Biggest US coal company funded dozens of groups questioning climate change

In fact, the opposite is true. Which seems to be par for the course for climate change deniers.

Coal fired power plants are not generally used for peak power generation. You can bring hydro electric, and nuclear power up to speed much more quickly.

One of the many advantages that gas has over coal is that it can be started and stopped at will, compared to coal, which is a continuous process. You don't raise steam in a coal plant quickly, and you avoid banking the boilers at all costs.

 

Wrong on both counts. First, hydro power is not everywhere. Second, you cannot spool nuclear up and down like coal or natural gas. Do some research.

 

I am still waiting for the science you supposedly read. Remember your post?

So... Spit it out... Don't waste another 43.313 posts running around like a headless chicken.

 

Don't waste your time arguing with climate change deniers. They have already been proven irrelevant as the rest of the world sits up and pays notice to the problems we face while they continue to bleat inane (*)(*)(*)(*) about commies trying to steal their suvs.

 

What a transparantly dishonest construct!

No one is saying that people can't say what they want.

What smart people do say is that when someone finances a public relations campaign intended to further their business interests, and goes to lengths to hide thier connection with that campaign, you have to question the motives of the campaign and the people behind it.

 

That is true. I'm in the solar industry now.

It's amazing how belligerant the climate change denial crowd can be. One does not even have to mention global warming or the environment.

I've seen guys like this make complete fools of themselves in public simply because they saw a shirt with the name of a solar company on it (and more than once, too).

 

Post the research. You're the one who does not know what they're talking about.

Coal fired plant, are just like open hearth furnaces. They are continuous processes. The last thing you ever want to do is shut one down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load_power_plant

 

But you can't question the motives of politically driven witch hunts using government funding for a very highly contentious issue driven mainly by environmentalists in a new 1.5 trillion dollar industry.

 

Read your own link.

 

I'm in the electrical industry it's amazing how belligerent the solar crowd can be. The laws of man and physics have to bend to their will.

 

I'm STILL waiting for the science you supposedly read.

 

Of course and because you never venture out of your bubble you will never see much more than the alarmist pap.

 

Enlighten me with your sources.
Is that 10 posts where you fail to provide the sources you read (I could count them to be accurate but since accuracy seems of little importance to you who cares)? Let me repeat your post one more time.

Still waiting.

 

I know, you are too lazy to look for yourself but I want to warn you, it would also require thinking.

 

Well... Since you claimed this a couple of pages ago:

You should provide these sources? Are they secret? Any particular reason why you evade every request for the sources you read?

I am not lazy... it's just that the sources I find say nothing of what you claim. Especially not sources that would be considered science.

So lets look at that quote again shall we?

So... What science are you reading?
NASA?
ESA?
Dansk meteorologisk Institut?
MET Office?
Ministero della Difesa, Meteo Aeronautica?
Any of those among your sources?
What about any of these Meteorological institutions?
http://www.emetsoc.org/resources/meteorological-and-hydrological-services/

It seems to me that the only lazy person is the guy who can't provide the sources he claims he reads:

 

Published papers are not secret but you have to dig for them because the alarmists blogs like (un)Skeptical Science ignores them. The media hypes every weather event as 'climate change' where the useful idiots think that means AGW.

 

So that is a negative? Your science cannot be found among any of the named?

Ok... Let's look at that post of yours again shall we?

Still waiting for the sources. You even said it was easy to find. That's weird since it seems it's not among what people usually consider scientific institutions.

So... Are you going to make it easy and provide these sources?
I'm still referring to the ones you claim to read here:

 

Your inability to look beyond the media and alarmists is not my problem.

 

It is... If you were an honest person who really wanted clarity and transparency you would provide the sources you claim to read here:

Of course... One could at this point start suspecting that there is something not quite right going on here. I mean... It's been pages now where I have repeatedly asked for these scientific sources you claim to read here:

Science and transparency go hand in hand. Unfortunately I must conclude that you neither read the science you claim here:

Nor do you have the honesty nor the decency to share this science no other recognised scientific institution provides.
I am sad and disappointed Hoosier. I thought you were better than the global scientific community who are hiding the truth according to you.

You sure you can't provide these sources?

 

I am sure a lot of alternative energy companies have spent money promoting climate change. It is the nature of business.

 

Well, more FAIL. The climate-gate emails proved the non-transparency in the new religion along with other examples. You appear to think the new post modern science is something spotless and scientists are somehow not human.

 

Oh dear... The Emails Hoosier? Remember a few pages ago when I said that you can start seeing the same faults in AGW skepticism as with creationists?
That time is running away from them while they are stuck in the past? Thanks for proving that here.

So... While you ponder that shot in the foot you can see if you after around 20 requests can be able to provide the sources you claim to read here:

You don't feel ashamed accusing others of lack of transparency when you can't provide the sources you claim to read here?

 

Evidently your attention span is that of an 8 year old. Evidence is apparently not your forte especially if it is more than 15 minutes old yet you still cling to old alarmist and failed predictions. Cognitive Dissonance?

 

Now now Hoosier... Be nice to yourself.

Still Waiting though:

 

Sorry, like I said before, your inability to investigate and laziness is not my problem.