Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
3 hours ago.
by slinky
BeRight
#1

CLEAN... ENERGY

Offshore wind farms from New Jersey to Virginia took a big step closer to reality with the completion of a review that showed the renewable energy source would not cause major environmental damage, officials said today. Wind projects off the coasts of Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and New Jersey are being studied. The Mid-Atlantic lease proposal follows the Cape Wind project in Massachusetts that was given the go-ahead in 2010 after 9 years of federal review."No developer should have to wait nine or 10 years," for approval, Salazar said. The response from the developers was "DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"

 
 

Member Comments

moderation

absolem- I have been shaking down my membership for Hillary for President contributions.

Posted 108 days ago.

Shopsteward

Anyone who has paid any attention to these forums knows that this is Harrys pet project. He claims to be a local Republican scientist and yet it appears he is an out of town liberal socialist activist

Posted 108 days ago.

Shopsteward

Of course people like Harry look for any sign they can to usher in a more Marxist Govt

Posted 108 days ago.

Shopsteward

Its all about the Benjamins boys

Posted 108 days ago.

Shopsteward

I think Monika Kopacz said it best, Head of NOAA climate project

It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians' - and readers' - attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today's world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.

Posted 108 days ago.

Shopsteward

Of course not, after paying for "anti science propaganda" they figured out how to make money in a Marxist regime.

Posted 108 days ago.

harryanderson

There wasn't much debate among Exxon scientists, who admitted,

". . . scientists generally (agree) gases released by burning fossil fuels could raise global temperatures significantly by the middle of the 21st century — between 2.7 and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit — causing glaciers to melt and sea levels to rise, ‘with generally negative consequences.’”

Not much of a debate there, is there? Seems more like general agreement, doesn't it? After all, isn't that what "generally agree" means?

Posted 108 days ago.

Shopsteward

Right Coaluser, but they don't want to hear that simple fact. Wait till you hear about the Hurricane in Mexico, it will be a clarion call for more Govt power by morons like Harry

Posted 108 days ago.

Shopsteward

Sure ya do Harry, because you are a left wing socialist, I have schooled you many times and will do it agian

Posted 108 days ago.

Coaluser

The debate is not is the earth warming, it is what or who is causing it and is it a natural cyclic phenomenom that occurs every few thousand years. That's the problem the records don't go back far enough..

Posted 108 days ago.

harryanderson

I trust the conclusions of nearly all the world's climate scientists. The fact that Exxon's scientists drew the same conclusions in the 1980's further bolsters the scientific consensus.

From the LAT article:

“Duane LeVine, Exxon’s manager of science and strategy development, gave a primer to the company’s board of directors in 1989, noting that scientists generally agreed gases released by burning fossil fuels could raise global temperatures significantly by the middle of the 21st century — between 2.7 and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit — causing glaciers to melt and sea levels to rise, ‘with generally negative consequences.’”

“’Data confirm that greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere,’ LeVine told the board, according to a copy of his presentation in the Exxon Mobil archive. ‘Fossil fuels contribute most of the CO2.’”

Posted 108 days ago.

Shopsteward

Lol no dear dim Harry, oil companies are learning to profit from idiots

Posted 108 days ago.

Shopsteward

Uh huh Harry you now trust a comapny you accused of "funding anti science propoganda". Shows a lot

Posted 108 days ago.

absolem

Slinky...OWO...friend.sorry for the delay and overlook.....i was happy to see the switch to real sugar...although real sugar is a misnomer in some respects. many like myself may only consider "cane-sugar" as the only genuine real sugar...but the sugar compound is the same regardless of the source. enter sugar beets. the "real" ingredient i was referring to was an illegal substance of the same slang name minus the cola. the caffeine-free classic is "real" enough for me. i get my jolt from coffee. anyone remember the short-lived jolt cola? i never tried it myself. heart-attack in a bottle.

Posted 108 days ago.

harryanderson

There it is. Exxon considered proposed regulation a greater threat to the company’s bottom line than 21st impacts from greenhouse gases.

That was 26 years ago. Now the risks to Exxon have changed. When the risk changes, the policy changes.

Bottom line: Oil companies, as I have repeatedly pointed out, now admit we must reduce the amount of carbon we’re putting in the atmosphere. They consider a carbon tax the preferred way to do this. This policy is also favored by conservative economists like Greg Mankiw and Arthur Laffer.

It’s amazing how politicians can still disavow the effects of too much atmospheric carbon when the largest fossil fuel producers acknowledge it.

Posted 108 days ago.

harryanderson

On Exxon’s policy changes:

“The company’s shift — from embracing the science of climate change to publicly questioning it — emerged from interviews with former and current Exxon Mobil employees, and a review of internal company documents by Columbia University’s Energy & Environmental Reporting Project and the Los Angeles Times.”

htt p://graphics.latimes.c om/exxon-research/

“Brian Flannery, Exxon’s longtime in-house climate expert, outlined the threat in a note to his colleagues in an internal company newsletter in 1989. Government and regulatory efforts to reduce the risk of climate change, Flannery wrote, would ‘alter profoundly the strategic direction of the energy industry.’ And he warned that the impact on the company from those efforts ‘will come sooner … than from climate change itself.’”

The policy reflected the most immediate risk to the company.

Posted 108 days ago.

Guys you can get regular coke made with real sugar at most groceries , I cant take that high fructose corn syrup !

Posted 110 days ago.

Shopsteward

If she were that smart, i doubt she would have been caught in so many mistruths.

Posted 110 days ago.

absolem

The regular cokes and whole milk are a treat for me. I have to do the caffeine free coke and 1% milk. I know...I wussed out to the wife. She let's me get away with a bunch so it is really a small sacrifice.

Posted 110 days ago.

absolem

I almost gave up on you shroom-man. You went radio silent on me. Anyway, what are you snacking on?

Posted 110 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or