Looming environmental rules may lead We Energies to shut down the only major power plant serving Michigan's Upper Peninsula in the next five or six years.
And similar scenarios are playing out across the Midwest, where operators of coal-fired plants - the predominant producers of electricity in the region - are grappling with how to comply with impending U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards limiting emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide and other pollutants from their smokestacks.
WE pays about 17% of all prop-taxes in Marquette and is a major employer--not to mention that Cliffs Mining depends on power from that plant to run its mining operations.
But hey! Who needs Marquette, MI?
*On the "asthma" claim, note that while California's measured 'pollution' decreases, asthma diagnoses increase. But that doesn't bother the Green Goddess worshippers, who'd prefer to sacrifice Marquette, MI. and its residents. Human sacrifice is preferred, ya' know.
More people die from lack of access to cheap, reliable energy than die from emissions.
Of course,it's tough to get that population down from 7 billion to "a a managable 1 billion" if cheap, reliable energy *is* available.
I know for a fact there are conservatives that truly have a grasp on statistics, as it's required coursework for an MBA. But you sure wouldn't know that from reading righty blogs.
Your point? What "statistics are you pointing to?
The statistics which overwhelmingly link pollution and asthma. But why would would you believe those when you all summarily reject overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic global warming, evolution and failure of trickle down. Pick and choose. Pick and choose. Pick and choose.
You mean in the same manner in which you reject all statistical evidence that counters your belief in (alleged) global warming, evolution and the success of trickle down?
I realize you think we on the right are all stupid, but the fact is that we see TWO sets of data, question both and come to a logical conclusion based on the evidence. I see guys like you seeing two sets of evidence and selecting the one that results in bigger government, more taxes and less Liberty. And you choose to ignore the evidence that cooking over dung fires in the cold kills more children than asthma.
The statistics which overwhelmingly link pollution and asthma.
Like in California?
You claim that the diverging data is causation?
Do you have other stats--like, say, for the 1940's/'50's, when there WAS pollution?
Some argue that there is no 'warming.' Others note that for the last 10 years, there IS no 'warming.'
Some postulate, despite solid evidence to the contrary, that CO2 is THE cause of all problems. Sunlight is irrelevant. Sunspot cycles are irrelevant. Volcanoes are irrelevant. Clouds and ocean temps are irrelevant. The "cooling" of the Carter era is irrelevant. ONLY CO2 is relevant.
I'm still waiting for the Cult of the Green Goddess to announce exactly what IS the 'perfect temperature.'
C'mon, Jim. Shoot a number out there! Show us your cards.
Only OZONE is relevant!!
"Like in California?"
See, that's what would be termed an "outlier" by statisticians. That's the point; there could be 99 studies linking pollution and asthma, and you'll grab the 100th disagreeing study and ride it past the point of exhaustion, and I just don't get it.
Contrary to DMan's suggestion, I don't believe all conservatives are stupid. To the contrary, given your encyclopedic grasp of matters Catholic, I'm perfectly aware you're a smart man. If you would put similar effort into understanding climate science, you very likely would come to very different conclusions, unless you are even more entrenched in your support-the-cause-no-matter-what philosophy than I'm guessing you are.
NO ONE suggests that sunlight or sunspot cycles or volcanoes or clouds or ocean temps or ozone are irrelevant. They are well understood, but cannot alone explain the warming that has occurred, INCLUDING THAT WHICH HAS OCCURRED OVER THE PAST 10 YEARS. The fact that you cannot acknowledge that one simple fact (most of your denier cohorts have dropped that one by now) is in itself very telling.
There's been no warming in tha past 10 years according to NASA.
F or O:
It ain't relevant, and I don't want it here.
The deranged anony at 7:19 p.m. has struck yet again. I only thought libruls made idle threats. Hopefully, Dad29 will do the right thing and tell this "person" to take a hike, that such talk does little to facilitate debate.
Thank you kindly, Dad29, for doing the right thing!
And DMan, NASA says no such thing. You should have taken a clue from the word "alarmists" being used in the second sentence. I hate to pull out the Koch guns again, but you just make it too easy: said author, James Taylor, is on the Heartland Institute payroll -- surprise, surprise.
If you want to know what NASA thinks, why not go directly to NASA: "Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years."
The problem with your quote, Jim, is that it's a non-denial denial.
If temps remained steady over the last 12 years, '10 of the 12' could still be 'warm.'
Nice chart, BTW. Evidently we developed some really good instrumentation since 1950.
But that's not the case. Explore the data yourself (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/). NASA offers land, sea and atmospheric (at multiple elevations) global data and all show an increasing upward trend over the past decade.
Post a Comment