Don’t get mad at me

[brenthutch 383]

I don’t know why folks think I am out to anger them when I just share simple facts.  Here is a good example:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2021/08/02/forget-about-peak-oilwe-havent-even-reached-peak-coal-yet/?sh=2f029bf92a9b

“Indeed, as the pushers of Peak Oil demand theory try in vain to revive their own always-wrong narrative, it now appears that the world has yet to even meet the peak of demand for the least environmentally friendly fuel of all, coal.”

[BIGUN 1,051]

18 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

don’t know why folks think I am out to anger them when I just share simple facts.

The operative word being, "simple." You tend to post headlines, snippets, talking head points, etc. You've yet to do ANY in-depth research  and in many cases, you don't even read the sources you cite. You come across as a very young man not willing to reach their potential and then argue that nobody understands when in-fact; you're well-educated and can be articulate. You served your country, but you don't serve yourself with additional learning or knowledge.  

It's OK to have a position, but once you've been shown that position is inaccurate. many times, given the sources to understand why that position is inaccurate and still beat the same drum - well, it gets frustrating. 

RE: the posted article. I don't think that anyone is going to refute that we still have a dependence on fossil-fuel. For now. We need to reduce and move toward removing coal as a way. Coal releases a number of airborne toxins and pollutants. It includes almost every toxin that kills, The health impact on humans and animals include asthma, brain damage, heart problems, cancer, neurological disorders, and premature death. 

At this point, every country should be moving towards alternative energies. It's a path. 

[olofscience 420]

2 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

RE: the posted article. I don't think that anyone is going to refute that we still have a dependence on fossil-fuel. For now. We need to reduce and move toward removing coal as a way. 

The article was written by "the Editor of Shale Magazine and co-host of the Oil Patch Radio"...

And his point is really stupid - "instead of convincing the US and Europe to reduce fossil fuel use, they should convince countries where coal use is increasing to reduce them instead".

Do as I say but not as I do? Brent is old, but he's not the leader sort of person so he doesn't really know what leading by example means. He's more of a submissive type.

16 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

brain damage, neurological disorders

Brent loves breathing that, it's too late for him unfortunately.

[BIGUN 1,051]

2 minutes ago, olofscience said:

The article was written by "the Editor of Shale Magazine and co-host of the Oil Patch Radio"...

I wasn't aware of that. So, in the end, it's just another talking head point to a failing position. My bad.   

[olofscience 420]

Since the resident troll is back, and contributing absolutely nothing new, here's some interesting reading for anyone who's interested: Climate contrarians predicted the world would cool—it didn’t (arstechnica.com)

[wmw999 2,120]

Some people like poking a stick into an anthill to see the ants all scurry around and up and down the stick. It’s like the kid who thinks any attention is good attention 

Wendy P. 

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

31 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Some people like poking a stick into an anthill to see the ants all scurry around and up and down the stick. It’s like the kid who thinks any attention is good attention 

Wendy P. 

Yup. Nobody has to read his garbage.

Nobody has to reply to it.

[ryoder 1,381]

35 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Yup. Nobody has to read his garbage.

Nobody has to reply to it.

I'm convinced anyone who has not put him on the Ignore List by now, must have a serious streak of masochism.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

20 minutes ago, ryoder said:

I'm convinced anyone who has not put him on the Ignore List by now, must have a serious streak of masochism.

Even on 'ignore', stuff quoted will show up.

 

But, again, just because it's there doesn't mean a response is mandatory.

[BIGUN 1,051]

37 minutes ago, ryoder said:

must have a serious streak of masochism.

Or, a serious streak of faith in his fellow man and soldier. However, that faith has come to an end. 

[Phil1111 910]

I'm surprised to see a guest editorial in Forbes be so far off base. IMO Forbes in generally very credible.

As far as coal prices in China, too bad, once again Brent fails to see past misinformation and personal bias.

"China’s coal-fired power generators have seen profits evaporate amid surging domestic prices, with imports unable to provide much relief amid an ongoing unofficial ban on buying cargoes from major exporter Australia.

Out of 10 listed coal-fired power companies, four reported losses and five others saw first-half profits plunge, according to a report on Chinese energy industry website BJX News on July 27.

The only utility to post a rise in profits was Changyuan Electric, which benefited from its large portfolio of renewable energy, according to Refinitiv analyst Yan Qin.

The dramatic drop in profitability comes amid a surge in domestic thermal coal prices, with SteelHome data showing the benchmark price at Qinhuangdao in northern China ending at 1,009 yuan ($155.47) a tonne on Wednesday."

Edited August 8, 2021 by Phil1111

[jakee 1,254]

Brent: I just share simple facts!

Also Brent: How dare you assume I agree with this article I shared!!

[billvon 2,395]

6 hours ago, BIGUN said:

RE: the posted article. I don't think that anyone is going to refute that we still have a dependence on fossil-fuel. For now. We need to reduce and move toward removing coal as a way. Coal releases a number of airborne toxins and pollutants. It includes almost every toxin that kills, The health impact on humans and animals include asthma, brain damage, heart problems, cancer, neurological disorders, and premature death. 

Yep.  But we are getting better.  

ABT Associates did periodic studies to look at how many Americans were killed by coal power plant pollution.  They did reports every few years.  The results:

2000: 30,000 deaths
2004: 24,000 deaths
2010: 13,000 deaths
2018: 3000 deaths

That's 27,000 fewer deaths a year.  In other words, due to improvements in emission controls, shutting down of dirty coal plants and replacing coal power with renewables, a quarter million more Americans survived death due to coal pollution over the past 20 years.  That's a good thing even if you watch nothing but FOX News.

[brenthutch 383]

So…..because someone doesn’t like who wrote it, more than 350 new coal fired power plants ARE NOT being built?  That seems to be a strange way of thinking.  But then again so is thinking traffic circles and white roofs will mitigate bad weather.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

16 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

So…..because someone doesn’t like who wrote it, more than 350 new coal fired power plants ARE NOT being built?  That seems to be a strange way of thinking.  But then again so is thinking traffic circles and white roofs will mitigate bad weather.

Methinks thou dost post-est too much.

[mistercwood 287]

Rick and Morty - Jerry Unemployed and Annoying - YouTube

[sfzombie13 307]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

due to improvements in emission controls,

this part i have relevant knowledge on.  i worked on the fgd (flue gas desulphurization) project and we built two new stacks in a coal plant.  they installed scrubbers to take out the sulfur.  it was paid for almost a decade before through grants and subsidies.  since they held the money for almost 10 years, when they started the project, it was behind budget.  they passed along the increase to the customers in the form of a rate hike.  and the worst part was that at the same time, for some stupid low number they could have installed co2 scrubbers also, but they chose not to.  hell, since they essentially made us pay for it, they may as well have went the extra few bucks and made it as good as they could, but no.  they did make it better, just damn, why stop just short of the goal line?

[brenthutch 383]

1 minute ago, sfzombie13 said:

this part i have relevant knowledge on.  i worked on the fgd (flue gas desulphurization) project and we built two new stacks in a coal plant.  they installed scrubbers to take out the sulfur.  it was paid for almost a decade before through grants and subsidies.  since they held the money for almost 10 years, when they started the project, it was behind budget.  they passed along the increase to the customers in the form of a rate hike.  and the worst part was that at the same time, for some stupid low number they could have installed co2 scrubbers also, but they chose not to.  hell, since they essentially made us pay for it, they may as well have went the extra few bucks and made it as good as they could, but no.  they did make it better, just damn, why stop just short of the goal line?

CO2 scrubbers 

[brenthutch 383]

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/national-climate-202007
 

US temps for July not even in the top ten.

[brenthutch 383]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

That's 27,000 fewer deaths a year.  In other words, due to improvements in emission controls, shutting down of dirty coal plants and replacing coal power with natural gas 

FIFY

Really you have to be delusional to think that renewables are the driving force behind the reduction of coal use in the US.  Math tells us that it is natural gas.

Edited August 9, 2021 by brenthutch

[wmw999 2,120]

9 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/national-climate-202007
 

US temps for July not even in the top ten.

Well, that is the report for July 2020. And it's number 11, only for the contiguous states. Number 7 for the nation as a whole. But why should you care for accuracy. Your only goal is to goad and piss off. That's not a contribution.

Wendy P.

[brenthutch 383]

11 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Well, that is the report for July 2020. And it's number 11, only for the contiguous states. Number 7 for the nation as a whole. But why should you care for accuracy. Your only goal is to goad and piss off. That's not a contribution.

Wendy P.

Good catch, usually NOAA has US temps by now, I will post updated information when available 

BTW why does information piss folks off?

Edited August 9, 2021 by brenthutch

[JoeWeber 2,297]

32 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Good catch, usually NOAA has US temps by now, I will post updated information when available 

BTW why does information piss folks off?

It doesn't. You just need to work on your delivery. We know you don't suffer from delusions. For sure, you enjoy every minute.

[gowlerk 1,905]

43 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Your only goal is to goad and piss off. That's not a contribution.

Can you not just picture him scouring the usual sites for blurbs he can post here and rubbing his hands in glee as the reactions come pouring in? Seriously, it's getting a little hard not to pity him.

[olofscience 420]

5 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Well, that is the report for July 2020. And it's number 11, only for the contiguous states. Number 7 for the nation as a whole. But why should you care for accuracy. Your only goal is to goad and piss off. That's not a contribution.

Wendy P.

He posted this last time (no sources attributed) and said "here is a preview" (for June 2021):

Guess what? NOAA says:

June 2021 was the 5th warmest June on record for the globe

Final number was not -0.01, it was +0.88, so your "preview" was way, way off.

 

So Brent, why didn't we get the June update?  because your graph was extremely wrong?

 

See my first post for a list of cranks who kept predicting "we're entering a cooling phase" who keep getting proved wrong (and in one case, refusing to pay out a $10,000 bet)

Edited August 9, 2021 by olofscience