The Lake St.Clair Network: Weather Channel founder says - The Lake St.Clair Network

Jump to content

  • 85 Pages +
  • « First
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Weather Channel founder says Global warming "greatest scam in history"

#1156 User is offline   Pachanga_Rick 

  • LSCN Fan
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,406
  • Joined: 24-March 06
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 June 2011 - 06:01 PM

Ok.. so back in the 70's a bunch of the Global warming guys said that in 20/30 years water levels would raise flooding all coastal land.

When Can I expect this to happen?

You see I bought a house on a canal and would like the water a little deeper for the big boat. I'm not asking for the 20-50ft I was promised, just maybe a foot.


I never apologize. I'm sorry, but that's just the way I am.


---WARNING---
defaming LSCN will result in disciplinary actions.
0

#1157 User is offline   Big Dog 

  • LSCN Sponsor since 0410
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: LSCN Sponsor
  • Posts: 28,072
  • Joined: 10-June 06
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Eastpointe
  • Boat Type:1994 Starcraft

Posted 14 June 2011 - 06:45 PM

I haven't read every post but I'm sure I know the cause of the warming, I believe it is all of the hot air being generated in Washington DC smile.gif
Big Dog


Just My Style Embroidery
justmystyleembroidery@gmail.com





My link
0

#1158 User is offline   Snooze Ya looze 

  • LSCN Addict
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,842
  • Joined: 22-October 02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Harrison Township Mi.

Posted 03 November 2011 - 07:33 PM

Just because I believe the "Old Man" forgot about this thread! :lol:


Island states slam slow pace of climate talks
By Marlowe Hood | AFP – 6 hrs ago


Island states facing rising seas driven by global warming slammed on Thursday suggestions by some rich nations that a comprehensive climate deal can wait until 2018 or later.

Such proposals are "both environmentally reckless and politically irresponsible," Joseph Gilbert, Grenada's environment minister, said on behalf of the 42-nation Association of Small Island States (AOSIS).

"If we allow this to happen, global warming problems are going to worsen and the impact on a country like Grenada will be devastating," he said in a statement.

Australia and Norway have proposed setting a 2015 deadline for a climate deal that would lock in commitments from all major carbon-emitting nations.

But negotiators from Japan and Russia have said such a deadline is unrealistic, with Moscow suggesting it could be pushed out as far as 2018 or 2020, AOSIS said in a statement.

Russia's top climate official, Oleg Pluzhnikov, told Interfax news agency earlier this week that there was a strong probability "that no new agreement will be adopted in the four or five years after the expiry of the Kyoto Protocol."

Kyoto's current roster of pledges runs out at the end of 2012.

Gilbert's comments come ahead of a new round of high-level UN negotiations in Durban, South Africa, from November 28 to December 9.

Some progress has been made on "building block" issues such as finance and technology since the near-collapse in 2009 of climate talks in Copenhagen.

But sharing out cuts in the greenhouse gas emissions that stoke warming remains blocked.

"The world's climate scientists have told us that global emissions need to peak well before 2020" to keep global temperatures from rising more than the 2.0 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, widely seen as a threshold for dangerous warming, Gilbert said.

"We cannot continue to delay making the decisions, to 2018 or 2020, as there will not be sufficient time for countries to take action."

The window of opportunity for staying under the 2.0 C (3.6 F) cap is shrinking rapidly, scientists say.

Many developing nations in the Caribbean, the Pacific, Asia and Africa have already experienced more frequent droughts, stronger hurricanes and rising seas, with even more severe climate impacts on the horizon, according to the final draft of a major scientific UN report to be released later this month.

The Australia-Norway proposal, submitted in September, calls for a scaling up of national carbon-cutting targets and the step-by-step construction of an international system for verification.

This could be done as an extension of the Kyoto Protocol, or a new treaty that incorporates some of its attributes, it said.

The end-point objective would be "a new, legally-binding Protocol for all Parties" -- including developed and developing countries -- in 2015.

The Kyoto Protocol currently only covers some three dozen rich nations that account for about 30 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

China, the world's top carbon emitter, was excluded at the outset as a developing nation, and the United States -- the No. 2 global polluter -- opted out after playing a major role in crafting the treaty.

"This is a live issue that is being discussed," Alden Meyer, top climate policy analyst at the Washington-based Union of Concerned Scientists, said of the proposal.

"But it is very political. Different countries have opposing positions, which makes getting to a 'yes' very hard on this."

http://news.yahoo.co...-163121813.html

10 comments

RichardB • Boca Raton, United States • 4 hours ago

Once again proving that the number one cause of global warming is hot air from the morons trying to claim that there's no global warming. Just google "Northwest passage" for proof that climate change is real
0

#1159 User is offline   Snooze Ya looze 

  • LSCN Addict
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,842
  • Joined: 22-October 02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Harrison Township Mi.

Posted 03 November 2011 - 08:13 PM

Attached File  066e515c5ac2df17fb0e6a7067005914.jpg (39.17K)
Number of downloads: 1

This post has been edited by Snooze Ya looze: 03 November 2011 - 08:15 PM

0

#1160 User is offline   Adios 

  • Calls LSCN Home
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 18,816
  • Joined: 24-September 02
  • Home Port: xxxxxxx
  • Boat Type:xxxxxxxx
  • Boat Name: xxxxxxxxx

Posted 04 November 2011 - 02:01 PM

View PostSnooze Ya looze, on 03 November 2011 - 08:13 PM, said:


SNOOZE, YOUR SIGNATURE, Is exactly what Liberal democrats are trying to do as we speak. Steal from people, so they can give it to their voters, the unions.
Adiós amigos y otras personas que se significan deceptors spirtited mentirosos y agitadores
0

#1161 User is offline   raind2 

  • LSCN Pirate
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 288
  • Joined: 01-May 09

Posted 04 November 2011 - 02:45 PM

View PostEMS, on 04 November 2011 - 02:01 PM, said:

View PostSnooze Ya looze, on 03 November 2011 - 08:13 PM, said:


SNOOZE, YOUR SIGNATURE, Is exactly what Liberal democrats are trying to do as we speak. Steal from people, so they can give it to their voters, the unions.


EMS, YOUR SIGNATURE is exactly what Climate Deniers do when they come up with dribble, a five minute search tells the story of your sig.

Education? OK, I'll play. Who the hell are Monte Hieb and Harrison Hieb and what is their background in the field of climate science? Why does their site link to a whole bunch of fossil-fuel info links?


If I am looking for an 'education' on mining engineering, I would possibly consult Monte Hieb, since he worked as chief engineer for the West Virginia Office of Miner’s Safety. If I were an fossil hobbyist I would probably look at his amateur fossil website.

But he is not a climate scientist, which is why he has not published any scientific papers on causes of global warming. A search through the peer-review scientific journals where all new claims are tested and confirmed by scientists specialising in the field shows no ground-breaking advances in understanding by Monte Hieb or Harrison Hieb.

However he has published a lot of opinion pieces on global cooling, and the role of water vapour in global warming. On the latter makes this colourful claim:

Water Vapor Rules
By Monte Hieb

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.


I won't take you through it because, until it is verified by peers, it is opinion masquerading as science, targeted to a gullible public. If I was looking for a real education on the role of water vapour I would get it from the horses mouths' themselves; the scientific discussion at Realclimate.org is a good place to start, and is positively swimming with references to peer-reviewed science.
0

#1162 User is online   Away Point 

  • LSCN Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • View gallery
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 21,852
  • Joined: 20-March 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Livonia

Posted 05 November 2011 - 06:13 AM

View Postraind2, on 04 November 2011 - 02:45 PM, said:

View PostEMS, on 04 November 2011 - 02:01 PM, said:

View PostSnooze Ya looze, on 03 November 2011 - 08:13 PM, said:


SNOOZE, YOUR SIGNATURE, Is exactly what Liberal democrats are trying to do as we speak. Steal from people, so they can give it to their voters, the unions.


EMS, YOUR SIGNATURE is exactly what Climate Deniers do when they come up with dribble, a five minute search tells the story of your sig.

Education? OK, I'll play. Who the hell are Monte Hieb and Harrison Hieb and what is their background in the field of climate science? Why does their site link to a whole bunch of fossil-fuel info links?


If I am looking for an 'education' on mining engineering, I would possibly consult Monte Hieb, since he worked as chief engineer for the West Virginia Office of Miner’s Safety. If I were an fossil hobbyist I would probably look at his amateur fossil website.

But he is not a climate scientist, which is why he has not published any scientific papers on causes of global warming. A search through the peer-review scientific journals where all new claims are tested and confirmed by scientists specialising in the field shows no ground-breaking advances in understanding by Monte Hieb or Harrison Hieb.

However he has published a lot of opinion pieces on global cooling, and the role of water vapour in global warming. On the latter makes this colourful claim:

Water Vapor Rules
By Monte Hieb

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.


I won't take you through it because, until it is verified by peers, it is opinion masquerading as science, targeted to a gullible public. If I was looking for a real education on the role of water vapour I would get it from the horses mouths' themselves; the scientific discussion at Realclimate.org is a good place to start, and is positively swimming with references to peer-reviewed science.

Just a little food for thought...

The only thing truly "settled" on this question this that the vast majority of pro-man-made research is politically motivated, thus, publicly funded.

Is the fact that 31,000 American scientists have signed a petition not worthy of consideration? It obviously isn't to those whose funding will evaporate the second they dip a toe in the "denier" side.
Global Warming Petition Project

Even if man's impact is drastic, dire, and destructive, isn't it worth considering that very strict and expensive rules and regulation will, in all likelihood, shift industry to places like China, where nearly zero environmental concern exists? In other words, overly aggressive protections will INCREASE man's greenhouse gases. Heck, that's already happening.

The sad thing about all this is that it has become a religion for some, and merely big money greed for others. I'm certainly not pro-pollution, but as I sit here where miles thick ice has encroached and receded multiple times, I still can't give the doom predictions as much credit as my own eyes and ears. The logic flaws are endless, while the money trail is quite clear.
There are 2 seasons; Boating season, and Waiting for boating season.
Posted Image
0

#1163 User is offline   steeveau 

  • LSCN Fan
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,225
  • Joined: 22-July 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Home Port: Harsens Island

Posted 05 November 2011 - 08:04 AM

AP...I'm not sure you're right about your comment that "China, where nearly zero environmental concern exists"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China








0

#1164 User is offline   raind2 

  • LSCN Pirate
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 288
  • Joined: 01-May 09

Posted 05 November 2011 - 08:28 AM

Um the USA did reject the Kyoto treaty as far as I know, also I'm pretty sure work being sent to China is not because of our stricter environmental regulations, although that would be part of it I would agree, (a small part).

I also believe our laws while helping our not the answer, otherwise we would be able to swim at Metro, and live in Southwest Detroit.
PS: you all hear about Marathons offer to buy out homeowners for 40k? I can understand people not wanting to be uprooted sure, but for that $$ I would be gone, but that's just me, really is anyone going to drop 40k to live anywhere near there? Anyone here ever been to Zug Island?
0

#1165 User is online   canaller 

  • LSCN Fan
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,815
  • Joined: 05-January 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Algonac
  • Home Port: Algonac Harbour Club, Driveway, Boathouse
  • Boat Type:Chris Craft 281, Starcraft 18', Gamefisher 14'
  • Boat Name: Leucothea, New Adventure

Posted 05 November 2011 - 09:03 AM

I've stayed away from this one until now but I didn't want Old Man's thread to get too far behind the comic section.

I found this interesting study on how smoking is good for you. It seems relevant in a tangential way.

Those scientists sure study lots of stuff.

Smoking <br style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; border-collapse: collapse; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; ">

Talk to physicians and they'll tell you there are few things you can put in your mouth that are worse for you than a cigarette. But it's not all doom and gloom. Smokers are at least doing their bit to slow down the runaway obesity epidemic that is sweeping through the western world. "In many studies, you often find smokers are slimmer. We've certainly seen it in our studies," says Jodi Flaws at the University of Maryland school of medicine. "Some people think it's due to certain chemicals in cigarettes somehow making them burn more calories, but others believe it suppresses appetite. It may well be both."

Drastically upping your chances of cancer and heart disease might not be the best way to avoid obesity, but it's certainly easier than running round the block.

Scientists have also found evidence that smoking might, in some circumstances, help prevent the onset of various dementias. Many dementias go hand-in-hand with a loss of chemical receptors in the brain that just happen to be stimulated by nicotine. Smoking seems to bolster these receptors, and smokers have more of them. The theory is that smokers may then have more to lose before they start losing their minds. "It does seem that nicotine has a preventative effect, but the problem is that the other stuff in the cigarette tends to rot everything else," says Roger Bullock, a specialist in dementia and director of the Kingshill Research Centre in Swindon. So if your time is nearly up anyway, and you have somehow managed to steer a course past the Scylla and Charybdis of heart attacks and tumours, smoking might just help you retain your marbles.



0

#1166 User is online   Away Point 

  • LSCN Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • View gallery
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 21,852
  • Joined: 20-March 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Livonia

Posted 05 November 2011 - 08:16 PM

View Poststeeveau, on 05 November 2011 - 08:04 AM, said:

AP...I'm not sure you're right about your comment that "China, where nearly zero environmental concern exists"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China









Interesting. Not sure how to put that in perspective, for they are also building coal fired plants, expanding oil supplies, etc. They are expanding, and we are contracting. If we follow the aggressive actions people like Gore prescribe, will most defenetly accelerate our decline.
There are 2 seasons; Boating season, and Waiting for boating season.
Posted Image
0

#1167 User is offline   raind2 

  • LSCN Pirate
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 288
  • Joined: 01-May 09

Posted 11 November 2011 - 05:29 PM

Which brings us to Capitalism vs the Climate no? this is a lengthy article and obviously from the left which I largely agree with, however read it though and she also points out the failings of the advocates of change and a warming planet. I'll paste the first page, and link.

http://www.thenation...limate?page=0,0

There is a question from a gentleman in the fourth row.

He introduces himself as Richard Rothschild. He tells the crowd that he ran for county commissioner in Maryland’s Carroll County because he had come to the conclusion that policies to combat global warming were actually “an attack on middle-class American capitalism.” His question for the panelists, gathered in a Washington, DC, Marriott Hotel in late June, is this: “To what extent is this entire movement simply a green Trojan horse, whose belly is full with red Marxist socioeconomic doctrine?”
About the Author
Naomi Klein
Naomi Klein
Naomi Klein is an award-winning journalist, syndicated columnist, fellow at The Nation Institute and author of the...
Also by the Author
The Most Important Thing in the World (Occupy Wall Street, Activism)

The task of our time is to insist that we can afford to build a decent society—while at the same time, respect the real limits to what the earth can take.
Naomi Klein
Occupy Wall Street: The Most Important Thing in the World Now (Movements, Occupy Wall Street, Economy)

The task of our time is to insist that we can afford to build a decent society—while at the same time, respect the real limits to what the earth can take.
Naomi Klein
100 comments
Related Topics
Entertainment Environmental Issue Natural Disaster Social Issues Technology

Here at the Heartland Institute’s Sixth International Conference on Climate Change, the premier gathering for those dedicated to denying the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity is warming the planet, this qualifies as a rhetorical question. Like asking a meeting of German central bankers if Greeks are untrustworthy. Still, the panelists aren’t going to pass up an opportunity to tell the questioner just how right he is.

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who specializes in harassing climate scientists with nuisance lawsuits and Freedom of Information fishing expeditions, angles the table mic over to his mouth. “You can believe this is about the climate,” he says darkly, “and many people do, but it’s not a reasonable belief.” Horner, whose prematurely silver hair makes him look like a right-wing Anderson Cooper, likes to invoke Saul Alinsky: “The issue isn’t the issue.” The issue, apparently, is that “no free society would do to itself what this agenda requires…. The first step to that is to remove these nagging freedoms that keep getting in the way.”

Claiming that climate change is a plot to steal American freedom is rather tame by Heartland standards. Over the course of this two-day conference, I will learn that Obama’s campaign promise to support locally owned biofuels refineries was really about “green communitarianism,” akin to the “Maoist” scheme to put “a pig iron furnace in everybody’s backyard” (the Cato Institute’s Patrick Michaels). That climate change is “a stalking horse for National Socialism” (former Republican senator and retired astronaut Harrison Schmitt). And that environmentalists are like Aztec priests, sacrificing countless people to appease the gods and change the weather (Marc Morano, editor of the denialists’ go-to website, ClimateDepot.com).

Most of all, however, I will hear versions of the opinion expressed by the county commissioner in the fourth row: that climate change is a Trojan horse designed to abolish capitalism and replace it with some kind of eco-socialism. As conference speaker Larry Bell succinctly puts it in his new book Climate of Corruption, climate change “has little to do with the state of the environment and much to do with shackling capitalism and transforming the American way of life in the interests of global wealth redistribution.”

Yes, sure, there is a pretense that the delegates’ rejection of climate science is rooted in serious disagreement about the data. And the organizers go to some lengths to mimic credible scientific conferences, calling the gathering “Restoring the Scientific Method” and even adopting the organizational acronym ICCC, a mere one letter off from the world’s leading authority on climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But the scientific theories presented here are old and long discredited. And no attempt is made to explain why each speaker seems to contradict the next. (Is there no warming, or is there warming but it’s not a problem? And if there is no warming, then what’s all this talk about sunspots causing temperatures to rise?)

In truth, several members of the mostly elderly audience seem to doze off while the temperature graphs are projected. They come to life only when the rock stars of the movement take the stage—not the C-team scientists but the A-team ideological warriors like Morano and Horner. This is the true purpose of the gathering: providing a forum for die-hard denialists to collect the rhetorical baseball bats with which they will club environmentalists and climate scientists in the weeks and months to come. The talking points first tested here will jam the comment sections beneath every article and YouTube video that contains the phrase “climate change” or “global warming.” They will also exit the mouths of hundreds of right-wing commentators and politicians—from Republican presidential candidates like Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann all the way down to county commissioners like Richard Rothschild. In an interview outside the sessions, Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, proudly takes credit for “thousands of articles and op-eds and speeches…that were informed by or motivated by somebody attending one of these conferences.”

The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based think tank devoted to “promoting free-market solutions,” has been holding these confabs since 2008, sometimes twice a year. And the strategy appears to be working. At the end of day one, Morano—whose claim to fame is having broken the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth story that sank John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign—leads the gathering through a series of victory laps. Cap and trade: dead! Obama at the Copenhagen summit: failure! The climate movement: suicidal! He even projects a couple of quotes from climate activists beating up on themselves (as progressives do so well) and exhorts the audience to “celebrate!”

There were no balloons or confetti descending from the rafters, but there may as well have been.

* * *

When public opinion on the big social and political issues changes, the trends tend to be relatively gradual. Abrupt shifts, when they come, are usually precipitated by dramatic events. Which is why pollsters are so surprised by what has happened to perceptions about climate change over a span of just four years. A 2007 Harris poll found that 71 percent of Americans believed that the continued burning of fossil fuels would cause the climate to change. By 2009 the figure had dropped to 51 percent. In June 2011 the number of Americans who agreed was down to 44 percent—well under half the population. According to Scott Keeter, director of survey research at the Pew Research Center for People and the Press, this is “among the largest shifts over a short period of time seen in recent public opinion history.”

Even more striking, this shift has occurred almost entirely at one end of the political spectrum. As recently as 2008 (the year Newt Gingrich did a climate change TV spot with Nancy Pelosi) the issue still had a veneer of bipartisan support in the United States. Those days are decidedly over. Today, 70–75 percent of self-identified Democrats and liberals believe humans are changing the climate—a level that has remained stable or risen slightly over the past decade. In sharp contrast, Republicans, particularly Tea Party members, have overwhelmingly chosen to reject the scientific consensus. In some regions, only about 20 percent of self-identified Republicans accept the science.

Equally significant has been a shift in emotional intensity. Climate change used to be something most everyone said they cared about—just not all that much. When Americans were asked to rank their political concerns in order of priority, climate change would reliably come in last.

But now there is a significant cohort of Republicans who care passionately, even obsessively, about climate change—though what they care about is exposing it as a “hoax” being perpetrated by liberals to force them to change their light bulbs, live in Soviet-style tenements and surrender their SUVs. For these right-wingers, opposition to climate change has become as central to their worldview as low taxes, gun ownership and opposition to abortion. Many climate scientists report receiving death threats, as do authors of articles on subjects as seemingly innocuous as energy conservation. (As one letter writer put it to Stan Cox, author of a book critical of air-conditioning, “You can pry my thermostat out of my cold dead hands.”)

This culture-war intensity is the worst news of all, because when you challenge a person’s position on an issue core to his or her identity, facts and arguments are seen as little more than further attacks, easily deflected. (The deniers have even found a way to dismiss a new study confirming the reality of global warming that was partially funded by the Koch brothers, and led by a scientist sympathetic to the “skeptic” position.)

The effects of this emotional intensity have been on full display in the race to lead the Republican Party. Days into his presidential campaign, with his home state literally burning up with wildfires, Texas Governor Rick Perry delighted the base by declaring that climate scientists were manipulating data “so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects.” Meanwhile, the only candidate to consistently defend climate science, Jon Huntsman, was dead on arrival. And part of what has rescued Mitt Romney’s campaign has been his flight from earlier statements supporting the scientific consensus on climate change.
0

#1168 User is offline   Old Man of the Sea 

  • LSCN Groupie
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,306
  • Joined: 24-May 02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester Hills
  • Boat Type:2007 Starcraft Futura 180
  • Boat Name: OMOTS

Posted 11 November 2011 - 09:31 PM

China and coal fired electrical plants. This is a pretty good primer. How about one new coal fired plant per month being built there. When was the last time the USA had built even one new plant?

http://www.nytimes.c...sia/11coal.html
Those who trumpet the message of tolerance seem to have no tolerance for people who disagree with them.
0

#1169 User is offline   raind2 

  • LSCN Pirate
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 288
  • Joined: 01-May 09

Posted 12 November 2011 - 03:36 AM

View PostOld Man of the Sea, on 11 November 2011 - 09:31 PM, said:

China and coal fired electrical plants. This is a pretty good primer. How about one new coal fired plant per month being built there. When was the last time the USA had built even one new plant?

http://www.nytimes.c...sia/11coal.html

http://www.sourcewat...e_United_States
0

#1170 User is offline   raind2 

  • LSCN Pirate
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 288
  • Joined: 01-May 09

Posted 12 November 2011 - 03:37 AM

View Postraind2, on 12 November 2011 - 03:36 AM, said:

View PostOld Man of the Sea, on 11 November 2011 - 09:31 PM, said:

China and coal fired electrical plants. This is a pretty good primer. How about one new coal fired plant per month being built there. When was the last time the USA had built even one new plant?

http://www.nytimes.c...sia/11coal.html

http://www.sourcewat...e_United_States

Beginning around the year 2000, in response to increases in natural gas prices, utilities across the United States began a renewed push to build new coal-fired electricity generating plants. By the spring of 2007, approximately 150 such projects were either under construction or in various stages of planning. The National Energy Technology Laboratory, a division of the Department of Energy, maintained a database of such projects, but ceased providing project-specific information as of May 2007. Since that report, scores of coal-fired power plants have been canceled, but new proposals have appeared.

To find the proposed coal plants in your state, click on the map, or scroll down to use the links below.

(Note: There are no proposed coal plants in Alabama, Connecticut, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, or Vermont.)
0

Share this topic:


  • 85 Pages +
  • « First
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users


The Lake St. Clair Network is a local social network for Lake St.Clair and surrounding waterways such as Detroit River, Clinton River, Lake Erie, Lake Huron and Lake Michigan.
We are the #1 source for Lake St.Clair Fishing Reports, Ice Fishing, Lake St. Clair News, Lake St.Clair Boating, Michigan Fishing and Michigan Hunting.