Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So what it's saying is that it got hot enough to melt stuff, whereas it had not been hot enough before.> Well no. Maybe it's gotten that hot before, and we just didn't notice it. And apparently, it only happened once, during an eight year period that was looked at.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010098" target="_blank">http://www.opinionjournal.com/ editorial/feature.html?id=110010098</a> >>Coal Man There's at least one CEO left who is not buying global warming hysteria. WASHINGTON--Every good party has its wet blanket. In the case of the energy industry's merrymaking for a global warming program, the guy in the dripping bedspread is a 67-year-old, straight-talking coal-mine owner by the name of Robert E. Murray. You won't hear many of Mr. Murray's energy-biz colleagues mention him; they tend to avoid his name, much as nephews avoid talk of their crazy uncles. GE's Jeffrey Immelt, Duke Energy's Jim Rogers, Exelon's John Rowe--these polished titans have been basking in an intense media glow, ever since they claimed to have seen the light on global warming and gotten behind a mandatory government program to cut C02 emissions. They'd rather not have any killjoys blowing the whistle on their real motives--which is to make a pile of cash off the taxpayers and consumers who'll fund it. And yet here's Mr. Murray, killjoy-in-chief at the global warming love-fest. "Some elitists in our country can't, or won't, tell fact from fiction, can't understand what a draconian climate change program will do [to] the dreams of millions of working Americans and those on fixed incomes," says the chairman and CEO of Murray Energy, one of the largest private coal concerns in the country. He's incensed by his fellow energy CEOs' "shameless" goal of fattening their bottom lines at the "expense of the broader economy." So these past months he's emerged from his quiet Cleveland office and jumped on the national stage, calling out the rest of his industry's CO2 collaborationists. He's testified in front of Congress; become a regular on television and radio programs; sat for profiles by journalists; and written letters to other energy companies exhorting them to think of the broader consequences. It seems unlikely his campaign will slow the runaway global-warming train now hurtling through Washington. But Mr. Murray is certainly making the ride less comfortable for some corporate players. "For me, global warming is a human issue, not just an environmental one," he says in his slow, gravelly way, nursing a cup of coffee at a local shop here after recent congressional testimony. "The science of global warming is speculative. But there's nothing speculative about the damage a C02 capture program will do to this country. I know the names of many of the thousands of people--American workers, their families--whose lives will be destroyed by what has become a deceitful and hysterical campaign, perpetrated by fear-mongers in our society and by corporate executives intent on their own profits or competitive advantage. I can't stand by and watch." Tough words, and unusually brash ones for a respected CEO, though Mr. Murray is uniquely situated to deliver them. Unlike other energy executives--at industrial firms such as GE that make millions on wind turbines, or utilities such as Duke or Exelon who are making big financial bets on "clean energy"--coal CEOs such as Mr. Murray are the bad boys on the global-warming scene, and will see zero upside in a global-warming program. While the industry has certainly made advances on the real pollution front (sulfur dioxide/nitrogen oxide), coal still accounts for the vast majority of all electricity-related C02 emissions. The only way to really cut carbon emissions would be to severely limit the use of coal-fired power plants and manufacturing facilities, which is exactly what environmentalists have wanted for years. "We're one of the targets of this campaign," says Mr. Murray. "Putting in place a global warming program is about putting limits on the coal business and low-cost energy." The Ohio coal miner therefore has nothing to lose by speaking hard truths. He's also well-qualified to speak them, hailing from a long line of coal miners proud of their roots and their industry. A no-nonsense guy, Mr. Murray became the family provider after his father was paralyzed in a coal-mining accident. By 16, he was mowing lawns every day after school, using a coal miner's cap with a light on the front so he could continue to work past dark. He'd set his sights on a medical career when he was unexpectedly offered a chance at a scholarship to become a mining engineer. "I'm a fourth-generation miner, but it's only by happenstance," he chuckles. There followed 31 years at the North American Coal Corporation, where he rose to CEO and then left in 1987 after a disagreement. Striking out on his own, he mortgaged his home to buy his first mine. Today, Murray Energy operates 11 coal mines in Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Utah, producing 32 million tons of coal annually ($800 million in sales) for U.S. electric utilities. He employs about 3,000, although he estimates that if you look at all the secondary jobs created to provide goods and services for miners, his company has helped create some 36,000 jobs. Those jobs are top of Mr. Murray's list of concerns, and he's been determined to make people hear about them. At a recent speech to the New York Coal Trade Association, designed to whip some of his fellow coal industry friends into action, Mr. Murray recalled what happened in his region after the 1990 Clean Air Act, which imposed drastic reductions in coal production: "In Ohio alone, from 1990 to 2005, nearly 120 mines were shut down, costing more than 36,000 primary and secondary jobs. These impacted areas have spent years recovering, and some never will. Families broke up, many lost homes, and some were impoverished . . ." He finishes the thought by noting that a global warming program would make those prior coal cuts look like small potatoes. These speeches and TV appearances have become more frequent--and it's a measure of just how big an irritant he's become to global-warming politicians and their new buddies in the energy industry, that when Mr. Murray was invited to impart his wisdom to Congress at a hearing in March, Democrats tried to keep him from testifying. They later gave in, although Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee Chairman Jim Costa pointedly left the room when it was Mr. Murray's turn to testify. Had Mr. Costa bothered to stay, he'd have heard a useful, and irrefutable, analysis of just what today's legislative proposals for a global warming program would mean to the economy, including the nation's many miners. "Some 52% of this country's electricity is generated from coal," Mr. Murray says. "Global warming legislation would place arbitrary limits on the use of coal, yet there's nothing to replace it at the same cost. There's nuclear, but the environmentalists killed it off and aren't about to let it come back. There's hydro, but we're using that everywhere we can already. There's natural gas, but supply and pipeline capacity is limited, and it's three times the cost of coal. Politically correct--and subsidized 'alternative energy' is very limited in capability and also expensive. "So what you are really doing with a global warming program is getting rid of low-cost energy," he says. The consequences? Americans have been fretting about losing jobs to places such as China or India, which already offer cheaper energy. "You hike the cost of energy here further, and you create a mass exodus of business out of this country." Especially so, given that neither of those countries is about to hamstring its own economy in order to join a Kyoto-like accord. He points out that since 1990, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 18%, while China's have increased by 77%. Mr. Murray also notes that many countries that have joined Kyoto have already failed to meet their targets. Mr. Murray, like most honest participants in this debate, can reel off the names of the many respected scientists who still doubt that human activity is the cause of rising temperatures. But he tends to treat the scientific debate almost as a sideshow, an excuse for not talking about what comes next. "Even if the politicians believe 100% that man is causing global warming, they still have an obligation to discuss honestly just what damage they want to inflict on American jobs and workers and people on fixed incomes, in the here and now, with their programs." This is where Mr. Murray really gets rolling, on his favorite subject of his fellow energy executives and the role they are playing in encouraging a mandatory C02 program. "There is this belief that since even some in the energy industry are now on board with a program, that it must be okay. No one is looking at these executives' real motives." To understand those motives, you've first got to understand how a cap-and-trade plan works. The government would first place a cap on CO2 emissions. Each company would then be given an "allowance" for emissions. If the company produced less CO2 than allowed, it could sell the excess credits to others. If a company wanted to produce more CO2 than its allowance, it would have to buy credits. "The strategy for these folks now is to go to Washington, help design the program to suit their companies, and snap up all the carbon emission allowances," says Mr. Murray. "The more allowances they get, the more they'll have to sell, and the more money they'll make. . . . This has nothing to do with creating 'regulatory certainty,' which is how they like to sell their actions. This has to do with creating money, for their companies, off the back of an economy that will be paying more for its energy." Mr. Murray reserves special criticism for those companies that have joined the high-profile U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition pushing for mandatory controls on greenhouse gas emissions. "Some of them see profits--such as Caterpillar, General Electric, DuPont, Alcoa, General Motors, British Petroleum, Shell Oil, ConocoPhillips, Entergy--and all are just trying to look 'green.' But none of it is good for America." He says that if these companies think the good times will last, they've been smoking their own products. "These CEOs were picked because they know how to work the political scene within their companies and are doing the same with the public on this issue. They are focused on short-term profits, and maybe it's true that a cap-and-trade program will help them with their next earnings statement. What they won't acknowledge is that, once a cap-and-trade program is in effect, the politicians will want to keep lowering, lowering, lowering the cap. That means fewer and fewer allowances. In the long term, this will starve American energy--though that isn't something they are telling their shareholders." Mr. Murray does business with many of these companies, and in February he sent strongly worded letters to their executives, pointing out the hazard of mandatory CO2 reductions to the nation. His letter to Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers ended, "You are promoting the wrong policies for your company, for mine and my employees, and for the American people . . . Your company may well have some short-term benefits, but slowing down our economy--and with it the global economy--over the long term will not help anybody." Mr. Rogers responded with a letter that said while he respected Mr. Murray's views, he couldn't help. "Legislation is coming. We can help shape it, or we can stand on the sidelines and let others do it," he wrote. It seems some have already given up on this battle.<<
Originally Posted By jonvn "Well no." Well, yes. That's pretty much exactly what it said. Meanwhile, we get more junk from the same source. I guess if you can't figure out the difference between finding out what the science is saying, as opposed to an editorial from an uninformed source, then yes, it's confusing and over your head, as one person put it. what a way to waste your time. Making these huge posts that no one is bothering to read.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf When Walt Disney World is uner water then we can worry. With all the junk science out there, global warming has become a religion. There are those that believe and those who don't. Those who don't are insulted and treated like heretics. Frankly, I'm agnostic. Show me the proof and I'm inlcined to believe. Opinions (or dogma) are worthless.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By jonvn When walt disney world is under water, hundreds of millions of people will have had their lives destroyed. Thanks for the profoundly stupid comment.
Originally Posted By jonvn I'm not a prophet. Neither am I a denier or luddite. The scientific community is basically saying one thing. If you don't believe in it, fine. I suggest you also stop believing in other things they've come to learn of, like antibiotics and computers. After all, there is no PROOF of them, either. We'll see how long you last with this sockpuppet before you show yourself again. I give you a day or so, Beau.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf What?? I am not as stupid as you think but you're clearly not someone to have a rational argument with. There is evidence of all sorts of things, such as global warming. There is also evidence of global cooling. My problem is with those that use selective research to prove their point. The truth is, no one knows that the climate is changing. If it is (which it could be) it is not known if this can be attributed to human behavior. I know you nuts like to paint anybody who opposes you as being crazy (a la the Inquisition) but we don't necessarily disagree. I think that you should see God before you preach about Him. I personally believe that the climate may be temporarily changing due to the reversal in polarity of the earth's core. Go research it - you may be surprised with what you find. But I'm not going to preach to you about it because I don't believe in turning science into a pentecostal revival. But your Chicken Little approach to science I find annoying.....the sky isn't falling, only your tolerance level is.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That's pretty much exactly what it said.> No, it's not. And I'm perfectly capable of reading a scientific report and figuring out what it's saying.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I am not as stupid as you think" Oh, I don't know. You very likely are. YOu can't seem to figure out what's going on in the world, and it's not my problem. "I know you nuts like to paint anybody who opposes you as being crazy" Yes, Beau. So, exactly who here said you were crazy, Mr. EightDwarf? Uh huh.... "Go research it" No, because it's stupid and a waste of my time. "But your Chicken Little approach to science I find annoying" Yes, the one where I actually listen to the people who are experts in the field. How chicken little of me. In any case, I personally could not care less what you find annoying. You have nothing to say except splutter, and gibberish. You've already started cracking at the seams by saying people are calling you crazy when no one has, and you've spouted off some ridiculous drivel about the Earth's core. Not bad for one day.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I'm perfectly capable of reading a scientific report and figuring out what it's saying." Apparently not. I still remember you not being able to count to eight. I would have to figure a billion is right out of the question. From the report: "Freshwater availabilty in Central, SOuth, East and Southeast Asia, particularly in large river basins, is projected to decrease due to climate change which...could adversely affect more than a billion people by the 2050s." I left out a bit about populationg growth and demand in combination. So, yes, it says it, and really, it's very plain. And what is causing this freshwater shortage? Why: "Glacier melt in th Himalayas is projected to...affect water resources within the next tow to three decades. This will be followed by decreased river flows as the glaciers recede." The denial is simply amazing. You have to wonder what people do it for. It really makes little sense.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I still remember you not being able to count to eight.> Delusions aren't memories, you know. And we were talking about the ice melting in the Antartica, not the Himalayas.
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes, and you are wrong here, again, too. But see, since I actually quoted the report that you said did not say what it plainly said it did, you'll simply resort to "I disagree," or some other weak minded and empty retort.
Originally Posted By jonvn Hmm...OK, the himalayas was in another thread. This one was about the snow melting in antartica. Fine...
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Yes, and you are wrong here, again, too.> No, I'm not. <I actually quoted the report that you said did not say what it plainly said it did.> You quoted it, and then you incorrectly summarized it.
Originally Posted By jonvn Which one, the himalayas, or the antartic? Doesn't matter. Your accusation is utterly false without any supporting reasons behind it. Just throwing empty accusation after empty accusation. Meanwhile, i'm actually quoting source material. And now, back to the empty drivel of "you're just projecting again" or other some such, which basically is what post 37 consists of. If I had actually incorrectly summarized it, you could have easily stated why and where. But you didn't. this means you have nothing to back up your statements, ONCE AGAIN, and are just blowing hot air. And no, this is not projecting, and your disagreement without supporting reasons for that or anything else are worthless drivel.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Which one, the himalayas, or the antartic?> The antartic one, since that was the one we were talking about. <If I had actually incorrectly summarized it, you could have easily stated why and where.> Which I did, thanks.
Originally Posted By jonvn No, you didnt'. You said this: "Well no. Maybe it's gotten that hot before, and we just didn't notice it. And apparently, it only happened once, during an eight year period that was looked at." That is nonsense that does not come out of the report. Why can't you just discuss this stuff honestly? Because it would require you to start backpeddling? You can't admit being in error? The reality is that you are actually causing people to point stuff out here that science is providing, and you with your tactics look ever more slippery and untruthful. I think it's making some people who are sitting on the fence realize where the actual truth lies, and it is with those of us who are actually bothering to quote real data as opposed to just saying "No it's not." Shame for you. But your problem is that in the face of overwhelming and continually mounting evidence, you really hzve no other place to go with your comments, unless you actually want to admit the truth. Apparently that is a hard thing for some to do.
