Teh Stupid of the Week MonthYear
Coal IS sequestered carbon. God bless them, without liberals our only source of comedy would be comedians.
Over at Progressiveville is a link to WhitesCreek Journal where we learn that the world’s greatest terrorist is not Usama bin Laden but actually Daniel Roling, the CEO of National Coal.
Yep. So says Steve, also known as Whitescreek. He is a middle aged hippie type who really believes coal should be left in the ground because it pollutes the air.
Steve does not say what we should use to generate electricity but I would imagine the usual suspects of solar, wind, and hamsters running on little wheels come to mind.
But wait, there’s more. Steve writes:
Mining coal is about the stupidest thing humans can do. Here we are worrying about climate change caused by atmospheric carbon dioxide, and we’re digging the stuff up out of the ground and burning it straight into our air.
Steve is a pal of Al Gore. Another great comedian.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:12 am
I’m presuming Steve has removed himself from the electric grid and is either foregoing electricity entirely, or generating all his needs through solar and wind power. If not, he’s guilty of supporting terrorists.
There are ways we can generate our electricity without burning fossil fuels, but it involves splitting atoms, which is something a lot of environmentalists don’t seem to want to talk about. That’s changing though, which is a good thing.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:31 am
My patience with econuts is at an all time low. Coal IS sequestered carbon? Good Lord how stupid can they be?
They tell us no coal, no oil, no nukes, but don’t explain what to do for energy. They really believe that solar, wind, and conserving will balance out this nations energy needs.
What is worse, their hypocrisy or their stupidity?
Two Americas and save the Planet. I hate Presidential election years.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Well, “Coal is sequestered carbon” is actually the part he’s correct about. Coal is one of the several allotropic forms of carbon. It’s sequestered because it’s part of the earth’s crust, until you dig it up and burn it, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.
Well, and a lot of other crap too. Coal is dirty because of impurities in it, particularly sulfur.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Coal and petroleum are also natural. What could be more ecofriendly than a natural source of energy.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Another major source of carbon? Pencils.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Isn’t oil technically also carbon sequestered? This is their damn religion, “Thou shalt not unsequester carbon from the hallowed ground.”
Bring on the nukes. Install the scrubbers on the coal plants. Drill for oil in this country and build some new refineries. We are in a mess from listening to the hippie crackpot ideas from what are basically socialists.
No oil, no nukes, no coal means no energy.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
“Isn’t oil technically also carbon sequestered? ”
Which is why it shouldn’t be burned as that sequestering all those eons ago was what made the planet cool enough for mammalian domination and, by extension, what put you here to look like the poorly informed paranoiac that you are.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
The usual lib tree huggers, bitch about how awful something is and how it should stop NOW but offer no solutions. And villianizing honest, legitimate businessmen while they’re at it. Friggin losers.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Anything that’s a hydrocarbon is ‘sequestered carbon’, and thus nearly anything that used to be animal or plant will release CO2 when cooked. First rule of chemistry — even carbon atoms don’t come out of no where. Thankfully, the most difficult to replace uses of oil, goods and produce, don’t involve burning much of it.
Solar (whether photovoltaic or solar updraft), wind, gravity, nuclear, and thermal power plants don’t unsequester carbon, but they have their own downsides and ability to affect the global climate (either removing or creating large amounts of heat).
August 17th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
what put you here to look like the poorly informed paranoiac that you are.
What do you run your car on metulj? Buttermilk?
August 17th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
“What do you run your car on metulj? Buttermilk?”
Buttermilk is sequestered carbon too. Wow. You are so smart!
August 17th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Which is why it shouldn’t be burned as that sequestering all those eons ago was what made the planet cool enough for mammalian domination and, by extension, what put you here to look like the poorly informed paranoiac that you are.
That’s not really true. The earth cooled down for a lot of reasons. CO2 is actually not that remarkably powerful as a greenhouse gas, and compared to other factors that have contributed to the climate history of the earth, probably hasn’t played that big a role. You have to consider, over geologic time, that you have shifting of the continents, changes in the earth’s tilt on its axis, differences in solar output, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, cloud coverage, etc.
We have a poor understanding of exactly how all these things interact. So to say that the earth cooled because a lot of biomass was turned into oil, coal and natural gas is a bit simplistic.
August 17th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Talk about yer stupid quotes. The fecal matter that comes outta my ass three times a day is pretty natural too. How about I drop a deuce in your well water and you can tell us how ecofriendly it is? 🙂
August 17th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
The usual lib tree huggers, bitch about how awful something is and how it should stop NOW but offer no solutions. And villianizing honest, legitimate businessmen while they’re at it.
Cactus Jack sums up what I was trying to say. Any solutions Team Econut offers is fantasy. I am so tired of the answer being higher taxes and fees. We have to have energy. Can you offer real solutions Team Econut?
August 17th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Sure. The small fraction of people who actually object to nuclear power has been incredibly exaggerated by carbonfuelsforeverandnothingelse idiots like you.
Sure, everything has downsides, including nukes…but pretending that people who do suggest alternatives aren’t suggesting anything because of a few fringe characters is just reason #45678 that I’m pretty sure #9 is the dumbest person on that thar Intarweb.
August 17th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Guys, honestly, some of you sound pretty stupid saying this kind of stuff. You can’t just dismiss most of the scientific community’s findings on man-influenced global warming as just liberal BS. Yes, this guy may be a liberal, but he has good intentions.
August 17th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Guys, honestly, some of you sound pretty stupid saying this kind of stuff.
Please explain the plan and the time frame on how we can stop using carbon as the primary power source for this nation.
Do you have a plan?
Stupid is as stupid does. America will use coal and oil until other alternative fuels become cost competitive. If you think for one second I will see my fuel bills triple or quadruple to save the planet you are very mistaken.
This is the front end to huge tax increases on carbon based fuels. However, if people want voluntary taxes, like voluntary carbon credits, I am not opposed to that.
August 17th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Most of the scientific community believes that global warming is garbage. The “2500 scientists” in the UN “scientific community” aren’t even scientists. Those that are don’t know jack about environmental science. They’re just names thrown on as fluff to give credibility to junk science.
Go watch “The Great Global Warming Swindle” on google video. That does a better job of explaining that rising temperatures cause CO2 to increase, not the other way around. CO2 is a symptom, not a cause. Environmentalists just jump on this because they’re desperate to find some way to force the world to live like medieval peasants.
August 17th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Science that agrees with your politics or is politically neutral is fine…but if science indicates something you hold dear might not be true (like, for instance, that we humans can’t just do whatever the fuck we like without consequences)…well that’s evil liberal pseudo science.
Think about it this way–the guy who fathered this abysmal abortion of a thread actually thought that pointing out that coal is, in point of fact, sequestered carbon was somehow a bad or loopy idea.
Here’s a hint: when you see a post with #9 on the by-line, be prepared to read something akin to Jessica Simpson insisting that Einstein fellow wasn’t all that bright.
August 17th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Dear Brian:
We’ve covered most of that ground already in other GW threads (you’re dead wrong about the scientific community, the Swindle video has been exposed as utter nonsense, CO2 is a climate forcing and the lag has been explained and accounted for, etc), but man if you’re just being a troll just fess up already. We have better things to do.
August 17th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Think about it this way–the guy who fathered this abysmal abortion of a thread actually thought that pointing out that coal is, in point of fact, sequestered carbon was somehow a bad or loopy idea.
The guy that started this thread, me, has advocated coal gasification for over three years. You mine the coal, convert it too either natural gas or liquified fuel, and bury the slag carbon.
But the Econuts are against all coal mining. They are against any practical form of energy. The question is why?
Importing energy is one of the most stupid things ever done in this country. Only socialists like foreign oil and natural gas. They think we will be a kinder gentler nation if we are dependent on foreign nations.
August 17th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
I want to hear about the polar bears. Quit futzing around PGP and tell me about the polar bears.
I will also bet you I am more eco friendly than you are. Wanna bet?
August 17th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
we are worrying about climate change caused by atmospheric carbon dioxide
We, bwana? Well, for some small values of “we”, I suppose that’s true.
I’m not included in that “we”, though. (On the other hand, I prefer nuclear power to coal-burning, myself… just not because of Teh Warmenising.)
August 17th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Pleas provide a link for this, I’d like to read it.
August 17th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
The econuts blame Co2 for global warming, assuming that it’s happening, for the same reason that hoplophobes blame crime on guns; because it’s a easy to identify culprit.
August 17th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Quit running PGP, tell me about the polar bears. Of STFU!
I will cover your bet that I am more eco and climatologically friendly than you. What say you, put your reputation where your insults are. Take the bet.
August 17th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Of=or should have: Or
August 18th, 2007 at 2:49 am
Digit, you know damn well that no one is calling for an end to burning fossil fuels. The goal is to burn LESS fossil fuels, and the primary means to that end is efficiency, a well established engine for economic growth. Pretending that your bugaboo hippies and liberals want to ban coal and gas tomorrow is what dimwits do so they can pretend to be part of a discussion they can not participate in as equals.
You are an intellectual scavenger. You don’t have the wherewithal to be a predator, so you seek out the sick, weak and made-of-straw upon which to perform your ritualistic play fights. In an honest debate, you get laughed out of round one.
Brian and Cactus Jack, the day you boys can explain how the utterly middling temperatures of our current world have magically driven CO2 to levels not seen at any time during the several ice ages and tropical ages during the past 600,000 years is the day you earn more respect than a snot rag.
August 18th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Ok, I’ll tell you about polar bears.
When one eats you, most people around here probably won’t lose much sleep.
Next.
August 18th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Digit, you know damn well that no one is calling for an end to burning fossil fuels.
Did you read what WhitesCreek wrote?
You don’t have the wherewithal to be a predator, so you seek out the sick, weak and made-of-straw upon which to perform your ritualistic play fights.
SO you did read what WhitesCreek wrote.
In an honest debate, you get laughed out of round one.
Yet rikki you have accused me not once but twice of being a pedophile. Apologizing each time but none the less your debating skills are nothing to brag about. You have no concept of what the words “honest” or “debate” mean.
WhitesCreek deserved to be ridiculed. But you don’t do that do you rikki? You don’t ridicule people.
BTW, since you will read this. One article from you on the stormwater ordinance in the Metro Pulse? This is your speciality. You never took a position on concrete pipe other than to say it was a complex issue. All bullshit aside from our normal warfare, I am very disappointed. Not just in you but in all the people that have given up. Only Lisa Starbuck, Courtney Piper, and James McMillan have taken a leadership role. I would prefer to see you spend your time doing something in the field your are recognized in than wasting our time here. Are you going to do anything on the concrete pipe? Or has you new pal Lumpy convinced you metal and plastic pipe are
“just as good” as concrete reinforced pipe?
August 18th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
So, #9 I take it you agree with another of your evil empires, the city of Knoxville on that one. How do you explain their position if they are controlled by developers too?
August 18th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Ok, PGP loses the debate. When one runs from facts, cites false facts and won’t even address some issues, but instead offers insults, he loses.
A point a lot of people here have overlooked, made by another is that the majority of “scientists” in the false “consensus” are not involved in the science of climate.
Of all the scientist in the world who are involved in the science of climate a majority of them do not agree with the “consensus”. Being scientists, they don’t disagree with it either, because they don’t know enough yet to make attributions as to causation and distribution of levels of contributions of causation.
Ok, PGP, you have yielded one of the main propaganda ploys by your side as indefensible. Too bad you don’t have the nerve to just say so. How about the bet as to which of us is more environmentally and climatologically friendly?
How can you keep saying those of us waiting on the science to catch up, just don’t care about our planet if you will make no comparison on which to form an opinion? Bet? Tell me what you do that is good for earth, then I will tell you what I do.
August 18th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
So, #9 I take it you agree with another of your evil empires, the city of Knoxville on that one. How do you explain their position if they are controlled by developers too?
Ernie, it is not just Knoxville. Farragut has the same ordinances. Cities all over the nation do. The smart cities do at least.
Everything you need to know can be found here. Take a look and let me know what you think.
August 19th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
When I thought WhitesCreek couldn’t get mode deluded, I find out I underestimated him.
Bush personally resposible for Miner’s deaths.
I did not correct the spelling of the post. rikki, your thoughts?
August 19th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
So WhitesCreek, aka Steve, says that “coal should be left in the ground because it pollutes the air.”
I’m guessing he’s never heard of Centralia, PA. It’s still in the ground, but I’d say it’s doing a pretty good job of polluting things. Oh. wait, that’s probably just ’cause we evil humans started mining it in the first place. An open coal seam has NEVER been ignited by lightning, y’know.
Moron.
August 20th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Rust–
The Swindle video is complete and utter horseshit.
Pretty sure we should pass a moratorium on using something that weak as a talking point around here. Anything that repeats the old, long since debunked nonsense like “volcanoes emit more CO2” and the like is pretty clearly not something you should use as a reference.
August 20th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
This global warming needs to hurry up! I want to vacation in Atlantis!
And until you can come up with a mere 600,000 years of data, it’s all $hit. This planet has been around for billions of years. 600k is a friggin’ blip on the data screen.
August 20th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
An even smaller blip is how long we’ve been here. As much as some folks like to forget it, we ARE biological entities. We DO depend on the earth to feed our fat asses; most larger, more complex creatures haven’t fared well during periods of rapid climatological and ecological flux.
Ask the dinosaurs.
So uh…yeah, the earth is old, but that doesn’t change the fact that we know that human activity is indeed rapidly and conclusively changing the content of the atmosphere.
August 20th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Yeah, we are so much more damaging then say, the sun, or the crooked axis we spin on or even the general atmosphere that surrounds us.
What an ego on you environmentalists! You believe we are the cause of all the planets ills, and you actually believe we can FIX all the planets ills.
That’s some ego you got there. I think Mother Nature and the planet will be just fine. It’s constantly evolving (just like some of the rest of us) and it will adapt just as we have.
If not, she’ll just shake us off like a bunch of fleas, or she’ll burn us up like overcooked hamburger meat.
But trust me. Me and 300 million other people switching to hybrid cars will do nothing to this planet except bankrupt the Middle East. And I’m all for that!
August 20th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
By the way, where’s Atlantis??
August 20th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
One more thing. What do YOU think happened to the dinosaurs? Was it all that oil they burned driving cars and smoking cigarettes that caused them to burn up? Or did they freeze to death like a wooly mammoth since they couldn’t give up their addition to oil?
Or, was it something else? Like an asteroid hitting the earth?
Why don’t you tell me what happened to the dinosaurs? Could it have been their flatulence? Just like the 35% of CO2 emssions being caused by cows today? Something Albore forgot to mention…
August 20th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
What an ego on you environmentalists! You believe we are the cause of all the planets ills, and you actually believe we can FIX all the planets ills.
I think that is what the core of this is. The desire to be important. If we can destroy the planet we can save it.
This is a chance to ascend. We can be Gods. We can prove this by saving the Earth. This is ego more than anything. It is hubris. And the eventual fall will be from a great height.
What would Copernicus think?
August 21st, 2007 at 9:33 am
Man, nothing attracts idiots like GW threads!
What “damage” is the sun doing? Without it, we wouldn’t be here.
What “damage” is the earth’s axis doing? Not sure what you mean by the “general atmosphere”. That must be one of those newfangled sci-un-tiff-ik terms they use in knuckledragger land.
Holy fucking strawman. Not really worth addressing other than to point out that yes, the dramatic increase in CO2 content of the atmosphere, which not even the denialists deny, is solely the result of human activity.
Great! Let’s start making public policy decisions based on your gut instead of empirical evidence and observations and data, and put all those pesky scientists out of work.
The point of the dinosaur analogy, which you missed in rather hysterical fashion, is that complex creatures (like us) are dependent on their habitats, and the paleontological record makes it pretty clear that rapid climate and ecosystem changes and upheaval have NOT been kind to life on earth in the past.
In other words…yeah, it’s entirely possible that we could make the planet unihabitable for a large portion of the humans (and other creatures) on the planet. Adaptation typically takes a long, long time–as in millenia, not decades. You’ll find little support in the biologist community for the idea that we can just “adapt” to every possible permutation or outcome.
Riiiiight…so, just ignore what science tells us, take a chance on making the planet uninhabitable, and seeing billions of people suffer and starve…based on your “gut” that all those wacky scientists are just making this up?
That’s some ego you have there!
Thanks for helping prove my point, sweetcheeks.
Their extinction was the result of RAPID climatological and habitat change, something most creatures and ecosystems CANNOT simply adapt to. Guess what, knucklenuts? The point climatologists are trying to get across to illiterates like you is we’re precipitating RAPID climatological change ourselves. Ooops.
That people who insist on believing what they want to believe based on their “gut” and their fervent desire to have it be so, never mind that science contradicts what their faith or political agenda tells them, these folks who ignore reality despite what so many qualified, educated, and learned others have shown them to be true with logic and empirical evidence, are the very worst enemies of intellectual development and the betterment of the human condition.
In other words…much like Galileo’s observations were pooh-poohed by those whose faith and political agenda told them to resist believing what he’d found…people like you slander and misrepresent what climatologists have learned (despite not even understanding it in the first place) because you simply can’t handle the truth.
August 21st, 2007 at 12:24 pm
The last two paragraphs are remarkable PGP. You want to believe, ergo you do. That is the problem.