...In addition to the new temperature records and earlier precipitation records, Bromwich's team also looked at the behavior of the circumpolar westerlies, the broad system of winds that surround the Antarctic continent.

"The westerlies have intensified over the last four decades of so, increasing in strength by as much as perhaps 10 to 20 percent," he said. "This is a huge amount of ocean north of Antarctica and we're only now understanding just how important the winds are for things like mixing in the Southern Ocean." The ocean mixing both dissipates heat and absorbs carbon dioxide, one of the key greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

Some researchers are suggesting that the strengthening of the westerlies may be playing a role in the collapse of ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula..."

And even further later goes on to state that...

"In some sense, we might have competing effects going on in Antarctica where there is low-level CO2 warming but that may be swamped by the effects of ozone depletion," he said. "The year 2006 was the all-time maximum for ozone depletion over the Antarctic."

Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn't necessarily mean that the models are wrong.

"It isn't surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations," he said.


Next time, actually READ the article before trying to use it as a source. Or did you read it and deliberately take your quotes out of context?

So not only did you quote an article that isn't even about coal plants in the first place, but you completely misunderstood (or ignored) the point of the article you were quoting, and deliberately misquoted it to try and deliver a message that wasn't being conveyed by the article in the first place.

Seriously, Shooterbrody, why? Are you getting some jollies from this? Are you just purposely trying to disrupt the thread at this point? Are you just trying to make coal-enthusiasts look as ignorant as possible? I mean I really should be thanking you at this point for accomplishing the latter. It turns that many more people off to coal.

[edit on 2/16/2007 by thelibra]

You've not only taken their comments out of context, but have credited this article as "proof" that coal plants are harmless, when the article has nothing to do with coal.

Just exactly how is quoteing the statements in question taking them out of context?All I said was it depends on whose data you are inclined to believe.

The article you quoted states that real-time data from south polar tip of Antarctica did not match certain climate model predictions. Wow. Groundbreaking information, that.

Yes it is.It showes that the"sky is falling" chicken littles are not completely factually correct.

So not only did you quote an article that isn't even about coal plants in the first place, but you completely misunderstood (or ignored) the point of the article you were quoting, and deliberately misquoted it to try and deliver a message that wasn't being conveyed by the article in the first place.

Well now your saying that there is no connection between coal plants,CO2,and global warming?
The point I was trying to make is that right now as to the facts it depends on whom you choose to believe.Do increased CO2 emmissions have a part in global warming?probably.Does the earths climate show a cyclic pattern of heating and cooling?probably.Does anyone on the planet have conclusive facts to show that 200 years of industrial activity is enough to shake the warming and cooling cycle the earth has?Not that I have read so far.I have read information that shows both sides of the arguement.Personally I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle.
As far as your 18 coal plants in Texas,if you want to make a difference as far as the environment goes you would be better served to go after the older plants with inferior technology.The plants built today are going to be built to the highest standards we have available.If you dont like the standards complain to the epa or your state emmissions regulatory agency.Legally as long as these plants get their permits in order and have technology as required there is not much you will be able to do about it.Sure you can protest and scream all you like but what they are doing is in no way illegal.

[edit on 16/2/2007 by shooterbrody]

When even Exxon Mobil has no more doubts on warming, I think it's fair to say that there is no question in any rational mind that global warming is occurring.

Originally posted by shooterbrody
Just exactly how is quoteing the statements in question taking them out of context?All I said was it depends on whose data you are inclined to believe.

If you honestly, truly believe you have no idea how you were misrepresenting that article, then I heartily recommend first re-reading the article in its entirety to understand the point they were getting across, and then go back and look at your post, and see exactly what you posted and in what context you were posting it. If you still don't understand, then we can start a new thread on how to debate responsibly, but in all honesty, judging from your previous posts, I think you were (or are) probably just messing with me.

Originally posted by shooterbrody
It showes that the"sky is falling" chicken littles are not completely factually correct.

And how exactly does that relate to the subject of the 18 power plants going up in Texas?

Originally posted by shooterbrody

So not only did you quote an article that isn't even about coal plants in the first place, but you completely misunderstood (or ignored) the point of the article you were quoting, and deliberately misquoted it to try and deliver a message that wasn't being conveyed by the article in the first place.

Well now your saying that there is no connection between coal plants,CO2,and global warming?

No, and this is another example of irresponsible and apparently deliberate misrepresentation of another's words. Again, I ask, do you honestly just not get it, or are you deliberately doing this for attention?

Originally posted by shooterbrody
The point I was trying to make is that right now as to the facts it depends on whom you choose to believe.

The only one who has presented any facts in this entire debate is me. All you have done is repeatedly naysay, make things up, misquote articles, and twist words. Oh, yeah, and denounce my own sources, without any credible reason except on the basis that some were "canuck" or "euro". Occasionally you even threw in condescending words and insults to flavor what was otherwise a completely hollow argument on your part.

Originally posted by shooterbrody
Personally I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I have deliberately tried to keep the argument away from global warming for exactly that reason. Personally, I have seen enough research and made enough first-person observations to believe that GW is a serious problem, that it will only continue to get worse. I don't know that it will be the end of mankind, but it will certainly result in the death or dispossession of several hundred million people across the globe.

Originally posted by shooterbrody
As far as your 18 coal plants in Texas,if you want to make a difference as far as the environment goes you would be better served to go after the older plants with inferior technology.

Indeed, that is also on the agenda for me, but my goal at the moment is to stop yet another generation of dirty power plants from getting fasttracked through our legislation. The older plants can and will be replaced. But replacing them with Coal plants is simply unacceptable when we have countless other, cleaner technologies immediately available, INCLUDING, as I've repeatedly stated, simply improving the ERCOT Texas Power Distribution Grid.

Originally posted by shooterbrody
The plants built today are going to be built to the highest standards we have available.If you dont like the standards complain to the epa or your state emmissions regulatory agency.

And, as I repeatedly stated, we don't HAVE a state emissions regulatory agency for power plants. And complaining to the EPA has done no good because they lack the enforcement capacity or regulations to do anything about it, because of the weakening of it by the Bush administration.

I am instead bringing this to the public. When no institution exists to solve a problem, and the institutions in place refuse to aknowledge the problem, then the last resort is the public eye. That's what I'm doing. I'm hoping that some fellow Texans will see this, or neighboring states who worry about the impact of additional coal plants.

I have provided links to both switch away from using TXU Energy and how to contact your local Texas representatives, senators, etc.. I have provided the crime, the data and science behind it, and what to do abot it. I have written my state and local representatives, our senators, our federal representatives, and even Nancy Pelosi herself. I'm doing everything within my power to stop this, if that hasn't become readily apparent yet.

At the same time I've been doing this, I've had to fight deliberate lies, insult, and misinformation every single step of the way, mostly from you. Hence my degree of irritation and shrinking patience with your cavalier dismissal of everything I've tried to say, with zero work put in behind it other than the few seconds it takes to create supposition and misquote an article. Are you beginning to see why I've been getting upset?

Originally posted by shooterbrody
Legally as long as these plants get their permits in order and have technology as required there is not much you will be able to do about it.

And what I'm attempting is to get that changed. We have the technology. We have the capability. We even have the capacity. What we lack is the legal and political muscle. That has to start with the people demanding change.

Originally posted by shooterbrody
Sure you can protest and scream all you like but what they are doing is in no way illegal.

Hard to say, actually. It would have to be taken to court, and, not being a lawyer, I have no idea what the charges would be. However...

...hmmm...

I wonder if I could convince the Texas Attorney General to take on the Governor?

Thanks for the idea!

(...browsebrowsebrowse)

Anyway, as I've stated quite a few times. I'm more than willing to discuss this on a rational basis like adults, and it looks like with this last post you're starting to do this, maybe.

And, as I repeatedly stated, we don't HAVE a state emissions regulatory agency for power plants.

See this goes back to so many issues in this post.

www.tceq.state.tx.us...

and speciffically air permits

www.tceq.state.tx.us...

and notification so you can voice your opinion

www.tceq.state.tx.us...








[edit on 16/2/2007 by shooterbrody]

He is the biggest freaken moron we have had in office in decades.
I was so shocked when he won, I tried to tell anyone who would listen how big of a moron his is. Most people in San Antonio, seemed to agree.
I really wonder if he stuffed the ballet?

Well, I gotta say, thanks Shooterbrody.

After hunting around that site, getting referred to about three different offices, and then eventually from the regional to a state level, I was given a new set of instructions for how to stop these plants.


Anyone who wishes to stop the 18 new TXU coal burning power plants will need to mail a physical letter, signed, to the following address:

Office of the Chief Clerk
TCEQ - MC Mail Code 105
PO Box 13087
Austin, TX, 78711-3087



The Clerk said that they need a physical letter so that the protest can go down in public record. It will need your name, address, and signature in order to be considered for the record.

I will be composing a template letter this weekend for those who prefer not to write their own.

Thanks Brody. You actually helped out quite a bit there.

With some experience as we are building plants here;the most effective form of protest seems to be in the area of the air permits.Demand public meetings as to those permits issue and then attend in mass.Depending on when the applications were filed perhaps you could get the state law changed before the permits are approved.It usually takes years to get the permits approved.More than likely the utility in question will have their ducks in a row as billions of dollars will be on the line,but if you don't look you will never know.

Originally posted by shooterbrody
With some experience as we are building plants here;the most effective form of protest seems to be in the area of the air permits

I sincerely appreciate the advice, and will put it to good use.

Without intending to be standoffish, what caused the change of heart?