Donald J Trump sees Climate change as a Chinese hoax

[Opl]

Quote :     1 hour ago, ClutchClark said: BTW, any idea how CC will impact the US? No one seems to know.

 

I do not know , but farmers do.

 

Yummy Pancake Breakfasts

It may be a bit harder to drown your pancakes in maple syrup in the future, studies suggest. According to a 2010 Cornell University study, "maple syrup production in the Northeast is expected to slightly decline by 2100, and the window for tapping trees will move earlier by about a month." Additionally, most maple syrup production south of Pennsylvania "will likely be lost by 2100 due to lack of freezing." Click here to watch one farmer's fight to save New Hampshire's sugar maples.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/28/climate-change-study-hawaii_n_5731956.html?slideshow=true#gallery/237999/14

Edited November 22, 2016 by Opl

[ilostmypassword]

23 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Donald Trump’s opening shot: The wind farm at his golf course

The US President-elect used his first meeting with a British politician since his shock White House victory to criticise the Scottish government for allowing the country to become over-run with wind farms. 

In a meeting with the interim Ukip leader Nigel Farage and his team at Trump Tower in New York last weekend, the business tycoon launched into a tirade against the eyesores, which he has previously branded “unattractive, ugly, noisy and dangerous”. 

Mr Trump has fought a long-running battle against a wind farm off the coast from his Aberdeenshire course, Trump International Golf Links, which he has previously called an act of “public vandalism”.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/734195/Donald-trump-Nigel-Farage-Scottish-wind-farms

He went on to urge Nigel Farage to lead a campaign against wind farms.

 

 

Can anyone honestly say that Trump is genuinely concerned about the environment? Can anyone honestly say that Trump's opposition to wind farms has nothing to do with the long running battle he has had in Scotland over wind farms and the view from his golf course? Can anyone say that Trump is not exercising the prospective power of his presidency to advance his own personal interests?

And as for them being ugly. Really? Windmills are a big tourist attraction in many parts of the world. In fact, wind farm blades and turbines are beautiful and elegant pieces of engineering.  Particularly the ones located in the ocean that are very different in appearance from the land-based variety.

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

 A simple solution, which one will it be, homicide of genocide?

The Chinese solution is the one I have always supported. Unfortunately the Chinese have now abandoned that.

The result will take generations to see a significant reduction but otherwise humanity faces a bleak future.

To those that say we need more people to do the jobs there are millions of educated people elsewhere that will be happy to do those jobs.

To those that say there will be too many old people, AI will take care of them. Robotics is the biggest change coming to the planet since the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

Can anyone honestly say that Trump is genuinely concerned about the environment? Can anyone honestly say that Trump's opposition to wind farms has nothing to do with the long running battle he has had in Scotland over wind farms and the view from his golf course? Can anyone say that Trump is not exercising the prospective power of his presidency to advance his own personal interests?

And as for them being ugly. Really? Windmills are a big tourist attraction in many parts of the world. In fact, wind farm blades and turbines are beautiful and elegant pieces of engineering.  Particularly the ones located in the ocean that are very different in appearance from the land-based variety.

Whether or not Trump opposes them, they are coming. Unfortunately, instead of putting them in less "in your face" places, the present situation allows the nimbys to impede progress.

Out to sea is obviously the best place for them, but probably costs more.

However, if every roof was converted to solar, with battery back up for night time, there would be no need for as many windmills.

[NumbNut]

1 hour ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Can anyone honestly say windfarms are attractive?

 

Iowa is littered with them. 

 

And it is well proven they kill 1,000's of migratory birds.

 

Jeez Clutch that's a tough one.

 

Tell you what though, I'll take this

 

over this

 

Any day!

 

Which do you prefer Clutch?

[Si Thea01]

47 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Whether or not Trump opposes them, they are coming. Unfortunately, instead of putting them in less "in your face" places, the present situation allows the nimbys to impede progress.

Out to sea is obviously the best place for them, but probably costs more.

However, if every roof was converted to solar, with battery back up for night time, there would be no need for as many windmills.

 

If base load power was retained then we would all have cheap electricity, governments' would not have to subsidise solar and wind power.  There would 1000's of birds still alive, people's health would not be affected, all caused by the latter.  Wind power is the most expensive  electricity, followed by solar.

 

What happens when the wind is too strong, the turbines shut down or no wind at all, no electricity produced.  What happens when the sun doesn't shine?  And of course those out to sea cost more to produce electricity.  But don't worry, the poor old citizen will be taxed out of existence just to satisfy the greed of a few and the beliefs of the alarmists.

 

Who is conning who with all the spin about green power.  If you want to go green, go nuclear or build more coal and gas power stations which, given today's technology, are a far cry from the old technology of 30 years ago and are exceptionally clean.  But none of the GW alarmists want to give these options a go.  Why, I'd like to know? 

Edited November 22, 2016 by Si Thea01

[ClutchClark]

3 minutes ago, NumbNut said:

 

Jeez Clutch that's a tough one.

 

Tell you what though, I'll take this

 

over this

 

Any day!

 

Which do you prefer Clutch?

 

What a pretty picture. At that distance you can't see all the dead birds laying around.

 

at first I ghought that pitmine  might have been for the iron ore used to manufacture all those turbines. 

 

Its sure a big industry. Sad though that they are only profitable thanks to huge fov't subsidies to build.

 

Wind power is a feel good technology as long as you don't look too closely at the total environmental impact they create. 

 

Gee whiz though NumbNut. Thanks for the pretty picture.

[ClutchClark]

6 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

If base load power was retained then we would all have cheap electricity, governments' would not have to subsidise solar and wind power.  There would 1000's of birds still alive, people's health would not be affected, all caused by the latter.  Wind power is the most expensive  electricity, followed by solar.

 

What happens when the wind is too strong, the turbines shut down or no wind at all, no electricity produced.  What happens when the sun doesn't shine?  And of course those out to sea cost more to produce electricity.  But don't worry, the poor old citizen will be taxed out of existence just to satisfy the greed of a few and the beliefs of the alarmists.

 

Who is conning who with all the spin about green power.  If you want to go green, go nuclear or build more coal and gas power stations which, given today's technology, are a far cry from the old technology of 30 years ago and are exceptionally clean.  But none of the GW alarmists want to give these options a go.  Why, I'd like to know? 

 

Because they have never done the actual math. 

 

Its feel good energy.

 

 

 

[Linzz]

On 11/21/2016 at 4:02 PM, Catoni said:

 

     Exactly right !    We are presently in an Ice Age that began about 2.6 million years ago.  And we have been going into and out of Glacial Periods since then.  Right now we are in a reasonably warm Interglacial Period between Glacial Periods.  And it won't last.  We are due to enter another Glacial Period before too long.   

        And we go into and out of warm periods...  like the Holocene during which our hunter-gatherer ancestor settled down, build villages, started agriculture and animal husbandry and created the first written words.   Then the Minoan Warm Period, then the Roman Warm Period.... the Medieval Warm Period..    All of them times of great advancement for the human species.

 

  And we just came out of a cooler time... the "little ice age" which lasted more or less from 1300 - 1850.   We warmed about 0.85 degree C between 1880 - 2012.... .and people are losing sleep over it ? ?      Most people know nothing of the history of changing climate on this planet..  Sometimes it changes slow.. sometimes fast... (like 10 degrees in a decade or less...  not 0.85 over 132 years like now)   Sometimes Climate changes a lot... sometimes a little.   Wow... we learn something new every day..  

 

     Humans generally do not do well during the cooler and colder times. 

 

  The present Ice Age we are in is also known as the Pleistocene, or Quaternary Ice Age... .  or simply the present or current Ice Age. 

 

   So many people confuse Glacial Periods with Ice Ages.   And so many people buy into Al Gore's and Leonaro Di Caprio's b.s.

 

   Like Leonard Di Caprio want's the rest of us to cut back our middle class lifestyles.. while he lives like a king with multiple luxury homes and jetting around the world in first class and on private jets and partying on some of the largest private fossil fuel burning luxury yachts in the world. 

 

   Global Warming/Climate Change is a great tool though to use for a political agenda.. don't you think?    Great for helping to build U.N. power, get cash for your "study and research", and to get cash to fly to fancy conferences at exotic places with five star hotels, limousines and champagne and caviar banquets with the  other "concerned elites" who know better than the rest of us,  and to raise taxes.. 

 

    Two questions:  Why does biodiversity (amount and variety of life) decrease as you move from the tropics to the poles ?

 

    Why do most people who wish to travel or move....  choose to travel or move the the hot tropical regions ? ?  with warmer weather, Palm Trees and sandy beaches? ? ? 

        For some reason they don't choose to move to the beautiful communities on the shores of the Arctic Ocean... or islands off of Antarctica..     

 

Trees love carbon dioxide

[ClutchClark]

1 hour ago, Opl said:

Quote :     1 hour ago, ClutchClark said: BTW, any idea how CC will impact the US? No one seems to know.

 

I do not know , but farmers do.

 

Yummy Pancake Breakfasts

It may be a bit harder to drown your pancakes in maple syrup in the future, studies suggest. According to a 2010 Cornell University study, "maple syrup production in the Northeast is expected to slightly decline by 2100, and the window for tapping trees will move earlier by about a month." Additionally, most maple syrup production south of Pennsylvania "will likely be lost by 2100 due to lack of freezing." Click here to watch one farmer's fight to save New Hampshire's sugar maples.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/28/climate-change-study-hawaii_n_5731956.html?slideshow=true#gallery/237999/14

 

No. Farmers don't. Some of our trade mags discuss the various theories but there are positives as well as negatives suggested.

 

Ofcourse I love real maple syrup. These hypothesized warmer temps means production will move further north but what a boon for all Vermonters that the energy consumed annually to heat homes will be less now that their winter temps will be rising, eh?

 

There is good & bad to CC. Some georaphies will see more benefit. The US is forecast to see more benefit from CC than some other countries so the investment to slow the release of Greenhouse Gasses should not be as high as countries more adversely effected. 

 

Unless said countries want to pay us so we can recoup the losses they are demanding we take.

 

Meanwhile China & India will be growing their coal fired power plants and offsetting any effort we undertake.

[NumbNut]

13 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

What a pretty picture. At that distance you can't see all the dead birds laying around.

 

at first I ghought that pitmine  might have been for the iron ore used to manufacture all those turbines. 

 

Its sure a big industry. Sad though that they are only profitable thanks to huge fov't subsidies to build.

 

Wind power is a feel good technology as long as you don't look too closely at the total environmental impact they create. 

 

Gee whiz though NumbNut. Thanks for the pretty picture.

 

Pretty picture eh? Here's a few more for you then:-

 

 

 

 

THEY"RE SO BEAUTIFUL!!!

[blazes]

24 minutes ago, NumbNut said:

 

Jeez Clutch that's a tough one.

 

Tell you what though, I'll take this

 

over this

 

Any day!

 

Which do you prefer Clutch?

Most people would, probably (but mindlessly) go for the prettypretty wind sodding turbines (ignoring, as someone points out, the thousands of migratory birds they wipe out. )

But  let that pass:  what people fail EVER to take into account is how short a time it takes for Nature to heal the scarred land and within 5 decades or less restore the land to its more or less pristine form.

 

Anyone who takes a tour around the former coalfields of Wales, for example, will see almost NO evidence of their previous existence 50 years ago, whereas when the coal-mines were in service the landscape was a horror show.  

Those nasty wind turbines will take centuries to decompose....

 

 

 

[Opl]

23 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

No. Farmers don't. Some of our trade mags discuss the various theories but there are positives as well as negatives suggested.

 

Ofcourse I love real maple syrup. These hypothesized warmer temps means production will move further north but what a boon for all Vermonters that the energy consumed annually to heat homes will be less now that their winter temps will be rising, eh?

 

There is good & bad to CC. Some georaphies will see more benefit. The US is forecast to see more benefit from CC than some other countries so the investment to slow the release of Greenhouse Gasses should not be as high as countries more adversely effected. 

 

Unless said countries want to pay us so we can recoup the losses they are demanding we take.

 

Meanwhile China & India will be growing their coal fired power plants and offsetting any effort we undertake.

 

"Meanwhile China & India will be growing their coal fired power plants and offsetting any effort we undertake."

 But :

- they will have to deal with it  for instance  ->  Inside China's 'cancer villages'

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/04/china-villages-cancer-deaths

 

 

[Si Thea01]

Volcanoes produce more CO2 than all the animals and humans on the planet.  Let the GW's tell us of their plans that they will implement to overcome this.  They can't, all they can do is put out spin and propaganda in order to put fear into the hearts of those who cannot think for themselves.   If they and the nimbies want to return to medieval times, let's find an open space on some continent, build a wall around them and let them live the lifestyle they are trying to force onto others.

 

Freezing in the winter, excruciatingly hot in the summer, lack of food, the list is endless. Don't they understand the importance of CO2, which is a guardian of the pH of the blood, which is essential for survival?  It is also interesting to note that many are now referring to it as carbon pollution, they really have no idea.

[ClutchClark]

25 minutes ago, Opl said:

 

"Meanwhile China & India will be growing their coal fired power plants and offsetting any effort we undertake."

 But :

- they will have to deal with it  for instance  ->  Inside China's 'cancer villages'

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/04/china-villages-cancer-deaths

 

 

 

Very true but the thing is the atmosphere does not recognize political borders. Grenhouse Gas (GG) from India & China will out-pollute any effort the US makes.

 

 

Word of caution. 

Avoid changing a quote by making a section Bold.

I used to do it too because it makes reading so much easier but its technically a rule violation.

 

No complaint from me but maybe some.

[Opl]

Just now, ClutchClark said:

 

Very true but the thing is the atmosphere does not recognize political borders. Grenhouse Gas (GG) from India & China will out-pollute any effort the US makes.

 

 

Word of caution. 

Avoid changing a quote by making a section Bold.

I used to do it too because it makes reading so much easier but its technically a rule violation.

 

No complaint from me but maybe some.

ok thanks, I'll take care

[ClutchClark]

1 hour ago, NumbNut said:

 

Pretty picture eh? Here's a few more for you then:-

 

 

 

 

THEY"RE SO BEAUTIFUL!!!

 

Thanks for these. I always enjoy finding photos like these that show how man & machine & technology combine to be so effective.

 

Its examples like these that show how civilizations can be created ans sustained. How many generations of life they have made possible. 

 

Perhaps its something only an engineer could marvel over.

 

Thanks and keep 'em coming.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, NumbNut said:

 

Jeez Clutch that's a tough one.

 

Tell you what though, I'll take this

 

over this

 

Any day!

 

Which do you prefer Clutch?

Hmmm I don't see anyone's house next to it.

I bet you are as happy as I if using electricity generated by the coal that comes out of the ground.

[thaibeachlovers]

25 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

Volcanoes produce more CO2 than all the animals and humans on the planet.  Let the GW's tell us of their plans that they will implement to overcome this.  They can't, all they can do is put out spin and propaganda in order to put fear into the hearts of those who cannot think for themselves.   If they and the nimbies want to return to medieval times, let's find an open space on some continent, build a wall around them and let them live the lifestyle they are trying to force onto others.

 

Freezing in the winter, excruciatingly hot in the summer, lack of food, the list is endless. Don't they understand the importance of CO2, which is a guardian of the pH of the blood, which is essential for survival?  It is also interesting to note that many are now referring to it as carbon pollution, they really have no idea.

There is a difference to man made pollution and natural pollution. I'd like clean air and water, but I don't think it would stop climate change.

The only reason man made pollution exists is because people don't want to pay for stopping it.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, NumbNut said:

 

Pretty picture eh? Here's a few more for you then:-

 

 

 

 

THEY"RE SO BEAUTIFUL!!!

Would you rather go back to burning cow pats to keep warm in the cave?

[NumbNut]

9 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Thanks for these. I always enjoy finding photos like these that show how man & machine & technology combine to be so effective.

 

Its examples like these that show how civilizations can be created ans sustained. How many generations of life they have made possible. 

 

Perhaps its something only an engineer could marvel over.

 

Thanks and keep 'em coming.

 

 

Only included those snaps of open cut mine sites in response to your statement:- "Can anyone honestly say windfarms are attractive?"

 

Well they are a hell of a lot more attractive then your typical open cut mine, eh?

[Si Thea01]

34 minutes ago, Opl said:

 

"Meanwhile China & India will be growing their coal fired power plants and offsetting any effort we undertake."

 But :

- they will have to deal with it  for instance  ->  Inside China's 'cancer villages'

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/04/china-villages-cancer-deaths

 

 

 

Another trustworthy and reliable news source I see.  Did you read the story, it relates to chemical plants and other factories and a paper mill flushing chemicals in to the Yangtze river, the water and fish source for the village.  It makes a mention of white smoke being emitted from a power plant but what is seen being emitted is normally water vapour not chemicals that pollute the water.  So your point is what, considering this thread relates to Donald Trump believing that GW is a Chinese hoax ?

 

I hope you are not just putting this out as spin, hoping no one will read what you have introduced.  Makes for great sensational headlines  but falls short as there is no mention of GW.  Going off track a little but hey, who cares as long as it looks good, who cares about the content and that it has nothing to do with GW, just that many chemicals are causing cancer.  So where's the logic in introducing this aspect? 

[NumbNut]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Would you rather go back to burning cow pats to keep warm in the cave?

 

Open cut mines have their place in this world thaibeachlover, not denying that, especially ore bearing mines, it's really the open cut coal mines I was referring to. 

 

And I was addressing Clutch's earlier comment about the attractiveness or otherwise of Wind Farms. Compared to an open cut coal mine, well, there's no comparison is there.

 

To be fair, there are a lot of reclamation efforts made now on open cut mines when they end their life, returning them to an almost before the mining took place condition, which is only a good thing and should be applauded.

[ilostmypassword]

 

1 hour ago, ClutchClark said:

 

What a pretty picture. At that distance you can't see all the dead birds laying around.

 

at first I ghought that pitmine  might have been for the iron ore used to manufacture all those turbines. 

 

Its sure a big industry. Sad though that they are only profitable thanks to huge fov't subsidies to build.

 

Wind power is a feel good technology as long as you don't look too closely at the total environmental impact they create. 

 

Gee whiz though NumbNut. Thanks for the pretty picture.

Your  point about the pit mine.  Let's say that these turbines are made of steel and coal was used to make that steel.  The question is how much coal won't ultimately  be burned because of that wind turbine. In other words how much environmental damage does a wind turbine do over its lifetime with respect to how much energy it generates  compared to what an equivalent amount of coal will do.

 

And as for government subsidies, what your assertion doesn't address is the cost of externalities generated by coal burning.

"In a new report published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Epstein et al. (2011) do a full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal, taking these externalities into account.  Among the factors included in this analysis were:

• government coal subsidies
• increased illness and mortality due to mining pollution
• climate change from greenhouse gas emissions
• particulates causing air pollution
• loss of biodiversity
• cost to taxpayers of environmental monitoring and cleanup
• decreased property values
• infrastructure damages from mudslides resulting from mountaintop removal
• infrastructure damage from mine blasting
• impacts of acid rain resulting from coal combustion byproducts
• water pollution"

"Epstein et al. find that the total cost of these externalities ranges from approximately 9 to 27 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity generated, with a median of approximately 18 cents per kWh. "

http://www.skepticalscience.com/true-cost-of-coal-power.html

 

Also,, you seem absolutely ignorant of the fact that governments, including the US govt.  also gives the fossil fuel industry huge subsidies.

"A 2016 study estimated that global fossil fuel subsidies were $5.3 trillion in 2015, which represents 6.5% of global GDP.[3] The study found that "China was the biggest subsidizer in 2013 ($1.8 trillion), followed by the United States ($0.6 trillion), and Russia, the European Union, and India (each with about $0.3 trillion)."[3] "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

That's right. 6.5% of global GDP!!!

 

As for the dead bird stuff. A ridiculous exaggeration. This is from the Audobon Society,  an organization that is certainly unhappy about wind turbines..

"Wind turbines kill an estimated 140,000 to 328,000 birds each year in North America, making it the most threatening form of green energy. And yet, it’s also one of the most rapidly expanding energy industries: more than 49,000 individual wind turbines now exist across 39 states."

http://www.audubon.org/news/will-wind-turbines-ever-be-safe-birds

In the worst case case, that comes to an average of between 7 and 8 birds per wind turbine per year. Or less than 1 per month.  Best case, less than 3 birds per year per turbine. What effect do you think acid rain and groundwater pollution has on birds?   The only water that I see wind turbines having a major effect on is in increasing  the crocodile tears generated by you and your fellow travelers.  And i guess you believe air pollution is good for birds?

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, NumbNut said:

 

Open cut mines have their place in this world thaibeachlover, not denying that, especially ore bearing mines, it's really the open cut coal mines I was referring to. 

 

And I was addressing Clutch's earlier comment about the attractiveness or otherwise of Wind Farms. Compared to an open cut coal mine, well, there's no comparison is there.

 

To be fair, there are a lot of reclamation efforts made now on open cut mines when they end their life, returning them to an almost before the mining took place condition, which is only a good thing and should be applauded.

What this doesn't take into account is the huge and deleterious effect open cut coal mines can have on aquifers. And the damage doesn't just go away when the mining is stopped.

[Opl]

10 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

Another trustworthy and reliable news source I see.  Did you read the story, it relates to chemical plants and other factories and a paper mill flushing chemicals in to the Yangtze river, the water and fish source for the village.  It makes a mention of white smoke being emitted from a power plant but what is seen being emitted is normally water vapour not chemicals that pollute the water.  So your point is what, considering this thread relates to Donald Trump believing that GW is a Chinese hoax ?

 

I hope you are not just putting this out as spin, hoping no one will read what you have introduced.  Makes for great sensational headlines  but falls short as there is no mention of GW.  Going off track a little but hey, who cares as long as it looks good, who cares about the content and that it has nothing to do with GW, just that many chemicals are causing cancer.  So where's the logic in introducing this aspect? 

 

Really , I just answer your quote to be polite.

My answer refering to China's behaviour in regards of environmental concerns was connected to a previous remark of someone discussing in the thread of manufacturing costs ... so follow the conversation inside the thread if you want to answer . I know it's difficult because different subjects interfere.

Also I said " They will have to deal with - for instance -> village cancer".

But if you want to moderate the branch of this forum instead of contributing to the discussion, please send a message to the board.  

Edited November 22, 2016 by Opl

[thaibeachlovers]

7 minutes ago, NumbNut said:

8 minutes ago, NumbNut said:

 

Open cut mines have their place in this world thaibeachlover, not denying that, especially ore bearing mines, it's really the open cut coal mines I was referring to. 

 

And I was addressing Clutch's earlier comment about the attractiveness or otherwise of Wind Farms. Compared to an open cut coal mine, well, there's no comparison is there.

 

To be fair, there are a lot of reclamation efforts made now on open cut mines when they end their life, returning them to an almost before the mining took place condition, which is only a good thing and should be applauded.

Open cut mines have their place in this world thaibeachlover, not denying that, especially ore bearing mines, it's really the open cut coal mines I was referring to. 

 

And I was addressing Clutch's earlier comment about the attractiveness or otherwise of Wind Farms. Compared to an open cut coal mine, well, there's no comparison is there.

 

To be fair, there are a lot of reclamation efforts made now on open cut mines when they end their life, returning them to an almost before the mining took place condition, which is only a good thing and should be applauded.

They could be used to make lakes as well. Nature has a way of removing all signs of mankind in a very short time when people go away.

[Si Thea01]

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

There is a difference to man made pollution and natural pollution. I'd like clean air and water, but I don't think it would stop climate change.

The only reason man made pollution exists is because people don't want to pay for stopping it.

 

 

I do know the difference between man made and natural and agree with you about man made pollution but CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a necessity of all life on this planet.   I don't want to pay into Scams that do nothing, however, given what is happening world wide, with the reduction in CO2 output, via government regulations, people are paying for it in the cost of services and goods and I, for one, have no problem with that

 

As for clean air and water, of course we all want that, however, neither is being polluted by CO2, but for sure by other man made chemicals.  Nothing man can do will stop climate change, it has been happening for millions of years so any of the alarmists who think they can, then they are living n cloud cuckoo land.  

[stevenl]

41 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hmmm I don't see anyone's house next to it.

I bet you are as happy as I if using electricity generated by the coal that comes out of the ground.

I would prefer the electricity from the picture on top of that.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

I would prefer the electricity from the picture on top of that.

If everyone had solar panels on their roofs there wouldn't be a need for either coal or wind ( and the birds wouldn't be dying either ).