Trump and coal mines

[pErvinalia]

Never been a verified case of fracking fluids in drinking water. Period. It's all hyperbolic speculation by anti-fracking greenies whose objective is to prevent the extraction of fossil fuels. They don't give a shit about human health.

We've explained this all to you before. No baselines studies were done before fracking and most fracking mixtures are proprietry secrets. All due to lobbying by the industry.

As I said, there are exactly zero verified incidents of fracking contaminating drinking water anywhere in the US. Your claims are just smoke and mirrors and are meaningless tripe. What you're saying amount so "I know fracking pollutes drinking water

Where did I say fracking pollutes drinking water??

Evasion. You are arguing the anti-fracking case and that case is wholly based on the false proposition that fracking causes groundwater contamination. What you're doing now is trying to goalpost-shift.

No, what I'm doing is pointing out that you are lying.

Where this isn't the case, it's because greenies and other sane people have managed to convince governments to adopt rational policies.

No, Luddites have frightened gullible legislators who are pandering to a frightened public scared of nonexistent pollution.

What level of retardation does it take to view the good science of using baseline studies as being "Luddite"?

What level of retardation does it take to fail to understand that "baseline studies" of groundwater sources have been going on for many decades. I did "baseline studies" on my private ranch well every few years by drawing a sample and sending it to a lab, where it was analyzed for contamination, which is how I discovered that an underground fuel-oil tank was leaking, which caused me to remove it and remediate the contaminated soil, at a cost of some $25,000. I did this "baseline study" because the high water table sometimes caused bacteria to get into the well casing, requiring me to sterilize the casing with bleach from time to time. Other people do the same thing, and government agencies test drinking water supplies EVERY FUCKING DAY. Trust me, they would notice if unusual stuff began appearing in their wells after a fracked well was drilled nearby.

Bullshit. Utterly baseless assertion. How would an anti-environment libbo have any clue where and when governments did baseline studies? You are lying yet again.

Again, there is zero evidence of fracking contaminating drinking water supplies anywhere in the US.

We've explained this to you multiple times before. Would you like us to draw it for you in crayon?

[pErvinalia]

the island nations being swallowed by the sea

I want to focus on this bit of hysterical hyperbole. Show us even one "island nation" that has been "swallowed by the sea" please. Just one.

Kiribati has been evacuating for a couple of years now.

[Scot Dutchy]

Just lies and more lies remember we are in the post-truth era. Trumpcunt just cant speak the truth. Never has and never will.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Listen to the unsupported blithering above, or a reputable source like Bloomberg? Hmm.

"Economics to Keep Wind and Solar Energy Thriving With Trump"

On the plains of West Texas, new wind farms can be built for just $22 a megawatt-hour. In the Arizona and Nevada deserts, solar projects are less than $40 a megawatt-hour. Compare those figures with the U.S. average lifetime cost of $52 for natural gas plants and about $65 for coal.

Notice the subtle deception here. Wind farms can be built for $22/MWh. But that's not the "average lifetime cost", that's the cost of building them.

That's a legitimate criticism, but the rest of your post consists of spouting anecdotes and parading your incredulity.

[Seth]

the island nations being swallowed by the sea

I want to focus on this bit of hysterical hyperbole. Show us even one "island nation" that has been "swallowed by the sea" please. Just one.

Kiribati has been evacuating for a couple of years now.

Wise move, but not because it's been "swallowed by the sea" or even because it's going to be "swallowed by the sea" within the next five generations. They've got plenty of time to make other living arrangements, just like the residents of New Orleans and Bangladesh have plenty of time to move inland. Well, New Orleans maybe not so much given that the jackasses who live there have been given pretty clear and unequivocal notice that they are complete idiots for living below sea level by Hurricane Katrina.

And even if mankind could prevent the sea from doing what the sea does why would it bother? What possible sense does it make, economically or otherwise, to waste untold trillions of dollars trying to reverse the irreversible merely for the convenience of a few Pacific islanders who can easily move elsewhere, just as those living in what was once the fertile north African plains had to abandon their cities and move when weather patterns changed thousands of years ago, turning it into a desert?

Adapt or die.

[Seth]

the island nations being swallowed by the sea

I want to focus on this bit of hysterical hyperbole. Show us even one "island nation" that has been "swallowed by the sea" please. Just one.

So, you deny that world sea levels are rising, and that some low-lying Pacific nations such as Kiribiti are threatened by this climate change induced rise?

If so, you are breathtakingly ignorant.

As I said, show me even one island nation that has been "swallowed by the sea." You can't.

Which is of course not surprising because nobody has claimed that any island nation has been swallowed by the sea. You're just attacking a strawman. Animavore has stated that island nations are being swallowed by the sea. It's an ongoing process, and it is real. We have the data for it.



Now look at the Republic of Kiribati. It's capital's elevation is less than three metres above sea level. With sea levels projected to have risen by between 38 centimetres at least and 59 centimetres at most at the end of this century, I leave the maths regarding when the lot is under water to you. Not that complete inundation is necessary to nix Kiribati anyway. The rising sea level will make the existence of Kiribati as a nation long before that.

Oooh...200 whole millimeters in 140 years on what is essentially a straight-line linear curve. I'm so concerned...not.

What you're saying here is that Kiribatians have known for a hundred and forty years that their island is going under (and how do we know it's not subsidence of the island, not sea level rise) and only now is anybody surprised that if you live on a coral atoll three feet above sea level you're likely to end up with wet feet?

What a load of crap. As I said, sea levels are subject to natural variation, both short term (tides, storms) and long term (climate change). Humans have known this for hundreds of thousands of years, and they continually adapt to sea level changes or they drown.

Kiribati is not worth one thin dime of my tax money to "save" because it's been doomed from the start. The people have generations to move somewhere else, there is no emergency, there is no way to stop sea level changes, there is no way to ensure forever that a small number of Pacific islanders get to continue their idyllic existence forever and it's not worth even spending a moment or a dollar researching ways to stop climate change because climate change cannot be stopped, nor would I want it to be stopped, because it's a perfectly natural process that repeats itself again and again and again.

If you or anybody else fears being "swallowed by the sea" then do the prudent and economical thing and move away from the sea shore. But don't expect anyone else to give a damn about you if you refuse to move as the sea laps at your toes.

Your arguments are exactly the kind if moronic liberal econut claptrap that I'm talking about. You take a data point and go all hysterical about what you see without looking at the big picture. All climate change conspiracy alarmists do the same thing. "Oh dear, Kiribati will be swallowed by the sea in 200 years, we must spend 800 billion dollars a year to save the inhabitants!" Fuck that. I'll send one of them ten cents towards the price of a plane ticket to Tibet, where they will never, ever have to worry about being "swallowed by the sea."

But that's it.

[Seth]

Listen to the unsupported blithering above, or a reputable source like Bloomberg? Hmm.

"Economics to Keep Wind and Solar Energy Thriving With Trump"

On the plains of West Texas, new wind farms can be built for just $22 a megawatt-hour. In the Arizona and Nevada deserts, solar projects are less than $40 a megawatt-hour. Compare those figures with the U.S. average lifetime cost of $52 for natural gas plants and about $65 for coal.

Notice the subtle deception here. Wind farms can be built for $22/MWh. But that's not the "average lifetime cost", that's the cost of building them.

That's a legitimate criticism, but the rest of your post consists of spouting anecdotes and parading your incredulity.

Facts are facts and the fact is that wind power will never, ever replace coal and gas power plants.

[L'Emmerdeur]

You've been rather short on facts and long on opinion.

Regarding a comparison of cost of energy by source, wind and coal are fairly well matched:

[Scot Dutchy]

Of course the bankrupt with their gas guzzling cars think only of costs. By 2025 there wont be anymore petrol or diesel cars on Dutch roads but we are talking about a civilised country. With Trumpcunt America will move back to the thirties and good luck with that. I just hope someone does the right thing.

[Seth]

You've been rather short on facts and long on opinion.

Regarding a comparison of cost of energy by source, wind and coal are fairly well matched:

Er, the only problem is wind can never replace coal or gas because it's not reliable. And it's ugly. And it takes an enormous investment in land that cannot be used for anything else.

And the most compelling reason is because it can never supply the necessary amount of electricity to keep a technological society running without festooning every square foot of the country with giant, ugly towers.

[Seth]

Of course the bankrupt with their gas guzzling cars think only of costs. By 2025 there wont be anymore petrol or diesel cars on Dutch roads but we are talking about a civilised country. With Trumpcunt America will move back to the thirties and good luck with that. I just hope someone does the right thing.

Every time some econut screams "PEAK OIL!" some oil company discovers a giant new gas or oil field that will keep things running another 200 years...and we haven't even explored 70% of the planet yet.

But who cares about the Dutch anyway, they will all drown with their fingers in the dyke (sic) and won't be a problem any more quite soon...with any luck at all.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

...and how do we know it's not subsidence of the island, not sea level rise...

Yet more breathtaking ignorance. Both sea levels and the altitudes of any area of land can be measured extremely precisely via satellite technology. Sea level rises are a general phenomenon, one that is happening more rapidly now than in previous eras of sea level change.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

...and how do we know it's not subsidence of the island, not sea level rise...

Yet more breathtaking ignorance. Both sea levels and the altitudes of any area of land can be measured extremely precisely via satellite technology.

Riiiiiight....and that happened from 1870 to 1980 how, exactly? Are you in contact with the space aliens who made the measurements perhaps? Are they green? Do they have big heads and almond-shaped eyes? Is your tinfoil hat on correctly?

Sea level rises are a general phenomenon, one that is happening more rapidly now than in previous eras of sea level change.

Looks like a pretty straight line average to me...at least back to 1870. I'm sure it's gone far, far in both directions much further and much faster in the past.

Adapt or die.

[Hermit]

Your arguments are exactly the kind if moronic liberal econut claptrap that I'm talking about. You take a data point and go all hysterical about what you see without looking at the big picture. All climate change conspiracy alarmists do the same thing. "Oh dear, Kiribati will be swallowed by the sea in 200 years, we must spend 800 billion dollars a year to save the inhabitants!" Fuck that. I'll send one of them ten cents towards the price of a plane ticket to Tibet, where they will never, ever have to worry about being "swallowed by the sea."

Thanks for your hysterical rant, but once again you are attacking mister strawman. All I have done is

1. to point out that animavore has not claimed that island nations have been swallowed by the sea.
2. to provide evidence that island nations are indeed being swallowed by the sea.

Anything else you read into my post is a figment of your fevered imagination.

[Seth]

Your arguments are exactly the kind if moronic liberal econut claptrap that I'm talking about. You take a data point and go all hysterical about what you see without looking at the big picture. All climate change conspiracy alarmists do the same thing. "Oh dear, Kiribati will be swallowed by the sea in 200 years, we must spend 800 billion dollars a year to save the inhabitants!" Fuck that. I'll send one of them ten cents towards the price of a plane ticket to Tibet, where they will never, ever have to worry about being "swallowed by the sea."

Thanks for your hysterical rant, but once again you are attacking mister strawman. All I have done is

1. to point out that animavore has not claimed that island nations have been swallowed by the sea.

Pettifoggery and irrelevant because it's a strawman. Nowhere did I claim any island "had" been "swallowed by the sea" or that animavore made that claim. I merely challenged anyone to show evidence that any island had been swallowed by the sea, which task you failed at too.

2. to provide evidence that island nations are indeed being swallowed by the sea.

Except that they aren't. They have (allegedly) seen sea levels rise. However, any assertion that they "are being" is a statement of future predicted events that are pure speculation at best. Science does not say Kiribati "is being swallowed by the sea," science says that according to records there has been an increase in sea level at Kiribati of some 200 millimeters over the span of more than 140 years, nothing more.

Projecting those sea level increases into the future to support the claim that Kiribati "is being swallowed by the sea" is, as I said, speculation and not fact, scientific or otherwise. Therefore it is not true that Kiribati (or any other island or anywhere else for that matter) is "being swallowed by the sea." That is an ecoweenie pretension and constitutes nothing more than eco-propaganda and poor propaganda at that.

Who knows, glaciation might take over and freeze everyone's balls off and lower the sea level by a thousand feet long before Kiribati is "swallowed by the sea" what with the future being all hard to predict and junk.

In that event Kiribati is going to be the place to be, now isn't it, since the Northern Hemisphere (and the Southern) will be buried under miles-thick ice sheets and we'll all be corpsicles.