IIRC, coal supplies about 50% of our electricity and no new refineries have been built in decades – only existing ones have been expanded. Since CO2 now appears to be, for all practical purposes, classified as an actual “air pollutant” AND this decision may now serve as a precedent requiring control of CO2 emissions, ANY future emissions of CO2 will probably now be required to be regulated by the EPA.

Given the implications of “peak oil” would it actually be a bad thing if the EPA clamped down a bit on the profligate use of a non-renewable resource for personal transportation?

It would be wonderful if we used more nuclear/wind/etc power to get rid of coal pollution and leveraged it for plug-in hybrids so we would use less imported oil. And we should do that even though doubling CO2 will be less dire than the alarmists speculate. however, “given the implication of ‘peak oil’ ” I’d say either peak oil or AGW will get us, but not both. if we dont have the fossil fuels to burn, how can they cause a climate calamity, right?

Thanks. I think I have seen that site before. Unfortunately, at one point at a time, it might take me a while to collect all the information I think I need.

We all know that you are a very reasonable person and are probably the type that always looks for the best in people and who always gives people the benefit of the doubt (except when it comes to the interference rule in squash of course ). However some of us, when we see something that walks like a duck, that looks like a duck and that quacks like a duck, are happy to call it a duck. When we see gross distortion of data, manipulation of the historical record and clear exaggeration in the form of the warped predictions of future warming of our planet by climate modellers then I think the less polite ones amongst us are entitled to refer to this sort of deliberate alarmist activity as ‘hysterical exaggeration’. It’s certainly an accurate term IMO in regard to how the current warming trend is reported within the MSM at the very least.

KevinUK

Folks, you have to learn that to third parties you’re only as strong as your weakest point. If you try to say too much, you’ll end up spoiling your best point by including a weak point. And anyone reading your post will find your weakest point like a magnet.

And might I add, wastes a lot of time and space discussing/debating a point (often not all that important) that is not even relevant to the thread. I think it also flags individuals (at times incorrectly) as being less serious or informed about the subject matter.

An excellent bit of advice, one that I am going to have to remember in my political discussion. Of course, the ethics of political discourse is so poor, I am not sure it matters as much… I mean, look at who we elect.

Another way I have put it: “your point does not survive exagerration”.

w.

#128

Unfortunately, IR spectra of CO2 and H2O vapor are almost always in percent transmittance. low resolution and generally taken at high concentration so weakly absorbing bands can be seen. This is a result, I think, of IR spectra being used primarily by organic chemists for structure analysis and using single beam spectrometers rather than for quantitative analysis. I know there are programs and databases like MODTRAN and HITRAN, but they aren’t free and I’m trying to do this stuff with minimal expense.

I happen to think that there’s a valid issue in the discussion of water vapor/CO2 overlap and a good point has been raised, but you spoil your point by going a bridge too far.

Folks, you have to learn that to third parties you’re only as strong as your weakest point. If you try to say too much, you’ll end up spoiling your best point by including a weak point. And anyone reading your post will find your weakest point like a magnet.

So please edit things with that in mind. Re-read your posts and try to take out the weakest point. And don’t please don’t attribute motives to people.