Professor weighs in on coal plants, c...

Professor weighs in on coal plants, calling claims by bill's sponsor 'misleading'

There are 59 comments on the TwinCities.com story from Feb 7, 2011, titled Professor weighs in on coal plants, calling claims by bill's sponsor 'misleading'. In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

To support his arguments for new coal-fired power plants in Minnesota, state Rep.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Rice St

Minneapolis, MN

#41 Feb 8, 2011
These People that believe in this Religious Conviction of Global Warming, are the SAME KIND of people that believed Hitler when he told them to take a Quick shower in the Gas Chambers!
cosmicwxdude

Saint Paul, MN

#42 Feb 8, 2011
LBJ wrote:
It cracks me up that "climate change experts" make predictions based on the only accurate data available, which only goes back about a hundred years. Then they extrapolate backwards based on their limited data sample, then go forward with wild predictions. These people just need to feel important(which is common with liberalism in general to create a panic then claim to have the cure). We've had ice ages and warming and mass extinctions (they seem to know this) since long before man's impact was ever felt. Everywhere else in science we keep hearing about advances in research techniques that nullify the old assumptions that were supposedly based on scientific hard data. And in about the 7th grade we learned that you need some known, verifiable values (not guesses)to conduct an accurate experiment and reach a conclusion. Not only am i reasonably sure it's not happening, but many scientists are abandoning the sinking ship of global warming. If I had a research background and a reputation to protect, I'd be looking for the lifeboats before becoming discredited with this bad science. The global warming hangers-on will be the next flat-earthers.
Very eloquently stated. I'm a meteorologist 25yrs in the field now and could not agree with you more. Cheers!

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#43 Feb 8, 2011
Klaatu barada nikto wrote:
When peer reviewers are only peer reviewed by peer reviewers with the same goal, the only answer can be the one you're looking for.
Progress in Conspirology
The field of Conspirology is currently undergoing a rapid transformation. Thanks to the emergence of blogging and more recently the establishment of the Peer-to-Peer review system, researchers are publishing new theories on an almost daily basis. This can all be very confusing to the layperson, so I thought I would write a very quick and rough summary outlining the current state of Conspirology with regards to climate change, some of the recent progress in the field and where I think the field is heading.

Recent Advancements

The main advancement has been the exponential growth of computing power. The sheer amount of computing power available today would have been unimaginable to theorists of the past who had to shout their ideas from street corners to get noticed. In fact a modern calculator has more computing power than the rocket that allegedly put man on the moon. This extra computing power has led to the emergence of blog science. No-one knows how many blogs there are on the Internet (except the NSA who monitor and log all web traffic) but I am going to say the number is 15 million. It's growing all the time. Blogs have been a real help to Conspirology, enabling a new generation of theorists to get involved.

Another advancement has been the recent adoption of the peer-to-peer review system, which emphasizes a suspension of disbelief rather than a more formal evidence based review. Peer-to-peer review has allowed ideas to flourish that would otherwise have not seen the light of day for lack of evidence or common sense.
http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2011/01/conse...
John

Inver Grove Heights, MN

#44 Feb 8, 2011
"Mr. Beard claims that the troposphere has not warmed and that all models predict runaway global warming,'' Abraham said. "Both of these are complete nonsense.'"

Tell us something we don't know.
cosmicwxdude

Saint Paul, MN

#45 Feb 8, 2011
Sss wrote:
LBJ - Where's your data to support that global warming isn't happening? You went on a long diatribe on how 'climate change experts' use a short snipit of data to come up with "wild predictions" but offer no data AT ALL to support that global warming isn't happening. Enlighten us and point to independently(not Koch Bros. funded) data.
Here, how's this; The temperature has, according to a shoddy, non-homogenous, incomplete data set of 150yrs risen by a mere 0.6C or so. They claim this is a global temperature. DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH ERROR is built into these individual sensors? How frequently did they calibrate in the 1890s in Russia and Mongolia? What happens when you move a sensor? Do you think when a thermometer started it's data recieving career in a field in Minnesota back in 1890 when nothing but grassland surrounded it, to today where it is surrounding by a jungle of concrete and asphalt? How much warming is that worth? How do you correct for this? James Hansen's method fails miserably.
cosmicwxdude

Saint Paul, MN

#46 Feb 8, 2011
***CORRECTION***

Do you think when a thermometer started it's data recieving career in a field in Minnesota back in 1890 when nothing but grassland surrounded it, to today where it is surrounding by a jungle of concrete and asphalt had any effect of warming over the period? How much warming is that worth? How do you correct for this? James Hansen's method fails miserably. This just scratches the surface. What about the tree ring data shows temperatures declining past 1960 yet surface records go north and yet they seemed to have omitted this tree ring data in their temperature reconstructions beyond 1960. Ever hear of HIDE THE DECLINE, hmmmm?
TEE

Lakeville, MN

#47 Feb 8, 2011
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
How are the wind turbines in Minnesota doing this year? Last year they froze for more than six months.
As I sit in my living room,-3 degrees, and watch the St. Olaf windmill spin....I'd say pretty well.
cosmicwxdude

Saint Paul, MN

#48 Feb 8, 2011
Skier Rick wrote:
LBJ and other denialists...when was the last time any of you read a climatology book? When? There's a lot more to GW than you've mustered to learn. Go here and indulge your intelligences because I think you have one:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...
really people, you can't have you own set of unsubstantiated facts and expect anyone to have any respect for what you say or wish to bring to the table and discuss here. That site may help any and all who wish to know more about global warming and man's continuous contribution to it.
STAY FAR AWAY FROM REALCLIMATE.ORG and rather go to WATTSUPWITHTHAT.COM for much better, "truthier" insight. Realclimate is part of the problem...colluders. Obfuscators. Basically the scum of the earth if you ask me.
Gomer Pyle

Rochester, MN

#49 Feb 8, 2011
Surprise, Surprise, Surprise. NOT!
LBJ

Minneapolis, MN

#50 Feb 8, 2011
Sss wrote:
LBJ - Where's your data to support that global warming isn't happening? You went on a long diatribe on how 'climate change experts' use a short snipit of data to come up with "wild predictions" but offer no data AT ALL to support that global warming isn't happening. Enlighten us and point to independently(not Koch Bros. funded) data.
The burden of proof is on the purveyors of global warming. I'll explain this to you as I would a second grader. The predictions that are made are based on assumptions drawn from non-existent data because until modern times(less then say, 200 years) there simply was no accurate, repeatable device for measuring temperature. It did not exist, nor was anyone taking any comprehensive, worldwide, controlled data and recording it. Therefore, you can only take an accurate snapshot of about the last hundred years or so(if that). To plot the path of a global warming trend you must first be able to verify temperatures going back a very very long time. The smaller the sample, the less trustworthy will be the conclusion. Any scientist worth their salt will have to admit that "assumptions" about past temps are necessarily speculation because those assumptions no matter how good the science is right now, are arrived at via extrapolation and do not constitute proven fact. It's simply very bad science. Every few years advancements are made in some field of science which renders old data and assumptions obsolete. In the last fifty years science has changed its mind about the earths age so many times, and by such huge amounts it's embarrassing. Yet each time we're told their science is concrete. Until they change their mind that is. Scientists don't want to admit how little of their data is absolute provable fact. One thing this is proof of is that people have decided to claim science proves their political agenda. It doesn't.
Murph

United States

#51 Feb 8, 2011
Neither side has a real understanding of the problem or a quick fix of the problems involved.That fix requires that the emmissions be run thru an algae bio reactor where the carbon dioxide is eaten by the algae and turned into oxygen.A process that is being used in California and other locations right NOW! However,the oil industry has consistantly oppossed research funding for algae fuel thru legislative lobbying.Now they have started to explore algae fuel themselves in a minusle sort of way. Let's hope it isn't consistent with their stopping of electric car reasearch years ago.With air averaging about 21 % oxygen but some polluted cities at 16 or 17% At 17% you begin to suffocate ...at 15% you get hypoxia! So you see if you live in the forests with water and ponds you feel better but the risk and the pollution could spread widely much quicker than some would like you to think!
Ihatenoggers

Minneapolis, MN

#52 Feb 8, 2011
Follow www.globalclimatescam.com

Pay attention: The global climate change people are hucksters from the top down. Starting with Al (douchebag) Gore down to Fritz (Dont' ruin my river valley with a nasty bridge) Mondale. These are the same people who oppose cell phone towers in their backyard. They should be eliminated from society under the heading "opposed to the progress of humankind".
Buck hunter

AOL

#53 Feb 8, 2011
For crying out loud you fools --------- lets get started on nuclear energy plants as soon as possible. Europe is way way ahead of the US on energy!!! They have numerous clean nuclear plants that provide their needs and we sit here letting a few "activists" stop progress!!!
Keep up the Good Fight

Portland, OR

#54 Feb 8, 2011
Global warming is a scam to take people's hard earned assets and to monopolize energy even more than it is monopolized now.
Keep up the Good Fight

Portland, OR

#55 Feb 8, 2011
What democratic rights? Many parts of the articles of the constitution have been suspended without media attention. The patriot act is the biggest rights grab ever and parts of it will again be extended again. Ie. What was considered illegal search and seizure, indefinate lock up based on suspicion without evidence and warrentless wiretaping to name a few just to eliminate the old true democracy. How many years have we gone with only the choice of coke or pepsi, I mean Republicans and Democrats? Just ask the Green Party representatives how much it costs to just be put on the ballot to run for president. What democracy? It costs billions of dollars to make a successful run for president. Wake up, proclaimed Democrats and Republicans take scraps and lies in hopes of feeling a little better for the new 4 years.
USMC 67-70 wrote:
Another academic that has never had a "real" job in his life. Sounds like a very smart guy that is full of himself and anyone that disagrees with his theory is off base. Typical of many of the teaching profession - especially in universities. Thank God we still live in a society where we can exercise our democratic rights!!

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#56 Feb 8, 2011
Fair Game wrote:
Nothing new?.. same old blogs and funded climate BS dumping station crap. A warmongering funded IPCC scientist gave you a piece of his please save my job mind once.. and you (a sheep) held on to it. You can't offer a SINGLE peer reviewed anything except peer reviewed materiel and cooked data from the peer reviewed reviewers who are one in the same. Same old warming song and dance with NO proof, outside of debunked computer models.
Disgusted Christian

Minneapolis, MN

#57 Feb 8, 2011
Mr. Beard shares a personal god with his fellow members of the Christian Republican Alliance -- a far different god than the one Jesus taught jews about 2000 years ago. An educated reading of the New Testament of the Bible, informs us that Christ taught potential believers that they are expected to be meek, loving, forgiving, and charitable to all, to keep only minimal worldly possessions, and to respect God's creations.
Beard and his cohorts certainly don't subscribe to the Christian word spread by Christ. They are arrogant, hateful, unforgiving, and selfish. They worship their own wealth and financial prosperity above all else and as this article demonstrates, have no respect for God's creations.
What more can be said for the state of the educational system in Minnesota that so many people can be so illiterate and put their faith in such as mistaken, literal interpretation of a poor English translation of the Bible. It is truly embarrassing to be among them and I would turn my other cheek, if it were not for the need to protect the remaining blessings left on earth.
What will it take for God to re-awaken these self-proclaimed "reborn Christians?". For everyone's benefit, my they find their way on earth, before they find their way to satan's home.
The Cold Hard Truth

Homer, NE

#59 Feb 9, 2011
I have couple of questions for the global warming true believers. Were you disappointed to learn about the tremendous amount of energy that the house of your high priest Al Gore uses? Do you consider him a hypocrite for that and the types of cars (SUV'S) he drives and the fact that this is making him a very, very wealthy man? Or do you think that it is fine for him to use tens of thousands of dollars of electricty produced by coal burning plants every month to run just one of his houses? How about using a private jet that spews tons of CO2 DIRECTLY into the atmosphere instead of flying commercial or doing like many companies and video conferencing to save money and air pollution? Well, I am waiting for your response on each and every one of these questions, or are you hypocrites too? By the way, do you own a Volt yet, if not, you are a hypocrite and if you do, you are too since they use power from coal fired plants too and now we have to produce more energy and burn more coal to power your car.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#60 Feb 9, 2011
TEE wrote:
<quoted text>
As I sit in my living room,-3 degrees, and watch the St. Olaf windmill spin....I'd say pretty well.
Shut off your electricity and hook up to that windmill... see how comfy you are then.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Shakopee Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: Home Buyers Inspections Inc (Oct '08) Jul 10 upsethomeseller 2
Review: iLoveKickboxing - Savage (Oct '16) May '17 Tammy D 7
News Prison sentence for notable defense attorney Sa... (May '11) Aug '16 Post them 19
News Minnesota Man Drowns While Trying To Save Famil... (Aug '16) Aug '16 Luda 1
News For inmates, a healing process through journaling (May '15) May '15 cowboy chris 5
News Snubbed Girl, 10, Gets Party of a Lifetime (Apr '15) Apr '15 Xstain Fumblement... 7
News Shakopee Residents Asked to Approve High School... (Jan '15) Jan '15 Eleese Elise 1

Shakopee Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Shakopee Mortgages