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
4 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

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 110 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 110 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 110 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 110 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 110 days ago.

Shopsteward

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

Posted 110 days ago.

Shopsteward

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

Posted 110 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 110 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 110 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 110 days ago.

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

Posted 112 days ago.

Shopsteward

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

Posted 112 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 112 days ago.

absolem

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

Posted 112 days ago.

absolem

Hi there Moderation.....as original as possible. My heart could not take an original with an original ingredient. As you know I have given Hillary credit for many things and her intelligence is one of them. Frankly...between the democrats on the committee apologizing for her to be bothered and those lambasting the process...I believe any blame or actionable offense may be lost in her adoration laden democratic comrades.

Posted 112 days ago.

moderation

Hey absolem, I am enjoying some refreshments currently. I am also watching Hil take the hill. You gotta admit,.....she is one smart cookie.Doncha. Did you say original Coke ?

Posted 112 days ago.

Shopsteward

I guess we shouldnt call someone a failure until you understand what thier goal really is.

Posted 112 days ago.

Oh, now you can see into the future eh ?

Posted 112 days ago.

Shopsteward

So the working class will be hammered once again, business wont pay the mandated increases as they will admittedly pass it on to us, The poor and old who dont get energy vouchers will be hardest hit of course. Sure sounds like a good idea doesnt it? So much for defending the working man

Posted 112 days ago.

Some here resist change and want to live in the past !

Posted 112 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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