This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Coal - The Ignored Juggernaut

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by contributing editor Gregor Macdonald

Coal - The Ignored Juggernaut

Oil, natural gas, and alternatives dominate the headlines when it comes to energy. But there's a big and largely-overlooked revolution occurring with the energy source likely to become the most preferred fuel for a world in economic decline: coal.

The United States coal sector has been hit very, very hard this spring. Demand has been crushed by over 10%, as warm weather and bountiful supplies of cheap natural gas have induced power plant operators and all other users where possible to switch away from domestic coal. The rapid change in fortune has sent the stock prices of big, listed names such as Peabody and Arch down by double digit percentages, as the Dow Jones US Coal Index has fallen below 160 from above 225 at the start of 2012.

From Bloomberg:

Central Appalachian thermal coal futures, the U.S. benchmark, averaged $60.20 during the first quarter, down from an average of $73.58 in the year ago period and down from a high of $143.25 in July 2008. “It’s like a perfect storm,” Mann said. “The three main challenges are the really mild winter, a lethargic economy and on top of that, with gas prices being so low, those utilities that can burn gas have opted to burn gas instead of coal because gas is so cheap.” Cheap gas has undercut power producers’ revenues because it drives down wholesale electricity prices, squeezing margins for plants that run on nuclear, renewable and coal power. Moody’s Investors Service changed its outlook for the U.S. coal industry to “negative” from “stable” on May 7, citing weak prices and a drop in power demand, and said it expects a 5 percent decline in prices for coal deliveries in 2013. The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects the industry to see a 10.9 percent decline in coal consumption this year and Moody’s expects U.S. coal demand from power plants to plunge by 100 million tons by 2020, the ratings company said in the report.


Given the rather weak near-term and long-term outlook for US coal demand, it’s not surprising that within such a capital-intensive business, a number of smaller coal producers were hit recently with bankruptcy rumors. Indeed, even large cap names like Arch Coal have seen an escalation of concern over debt levels. Accordingly, many have concluded that coal -- in an era of solar, wind, and natural gas -- has finally displaced itself due to its problematic extraction, distant transportation, and overall costs. Is coal finally going away as an energy source?

Not a chance.

Indeed, everything currently unfolding for coal in the United States is precisely what is not unfolding for coal globally. Prices to import natural gas to most countries via LNG remain sky-high, easily protecting coal’s cost advantage. And the demand for coal in the developing world remains gargantuan. Accordingly, just as with oil, lower US demand simply frees up supply to elsewhere in the world.

The global coal juggernaut rolls onward.

Soaring US Exports

In the same way that falling US oil consumption has freed up global supply, so now is US declining coal demand freeing up production for export. Last year marked a twenty-year high in US coal exports:

For the full year of 2011, the US exported 107,259 thousand short tons of coal. This was the highest level of coal exports since 1991. More impressive: exports recorded a more than 25% leap compared to the previous year, 2010. (see data here, opens to PDF).  Additionally, this was also a dramatic breakout in volume from the previous decade, which ranged from 40,000 – 80,000 thousand short tons per annum.


The United States remains a large consumer of coal, and currently places second, behind China, in the top global users, which I call the Coal 7: China, USA, India, Japan, Russia, South Africa, and Germany. Accordingly, this means that the US, which currently consumes about 15% of total global demand, is about to become a marginal new source of global supply.

Although most grades of coal are still trading at a cheaper price level than a similar equivalent amount of BTUs sourced from natural gas, the all-in costs of burning coal in the United States given our regulatory framework is now higher than burning natural gas. In one sense, this is not a new story. Indeed, the advent of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 and the historic wave of pollution regulations set the United States on a course away from coal and towards natural gas over 40 years ago. Even the coal industry is eager to advertise the long decline of coal-fired pollution (as a portion of the whole) in the United States, which is due overall to an increase in emissions control, but is mostly the result of the rise of natural-gas-fired power since the early 1970s.

Global Coal Picture

What has changed, however, is that coal is the preferred energy source of the developing world.

In addition, as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has shifted its manufacturing to the developing world over the past few decades, coal has been the cheap energy source that has powered the rise of such manufacturing, especially in Asia. Accordingly, the extraordinary increase in global coal consumption the past decade is partly due to the OECD offshoring its own industrial production. How are most consumer goods made? Using electricity in developing world manufacturing centers, generated by coal.

Only a very small portion of the global public is aware that global coal consumption has advanced by over 50% in the past decade. According to data from the just-released BP Statistical Review, from 2001 through 2011, global consumption of coal rose an astonishing 56%. Using the energy unit Mtoe (million tonnes oil equivalent), global coal consumption rose 1,343 Mtoe, from 2,381 to 3,724 Mtoe. And this trend shows no sign of slowing down.

Additionally, this advance contrasts greatly with the flattening of global oil production and thus the slowdown in global oil consumption. Oil's price revolution has killed a great deal of oil demand. But few are aware that while oil has fallen as a portion of primary world energy supply, coal has stormed to prominence. This is why the export of US coal, and world trade in coal, still has room to run.

Coal Hunger: It’s Not Just China

Coal consumption in the robust Indian economy has grown rapidly in recent years, averaging 8.5% per year in 2006-10 according to EIA data, including growth of 10.8% in 2010. Although we have slightly reduced our 2012-13 growth forecasts for India in light of global developments, the economy is still expected to grow by around 8% per year. Coal consumption is therefore expected to continue to rise strongly, boosted by the long-term plan to increase thermal power-generation capacity in an effort to increase access to electricity in rural areas. In its new five-year plan for the period 2012-17 the Indian government envisages that the rate of annual demand growth could stay at around 8%.

(Source: World Coal: The IEU’s Monthly Outlook, via The Economist Intelligence Unit)

2008 saw the crossing of a major milestone in humanity’s march towards industrialism, when, for the first time ever, more than 50% of the world’s population became urban.

This great migration from the countryside to the cities, which is happening in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, is a primary driver for coal demand, as millions of new city dwellers take their place in the power grid. This recent table of projected urban population growth rates from the Economist, in its piece on Emerging Market Cities, demonstrates that an enormous phase of change still lies ahead:


The world continues to marvel at the growth rates seen in Chinese cities, like Shanghai, which is expected to add over 200,000 new residents per year in the 15-year period from 2010 to 2025. Such a pace will grow the Shanghai population from its 2010 level of 16.6 million residents to at least 19.6 million residents. However, the growth rates of urbanization are even faster in emerging mega-cities such as Kinshasa, Lagos, Karachi, Dhaka, Mumbai, and of course, Delhi. As Mike Davis writes in his terrific book, Planet of Slums:

Ninety-five percent of this final buildout of humanity will occur in the urban areas of developing countries, whose populations will double to nearly 4 billion over the next generation…The scale and the velocity of Third World urbanization, moreover, utterly dwarfs that of Victorian Europe. London in 1910 was seven times larger than it had been in 1800, but Dhaka, Kinshasa, and Lagos today are each approximately forty times larger than they were in 1950.


Despite the fact that the developing world has indeed increased its demand for oil, thus taking nearly 100% of the supply freed up by weak OECD economies, the economies of the developing world are largely running not on liquid BTUs, but rather on BTUs from coal.

Coal’s versatility, in that it can be stored cheaply and transported via ship, rail, truck, or in smaller quantities by small personal transport, makes it the logical energy choice for the developing world. (This is not to say that wind and solar do not also make sense in non-OECD nations. Indeed, the fast pace of growth in renewables in the developing world is astonishing as well). Most important is that the cheap price of coal, especially when burned without environmental regulations, aligns with developing world wages.

For those concerned with climate change, this is, of course, terrible news. However, many of the world’s international organizations, from the International Energy Agency in Paris to various OECD policy-making groups, remain very focused on making sure that developing world nations get access to electricity. There is a strong view and strong agreement among Western policy makers that working to ensure that the world’s poor have access to electricity is the most transformative action to pull humanity out of poverty. Surely this is why the World Bank has been investing heavily in coal-fired power production. From World Bank Invests Record Sums in Coal, via The Ecologist.


Rebounding Into Coal

The financial crisis period of the past five years has served to highlight the new and constant restraint that oil prices place on the world economy. What’s over now is the fast growth made possible by cheap, liquid BTU (oil). But this is precisely why the economies of the non-OECD continue to increase their coal consumption, and why the world economy -- when it advances -- rebounds into coal.

There are enough BTUs from natural gas and coal to fund global economic growth for years to come. If natural gas from North America was exportable right now, then world prices for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) would be much lower than the $14-$18 level seen from Europe to Asia. Instead, North American natural gas remains landlocked and will remain so until export facilities are completed. This makes for a highly irregular pricing landscape in natural gas, in which Americans pay $2.50 for a million BTUs of natural gas, while heavy importers like Japan can pay as much as $17.00 per million BTUs. Accordingly, it is coal and not natural gas that provides the converged pricing to the world market. And with thermal coal trading around $2.50 - $3.50 per million BTUs, the continuing transition to coal is unstoppable.

In Part II: Coal is the Fuel for a World in Decline, we explain that a series of ongoing financial crises only accelerates the transition to coal as the obvious energy source in a time a declining wealth. As the world gets poorer, with higher-income OECD economies set to converge with lower-income non-OECD economies, coal remains the cheapest form of globally traded BTUs, adding low-cost power to economies under pressure. Finally, using the just released data from the BP Statistical Review, we update the latest forecasts on the future crossover point, when coal regains its number one position from oil and once again becomes the primary energy source of the world.

Click here to read Part II of this report (free executive summary; paid enrollment required for full access).


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 06/30/2012 - 09:46 | 2576476 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

But but but...the EPA says that carbon dioxide is a poison gas.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 10:09 | 2576559 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Hah! Which is why billions of CO2 injected COKE is consumed by millions of fools born every minute.

It's Carbon and it's crushing us. Diamonds, Soot, Oil, US, Coal, Coke (ing coal that is)...

Still burning black stuff, but in the back-ground... can't see, doesn't exist.

Time to get beyond the car-bon paradigm...

Coke, Coal... CO two funny...



Sat, 06/30/2012 - 10:13 | 2576587 Colombian Gringo
Colombian Gringo's picture

No Humans must be made to feel guilty and be punished so that creeps like Flakmeister can feel good about robbing you of your tax money and freedom.  Rent seekers like him also want to eat, even if that means exterminating you.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 10:22 | 2576635 falak pema
falak pema's picture

don't get mad because he can count better than you can! 

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 10:37 | 2576692 Colombian Gringo
Colombian Gringo's picture

Maybe he count better than me, but so what? The CO2 scam is still a scam. My poorer skills in math do not make him right. Besides Flakman is an authority on nothing except for stupid remarks and broken marrianges.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 10:45 | 2576713 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

If your math skill are so poor, how can you determine that C02 is a scam?

Maybe your problems are with the consequences for your world view as opposed to the science?

 Why dont you figure out something that is acceptable to you with regards to the C02 problem instead of sticking your head in the sand?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 10:47 | 2576755 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

God/The Most Holy Invisible Hand would have never created a world that imposed limits on man's consumption. To consume to the furthest extent of the product of one's labor is the greatest glory of mankind and the fountainhead of SALVATION. Consume, and be born anew.

Oh, shit! It's Mr. Creosote!

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:48 | 2577021 falak pema
falak pema's picture

I'LL bet my invsible hand that we will invest massively in alternate energies including solar; as we come down that experience curve and produce in twenty years as much electrical energy from these renewables as we do from fossil today.

I see the sun's efficiency and convertibility going viral like the financial revolution of the last twenty years. Lets hope those financiers don't put their sticky fingers into the alternative energy pie once its starts baking hard under innovation splurge and survival urge, which has to be kept sanctified from this predatory cabal. 

I'm counting on you Spas to send consumately elegant smoke signals to the Upper one to get his holy backing on this fountainhead of salvation for mankind. 

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:58 | 2577051 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Alternative energy is moot.  All western governments will have collapsed long before that happens.

Peak hydrocarbons and over-bearing government regulation are tied to one another.  If PHC comes first, then the government will collapse, and the regulations blocking thorium from taking its rightful place as the next great energy source will be gone.  If the governments collapse first (they will), then PHC is moot because the regulations blocking thorium will vanish. 

Peak energy won't happen until we have devoured the whole of the Earth's crust.  There is too much thorium there.  Nevermind other nearby planetary bodies.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:39 | 2577148 Jack Sheet
Jack Sheet's picture

Solar has only ever worked with massive government subsidies. It is not baseload power.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:55 | 2577171 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Massive compared to what? The subsidies for oil and gas in this country?? Admittedly, they are more indirect but they dwarf those of solar, wind and what have you...

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 13:45 | 2577244 Bob
Bob's picture

Hey, at least we don't have to count the subsidies necessary to clean up nuclear power plants that have reached the end of their lifecycles.  That would cost too much and surely it wouldn't be right for the companies that have profitted from them to have to bankrupt their poor, poor selves to clean up their mess. 

We can just relicense them for another 60 years each.  Rarely are we blessed with gravely serious problems that have such simple solutions!

What could possibly go wrong?

I luvs my free enterprise.  Mr. Market is like a God to me.  Okay, maybe only the next best thing to God hisself, but the Big Guy backs him all the way.  Amen. 

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 14:35 | 2577351 Haloween1
Haloween1's picture

Please name one subsidy to oil.  Just one. 

The petroleum subsidy story is nothing more than a hoax dreamed up by Obama and his Dream Team.  There are no subsidies for big oil.  Period.


Sat, 06/30/2012 - 23:49 | 2578017 Bringin It
Bringin It's picture

- Please name one subsidy to oil.

How about the US Interstate Highway System?  Does that count?  Is that expensive?

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 07:07 | 2578245 mick_richfield
mick_richfield's picture

Three hundred billion dollars a year protecting the sources and supply lines?

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 10:14 | 2578394 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

...and the war (three trillion)

that was sarcastic right

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 13:04 | 2577183 Marginal Call
Marginal Call's picture

I take a break from my normal doomerism to have hope in solid state ammonium production.  Solar power (or wind) + air + water = NH3.  Can be used for trasnportation and can be produced anywhere, and zero emissions when burnt.


Turns sunshine into mpg. 

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 13:29 | 2577228 RoadKill
RoadKill's picture

Matt Simmons was workimg on this after he retired from Simmons & Company. It was tidal energy. The water is right there so you simply make a few thousand bouyies that anchor to the ocean floor and produce liquid ammonia that gets transported back to shore via a traditional subsea or FPU gathering & processing system.

Seems to have lots of potential merits 30 years from now

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 13:44 | 2577249 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Yep.  The issue is the demand and the fact that it will still require approximately 900 kJ of energy per mole to convert nitrogen into ammonia.  Better check on how many moles of ammonia are produced by Dupont and the Habor Bosch process each year.  Then also need to address the issue of sulfur, phosphorus, and many other elements in the correct oxidation state. New innovations don't change the thermodynamics.

There are hard limits and there are real experts, just wish the latter actually got more air time and capital and resource investment.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 13:58 | 2577272 Praetor
Praetor's picture

Apart from the energy consumption, ammonia is a real nasty gas. Would hate to see one of those pipelines rupture.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 14:25 | 2577333 Marginal Call
Marginal Call's picture

They don't seem to be very concerned about that since the pipelines are light gauge steel.   Having a few leaks here and there to dissapate into the atmoshpere sounds like a better alternative to taking all the coal on earth, burning it, and giving every living thing on the planet black lung. 


It only burns in a limited temp range, can be stored like propane, and along with hydrogen burns cleaner than any other gas. 

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 14:40 | 2577357 Praetor
Praetor's picture

Agree that coal can be nasty, but the problem with current ammonia generation is the hydrogen feedstock is currently from fossil fuels. Will there be enough electricity in the future to electrolyse water into hydrogen? Seems we're fooked at any road we take.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 14:12 | 2577297 CPL
CPL's picture

...sigh...really?  Why don't we just start talking about perpetual motion engines and the over unity engine scams...seriously? 


Why aren't we talking about the energy that is currently available to ourselves?  Which would be ourselves.  We should be discussing winding down all human population growth.  Learning how to produce better bikes hand carts, horse husbandry, mule husbandry, foul husbandry. 


Start re-learning how to manually do the daily tasks of life.  Understand that this awesome tech called the internet will not exist (and most of us out of a job and business).

We are all asking the wrong questions for the situation and applying the wrong solutions for the options available. 

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 14:31 | 2577343 Marginal Call
Marginal Call's picture

Sigh?  really?  Don't be such a cunt.


You can set up a windmill and produce enough to run farm equipment and be independant.  Of course there are limits, there are limits to everything.  But I have no desire to drag a plow around when I'm 50, and it sounds like your idea is I should just use a pick axe until I fall over dead. 

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 15:06 | 2577408 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

"You can set up a windmill and produce enough to run farm equipment and be independant."

Really?  have you done it?  Who bought the land? How did you get around paying taxes ont he property?

Not arguing, just inquiring because you make it sound like this is no big deal.  Might want to re-think that.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 15:22 | 2577453 Marginal Call
Marginal Call's picture

I've been researching it.  I believe it can be done.

A more energy efficient method of producing NH3 is

“solid state ammonia synthesis”, or SSAS. This process

removes the need for water splitting, which reduces the

energy usage to about 7,500 kWh/ton of NH3 produced.

In SSAS, a proton-conducting membrane is heated to

about 550 ºC. Nitrogen is admitted to one side of the

membrane and water vapor is admitted to the other side,

as shown in Illustration 4. The gas phase H2O

dissociates into protons and oxygen, an external voltage

drives the protons through the membrane, and the

nitrogen and protons react on the nitrogen side of the

membrane to form NH3. [8] The lower energy

consumption of the SSAS process suggests that it will

be able to produce ammonia at a lower cost than the

Haber-Bosch process.


Converting equipment to run on it is the easy part. 

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 15:53 | 2577507 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Good for you.  Let us know how it turns out, just remember there are over seven billion of us who will need to do the same thing.

I congradulate you on actully doing something.

Believing doesn't get us anywhere, things actually have to be done.

The cost to set-up seems high, more importantly what about maintence?

Whoops, read the information more carefully, seems this is all just theoretical.  Please do let us know what sort of actual production numbers you get.  I am sure you could submit something like this as a contributor.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 14:52 | 2577380 mkhs
mkhs's picture

Use ourselves?  So we could take the byproduct of liposuction and convert to a combustible product?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 16:02 | 2577524 Ceteris paribus
Ceteris paribus's picture

They are not scams I have one that works , also I have a carb on a small engine 420cc that will run a week on 1 quart of gas

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 23:29 | 2577993 Errol
Errol's picture

CPL, stop being rational this instant!  Just because something was viable for 10s of thousands of years doesn't mean it will be viable in the future.  Everyone in the US has the right to be sedentary and fat, and we dont intend to ever give up that right!

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:41 | 2577149 Jack Sheet
Jack Sheet's picture

Sorry Dup. Fucking iPad text entry

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 10:48 | 2576757's picture

When the scientists and politicians who promote AGW say that they are lying about their findings in order to promote social justice you don't need the math so much.


"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,


"We've got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.
- Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation


"The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society,
which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope
- David Brower,
founder of Friends of the Earth


Before you jump all over me, Flak, why not consider contacting you AGW buddies and asking them to stop claiming that they are lying.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 10:54 | 2576783 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

All this smoke and nothing to show that the science is wrong... Standard misdirect and strawmen from the denialistas...

Or did you want to debate the science?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:01 | 2576813's picture

Or did you want to debate the science?


No. I want you to tell me why so many AGW proponents say they are lying to promote other causes.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:03 | 2576828 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

"so many" Good idea. Tell us how many AGW proponents there are and what percentage have benn caught lying.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:10 | 2576857's picture

It's not up to me to prove that CO2 is or is not causing AGW. It is up to the AGW proponents. Unfortunately some of the most prominent ones say that they are lying about the whole thing. That is your hurdle to overcome, not mine.

Seriously. why spend time debating the deniers when you could make so much more progress by asking your allies to stop admitting that AGW is a lie? Don't you see such statements from AGW proponents as a problem?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:21 | 2576903 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Well... I'd say the science is pretty conclusive in favor of AGW. Sorry if you cant figure that out...

So could you provide evidence that scientists have lied and or faked data in a peer reviewed article?

Sorry Climategate don't count as the conclusions have been verified by independent means and Mann et al have been cleared by every investigation/panel....

Since you cannot provide any evidence of wrong doing is obvious that you are the one lying through your teeth...

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:31 | 2576952's picture

There's plenty of evidence that the IPCC and their associates have lied about the data in an effort to "hide the decline." But I haven't discussed that. What I want to know is why do so many prominent AGW proponents openly admit that they are lying about the science in order to promote social justice? Do you not see such pronouncements as being hurtful to your effort to convince others that AGW is real? Why do you not take issue with these people and their statements?


"I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation' of the facts
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience
- Al Gore,


"It doesn't matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true
- Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace


"The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and
spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest
opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level

- Al Gore,


"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports


"We've got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.
- Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation


"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world
- Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment


The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations
on the data. We're basing them on the climate models
- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 14:55 | 2577383 GiantVampireSqu...
GiantVampireSquid vs OWS UFC 2012's picture

LOL, who is lying?  The politician?  Facts are facts, and the science has been proven.  CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it heats up the planet.  If you do the baisic math, the melting of Antartic ice will raise sea levels by 30 meters, then add in greenland et al.  Not trying to alarm you, because you still need some false hope, so you don't completely give up.  The fact is it's already too late.  The methane is being released from the artic, permafrost is melting.  A few emails can't change that.  Who profits from this?  Some non profit enviromentalists, or multinational corporations, who's only goal is to boost profits every 90 days?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 20:37 | 2577497's picture


  If you do the baisic math, the melting of Antartic ice will raise sea levels by 30 meters, then add in greenland et al.  Not trying to alarm you, because you still need some false hope, so you don't completely give up.


I live 1,200 feet above sea level and I'm going to die within the next forty years anyway so why would I need any false hope in regard to rising sea levels?


The fact is it's already too late.


That's great because then it would be superfluous for anyone to tax or regulate us for our own good. Now be quiet and let me enjoy a cold Genesee out on my globally warmed (but still high and dry) back porch. Ahhhhhh, that hits the spot!

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:37 | 2576972 mess nonster
mess nonster's picture

The science isn't conclusive for AGW. The CO2 connection is cicumstantial at best. No-one really knows if CO2 drives global warming, or whether global warmiong drives CO2, or whethere there is a connection at all.

The one thing true is that things are warming up.The most likely driver is the sun (duh). Nothing we can do about it. To me, AGW is simply another example of our race's insistence on being the center of the universe, that we have the power to do SOMETHING big, even if it is only creating a problem. That's ego for ya.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:16 | 2577072 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

you win, man can not affect his environment. There's no evidence on that is there. And the earth is not an environment is it. Digging out the most energy condensed matter ever produced that took millions of years to form and spewing half of it into a fixed atmosphere couldn't possibly have an effect. Or if any effect, only a good one right? Because too much of a good thing is always good for us right. And the ice cores showing the most rapid incline ever recorded in all of the cycles shows nothing does it. This issue is not settled with one set of emails or one piece of data or one political group or one blog. It concerns the entire earth and data coming in from just about all four corners from just about every discipline, every animal, every plant and every oil industry executive who offers a "scientist" 10,000 bucks to write an article challenging the data. If you think the stakes aren;t high and the lying isnt spewing from the denial side, because of course big industry never lies does it and it has no money to keep the lies going does it and we never talk about that fact here do we, and these energy industries have nothing to lose do they and the big money and the ungore" side" isn't nearly as big as the gore side is it and Chevron doesn't do its damned best to avoid paying a judgment for destroying a country environment by dissolving its assets in that jurisdiciton does it. 

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 13:49 | 2577254 Bob
Bob's picture

Sounds like sombody's head is in the sand.  I need a smoke.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 15:32 | 2577479 GiantVampireSqu...
GiantVampireSquid vs OWS UFC 2012's picture

I can appreciate the irony, enjoy your non cancer causing smoke.  Who do you believe the tobacco companies or the science?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 15:53 | 2577500 Bob
Bob's picture

Never believe "do gooders," they're always commies.  Better dead than Red, dontcha know?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 16:07 | 2577538's picture

George Z was a do-gooder.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 16:15 | 2577551 knightowl77
knightowl77's picture

Why is it, that more non-smokers than smokers get lung cancer??? Maybe there is something else going on....

Same is true for Global Waming...the models cannot explain why it was warmer worldwide in the Medieval Warm Period than it is now....There have been several periods during history that were warmer than it now...


Long before the first coal fired powerplant or hummer...Go smoke that

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 16:37 | 2577580 GiantVampireSqu...
GiantVampireSquid vs OWS UFC 2012's picture

Best strawman ever!

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 16:31 | 2577570 tmosley
tmosley's picture

I believe trials with controls.  Where is the planet that doesn't have humans?  Oh, those are warming too?  Ok, sure it could be different things causing the warming on different planets.

Oh, are those controls invalid?  Then the whole idea that AGW is science goes out the window, because without controls, your data is worth nothing.  Even if you are RIGHT, it still isn't SCIENCE.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 16:45 | 2577593 GiantVampireSqu...
GiantVampireSquid vs OWS UFC 2012's picture

This is not a trial.  This is just the way it is.  The increase in CO2 is causing the planet to heat up, BFD right.  The ice is melting, causing the sea levels to rise, which will cover some of the worlds food growing areas, and cities in salty water.  The CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels.  Simple shit, and it really is accepted by the scientific community, and you are the the arbirter of what is and isn't science.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 18:13 | 2577667's picture

I was under the impression that science wasn't something that one exaggerated:


Times Atlas is 'wrong on Greenland climate change'

Glaciologists say the ice cover is melting – but at nowhere near the 'misleading' 15% rate represented by cartographers

"This is concrete evidence of how climate change is altering the face of the planet forever – and doing so at an alarming and accelerating rate," said the publishers of the atlas, HarperCollins, in information given to the media last week and reiterated by a spokeswoman on Monday.

But seven researchers at Cambridge University's Scott Polar Research Institute backed by glaciologists in the US, Europe and elsewhere, have said that both the maps and the figure of 15% are wrong.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 18:29 | 2577675 GiantVampireSqu...
GiantVampireSquid vs OWS UFC 2012's picture

Confirmation bias is a wonderful thing.  I could post literally thousands of articles on how climate change is progressing worse then the models predict.  Whats the point?  Facts are global temperature is on the rise, CO2 levels are on the rise.

Your attacks on credibility cannot change the facts.  Though that is all you have.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 20:39 | 2577800's picture

Though that is all you have.


No, I still have about half of my gross income and that's what you're trying to get.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 10:25 | 2578403 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

ScienceDaily (Oct. 25, 2011) — The Greenland ice sheet can experience extreme melting even when temperatures don't hit record highs, according to a new analysis by Dr. Marco Tedesco, assistant professor in the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at The City College of New York. His findings suggest that glaciers could undergo a self-amplifying cycle of melting and warming that would be difficult to halt.


you're right, science daily is a bunch of politically motivated freaks 

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 11:44 | 2578505's picture

Did you even read the article? The researchers quoted support AGW, they just said that the corporation which published the map was wrong about their representation of Greenland ice. Do you believe that the corporate publishers were right and the scientists are wrong?




Sat, 06/30/2012 - 15:00 | 2577392 GiantVampireSqu...
GiantVampireSquid vs OWS UFC 2012's picture

You are wrong!  The science is very conclusive on the issue, it has been known for decades.  TEDxTheEvergreenStateCollege - David Roberts - Climate Change is Simple


Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:38 | 2576983 tmosley
tmosley's picture

lol, I guess testemony by climate scientists doesn't count.

Also, the DoJ declines to prosecute Holder, why would investigations/panels stacked with climate "scientists" do any different?

You can't just say whatever you want and then say "because science".  It doesn't work like that.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:55 | 2577044 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I see that the master of strawmen has returned... only you could bring the DoJ into this...


Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:01 | 2577056 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Sorry, so human nature doesn't have an effect on human action?

Do I need to name 10,000 other cases of people failing to find their own guilty of crimes they clearly committed?

Or would that just be 10,000 different strawmen?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:17 | 2577099 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

true greed does cause a lot of human destruction...and environmental as well 

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 13:23 | 2577221 Andre
Andre's picture

Let's start with the intellectual leadership:

  • Michael Mann
  • Peter Gleick
  • Andrew Revkin
  • Phil Jones
  • Myles Allen

Check out the ClimateGate emails.Wonderful read.

The fact Mann will release neither the data nor his model tells me this is slapping a pseudo-scientific veneer of justification for authoritarian policies. Really, no different than the "genetic studies" of the 1930's justifying racism.

While we are at it, look over some of the more charming things the greenies have actually advocated:

  • Nuclear war
  • death camps
  • murdering people who disagree with them.

One of the less endearing attributes of so many who espouse CAQW is the "true believership" one finds. They would rather believe in abstraction and credentials without concern for or consideration of possible ulterior motives - like money (grants) and power. As a corollary, they also believe any contradictory concern or evidence is false. The assumption "It Must Be Right" or someone Powerful would say it is not so is.. naive. Credentials tend to mean you fit the status quo. They certainly do not grant integrity, ethics, or common sense.

This is not about science, it is religious fervor. The religion in this case is science, but the fervor and the motivation are the same - a desire for purpose, direction, and certainty in the world, by appealing to a higher power - perhaps the higher power of abstraction? An interesting question, that last.

Watts Up With That has wonderful archives. You may find this one interesting

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 13:45 | 2577251 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

The climate proxy data is all publically available....

As most followers of WUWT, you demonstrate that you are full of shit in the first paragraph...

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 00:02 | 2578025 Andre
Andre's picture

"you demonstrate that you are full of shit in the first paragraph..."

And you demonstrate your fanaticism in but a single sentence.

Oh, and I forgot Al Gore.

The problem is simple. Your faith is based on a computer model. That is the essence of the issue. There were many references, but the raw data is notable by its absence. Show me Mann's model. Give me the link.

The R code for the study you cited was published. The raw data set was NOT. The fact they use linear regression is absolutely funny, especially on this site of all of them. It seems it is a predictor frequently used in finance and economics as well. May I offer you some Paul Krugman? Perhaps this bottle of CNBC is more to your taste. Perhaps the Mann lawsuit over refusal to release his emails while serving as a professor is too bitter, not to mention his tantrums, or Gleick lying about Heartland.

There are none so blind as those who will not see, none so deaf as those who will not hear.

That said, I'll run the R code. Looks like f(u)n.


Sat, 06/30/2012 - 10:56 | 2576796 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

So now all scientists are lying?  FAIL.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:06 | 2576847's picture

Perhaps you hadn't noticed but the history of scientific enquiry is filled with scientific "facts" which other scientists latter disproved. Do you believe that every word that comes out of the mouth of scientists is true? Do you believe that scientists are not effected by money, power and a variety of agendas separate from the science itself? If history shows that many scientist who acted in good faith were wrong then why should I believe scientist who openly admit that they are lying in order to promote other agendas?


Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:23 | 2576913 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You are talking in circles, just like a bullshit artist...

Please provide evidence of lying and data falsification...

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:34 | 2576959's picture

I've given you multiple quotes from AGW proponents in which they say that they are lying. You have not addressed any of them.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:38 | 2576982 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

but but but "I've given multiple quotes"

LMFAO.  I suggest thinking or perhaps investigating a little bit more about the source of your quotes.

Okay I've wasted enough time.  Later all.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:40 | 2576987 tmosley
tmosley's picture

LawsofPhysics says that testemony isn't evidence.


Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:44 | 2577005 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

No, what I am saying is that the source of the testimony is.

Troll harder Tom.  FYI-  glad I bought more silver last month.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:59 | 2577052's picture

The quotations provided are all public statements by AGW proponents. Why is that a problem for you?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:03 | 2577064 tmosley
tmosley's picture

The source of the testemony is WHAT?

Be specific.  If you are saying the source is invalid, then why do we believe them when they saw AGW is real?  They are either trustworth authories or they aren't.  Which is it?

If they aren't trustworth, then we have to examine their arguments on their own merit, and stop waving our hands about repeating "the science is settled" over and over.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:08 | 2577077 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Correct, vote them out.

FYI- "Science" is never "settled".  That seems to be the point many are missing.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:52 | 2577033's picture

The quotes I provide have all come from AGW proponents from the UN, the IPCC and elsewhere. Here are the sources for those and other similar quotes.



Bari, Judi. Deep environmental politics: the role of radical environmentalism in crafting American environmental policy by Phillip F. Cramer (1998)

Blair, Tony.

Botkin, Daniel. Opinion Journal. October 21, 2007.

Brower, David.

Brower, David. Interview with Dixy Lee Ray in Trashing the Planet.

Brown, Lester. quoted in 'Sovereignty in World Ecopolitics'. Vol. 41, No. 2 (Nov., 1997), pp. 167-204

Brown. Gordon. as reported by AFP - 13 March 2007.

Brown. Gordon. Speech to British Parliament. Sept 2007

Club of Rome. Goals for Mankind: A Report to the Club of Rome on the New Horizons of Global Community. 1977.

Club of Rome. Mankind at the Turning Point: The Second Report to The Club of Rome (first ed - 1974).

Club of Rome. The First Global Revolution (1991). Publisher: Pantheon; 1st edition (September 3, 1991)

Cohen, Michael.

Cousteau, Jacques. interview in the UNESCO Courier (1991).

Davis, John. Earth First! Journal.

Dubos, Rene. A God Within A God Within: A Positive Approach to Man's Future as Part of the Natural World, (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1972), 38, 41.

Earth Charter Website. - as retrieved 05/10/2007

Earth Pledge.

Ehrlich, Paul. “Population, Resources, Environment” San Francisco, 1970, pp. 323

Ehrlich, Paul.

Ehrlich, Paul.

Envision Earth.

Flannery, Tim.,23599,21158369-2,00.html and NPR interview.

Folland, Chris.

Foreman, David.

Foreman, David. interview in Earth First! Journal.

Fox, Michael. Animal Rights: A New Species of Egalitarianism: The Intellectual Activist: September 14, 1983: p 3: Also quoted in The War on the West: William Perry Pendley: Henry Regnery: p 15.

Frame, David.

Global Alliance for Transforming Education.

Gorbachev, Mikhail. interview with Resurgence Magazine. full text -

Gorbachev, Mikhail. Keynote address - State of the World Forum 1996, San Francisco.

Gorbachev, Mikhail. The Los Angeles Times, May 8, 1997.

Gore, Al. Earth in the Balance, page 297-301.

Gore, Al. Earth in the Balance. pp 160.

Gore, Al. Earth in the Balance. pp. 234

Gore, Al. Earth in the Balance. pp. 263

Gore, Al. Earth in the Balance. pp. 274

Gore, Al. Earth in the Balance. pp. 275

Gore, Al. Interview with Grist Magazine.

Gore, Al. Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech.

Gore, Al. Transcript of 'documentary' An Inconvenient Truth (2006).


Hansen, James. Global Warming: East-West Connections.

Houghton, John. n his book Global Warming, The Complete Briefing.,,20699131-5001031,00.html

King, Maurice.

Lovelock, James. BBC News interview, 2002 - and again to the Guardian,

Lovelock, James. Gaia: A New Look At Life. 1982.

Lovelock, James. Healing Gaia: Practical Medicine for the Planet. 1991. pp. 153

Lovelock, James. Revenge of Gaia (2006) and many interviews e.g.

Lovelock, James. The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of Our Living Earth. 1992

Lovins, Amory.

Manes, Christopher. in Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism And The Unmaking Of Civilization. 1990. pp. 171

Merkel, Angela. as reported by Deutsche Welle - G8 interview, 28 Sep 2006

Muller, Robert.

Muller, Robert. and

Muller, Robert. The absolute, urgent need for Proper Earth Government. April 1999.

Newkirk, Ingrid. As quoted in Eco-terrorism: radical environmental and animal liberation movements by Don Liddick

Strong, Maurice. Opening speech, Rio Earth Summit. 1992.

Obama, Barack.

Oppenheimer, Michael.

Prayer to the Earth.

Prince Charles. BBC News interview.

Prince Philip. Preface to Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1988, pp. 8.

Prince Philip. quoted in 'Are You Ready For Our New Age Future?', Insiders Report, American Policy Center, December '95;

Rifkin, Jeremy. "Fear of Fusion: What If It Works?", Paul Ciotti, Los Angeles Times, April 19, 1989, Section 5, p.1.

Rockefeller, David. speaking at the Business Council for the United Nations, September 14, 1994

Schnieder, Stephen. Discover Magazine, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989.

Schwarzenegger, Arnold.

Singer, Peter. The Deweese Report, November 1998.

Stewart, Christine. Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998

Strong, Maurice. Opening speech, Rio Earth Summit. 1992. and in a UNCED report in August 1991.

Strong, Maurice. Opening speech, Rio Earth Summit. a UNCED report in August 1991.

Turner, Ted. interview with Audubon magazine,

United Nations. Agenda 21 - Section IV.

United Nations. Our Global Neighbourhood, The Commission on Global Governance (1995). Oxford University Press.

United Nations. Our Global Neighbourhood, The Commission on Global Governance (1995). Oxford University Press.

United Nations. The Global Biodiversity Assessment. The Globe, 30:2-4, April 1996.

Watson, Paul. Forbes Magazine.

Wirth, Timothy. National Journal interview, 1990

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:57 | 2577046 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

A fine list of politicians.  Your credibility is dead, especially since you just contradicted yourself in another post.  Goodbye troll.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:18 | 2577057's picture

I did not contradict myself. But anyone who read your accusation and noted the obvious lack of documentation already knew that. You failed to answer the question yet again. Why do prominent AGW proponents public claim that AGW is a lie?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:58 | 2577050 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I don't see any peer reviewed work... I see opinions....

Show me the lies about the science...

What data is faked? What science is wrong?

You cannot do that, because the science is solid...

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:04 | 2577067's picture

Why do you insist on not answering the question? There's no point in discussing the science if the people presenting it say that it isn't true. Deal with that issue first.

All I want to know is why do prominent scientists, politicians and activist who promote AGW also make public statements in which they openly admit that they are lying about the science in order to promote other agendas?



Sat, 06/30/2012 - 13:14 | 2577202 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

What scientific lies are you referring to? A politician, right or left, lieing is not news. Show me a scientist that lied in a peer reviewed paper. The problem is that you cannot, because they havent. And you are left with tilting at windmills... 

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 14:46 | 2577369's picture

 I will post the quotes from scientists who claim that they are lying about AGW and ignoring the data yet again. I don't know why you're having such a hard time reading these quotes. I've posted them several times  on this very page but apparently they are invisible to you.

Here are the quotes. Look very carefully:


"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports


The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations
on the data. We're basing them on the climate models
- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research



If Dr. Schneider has solid evidence to make his point that AGW is real, why does he encourage other scientists to lie about it? If the data proves that AGW is real why does Dr. Folland say that data doesn't matter?

If you still find these quotes to be invisible please visit an optometrist.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 18:19 | 2579328 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Ah, these discredited chestnuts you keep peddling out. Talk about making up stuff as you go:

The Folland quote cannot be verified, it does not exist outside of denier websites in fact trying to track it down gets one lost in a circle of references in AGW denier sites...Provide a real reputable reference for the quote... Problem is that you can't since it is made up....

Lets look at the full Schnieder quotw from the Discover magazine interview.  The highlighted part represents the part of the quote which made it to the climate denier website which you parrot:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989.)


So you are lying sack of shit and you have zero credibility.....What you have done is demonstrated the base and underhanded techniques used by denialistas....Thank you for showing your true colors for all to see..

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:18 | 2577101 meghaljani
meghaljani's picture

Check out mann-made hockey stick. 

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 13:18 | 2577212 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Umm.. where was the falsification of data?

Please explain....

Also you might want to look at this


Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:36 | 2576968 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Perhaps you should educate yourself on the scientific method first and learn to recognize the difference between scientific observations and scientific policy.  The "scientists" that you have citied left the laboratory long ago and have moved into the latter world of scientific policy.  No suprise they (like any politician) are lying.  Wake the fuck up.

The carbon cycle (were CO2 is important) is but one of many cycles that must keep turning in order to maintain life on this planet.  These cycles and the flux of the elements through these cycles has remained balanced since the dawn of time, until recently.

I would pay more attention to the actual observations, unfortunately this means you must educate yourself on how these measurements are made, because  , guesss fucking what?  there is science behind the technology.  Electricity is still just a theory by the way.

I would never try and predict what may happen in such a complex universe where the laws of thermodynamics, physics, and chemistry  are the only thing that matters.  The planet will be fine, frail oxygen breathing species, not so much.

On a more serious note, here is what I can tell you as an engineer and farmer for almost 30 years.   Plants need a whole lot more than CO2 in order to grow and the amount of people we can support depends on the flux of ALL the inputs.  My costs have been increasing exponentially in order to simply maintain current production levels.

Most importantly, our current economic system depends on GROWTH.

Rock meet hard place.

FYI, thanks to the recent heat wave, many of our crops in the southeast just got very expensive.  Ask yourself, has the world recieved a raise lately?  FAIL.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:44 | 2577003's picture

FYI, thanks to the recent heat wave, many of our crops in the southeast just got very expensive.  Ask yourself, has the world recieved a raise lately?  FAIL.


Thanks to your efforts to make the planet colder children are dying. Baby killer FAIL.

Low Peru temperatures kill 94 children since January

Nearly 100 children under the age of five died of pneumonia between January and April in Peru due to a cold wave that swept through the country's Andean region, the Health Ministry said Wednesday.

The ministry reported over 797,000 episodes of non-pneumonic acute respiratory infections in toddlers during the period, along with 9,286 cases of pneumonia.

The total number of reported deaths from pneumonia stood at 94 from January 1 to April 28, health authorities said in a bulletin. Most of the deaths were in the southern and southeastern departments -- the poorest in the country.

Temperatures there reached 10 degrees below zero Celsius (14 degrees Fahrenheit) in areas with elevations above 3,500 meters (11,480 feet).

Last year, cold temperatures in the Andes killed 359 children under the age of five, according to the Health Ministry.

The World Health Organization says pneumonia is the leading cause of infant mortality worldwide, killing some 1.4 million children under five each year.


Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:58 | 2577042 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

First of all, how have I been cooling the planet?

Second, now you are trying to make the case FOR climate change? I thought you said the scientists were lying?

Contradict yourself much? 


Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:07 | 2577075's picture

I was showing you by example that anecdotal evidence is not particularly useful in the scheme of things but apparently you are too God damned dumb to understand.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:12 | 2577085 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

So, you are identifying yourself as a troll.  Thanks, let us all know when you offer some solutions or useful information.  Hell even Tom has been right about many silver calls.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:12 | 2577090's picture

Right. Anyone who attempts to instruct through example is a troll. It's ideas like that that have keep you in the dark. That and your apparent belief that shouting epithets at others make you right and them wrong.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:33 | 2577110 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Let's review shall we, you use a whole list of anecdotal evidence to "instruct" and even admit that "anecdotal evidence is not particularly useful".  Ignoring this second contradiction...

Answer this one question;  Do you acknowledge that there are genuine experts in any field?  You know, people who have worked in any field for a long period of time (sometimes their whole life spent in a public or private industry), learned many things by addressing questions through the scientific method and as a result developed real technology that many people use today?  In short, are there any experts in any field, science engineering or otherwise?  Answer this one question, it is a simple yes or no question.  Whether or not you are a troll will be clear for all to see.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:41 | 2577147's picture

Yes, of course there are experts in various fields.

And now you can attempt to prove that you're not a troll by providing a reasonable answer to the question which I've asked half a dozen times: Why do many of the leading proponents of AGW say that they are lying about the science in order to promote a social agenda?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:50 | 2577160 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

The "leading proponents" are not scientists by the very nature of all the positions they were in.

It would help your case to post or cite a few peer-reviewed works. 

You should also recognize that science is never settled  and one camp will always disagree with another.  Everything I have posted is based on 30+ years in the business of farming, and yet you ignore it, junk it, and call me a troll.  Really does not bother me either way.  Ignore hard limits all you want, it won't make them any less real.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 13:11 | 2577196's picture

It would help your case to post or cite a few peer-reviewed works.


Why do you continue to address something other than the question at hand? Why do leading AGW proponents state that they are lying about the science in order to pursue a social agenda? Such obfuscation is the very soul of trolling.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 13:20 | 2577211 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

I answered the question, you apparent can't read. 

Here it is again; They are not scientists.  Produce just one peer-reviewed work by any one of them.

My guess is you can't, but yet you admit "there are experts".  Cognative dissonance is a bitch.


Sat, 06/30/2012 - 15:03 | 2577400's picture

I did give you quotes from scientists who have encouraged lying and admitted that they ignore data but apparently those quotes are invisible to your eyes. It's a fascinating phenomenon worthy of its own scientific investigation.

But let's try one more time. Open your eyes real wide and look slowly and deliberately at the following words:


"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports


The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations
on the data. We're basing them on the climate models
- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research


Were you able to see those words? Did you read them? Now explain why scientists with overwhelming data to support their theory are so interested in telling lies and encouraging others to do the same?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 15:08 | 2577416 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

NONE of those statements come from a peer-reviewed piece of work.  Try again.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 15:21 | 2577450's picture

That's irrelevant.

The question is why do scientists who are proponents of AGW say that researchers should lie and that data doesn't matter? It makes no difference in which venue a scientist calls for such behavior. Such behavior is not scientific and smacks of the pursuit of other agendas.

Why is it so hard for you to answer this question?


Sat, 06/30/2012 - 15:31 | 2577474 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Peer reviewed work by experts (that you admit do exist) are "irrelevant", yet comments made by scientists put in positions of policy and made of their own accord and taken out of context by you ARE?





Sat, 06/30/2012 - 15:57 | 2577514's picture

Peer reviewed work by experts (that you admit do exist) are "irrelevant",


I never said that but you think I did. Another inaccurate observation on your part.

I am not ready to discuss the science. First I want to know why I should invest time and energy in studying the works of people who admit they lie and encourage others to do so. That's a valid question.



Sat, 06/30/2012 - 16:08 | 2577535 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

First, you did say there are experts.

Second, I don't know about you but I for one would never trust a person who lies.  Sorry you couldn't figure that one out on your own.

I would, however, always look at the context of what anyone says and never take anything someone simply says at face falue.

This is why peer-review work is so important.  People can say whatever the hell they want.

Let me know when you are ready to discuss some of the numerous peer-reviewed works out there.  I didn't realize that this whole time you didn't know that there are bad apples in every profession.  My bad.  Life is hard, sometimes you have to think critically, sorry. 


Sat, 06/30/2012 - 16:23 | 2577563's picture

Despite your snarky attitude it seems like you finally understand my point.

Now realize that 99.9% of interested parties will not read even one peer reviewed paper about AGW. Almost the entire discussion takes place on the social and political level rather than a scientific one. And it only discourages the masses from looking at the science when those who promote AGW are willing to use their expert positions to promote other agendas by their own admission.

Such revelations condemn AGW proponents right out of the gate. It would be a damned shame if AGW was real but because the experts who believed it was real decided to try to prove the theory with lies they ended up discrediting the entire effort. Oh what a tangled web.

The upshot is that those who attack "deniers" as if they were stupid or deranged do not place the blame for skepticism where it belongs: with the very scientists, politicians and activists who exaggerate science in order to promote other agendas.

BTW, I used to believe in the "science" of AGW. Stop thinking of me as some kind of kook when I'm actually a supporter your side has lost by virtue of your extreme smugness and disregard for our legitimate concerns about the veracity of people who publicly admit their efforts to manipulate global policies.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 16:43 | 2577579 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

You still don't get it do you?  What they said is irrelevant.  What was peer-reviewed is not.  You already said you were not prepared to discuss the actual perr-reviewed science so how do you know who's lying?

Show us allprecisely where in the peer-reviewed work people lied.  Even these asshats may not have lied in the writen works, but I would be skeptecal and it does not suprise me if the were corrupted as they became privy to inside information and access, but once again, what they said does not matter.  The show us all the lies in the peer-reviewed work and then no one will believe that you are a kook.


The real failure here is that n o one was there with the peer-reviewed work to catch people in their lies, which could go either way (in favor or against).  But this speaks to the larger probelme of fraud in general.


Sat, 06/30/2012 - 18:49 | 2577670's picture

Listen closely. I AM NOT CLAIMING THAT ANYONE IS LYING. I have simply posted quotes from AGW proponents who say that they themselves lie about climate change and who suggest that others do the same. I am telling you that the veracity of those who support AGW is hurt when some of the most prominent promoters of the theory say that they are lying in order to pursue social agendas.

Why can't you wrap your head around that?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:24 | 2577116 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

"World Health Organization says pneumonia is the leading cause of infant mortality . . ."

A solution to this problem is currently being implemented.  Soon the leading cause of infant mortality will be radiation  from Fukishima.

Ain't technology great?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:37 | 2577144 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Totally agree with the jest of you comment.  I often wonder how things are going to look when we have a drug for every disease but not enough food and fresh water for everyone, oh wait...

You can ignore hard limits all you want but it won't make them any less real.  Now where are the thorium fusion reactors that I ordered?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 13:19 | 2577215's picture

Totally agree with the jest of you comment.


The word you wanted was "gist." A jest is a prank or a trick such as "We here at the UN want you to know that we're telling you lies about AGW in order to tax your fuel and food supplies. It's for your own good." Now that's a jest.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 13:22 | 2577219 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

So there are no hard limits?  Thanks for checking my english troll.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 15:08 | 2577421's picture


Thanks for checking my english troll.


Implying that your mistakes make you superior to those who know better is not a convincing argument.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 15:10 | 2577424 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Still ignoring the issue of hard limits I see.  Not addressing the question, really does nothing for your argument either.

So you believe that there are no hard limits then for anything?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 15:25 | 2577459's picture

But you haven't answered the question which I've asked you a half dozen times without response. If you want to take the conversation in another direction by asking me about something else it would be courteous if you would answer my repeated question first.

Why is it so hard for you to tell me why it's OK for scientists to openly encourage lying about AGW?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 15:34 | 2577476 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

See my post above troll. 


In simplist terms, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Now about those limits, still think they don't exist?  FAIL.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 16:02 | 2577523's picture

All I want to know is why I should believe scientists who admit that they ignore data and falsify research? How is asking that question a failure of any kind? Wouldn't any reasonably intelligent person ask the same question?


Sat, 06/30/2012 - 18:47 | 2577691 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

not asking you to believe them. You continue to miss his point. There's a lot more than them. You need to dance with the thousands of others and the peer reviewed pieces. You continue to avoid that challenge. If someone lies about one subject is the entire subject invalid? Despite any other witness, evidence, data, experiment, analysis....    

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 20:46 | 2577813's picture

It's up to the AGW proponents to make their best case. In order to do that they need to reign in those who openly admit to manipulating data in pursuit of a social agenda. When you get your house in order and are ready to present an argument that is not tainted by open calls for lying then maybe you will find a more receptive audience.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 02:33 | 2579779 geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

I think you must have very little actual exposure to the scientific method, and of scientists who weigh-in on policy issues. To say they are lying is a bit of an exaggeration, because they are all well-aware of the limitations of science. The problem they face is a political one, one that has been created due to a century of state propaganda, where complex issues are always presented in a purely black and white perspective.

If you expect scientists to "get their house in order" then you have mistaken scientific camps for political parties, and that's not how it works. There will always be dissent and heretics in science. One of the funnier lines from Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" is that often, it is necessary for a generation of scientists to simply die before a paradigm change can completely occur. So even though scientists like to think of themselves as objective artibiters of the truth, the evidence is clear that once they latch onto an idea system, it can be hard to let it go. And of course the same thing is true of the general public, but even more-so because they are not trained and practiced in suspending their disbelief.

Really, the question you pose is a political/ethical one: is it ok to minimize/omit the scientific uncertainty to simplify the matter when it comes to educating the masses? I think it is, and the reason is because the masses have always been presented ideas as two stark contrasts. You can blame politics or advertising, but I completely understand where those scientists were coming from because this "dumbing down" is a requirement for mass media. As is a sense of emergency. People in this culture don't care about the long-term (cynically I would say because they suspect there is none), but if you want to get a political change, it is ipso facto necessary to create an emergency if there isn't one already. These are practical mass-education and political problems that the scientists have to deal with in a way that is completely counter to their inclinations. I think they have done remakably well, given all these constraints.

Lastly, I think AGW is happening and that it is largely due to the burning of FFs. I can see that is an unpopular idea here, but I haven't seen any argument that would in the smallest measure cause me to reconsider those opinions. I do disagree with most of the "solutions" the politicians have proposed, and have at this point accepted the fact that the only evidence that will convince people who are ideologically intent on not accepting that evidence is when the effects of AGW give them a nice, up-close personal visit. Of course, by then it will be too late, and in fact it's probably already too late. Once those methane plumes in the Artic really get going (they're already covering several sq km in a number of areas), I think people are going to be startled at how quickly things change.


Sun, 07/01/2012 - 10:29 | 2578408 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

and if you believe money power and status quo are not motivating "scientists" (and the people who pay them) to argue against the evidence, you are engaging in fundamental hypocrisy.   

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:45 | 2577007 Colombian Gringo
Colombian Gringo's picture

I don't need math skills to know that CO2 is a scam.  Climategate proved it beyond all doubt. You global warming alarmists were caught lying, faking the data and suppressing opinions that did not agree. I do not want to be forced to pay taxes to subsidy hunters like yourself. Get a real job.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:00 | 2577055 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

What data was faked? Who lied? What were the alledged lies?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:27 | 2577121 Colombian Gringo
Colombian Gringo's picture

My mother told me to never argue with a religious fanatic. Go ahead and believe in your green religion, if it makes you feel better. Just stop trying to make my money your money.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 13:22 | 2577220 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

My momma told me that that I should shut up and listen when people that know something more about a topic than I do were talking... She also said, if you could show that there argument was wrong, you should...

So, it would appear that you should simply shutup....

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 13:41 | 2577245 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Or in Mom's words, "Oy vey!  Shut up already!"

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 13:34 | 2577232 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

A Zionist believes your money is really his money.  It is no more stealing to him than the removal of the wool from his sheep is stealing from the sheep.  Your mom was right.  What she may not have impressed sufficiently on you is religious fanatics are hazardous to our health.

"Non-Jews were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world-only to serve the People of Israel," ........"This is his servant...That's why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew."......"why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap; and we will sit? like an effendi (master) and eat."........ "That is why gentiles were created."
Israeli (former chief) Rabbi Ovadia Yosef 10/18/2010 (radio speech in Israel)

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 13:48 | 2577253 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

So, you are reduced to calling me a Zionist?  Is that the extent of your debating ability?

Pretty clear that I win....

In fact, I am flattered that you would be reduced to such an asinine attack on me....

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 17:51 | 2577647 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Winner, winner' we have a winner!

What did you win?  A new flat screen monitor to use down at the B'nai B'rith basement in the ADL sweatshop?  Congratulations!

You must not be very attractive.  It doesn't take much to flatter you.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 15:16 | 2577441 GiantVampireSqu...
GiantVampireSquid vs OWS UFC 2012's picture

I don't need math skills to know that CO2 is a scam. FTMFW, um CO2 is a well known greenhouse gas.  So well known even the Exxon CEO knows about it.  Only a total fucking idiot would claim that pumping out billions of tonns of CO2 into the atmosphere has no effect.  Based on some personel emails, anyway the science has moved on, even if you havn't.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 13:56 | 2577268 TWSceptic
TWSceptic's picture

The difference is, you want coercion while we want the free market to work it out. If people really want alternative energy, the market will provide it for them. If they do not want it, the market will not provide it. What you want to do is let a minority decide what the majority should get. You take away freedom and you replace it with coercion and force.


If you want alternative energy, start a business, make it profitable, and leave those that choose not to buy it alone. Thank you.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 15:25 | 2577460 GiantVampireSqu...
GiantVampireSquid vs OWS UFC 2012's picture

The difference is you believe in magic aka the free market.  Somehow praying to your god will make climate change go away?  It doesn't work like that.  You think the free market gives a fuck about the future, you havn't been paying attention.  The whales were lucky we found oil, otherwise they would've been wiped out by the free market long ago.  The free market is only about the efficient distrubution of benefits, not the efficient use of resources.  I hope you can understand the difference.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 16:04 | 2577526's picture

Free Malthus!

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 14:41 | 2577361 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

You're a moron, and yes I can count and do understand the science behind the whole environmental argument. It's a fucking scam. 

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 15:40 | 2577489 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

"I can count and do understand the science"

because your qualifications as an "expert" are......

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 10:42 | 2576726 falak pema
falak pema's picture

if u say so... a scam is a flash in the pan, but when the polar ice cap looks like my bathtub, I do feel like screaming eureka! Don't you? When ocean acidity hits a peak we've never seen before we can ask ourselves when ocean life will be like dinosaur land. 

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 10:52 | 2576780's picture

When ocean acidity hits a peak we've never seen before


How definitive is a twenty year sampling when compared to the age of the Earth? Consider the fact that what you've seen in your lifetime is miniscule compared to the vastness of the planet's history.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 10:59 | 2576815 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You miss the point... all that matters is what the earth has been like since the ascent of Man...

Unless of course you are Creationist.... then all bets are off with regards to your ability to delude yourself...

C02 levels are higher now than at anytime during the existence of H. Sapiens....

BTW, if you understood calculus you might realize that large changes over millions of years can be adapted to, but as in financial engineering, the derivatives will kill you...

Things are changing so fast that species cannot adapt fast enough....

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:13 | 2576869's picture

All I want to know is why does the UN, the IPCC and other AGW proponents claim that they are lying to promote other agendas? That would seem to be the biggest hurdle in convincing others that your position is correct.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:26 | 2576924 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You sadly have it bass-ackwards...

Science is not about "wanting" something to be correct....  

You don't want AGW to be correct,  that is your problem. Not mine.

Greenspan wanted "self-regulating markets" and "effiecient market theory" to be correct, we know otherwise....

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:37 | 2576970's picture

Nice attempt at an end run but you still haven't answered the question. Why do members of the UN and IPCC openly admit that they are lying about AGW? Why do you refuse to take issue with the fact that the biggest "deniers" are also the institutional proponents of AGW?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:02 | 2577061 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

What lies?

You are the one that has been lieing through the teeth throughout this thread....

PS Al Gore don;t count as a scientist....

Let me guess, you think the Koch Bros. are paragons of truth?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:21 | 2577108's picture

Let me guess, you think the Koch Bros. are paragons of truth?


No, I don't. But thanks for providing another example of your inability to report accurate observations.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:34 | 2577134 Colombian Gringo
Colombian Gringo's picture

Good job of punking Flakmeister.  He cannot answer you directly because that would make him face the truth of  his ego invested in  a losing cause. Whose the denier now, flakhead?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 13:51 | 2577258 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You keep going on about lies... What lies? Where? Who?

The lies about the science keep coming from clowns like Lord Monckton...

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 14:12 | 2577299's picture

I have posted quotes from AGW proponents in which they advocate lying about science in order to promote social agendas. You and everyone else have had an opportunity to read those quotes. Why don't you stop pretending like you haven't read them and address the issue?


Sun, 07/01/2012 - 18:27 | 2579347 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Your "quotes" are from politicians...

Why don;t you write Al Gore a letter complaining about whatever it is that bothers you...

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:45 | 2577010 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Sounds like you want AGW to be true so bad that you refuse to even believe those who promote it when they say that they are lying.

How can the science be settled when the policy members "think" they are lying when they say AGW is real?

The level of twistiness in your words is higher than it should be for a scientist.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:06 | 2577071 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I don't want  AGW to be true anymore than I want the Theory of Relativity to be true... It just is and you had better deal with it...

Cliff, what lies? Where are the lies in the science? Where is the hoax? What data is fudged?

If you want to talk about lies, what about the time you tried to convince us that Round Up was not an endocrine disruptor... Now that was lieing.... On your part, I might add.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:47 | 2577157 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Upthread Crocket posted a bunch of quotes from AGW proponents and climate scientists saying they are lying.  That is the subject under discussion.

Why don't you address those?

Also, I have never commented on the mechanism of action of Round Up.  You are thinking of someone else.  Also, nice slippy ad hominem discreditation attempt.  Your words are as slippery as any politicians.  You evade all direct questions and criticisms, and attempt to throw up red herrings and use ad hominem against any who oppose you.  These are not the tools of a scientist.


Sat, 06/30/2012 - 13:59 | 2577274 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Identify the climate scientists in his list.....

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 14:23 | 2577317's picture

How can you call yourself a scientist when you can't even make reliable observations about the content of paragraphs written in plain English multiple times on a publicly accessible forum?  The quotes from climate scientists are there for all to see. Here they are again. I can keep reposting them as many times as you try to avoid answering the question.


"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports


The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations
on the data. We're basing them on the climate models
- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research


Sun, 07/01/2012 - 18:31 | 2579355 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

See my other post on these quotes....

One is a dishonest edit of larger quote and the other is a complete fabrication....

You are a lying sack of shit....typical of the deniers in that they have to resort to out and out falsehoods to further their argument as that is all they have left....

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 13:53 | 2577262 delacroix
delacroix's picture

Bullshit. on the c02 level, never being higher, in human history. who tells you this crap? scientists?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 14:00 | 2577278 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Please educate us as to when C02 levels were higher and H. Sapiens was around?

Seriously, we are all ears....

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!