Print
E-mail
Share
iPod
del.icio.us
digg
Newsvine
FacebookSUNDAY CONVERSATION:
A coal-fired discussion
Four experts debate how best to meet Nevada’s energy needs
Sun, May 4, 2008 (2 a.m.)
Leila Navidi
MEET THE PARTICIPANTS The Sun invited four energy experts — pictured above from left to right — to discuss a plan to build three coal-fired power plants in Nevada: Coal power lobbyist Joe Lucas, executive director of American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, formerly Americans for Balanced Energy Choices; Lydia Ball, local representative of the Sierra Club and Nevada Clean Energy Campaign, a coalition of environmental groups; Roberto Denis, vice president of energy supply for Sierra Pacific Resources, parent company of Nevada Power Co. and the company proposing a coal plant near Ely; Tim Hay, former Public Utilities Commission member and former consumer advocate with the Nevada attorney general’s office.
Coal Roundable
Coal Roundtable Summary
Sun Topics
Solar: A solar field is shown during a tour of the Nevada Solar One 64-megawatt solar thermal power plant near Boulder City. The tour was part of UNLV's Renewable Energy Symposium last summer.
Coal: Reid Gardner Station is a coal-fired power plant in Moapa. Sierra Pacific was fined $1 million last year and required to install $85 million worth of new pollution control technology at the plant.
Geothermal: The temperature of the "brine" -- water and minerals heated by geothermal heat -- is nearly 350 degrees as it exits a well and flows to the Ormat Steamboat geothermal complex near Reno.
Proposals to build coal-fired power plants have brought the debate over global climate change home to Nevadans. Coal provides half the nation’s electricity, and a fifth of Nevada’s power, but many people think it’s time to break our reliance on the shiny black rock and start using the sun, wind and heat of the Earth for a new generation of power plants.
Environmentalists say pollution from coal plants will make people sick, ruin the air and harm plants and animals.
Power plant developers say they’re necessary to keep Las Vegas homes and casinos cool and bright, and that renewable energy can’t meet growing power demand in the Southwest without sending power bills through the roof.
But opponents of the plants, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid among them, say utilities are gambling with ratepayers’ money. The price of Sierra Pacific Resources’ proposed plant near Ely has swelled to $5 billion over the past two years. With Congress poised to levy taxes on every ton of carbon dioxide emitted by power plants, this cheap fuel might not end up being so cheap after all.
Despite protests by Nevadans who live near the proposed plants, their developers are pushing forward with plans for two coal-fired plants outside Ely, in White Pine County. One would generate 1,500 megawatts and the other 1,590. A 750-megawatt plant is planned for the Mesquite area of northern Clark County. The three plants would power 2.8 million single-family homes, producing more than 30 million tons per year of greenhouse gases.
The Sun invited four experts to come to our office and discuss these plans. Two favored the plants, two opposed them. None of the four had ever sat down together.
We asked a few questions but mostly let them talk among themselves. What followed was one of the Sun’s most contentious Sunday Conversations, with a little shouting and a few mild insults. After the camera stopped rolling, they argued on for 20 minutes.
What role should coal play in Nevada’s energy future, and how will that role affect consumers, human health and the environment?
Tim Hay: Nevada has a plethora of renewable resources. As the cost of fossil fuels increases, the cost of most of the renewable fuels — primarily geothermal in the north, some wind in the north and solar in the south — will decrease. Nevada doesn’t need coal power the way other states do.
Roberto Denis: If we’re talking about resources within the state, we do not have nuclear power, we do not have any hydro. Nevada is the poor cousin in the West with regards to the amount of coal power that it has. Utah, for example, gets more than 90 percent of its electricity from coal. We have about 20 percent coal. We have a bounty of renewables to tap, but even that is not sufficient. And since 2004 we will have added 3,800 megawatts of gas-fired power. (A megawatt is enough power for about 750 single-family homes.)
Lydia Ball: Nevada does not have coal supplies. So not only will we spend money on these increasingly expensive coal plants, but we are also going to be spending money on the shipment of coal to Nevada.
Denis: Nevada does not have gas either, but gets 70 percent of its electricity from that fuel.
Joe Lucas: Nevada is unique. Energy demand across the country is doubling about every 15 years. It’s doubling every six or seven years in Nevada. It’s the fastest growing state in the nation, and because of that Nevada is best served by keeping all the energy options on the table — coal, wind, gas, geothermal — because it is not going to be able to meet the growing demand for electricity even if Nevadans become more energy efficient. Coal must be part of the mix. If not, the demand for reliable electricity will not be met.
Ball: We have 1,500 megawatts of geothermal potential in Northern Nevada. Why aren’t we actively looking at that and spending the $5 billion Sierra Pacific Resources plans to spend building a new power plant near Ely on cultivating geothermal? It meets your criteria for base power, for 24-hour power.
Denis: If we could spend the $5 billion today, and satisfy the needs of the state with renewable energy, that is exactly what we would do. It will take a decade or more to develop 1,500 megawatts of geothermal.
Ball: Your coal plant is not going to be operating now until about 2015.
Lucas: This is not about one energy resource or another. This is about having the right mix. Building a coal plant today doesn’t mean we won’t develop renewables.
Ball: We, too, are advocating balanced energy choices. Only we would like that balance to include more renewables. The state law requiring Sierra Pacific Resources to generate 20 percent of its power from renewables by 2015 should be a floor, not a ceiling. Every presentation I’ve seen from Sierra Pacific Resources only puts that at 20 percent. That’s your goal. Why isn’t it higher?
Denis: Our CEO has said that’s a floor, not a ceiling. However, we have to be realistic about how long it takes to develop geothermal. Our blessing in this state is geothermal, not solar, not wind. Geothermal has steady output and a low cost relative to the other technologies. And, indeed, we should be tapping that. We have a 3,000-megawatt deficit between the current demand and the power generation we own. And the demand is growing by 250 megawatts a year.
Ball: We also have public health issues. There are 140,000 people in the state of Nevada who have asthma, 26,000 of them children. Coal plants exacerbate respiratory problems.
Lucas: Over the last 30 years the incidents of childhood asthma have skyrocketed, while emissions from coal-based power plants have dropped. Air quality is affected by a lot of different things. You’re implying that people walk around with an air mask on that’s connected to the top of a power plant.
Ball: According to the American Lung Association, there are 28,000 deaths per year from power plant pollution.
Lucas: The American Lung Association also says outdoor air quality is 100 times better than indoor air quality and today children spend much more time inside than they do outside.
Denis: If you objectively look at our plans, we are going to build the 1,500-megawatt Ely Energy Center and we’re going to shut down 300 megawatts of facilities at Reid Gardner. Those three facilities, the 300 megawatts at Reid Gardner, are 20 percent the size and emit more regulated pollutants than Ely will. So aren’t we cleaning up the air by doing that?
Ball: We can do more. There are other ways of meeting our energy demand.
Denis: Our strategy is to do as much energy efficiency and conservation as possible. The cleanest kilowatt is the kilowatt that’s never produced. The second leg of the strategy is to either purchase or invest in renewables. Then the last is conventional fuels. We use a significant amount of gas already. It’s not an issue of wanting to do renewables, it’s an issue of reliability. Because renewables are all capital investment, on which we earn a profit, we stand to profit more from renewables. The issue is, can we do it fast enough to keep the lights on?
Ball: But if you start now ...
Denis: We have started now. Just because we build these gas plants now and we build this coal plant now, they don’t displace renewables. By the time we build those plants a lot of the existing plants are going to be taken out of service. What’s going to replace those? Renewables are going to be a big part of our future. It cannot be done within the time frame that we need the power to keep the lights and the economy in this state going.
Hay: And what’s the time frame for the Ely Energy Center?
Denis: Currently we have filed with the Public Utilities Commission for 2015, 2016.
Hay: And what will coal cost when that plant comes on line?
Denis: We haven’t finalized those plans. We won’t file final numbers with the commission until early 2010.
Hay: Peabody and other coal companies anticipate coal prices will rise 70 to 100 percent over the next couple of years. Your own estimates for the cost of the plant have gone from $3 billion two years ago to $3.8 billion a year ago to now more than $5 billion if construction were to begin today.
Lucas: There’s a study done by the Cambridge Energy Research Associates out of Boston. They looked at the cost of building all new generation and found that because steel, cement and other things have gone up in price, the cost of big capital expenditures like power plants (has) gone up. The cost of building new nuclear went up the most. Surprisingly, the cost of building new wind went up the second most, new gas third and coal was actually at the low end, so all boats have risen with the rising sea. Obviously there has been some uptick over the years in coal prices. But if you look at coal historically, the cost of coal has been infinitesimal compared to the cost of other fuels, principally natural gas and oil, and is much less volatile.
Ball: You shouldn’t be comparing it to natural gas and oil, you should be comparing it to renewables, the fuel for which is free.
Denis: What we really should be concerned about is: What’s going to happen to the consumer? Because we’re saying: If the cost of coal goes up and if we have a tax on emissions, then renewables are going to be cheaper in comparison.
Hay: Geothermal is one of your cheapest resources, cheaper than coal. Geothermal plants are isolated from fuel price volatility. So whatever that capital cost is, that’s going to set the ceiling for what the power is going to cost. Wind power has declined in cost 80 percent over the last 20 years. Solar-thermal plants, like 64-megawatt Nevada Solar One in Boulder City, are enjoying a resurgence here, and they provide power at peak usage times, which is very valuable to a company like Nevada Power.
Denis: Do you think that the first gold that was mined in Nevada was cheaper to mine than the gold that is being mined today? The first geothermal finds are easier to find than the last.
Hay: The price of coal is going to go up, and the cost of your proposed coal plant has gone up $1.5 billion in the last two years.
Ball: Joe, you have an advertising campaign about clean coal. You’re spending millions of dollars educating Nevadans, but the plants you’re promoting wouldn’t really be clean coal plants. A clean coal plant, at least in my definition, would remove the carbon dioxide from emissions and store it underground.
Lucas: That’s your definition of clean. That may not be everyone else’s definition.
Ball: Then can you define clean? Because the three companies planning coal plants in Nevada have signed agreements with the state that they will install carbon capture and storage technology when it is commercially viable. When and if that happens, with the emphasis on the if, who’s going to pay for it and how much is it going to cost?
Lucas: It’s an evolutionary process. Do you agree that the use of coal for generating electricity today is cleaner than it was 30 years ago?
Ball: I don’t necessarily agree. It depends on whether you’re talking about carbon or regulated pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and mercury.
Lucas: We decreased regulated pollutants and made the fleet 70 percent cleaner on average.
Ball: We can thank the federal government and the Clean Air Act for that. I don’t think the utility industry can claim they did that voluntarily, and it has constantly broken the Clean Air Act.
Lucas: The industry has invested $100 billion to reduce emissions. Clean coal is an industry term that means using advanced technologies to improve the environmental performance of coal-fired power plants. They are cleaner today than they were 30 years ago, and they will be cleaner 30 years from now than they are today, including the capture and storage of greenhouse gas emissions. We are at 90 percent removal of sulfur dioxide today.
Denis: We have proposed 98 percent removal of sulfur dioxide at Ely.
Lucas: Coal is a cleaner energy resource today and will be used in Nevada and in the United States and around the world for decades to come. We’re investing in the technology to make it cleaner. But coal can’t meet your standard of clean.
Denis: We have this tremendous need in this state. The Southwest U.S., the area from which we can buy power, will have a shortfall in power supply in 2011, three years from now. Do you support our using gas? I’m trying to get to the bottom line of the Sierra Club agenda.
Ball: I think that a natural gas plant can be a bridge to meet demand because it has lower emissions, but we shouldn’t plan to meet our future energy demands with gas or coal.
Denis: I am trying to get at whether the Sierra Club just has an anti-growth agenda and not really a clean agenda or a clean air agenda.
Ball: We are very supportive of a growth agenda in a new, clean energy economy. We have a study that 3,000 jobs could be created in the state of Nevada today if we were meeting our 20 percent renewable standard. And these are good jobs, these are not just janitor jobs at a coal plant in Ely.
Denis: But what’s the cost?
Ball: What’s the cost of installing carbon capture and storage on new coal plants, as you have told the state you will?
Denis: We will install the technology if the commission determines that it is commercially viable and cost-effective.
Ball: But what is the cost of that? Recent studies have shown that we don’t have anywhere to store that in Nevada. So they’re going to have to pipe it out? How much is that going to cost?
Lucas: Do you know how to drive down the cost of all these new technologies? If we go back and do what we did in the early ’80s, when we first introduced the term clean coal: invest in the public-private partnership between the federal government and industry to drive down the cost of developing these technologies. Do you support increasing funding for advanced clean coal technology projects through the federal government?
Ball: I support increased research, but I will not support building a coal plant in Nevada where there is so much potential for renewables.
Hay: Do you know the relative dollar amounts for solar, wind and geothermal compared to clean coal research?
Lucas: If we got 20 percent of our power from new energy resources and 80 percent from another, just to be simplistic, should we spend 80 percent of our research dollars on that fuel we’re using 20 percent of the time, or should we spend 80 percent of our dollars on the fuel that we use 80 percent of the time? There needs to be a balanced portfolio and the portfolio needs to be based upon how we are going to be using those fuels. With renewables, you don’t have the government and the industry partnering together as with coal research and development projects, where 50 percent of funding is from the government and at least 50 percent is from private industry. You don’t have that with renewable projects. It is a 100 percent government subsidy.
Hay: But do you know the relative dollar amounts? Probably 100 to 1.
There are three coal plants proposed in Nevada right now. Do we need three coal plants?
Ball: We don’t need even one of those coal plants. There are other ways to meet the energy demand.
Denis: We proposed the Ely Energy Center. We serve over 90 percent of the electrical load in this state. Two other coal plant proponents say their facilities are the ones that should be built. The Public Utilities Commission said Ely Energy Center, not those other facilities, is needed to satisfy Nevada consumers. We won’t buy power from those other facilities. They will not satisfy the needs of this state. You have to ask the other developers where they will sell their power. We are concerned that the resources of this state be used for the benefits of this state and not for the benefit of others. Any energy production, be it geothermal, wind, solar or fossil fuels, uses environmental resources meant for the public good and we should be wise stewards of those resources.
Hay: Can you tell me how well you’ve done meeting the renewable requirement since it took effect in 1997?
Denis: We have not met the solar requirement. Around 2004 we had 17 renewable energy purchase contracts signed and 11 never performed. The non-solar standard we have met. Where we have not met the standard, it has been because of the failure of some of the independent developers to come through. When we saw two years ago that renewables developers weren’t delivering on contracts, we decided as a company that we were going to build our own. And that’s why we have a whole area in our company dedicated to building nothing but renewables. We’re partnering up with Ormat on geothermal projects and on waste heat recovery plants. We will meet the standard this year.
Lucas: One of the problems of adding renewables to the mix is the lack of transmission lines. As we develop new coal plants we need to build transmission to share with renewables. The problem is you don’t build transmission lines for renewables because you have to back it up with a solid, traditional power source.
One thing we haven’t talked about is congressional action on carbon emissions, a potential carbon tax or cap and trade system.
Ball: We have three presidential candidates right now and all of them have taken some position on a carbon tax or a carbon cap. If this happens, who is going to be paying for this? We build the coal plant now, it doesn’t capture the carbon because we don’t have the technology yet. But we go ahead and build it because we want to build it cheap so we can help the little guy. But in five, 10, even 25 years, how much is it going to cost the little guy?
Who is going to pay, and can’t we assume that the cost of renewables will be more competitive in a decade thanks to technology advancements?
Denis: The consumer is going to pay the difference. We get into these esoteric discussions of carbon and costs. We really need to be concerned about the impact on consumers five years from now.
Hay: There’s no cost volatility with renewables.
Lucas: But they’re not always available when needed.
Hay: Geothermal is. We’re talking about Nevada, more renewables than any other state, more geothermal per capita than any other state.
Ball: There’s also solar. And in the last 30 years we have made strides. We can assume that the price of renewables is just going to decrease because technology will continue to grow. Ausra is a solar energy company that recently located a manufacturing facility in Las Vegas and is able to store solar power for 16 hours now. Soon they’ll be able to store for 24 hours, making solar a baseload fuel.
Denis: Six years ago it cost $900 to build a wind turbine. Today it’s over $2,000. It’s a worldwide commodity. GE can’t keep up, there’s a weak dollar and production is going overseas. Prices will increase.
Ball: We should be building up production facilities and jobs here at home. It makes us less dependent on other countries.
Lucas: What about the jobs related to extraction of coal, gas and other traditional fuels? This is not an either/or proposition.
Denis: Everyone has a bona fide interest in the environment. I think we differ on how to move forward and how to get there. At the end of the day the utility has the responsibility for keeping the lights on and providing clean, affordable, reliable power every time you flip the switch. We can’t shirk that responsibility. All the people around this table don’t have that responsibility. I do and I take it very seriously.
Sun reporter Mary Manning transcribed this conversation.
Discussion: 22 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Editors’ Picks
- Rush makes time stand still at Mandalay Bay
- Supreme Court to meet to issue opinions
- Despite slowdown, casino giant spending big
- Court turns down Chinese man’s asylum claim
- Justice Stevens contrasts lethal injection methods
- Court won’t block US lawsuit by apartheid victims
- Court blocked from case: Too many investments
- One man’s theories on Vegas’ economy, then and now
- Court rules that magistrate may preside
- Court will decide case of Va. man on death row
Blogs
Elsewhere
Neighbors say 'no surprise' to northwest Las Vegas murder-suicide
Politics: The Early Line
Titus files today for congressional race
Sports: Upon Further Review
Wranglers jump out on Utah, 5-2, in conference finals opener
Cops, Courts and Safety
Dead infant found in Las Vegas casino trash can (1 Comment)
Face To Face: Final Take
Should She Stay or Should She Go?
Elsewhere
Big cat the answer in Carson City sheep deaths
Culture Blog
Rush makes time stand still at Mandalay Bay
Bloggity, Bloggity, Bloggity
Observations from Saturday’s Dodge Challenger 500 at Darlington Raceway (7 Comments)
Calendar
Bette Midler: The Showgirl Must Go On
Witness the Divine Miss M's debut Las Vegas show inside the Colosseum at Caesar's Palace. ( Caesars Palace)
- Helldorado Days Remembered (7 p.m. to 9 p.m.)
- Louie Anderson (7 p.m.)
- The Improv at Harrah's (8:30 p.m.)
- An Evening with the Robert Cray Band (8:30 p.m.)
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Nice video link. I love how the coal lobbyist Denis embodies the dirty dinosaur ethic that is the coal industry.
Wind does not occur much during the hot summer months when energy is at its peak demand.
Solar plants consume more water than a nuclear plant. I guess we will just drain more water from the north.
There will be periods during the winter when there is no wind or no sun. I guess we will have to build expensive battery storage systems what have toxic chemicals in them.
Both require large tracts of land.
Both solar and wind are 10x more expensive then coal. That number is not including all the billions in subsidizes required to make them “cheaper”.
Are we willing to have larger 10x utility bills?
I am sure that it will cause a drag in the economy.
Why not for now do nuclear, coal, sun and wind?
If would be very dumb to switch to something on a guess and a prayer.
If could be mean very rough times for our children and grand children if we do not this smart.
jfnance32 claims that solar and wind are 10x as expensive as coal. Can he back that up with something other than a coal industry study? Nuclear doesn't look very good either as this article shows:
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid467.php
Readers should look for non biased academic studies before believing anything written by jfnance32.
Coal is getting more expensive because they are pushing higher taxes on it and reguirement more requlation.
Solar is getting "cheaper" because they are giving more and more cash directly from the treasury to fund it.
Mschaffer....if you believe in solar power so much then go out an buy a system for your house.
It is a "cheap" $20,000 at a min.
I am sure if you live in CA. that that state will kick in $10K from your friendly taxpayers.
@20,000 K your payback will be like 50 years. I doubt the system will last 50 years.
But if you are successful at your policitical goals then the cost of energy will grow by 10x. Then the payback will around 10 years.
Wow....I understand your thinking now.
It's hilarious how the "greenies" only present more and more problems, but no solutions. If they built roads, they'd all come to dead ends.
All the "greenies" problems and issues were met with intelligent ideas and most solutions are already in the works.
The point is that coal is absolutely needed, while more renewables can slowly and effectively be brought online to the grid. If not, expect to pay exponentially more to get UT, AZ, or CA power sent onto our grid at about 3 times the cost.
jfnance32 understands very little. As a matter of fact I do have solar PV with a payback of around 15 years and my power bill last month was $10. As the cost of electrical power per Kwh continues to rise my payback continues to lower. If we sell the house the solar becomes a selling point, along with energy and water conservation measures we have taken. So please keep your embarrassing ignorance to yourself.
Coal is not the answer. Vegas needs to stick with what it is good at. Hookers and Gambling. Just buy more energy.
Thanks
Jason Berkes
Toward the end of the discussion, Roberto Denis of Sierra Pacific Resources says he cares deeply about the environment. But I'm left wondering whether he believes that global climate change exists and, if he does, whether he believes it is a serious environmental issue. We know he cares deeply about consumers and their ability to pay their power bills (to his company), but what about the economic impacts of climate change and the costs of inaction that will eventually be born by the same consumers? Does he care about those costs?
Climate "change", which used to be "warming" until THAT falsehood was and is being exposed as the fraud it is == represents the latest assault on our lives, freedoms, sovereignty and very futures BY the lib-socialist in the most bald-faced and damaging socialist political push since "political correctness".
It is telling of the ultimate arrogance of the liberal that "they" have any kind of viable planning to affect the overall environment of our planet. PURE arrogance!
"DirtyCoal": Get a clue as to the truth of the lies climate-warming, er, change moonies tell. 25 years ago, these same lib-blinded were swearing the mantras of "Global Cooling" and how that would kill us all, unless we gave to liberal-socialist "cures"!!!
There are no answers in the current climate (fill-in-the-blank) moonies which push this baloney == only more lies for money / political power.
Why not use Mg? It burns at 4000 degrees f? A by product is hydrogen gas which can be collected and used in hydrogen furnaces or cars. And is one of the most commom elements on the planet?
A new fresh water Source of ONE MILLION acre feet has been offered to the SNWA, NV and the Bureau which could FILL Lake Mead in nearly the same time period that the Scripps Institution of Oceanography predicts Lake Mead will go dry ! This is possible because the new fresh water Source is non-tributary to all rivers, including the Colorado River.
An average megawatt is the energy produced by the continuous operation of one megawatt of capacity over a period of one year (8,760,000 kilowatt-hours). The seventeen turbine-generators at the Lake Mead powerhouse generate a maximum of 2,074 megawatts of hydroelectric power. Lake Mead averages 1840 megawatts.
Is everyone in Nevada sure THEY WANT TO IGNORE either insuring the power generation at Lake Mead or using the water to produce similar amounts of peak power at other existing facilities ? Releases could also be used to restore the Colorado River Delta....
Development of the Source has been guaranteed not to damage the environment or the water rights of anyone, anywhere. The Source is also legally available and economically feasible to develop.
Ray Walker (Retired Water Rights Analyst) waterrdw@yahoo.com
What a shame that anyone still believes Global Warming to be some kind of fraud! All a reader has to do is look at the peer reviewed literature in the sciences at their local university, talk to any climate researcher, or look to the websites below to know that NVMakz's rant is fact free.
http://www.ipcc.ch
http://www.realclimate.org
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...
What a shame that GW adherents still pimp "peer-reviewed" (by peers who believe the same thing and receive / are in competition for the same eco-grants, lol...) and whose theories are being shot to hell by the week.
"Peer Review" has been long exposed as THE main fraud of GW adherents "peer reviewing' each other in a fight for GW grants and notoriety.
Some insurrection-against-the-machine factoids regarding the upcoming death of the GW fraud on we all......
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles...
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckt...
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialr...
The last is a study on how the MEDIA ITSELF has covered the warming / cooling trends since the beginning of the last century. We are beginning the next COOLING trend. Will Algore ever be forced to return his nobel as he's been a fraud?
The only fact here is the global climate is constantly changing in trends. 25 years ago, the libs were pimping global cooling as THE thing that will harm we all = unless of course we give generously to the liberals and DemocRATS to save us all from ourselves; and on and on and on.
Look, Schaffer = you're losing scientist adherents/moonies by the week. The latest being John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel and Kerry Emmanuel of MIT - once a fierce proponent of the Algorian-religion. Perhaps scientific integrity means something to them once again, rather than whoring themselves for liberal grant cash.....
Wow! If the founder of the weather channel, not actually a scientist, is your standard and second rate websites well, so much for your reasoning skills. You have obviously not looked at my link showing just how broad and deep the consensus is among knowledgeable scientists, institutions, and basically the rest of the world. Start with the AGU, consisting of ~50,000 members and work your way through the list:
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...
Now look carefully at this data and tell the audience first 1)Why less than thirty data points does not matter when analyzing climate. 2) Exactly where the cooling trend is:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
As to your canard regarding a mythical "
lib" cooling meme see here for the nice, and complete debunking of that idiocy:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
Personally, I have zero faith that the entity calling itself NVMakz can or will read the links I have helpfully provided or that it can comprehend them. Any possible readers are invited to carefully and extensively review the primary literature and even attempt to apprehend what peer review means. In fact take a look here to see just how slow witted NVMakz's comments are regarding peer review:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=1...
1) Algore isn't a scientist either, but is the patron-saint of GW pimps. your "list" is losing members by the week. It's just a matter of time before the fraud of liberal-pushed GW propaganda is broken.
2) You explain your own data points! But, basing this information on the now-disgraced James "we gotta get our grant cash from somewhere" Hansen is a real killer to your POV.
3) "Fire and Ice" squashes this propaganda down flat. Scientific media stories from about 110 years of history more than flatten "peered" stuff of more recent vintage.
Eco-facism is failing now. Over a period of what - 14 years - there were only 71 references about the changes in climate. Really, such a small sample?? I chuckle at the propaganda GW-ists will swallow down whole.. Also, it is interesting that the comments start off "pro", then they get thrown under the bus later. Gotta have a longer than 3 or 4-comment attention-span.....
4) "Peer Reviewed" information made up most of the "Inconvenient Truth" propaganda film, as mentioned time and time again in the film (what a waste of time). Peers who parrot each other to be in the good graces of grant-issuers and global eco-politicos aren't to be trusted as "scientists". "IT" has been shredded as any factual essay of GW or CC == peers included.
Slow-witted GW adherents will be almost glacial to get the fact that what their hat is hanging on is going away! This happens with liberal power grabs. The thought that man can be more powerful than nature itself is destructive lib-arrogance unparalleled in modern history.
A few sites from the "peer-corrupted"(mq) won't change this.
Try "Fire and Ice" once again. See how the media itself covered the waxes and wanes of climate variability over a longer timeframe, not just since Algore lost the Presidency.
1)Can you show me where I have referenced Al Gore in any of my missives? You obviously are confused about legitimate researchers and paid propagandists from your side of the aisle.
2) Well, why don't you just say you don't understand the data instead of making up quotes about Dr. James Hansen. Can you point to a single study of his that has fraud? You can't because, unlike your made up quote, there is no fraud in his research or the Goddard Institute for Space Science to be found.
3) Fire and Ice is propaganda. You just don't have the intellectual capability to understand this.
Look, why don't we just cut to chase. Why don't you stop hiding behind a fake name and come out to UNLV and have a talk with a paleoclimatologist and look up the hundreds of research papers showing you to be wrong? In fact, there is a course to be taught this fall on Global Warming. Sign up and challenge a real scientist to show you as completely wrong. Put your money where your mouth is.
1) A Sad deflection when pimping the Sainted Algore and his religion. Obviously, the rest is small-minded filler signifying nothing...
2) The Hansen quote isn't made up at all. Hansen has been a GW pimp for grant money and his political cause for years. He, among others, gave Algore the idea that "the science is in, the scientific argument is over"(para). REAL scientists NEVER believe "the (scientific) argument is over". Hansen, $$-grubbing-politician in a scientist's frock...
3) The media's researched history of the reporting on global climate change is "propaganda"?? There is simply no pro-GW antitdote for it, thus the bail out by you. You don't have the intellectual abilities to know when you're being pimped. Tool!
I'm surely positive the university has a "class on global warming", thanks for playing to type. The public schools keep trying to run the Algore movie as political indoctrination as well... lol.....
We're "right" on the cusp of another 30-year cooling trend in global temperatures. Try and shake off the real agit-prop liberal brainwashing you are using to effect pro-social communist political change in this time and get some fresh air.
Well at least we have established that you are a complete and total moron.
Goodbye
Delude yourself in this way. Seems "par for the course" for most around here.
See 'ya around, quitter......
It is possible to convert coal power plants to inexpensive nuclear plants and also to make inexpensive nuclear plants quickly by using coal plant parts along with a commercially available pebble bed reactor (PBMR, South Africa)that can be buried in an underground silo.
Thank you.
http://www.jimholm.com
That NASA site had to be revised.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
At first they said 1998 was the hottest year.
Now they are saying 1934 was the hottest year.
Here is a good story on the NASA stuff:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/...
Here are articles by scientists that say the earth is moving into a cooling cycle.
Cooling articles:
http://www.odu.edu/ao/instadv/quest/gree...
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/globa...
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/sto...
Here is a story about two Russian scientists that are betting $10,000 that the earth tempature will decrease not increase.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v43...