Slashdot Mirror

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Federal_coal_subsidies#External_Costs_of_Coal_Plants

The study concluded: "Our comprehensive review finds that the best estimate for the total economically quantifiable costs, based on a conservative weighting of many of the study findings, amount to some $345.3 billion, adding close to 17.8/kWh of electricity generated from coal. The low estimate is $175 billion, or over 9/kWh, while the true monetizable costs could be as much as the upper bounds of $523.3 billion, adding close to 26.89/kWh. These and the more difficult to quantify externalities are borne by the general public." The average residential price of electricity at the time of the report is 12/kWh.

Any info from Reporters w/o Borders should be taken with a large grain of salt - is a dubious organization at best, a propaganda mouth piece for special interests. References:

"Reporters Without Borders Unmasked"

"Reporters Without Borders seems to have a geopolitical agenda"

"Source Watch: Reporters Without Borders"

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_money.html

Your source is one of the very right-wing lobbyist organisations dedicated to denying climate science that TFA refers to. They are receiving the billionaires money to spew put stuff like this for useful idiots to repeat. The hypocrisy of them putting out a paper accusing the other side of being funded is hilarious.

Hint: Their own about page: "Only through science and factual information, separating reality from rhetoric, can legislators develop beneficial policies without unintended consequences that might threaten the life, liberty, and prosperity of the citizenry."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute

Hold it a minute...

So you and your sources are saying that poor people are poor because they are lazy and all too happy to be on food stamps. And rich people are rich because millionaires work a million times harder than people who have no money.

Where have I heard this before?

First lets take a look at your sources of information, the National Taxpayers Union:

ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve âoemodelâ bills. Learn more at the Center for Media and Democracy's ALECexposed.org, and check out breaking news on our PRWatch.org site.

I was half interested in taking the time to argue all those very week and self-interested points, but the organization itself is a representation of bias, greed and dishonesty. It speaks for itself.

citation:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Taxpayers_Union

The irony is that there is no convincing evidence that the global climate is actually warming.- Fred Singer

"The atmospheric temperature record between 1978 and 2000 (both from satellites and, independently, from radiosondes) doesn't show a warming. Neither does the ocean." - Fred Singer

Yeah Fred Singer isn't a skeptic he's a denier and one of the worst ones at that.

The attempt to portray him as some sort of reasonable doubter is a PR move, initiated by himself, and nothing more.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/singer-criticises-deniers.html

He's been so dramatically wrong on so many issues where the evidence was incontrovertible and always in the favor of the industry that was paying him, it's hard to conclude that he's a just liar for hire. He's been called out for stating falsehoods so frequently, displayed so little remorse or contrition when caught and about things of such great consequence - the life and death of millions of people- that it's hard not to conclude that he's a textbook sociopath.

http://www.desmogblog.com/s-fred-singer

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer

The list of scientific facts that Fred Singer has denied over the years doesn't paint a pretty picture. He's denied CFCs were responsible for the hole in the ozone, something he termed the "ozone scare".

He's denied that second hand smoke causes the spectrum of diseases second hand smoke does indeed cause.

He's denied that acid rain was a problem or what caused by industry emissions.

He's denied human caused climate change.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2008/01/20/202297/unstoppable-disinformation-every-15-minutes-from-fred-singer/

http://climateinsight.wordpress.com/editorial/merchant-of-doubt-s-fred-singer/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer

and so on ad naseum...

The irony is that there is no convincing evidence that the global climate is actually warming.- Fred Singer

"The atmospheric temperature record between 1978 and 2000 (both from satellites and, independently, from radiosondes) doesn't show a warming. Neither does the ocean." - Fred Singer

Yeah Fred Singer isn't a skeptic he's a denier and one of the worst ones at that.

The attempt to portray him as some sort of reasonable doubter is a PR move, initiated by himself, and nothing more.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/singer-criticises-deniers.html

He's been so dramatically wrong on so many issues where the evidence was incontrovertible and always in the favor of the industry that was paying him, it's hard to conclude that he's a just liar for hire. He's been called out for stating falsehoods so frequently, displayed so little remorse or contrition when caught and about things of such great consequence - the life and death of millions of people- that it's hard not to conclude that he's a textbook sociopath.

http://www.desmogblog.com/s-fred-singer

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer

The list of scientific facts that Fred Singer has denied over the years doesn't paint a pretty picture. He's denied CFCs were responsible for the hole in the ozone, something he termed the "ozone scare".

He's denied that second hand smoke causes the spectrum of diseases second hand smoke does indeed cause.

He's denied that acid rain was a problem or what caused by industry emissions.

He's denied human caused climate change.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2008/01/20/202297/unstoppable-disinformation-every-15-minutes-from-fred-singer/

http://climateinsight.wordpress.com/editorial/merchant-of-doubt-s-fred-singer/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer

and so on ad naseum...

Your math seems odd. You are talking about a house that is 40,000 square feet and 30 feet tall. Sounds more like a concert venue. Kitchen math seems reasonable.

The outdoor leaks aren't really related to any of the math, though. They tend to be underground and migrate through the soil, resulting in seepage over a potentially large area. Its outside, with air movement, so a fairly large leak could not result in high concentrations most places most of the time.

Global leakage is 3 trillion cubic feet/year which is a lot of wasted gas no matter how big your house is.

Not speaking to the overall rightness or wrongness of your post -- BUT -- you got some basic facts about coal plants wrong in your last paragraph:

"Not a single coal fired plant currently operating on the planet existed when I was born (1959), every one of them has been built (and often rebuilt) in my life-time"
30-40yrs (the working life of a coal fired generator)

This links to a list which contains 37 coal plants in the US alone which have been in operation from 1938-1950 (the list stops at 1950 but one can reasonably infer that there are additional plants which were built between 1950 and 1959).

Again, not speaking to your overall point but you may want to consider how to incorporate this data set when making future posts...

Alright - we all have our blind spots, and I'm afraid this is one of my own. I failed to make some pretty obvious connections regarding neoconservatism.

I've pulled up several pages, but this one seems to summarize the things I've been blind to pretty well:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Neo-conservative

It actually becomes pretty obvious, once it's spelled out.

Thanks for the kick in the right direction!!

Fossil fuels should be more expensive. If you forced fossil fuels to internalize all the external costs (climate change, asthma, mercury poisoning, acid deposition, runoff, miner deaths, environmental degradation, etc.), alternative energy would be very competitive, and there wouldn't be a coal plant on Earth that didn't scrub its emissions until they smelled of pine and lavender.

The reason is that it would require China to make REAL HONEST CHANGES, and that is not going to happen. Right now, they are by far the largest polluter in the world. By 2015-6, they are expected to account for 1/2 of all CO2 emissions. Before 2020, they are expected to account for more than 1/2 of all emissions that man has EVER done.
So, what would it take to stop this? Well, China is building 1-3 new 1GW coal plant EACH WEEK. Worse, they do not run pollution controls on these. At the same time, USA is shutting down ours, and switching to NG (due to economics).
Here is a list of closing coal plants and here is a list of proposed or intended to be constructed coal plants.

If you sort the closing plants based on the year, you will see several hundred plants are scheduled to be closed (with more expected).
OTOH, if you sort the NEW coal plants on status, and then go to the end of the table, you will find that there are 4 new plants in upcoming, 4 in progressing/projected/startup. More importantly, there are a LARGE number of ABANDONED and CANCELED plants. Why? Because NG is too cheap to go after Coal.

As such, America's Co2 emissions will continue to plummet. The problem is, that even if we shut down 100% of our emissions today, within 2 years, China will emit our same amount.

The ONLY way to stop this, is for America, and ideally the west, to put a tax on ALL GOODS based on where they come from. In addition, the CO2 should not be based on estimates, or local monitoring (china cheats horrible at this), but should be based on sat monitoring of CO2(out) - CO2(in). The hard part is getting nations to put the tax based on where the CO2 comes from. It is NOT ppl, but manufacturing that decide this. Basically, the emissions should be tied to emissions PER $ GDP. In addition, it needs to start low and build up over time. If you do that, you give nations and economies time to adjust.

The reason is that it would require China to make REAL HONEST CHANGES, and that is not going to happen. Right now, they are by far the largest polluter in the world. By 2015-6, they are expected to account for 1/2 of all CO2 emissions. Before 2020, they are expected to account for more than 1/2 of all emissions that man has EVER done.
So, what would it take to stop this? Well, China is building 1-3 new 1GW coal plant EACH WEEK. Worse, they do not run pollution controls on these. At the same time, USA is shutting down ours, and switching to NG (due to economics).
Here is a list of closing coal plants and here is a list of proposed or intended to be constructed coal plants.

If you sort the closing plants based on the year, you will see several hundred plants are scheduled to be closed (with more expected).
OTOH, if you sort the NEW coal plants on status, and then go to the end of the table, you will find that there are 4 new plants in upcoming, 4 in progressing/projected/startup. More importantly, there are a LARGE number of ABANDONED and CANCELED plants. Why? Because NG is too cheap to go after Coal.

As such, America's Co2 emissions will continue to plummet. The problem is, that even if we shut down 100% of our emissions today, within 2 years, China will emit our same amount.

The ONLY way to stop this, is for America, and ideally the west, to put a tax on ALL GOODS based on where they come from. In addition, the CO2 should not be based on estimates, or local monitoring (china cheats horrible at this), but should be based on sat monitoring of CO2(out) - CO2(in). The hard part is getting nations to put the tax based on where the CO2 comes from. It is NOT ppl, but manufacturing that decide this. Basically, the emissions should be tied to emissions PER $ GDP. In addition, it needs to start low and build up over time. If you do that, you give nations and economies time to adjust.

In June 2010, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) said $557 billion was spent to subsidize fossil fuels globally in 2008, compared to $43 billion in support of renewable energy.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Federal_coal_subsidies

Dr. Timothy Ball or whomever disagrees, they're just denialists!

Ball is not a denier, he's a shill, he's not just wrong, he's paid to lie.
Meat from the link:
- "Dr. Ball was a former professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg between 1988 to 1996. The University of Winnipeg never had a climatology department.".
- Statement of Defence by the Calgary Herald [in Ball vs Johnson] - “The Plantiff (Dr. Ball) is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”

So he's not a trained climatologist but can point to Tasmania on a map, and the people who publish his propaganda claim under oath that he is a FF shill. At least the Herald had the decency to be honest about cash for comment (when under the threat of legal punishment), after all, cash for comment has been a pillar of the MSM's business model since day one.

Influential people deny AGW for the same reasons influential people denied, pea-soup fog, acid rain and the health effects of smoking and astbestos. It's an existential threat to their economic and political power. The problem with denying reality is that sooner or later it is forced upon you. Coal fired generators are replaced every 30-40 years, but what would the entire coal industry be worth in 10yrs time if every time a generator was scheduled to be replaced, it was replaced with something that didn't burn coal? The economy would not collapse, the coal industry would, people would simply shift their investments to the clean energy market and leave the Luddites in the coal industry where they belong, in the past. The coal industry are fighting a hearts and minds campaign against climate science, they are fighting for their corporate lives and reality is starting to overwhelm them, it would be a mistake to expect them to be intellectually reasonable and reinvest their riches.

Bill hr254 has died in committee for over a decade.

The sludge industry makes billions spreading you and your neighbors sh!t on farm fields....and they like to do it in secret, cause, well, you know - its disgusting/revolting/dangerous/creates superbugs/un-american/u pick the description.

In the end, u r eating the end of the line of a sewage treatment plant.

I wonder how much of our healthcare problems in this country are caused by using effluent, septage, or sewage in food production for people?

I think this is as big, or a bigger issue, than GMO.

If you think GMO is bad, stop eating cheese - most cheese consumed in USA comes from GMO organisims that are centrafuged to pick out the enzyme which causes milk to curdle.

So, then, you concur that Einstein was a journal-published doctor of the science of physics. And you agree that Watts is not journal-published and is not a doctor, nor a master, nor even a bachelor of... well according to this not of anything.

I'm not sure how you jump from "journal-published PhD" to "no credentials", can you explain that a little better? You somehow equate the credentials of a "non-established but journal-published PhD" with "non-established hack with no degree whatsoever". You know who else is a non-established hack with no degree? A few billion people who I also don't listen to when it comes to complicated science.

Watts is certainly qualified to have an opinion. Opinions are fine. It's his statements of fact which are wrong. Watts is a dum-dum spouting dum-dum nonsense and trying to heckle real scientists. It's a free country and he's allowed to do that, and people like you are allowed to have the "opinion" that he's a real smart guy, but please forgive the rest of us for disagreeing.

Yeah that's right, when someone points out what libertarianism is, has been and what it actually advocates with the rhetoric of the "limited government, maximum liberty" pulled out of airy fairy land where they like to keep it, you act as though someone has aggrieved you in some particularly outrageous way. On top of everything else, you're a thin-skinned bunch with an exaggerated sense of entitlement to nearly everything on the earth, including respect for your planet-destroying deregulatory policies.

In fact, what libertarians are is pathological liars. You just told me and everyone else that libertarians are "centrist" and "moderate". What exactly are they centrist about? Because last I knew centrist was sort of a mid-point between extremes. In fact your party is defined as nothing BUT extremes in personal ( I can choose not not serve *niggers* if I damn well please ! You should be able to sell yourself into indentured servitude if that's what you decide to do! ) and corporate "liberty" , which is another name for environment destroying de-regulatory policies and social Darwinism.

. Somehow you think that advocating extremes in both corporate lawlessness and personal predatory, anti-social behaviour necessarily constitutes some form of "centrist" position irrespective of real world consequences.

Tell us again how libertarians are against Big Business when your party ran billionaire and budding mass-murderer David fucking Koch as it's vice-presidential candidate in 1980, from which position he advocated for all the "centrist moderate" positions we all can feel good about, you know, things like the abolition of the FBI, the abolition of the CIA , the abolition of public schools , the abolition of social security etc etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_family

Oh and all of your "think tanks" - the Cato Institute, the Reason Foundation, the Fraser Institute , the Heritage Foundation are ALL funded by Exxon Mobil and right wing ideologues with the last name of .. whoa, what's this? "Koch" who also happens to be , whoa what's this?? Reason' Foundation's trustee while the rest of its officers, guys like Mike Flynn, are in a revolving door relationship with "centrist" organizations like ALEC who ran the "centrist" "global warming Ted Kaszinsky / Charles Manson" billboard .

http://alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed

and the rest is chock to the gills with former Big Tobacco / cancer science deniers .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reason_Foundation

Yeah , libertarians are "centrist moderates" all right. Well, either that or they're Machiavellian psychopaths who see their holy ends as justifying any means whatsoever, especially the means of systematically and knowingly lying about who they are and what they represent.

Hey! How do you know when a libertarian is lying? His lips are moving.

You're welcome. What the fuck is REPUTABLE? Someone who you have personally dealt with? Someone everyone can trust? No such person exists universally, nice Straw Man.

But anyway, here are a bunch of more reports of this with SOURCES, if you don't think the Wikipedia article is correct. As far as them being REPUTABLE, that's open to opinion. Any random asshole YOU quote from won't be REPUTABLE to me. So there.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/03/diebolds-political-machine

http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/30/technology/election_diebold/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Diebold_Election_Systems

Your ears must hurt from having your fingers "rammed" in them so hard. You're welcome.

This is one of the most misinformed comments I have ever seen on /. You clearly have no knowledge whatsoever about the Indian farmer suicide problem, which began years before Monsanto started selling GM seed in India, and is absolutely nothing to do with the company. The suicides are, according to most analyses I've seen, usually linked closely with widespread crop failures which follow monsoon drought seasons. It's a climate problem, not a Monsanto problem.

If you check your own source, it states: "monsoons leading to a series of droughts, lack of better prices, exploitation by Middlemen, all of which have led to a series of suicides committed by farmers across India." If the droughts were the main cause then prices would go up from lack of supply. Since prices are falling, the pricing problem is largely for other reasons, including middlemen like Monsanto.

And farmer suicide being the #2 killer in India? That's so stupid it hurts to read. If you check the WHO mortality data, you'll find non-communicable diseases and infectious diseases account for 9/10 of the top ten causes of death, with accidental injury being the 10th.

Again, if you check your own source, the WHO data is irrelevant since it's for all of India, not just farmers. If you check your Wikipedia source, this states that farmer suicides are increasing.

Please, in future, try not to comment until you have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

You would do well to take your own advice; but then apologists rarely do.

Additional sources: Monsanto in India and Vandana Shiva.

http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/04/06/139231/majority-of-landmark-cancer-studies-cannot-be-replicated

http://www.thelocal.se/39070/20120213/

So far, around 150 children in Sweden have developed narcolepsy from the Pandemrixswine flu vaccine, but that number could rise, according to Tomas Norberg, chair of the Swedish Narcolepsy Association (Narkolepsiföreningen).

http://dangerousprescriptiondrugs.weebly.com/flu-vaccine--narcolepsy.html

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=10

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Legislative_Exchange_Council

There's stuff like the Pentagon's military analyst program. See

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pentagon_military_analyst_program

In fact, media massaging is so pervasive in the political culture that even local pols do it. Check this out:

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/scott-walker-john-doe-investigation-explained

Here is a post a few spots up that completely negates your statement:

Richard Lindzen. Wasn't he the guy who was recently debunked and had his papers withdrawn from publication because he was being paid for his position?

The second a scientist takes on penny from an oil company, even after his work is published, he's instantly discredited, regardless of the quality or accuracy of his work. Yet, it is perfectly acceptable for a scientist to take money in the form of a grant from a government that stands to gain power over citizens.

Rubbish. Lindzen didn't have his livelihood threatened, that's what the poster I was responding to insinuated. Being criticised is another thing entirely. Lindzen has had a long comfortable career. He didn't suffer for his opinions.

He was pilloried though for LYING about his funding. See http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen : "in 2007, Lindzen wrote that "his research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies." Which was untrue.

And, FYI, governments already have " power over citizens". I don't understand where you conspiracy nutjobs get the idea that global warming is a political issue that somehow helps commies. It doesn't help ANYONE. It's going to fuck us all.

Elsewhere Watts has claimed that this faulty sensor data undermines the entire credibility of AGW theories.

Sticking only with the first claim, the video explicitly says that Watts was shown to be wrong. The temp data was not so corrupted and inaccurate that it materially effected the conclusions based on that data.

It would be a scientific footnote , and certainly nothing non-scientist Watts would go on a crusade over, if the inaccuracies he was pursuing were known to have no material effect on the models apriori. He went at this making broad claims about the ramifications of the inaccuracies, all of which claims were shown to be false.

If all you know about Anthony Watts is from this video, google Anthony Watts denier to get at the substance of the critical arguments with his activities and the positions he's taken.

There might be soem slog inthe results so here are a couple of informative ones to get you started:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts

Remember the Greening Earth Society?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Greening_Earth_Society

In the late 1990s I remember they were out there with an interesting take that not only was the greenhouse effect real, but that we should promote it because it would "make Greenland green again" and otherwise unlock many areas of tundra and for conventional agriculture and human expansion.

I agree that you should subsidize research, not production. But the fact is that coal is also subsidized, and therefore it is only fair to subsidize the competition too - to level the playing field. They compete on the electricity market.

Coal subsidy references:
Europe: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/10/us-eu-coal-idUSTRE6B93D420101210
USA: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Federal_coal_subsidies
Australia: http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/11/01/nsws-great-big-coal-subsidy-scandal/
China (no source, as you don't need to subsidize something that is already state owned)

which has contributed to a plunge in prices as government subsidies have been curbed

Corn costs more to produce than we (or ethanol manufacturers) pay for it.
Coal power has higher costs than we see.

This is all because of government subsidsy. In the case of corn it keeps the price of corn artificially low and the farmer paid. The problem now is that many subsidies have outlived their usefulness but continue own because of the political clout of the companies/groups recieving them, and right now, the government has little or no money to subsidize other things. To me at least, it would make sense to subsideize a promising technolgy and give it a boost, instead we always cut the new guy, while the old belchers with the power, clout, and money (having extra saved from subsidies helps) get paid.

Oh for fuck's sake, you accuse a respected scientist of lying and now Inhofe is your "last word" reference, seriously? - Just how naive are you?

Energy In Depth is a shill front for the Oil and Gas industry. Do you really trust that information?

Actually, a lie is exactly what it is. Or, more accurately, it's hysterical propaganda (originally published in that prestigious scientific journal Forbes Magazine) by a pretend scientist (who uses the term "alarmist" no fewer than 14 times in this 567-word, 9-paragraph pile of fresh, steaming nonsense) who quacks on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute (an organization whose "work" has been funded by an array of right-wing billionaire's foundations, tobacco companies, and Exxon Mobil), based on junk science by a well-known climate skeptic and "intelligent design" advocate who has made a fundamental scientific error by confusing correlation with causation.

Nothing to see here. Move along,

Actually, a lie is exactly what it is. Or, more accurately, it's hysterical propaganda (originally published in that prestigious scientific journal Forbes Magazine) by a pretend scientist (who uses the term "alarmist" no fewer than 14 times in this 567-word, 9-paragraph pile of fresh, steaming nonsense) who quacks on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute (an organization whose "work" has been funded by an array of right-wing billionaire's foundations, tobacco companies, and Exxon Mobil), based on junk science by a well-known climate skeptic and "intelligent design" advocate who has made a fundamental scientific error by confusing correlation with causation.

Nothing to see here. Move along,

By the way, you should notice the source of the first link in this article is from the leading conservative think-tank opposing the existence of Global Warming.

Not only that, but the "Heartland Institute" is funded by Exxon. They're also quite happy to downplay the dangers of smoking in return for the funding they get from tobacco companies.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

They ought to calm down though. When the word "Alarmist" appears 14 times in a short news article, there can't be many who don't realise they are reading propaganda rather than news.

Yes, and the first thing I do when I see a study about something as controversial as global warming is to check on the author:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer

Strangely enough, all those scientists who doubts the global warming seem to have some connections with oil companies...

I find it hard to believe that anybody actually believed that the upshot of overthrowing Iraq would be cheap oil -- unless, of course, the whole invasion really was a pretext to try to grab the oil.

The oil aspect of the Iraq invasion wasn't so much about us getting the oil as it was everyone else not getting it. Saddam was talking to everyone under the sun about selling oil if only they would help him get the UN sanctions removed. Had the Iraq invasion not happened Iraq would today be a huge oil exporter and likely selling it against any currency that isn't the US dollar. This idea was practically the purpose of the PNAC of which a good portion of the Bush administration were members or original signatories.

There are indeed such websites:

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Willie_Soon#Funding

Actually former secretary of homeland security, but the point is still valid:

http://www.google.com/search?q=michael+chertoff
http://www.cov.com/mchertoff/
http://gawker.com/5437499/why-is-michael-chertoff-so-excited-about-full+body-scanners
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_Chertoff
http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2010/11/19/michael-chertoff-behind-tsa-pornoscanners/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/fear_pays_chertoff_n_787711.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123102821.html
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/history/biography_0116.shtm
http://www.americablog.com/2010/11/airport-full-body-scanners-are-made-by.html
http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Chertoff_Michael
etc.

It's not bankrupt, the existing comparison you are trying to enforce is. It's one of the basic facts of the two industrys that a whole hell of a lot less people are killed mining uranium or transporting either raw ores or processed fuels than are killed mining coal or transporting it. It's admittedly sloppy of the parent poster to compare US and Japanese deaths, but unless the Japanese are doing 10 times better on everything from mine safety to particulate scrubbing, you could total all the indirect deaths from both Coal and Nuclear and, excluding none of either, get the OPs numbers. Adding those indirect deaths for nuclear you claim he's left out might not change things at all.
In the U.S. alone, more than 100,000 coal miners were killed in accidents over the past century. Modern mining in the U.S. is safer than that average, but still results in approximately 30 deaths per year. Transportation related deaths from coal, again for the US, vary more significantly than mine fatalities so I'll calculate and give a high year/low year range (as of the last 28 years): 3 to 45 occupational deaths from coal transportation and 60 to 250 public deaths from coal transportation.

Deaths from medical conditions related to coal chemicals exposure - I could give you a number, but it's enormously higher than those two indirect death types above and you obviously wouldn't believe it. You may not believe these people either, but I've found you a source that isn't just wikipedia and isn't behind a pay firewall, and has numbers about as current as possible (2010) - anyone wanting to argue these numbers, you'd better at least meet those three criteria, or expect to be called an industry shill.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=External_costs_of_coal

|

SPOILER WARNING - SITE RESULTS BELOW

|

Now that some people have clicked the link, here's their most important numbers: 13,200 premature deaths in 2010, as well as 9,700 additional hospitalizations and 20,000 heart attacks.

Disclosure: I live in appalachia - I've buried some of those fatalities. I could drive less than fifty miles from my home and be in a community which lost every adult male of working age in the same day once. I also have lived near enough Oak Ridge, TN, in the past that I've seen DOE's trucks and trains hauling nuclear material to compare to the many coal trucks I see on the road, and trains on the railroads. I'm a degree holding engineer and can make a pretty good estimate of the relative maintenance and safety systems of those various trucks and train cars, and I have actually been a legally recognised expert witness as an accident inspector. All that I could personally say is still anecdotal, but my anecdotal opinion is coal is a vicious killer of thousands and the people who can overlook it are only able to do so because the deaths happen disproportionately to a class of people they have been trained to ignore or simply not care about. I dislike Nuclear because it is bad in some of the same ways, but have to admit it is on a significantly smaller scale.

Sorry, this comment is invalidated by its patently reactionary bias. Bush DID skip military service -- in fact he blatantly avoided even the appearance of it. You knew that. Shame on you. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_W._Bush's_military_service

then I trust the free market to make the right decision and choose the seed that is best for the food supply.

That, actually, is a mistake in an era of regulatory capture and corporatism. You think that only applies to the phone company and ISPs?

Screwmaster's This sentiment is correct. Monsanto, specifically, has been suing farms not using their seeds as well. Here's the details:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goliath_and_David:_Monsanto's_Legal_Battles_against_Farmers

http://nelsonfarm.net/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/26/eveningnews/main4048288.shtml

So much for a free market...

- Dan.

Please cite a case where a farmer was made responsible for pollen from a Monsanto product getting into his area.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goliath_and_David:_Monsanto's_Legal_Battles_against_Farmers#Monsanto_v._Percy_Schmeiser

A 2000 Environment News Service article on the Canadian federal court judgment noted "Monsanto did not directly try to explain how the Roundup Ready seed got there. "Whether Mr. Schmeiser knew of the matter or not matters not at all", said Roger Hughes, a Monsanto attorney quoted by the Western Producer, a Canadian agriculture magazine.... 'It was a very frightening thing, because they said it doesn't matter how it gets into a farmer's field; it's their property," Schmeiser said, in an interview with Agweek. "If it gets in by wind or cross-pollination, that doesn't matter'". "The legal basis for Monsanto's successful claim for patent infringement was the courts' recognition that they could maintain patent protection in the patented gene even when it had passed by cross-fertilization into Schmeiser's canola crop"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser

Regarding the question of patent rights and the farmer's right to use seed taken from his fields, Monsanto said that because they hold a patent on the gene, and on canola cells containing the gene, they have a legal right to control its use, including the replanting of seed collected from plants with the gene which grew accidentally in someone else's field.

Now, the focus seemed to be on the fact that Schmeiser replanted seed from the contaminated field after realizing that 60% of that field was Roundup-resistant. However, some of the tertiary comments made by Monsanto hint at something a bit more nefarious.

take your pick: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Comparative_electrical_generation_costs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

and PV's still coming down...

By no means am I advocating China's behavior here, but the US has a rather lengthly track record of similar nasty abuses.

Take for instance, the Tuskegee syphilis study.

Or, if that isnt your cup of tea, and you want 1:1 correlations-- How about the US's forced sterilization procedures it enacted for awhile?

Then you have the whole government neglect in the Monsanto chemical contamination horror-fest...

The real difference between the US and China, is that in the US there is government interest in keeping up appearances. Not so in China.

...and as the rebuttal, you post a link from a pro-oil-and-gas drilling industry front group formed by the American Petroleum Institute, the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and dozens of additional industry organizations specifically set up for the purpose of denouncing legislation proposed by a representative from Colorado to regulate underground hydraulic fracturing fluids? A group funded by the El Paso Corporation, XTO Energy, Occidental Petroleum, BP, Anadarko, Marathon, EnCana, Chevron, Talisman, Shell, API, the Independent Petroleum Association of America, Halliburton, Schlumberger and the Ohio Oil and Gas Association? A website registered by the PR firm Dittus Communications (now known as FD Americas Public Affairs) which boasts on its website that "energy clients have formed the backbone of FD Americas Public Affairs’ clientele for more than a decade."? With clients such as Alabama Power, American Energy Alliance, Center for Clean Air Policy, Consumer Energy Alliance, FutureGen, Georgia Power, Independent Petroleum Association of America, and the Institute for Energy Research?

And the phone number they have, (202) 346-8825, is the same phone number as the number for the previously mentioned Institute for Energy Research, an organization whose President (Robert L. Bradley) was formerly Director of Public Relations Policy at Enron and a former speechwriter for their old CEO Kenneth Lay... you mean THAT website?

I wonder why you posted anonymously...

...and as the rebuttal, you post a link from a pro-oil-and-gas drilling industry front group formed by the American Petroleum Institute, the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and dozens of additional industry organizations specifically set up for the purpose of denouncing legislation proposed by a representative from Colorado to regulate underground hydraulic fracturing fluids? A group funded by the El Paso Corporation, XTO Energy, Occidental Petroleum, BP, Anadarko, Marathon, EnCana, Chevron, Talisman, Shell, API, the Independent Petroleum Association of America, Halliburton, Schlumberger and the Ohio Oil and Gas Association? A website registered by the PR firm Dittus Communications (now known as FD Americas Public Affairs) which boasts on its website that "energy clients have formed the backbone of FD Americas Public Affairs’ clientele for more than a decade."? With clients such as Alabama Power, American Energy Alliance, Center for Clean Air Policy, Consumer Energy Alliance, FutureGen, Georgia Power, Independent Petroleum Association of America, and the Institute for Energy Research?

And the phone number they have, (202) 346-8825, is the same phone number as the number for the previously mentioned Institute for Energy Research, an organization whose President (Robert L. Bradley) was formerly Director of Public Relations Policy at Enron and a former speechwriter for their old CEO Kenneth Lay... you mean THAT website?

I wonder why you posted anonymously...

In 2005, during the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, King said the crosshairs ought to be set on the news media, which weren't tough enough on her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, rather than Karl Rove. King also suggested that the media "be shot" for pursuing the story and identifying White House aide Karl Rove as the alledged leaker.[6]

By the way, I went through that link you provided and I see enormous bias against him on that page. It's oozing through the page, everything, from concentrating on the loss of 2008 and not at all paying attention to the years 1998-2008, and then 2009 - now, when all of his investments were outperforming the market.

Even the silver market alone, silver went up from about $8 (point of entry for many) to about $30 now, so even on that single part of investment - where is this 40%-70% loss?

The gold is up from about 300 prior to 2000 to 1373 and it has gone over 1440 already. $100 dips on a day are common in bull markets in gold, but it eventually recovers.

That page was put together with extreme bias against Schiff, but it's OK, people on the 'mainstream' side are the ones putting that page together it looks like. A simple example is when they write about the Senate elections, where Schiff gont 23% in a 3 way run. It doesn't have any facts that are important, like the fact that Schiff was an unknown name before that Senate run, the fact that McMahon outspent him 40:1 easy, and the fact that Rob Simmons got out of the elections but then came back into it after it became too obvious that Schiff could win and the Republican establishment was trying to make sure he doesn't.

He is very popular, he is correct on the economy. The video in my sig shows the guy explain in vivid details the incoming collapse of the housing bubble during a 2006 meeting, where he explained the reasons behind the incoming collapse.

There are probably hundreds of videos with him where he explains what's coming and with these so called 'mainstream economists' laughing at him almost hysterically. He is accurate in his assessment of the economy, much more so than the gov't charlatans like Bernanke quotes - who has been constantly wrong, yet most would say that Bernanke is the person to listen to, while Schiff is 'fringe'. Well then, I prefer the 'fringe' in this case. The 'fringe' in this case has shown itself to be correct, has shown the understanding of the underlying fundamentals of economics.

Also your contention that Schiff is somehow there to get the 'poor' and to 'redistribute' their money to the rich is very offensive. You are normally wrong about things, but in this case you are also displaying your ugly sides. I used to see you only as a Marxist type, but now I also see you as a very unpleasant person.

Schiff is helping his clients who have very little capital to start with, and he is helping them to keep their money and to invest wisely so hopefully those will be the people with real money and real savings, so they will be able to invest once the US economy crashes (and it will) due to inflation/debt/deficit/government spending/regulations/laws/corruption. It is going to crash and the people investing with Schiff will be the ones in a position to restart investment into US economy when nobody else will be able to, as all their savings vanish.

You have displayed here probably the worst of yourself that I have ever observed so far.

Note that this video is from "ReasonTV", AKA, The Reason Foundation -- one of the most prolific sources of anti-rail propaganda and misinformation in the U.S.

They get a lot of funding from airlines, oil companies, and car manufacturers...

This stuff was politicized when Reagan came to power, long before the issues you cite in your second link. Never mind also that the link is from an organization whose sole focus is to argue against climate change via a name that sounds innocuous and is misleading at best.

I'm skeptical of the notion that he no longer has Harper's ear, given his role in the Conservatives' rise to power. Moreover, I suspect a goodly chunk of the Canadian voting public (mostly West of Ontario) don't think what he says is really that outrageous.

Given the often controversial/incendiary nature of some of Flanagan's comments (not to mention the content of some of his books), I'd bet the truth is closer to formley publicly aknowledged advisor...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tom_Flanagan

I would like to think that he recanted because enough Canadians, like me, e-mailed him directly to express outrage and make clear that he---as a [former?] close advisor to PM Harper---made it clear just how out of alignment the Conservative Party is with the Canadian moral compass.

Of course, given the following:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tom_Flanagan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Flanagan_(political_scientist)

I recognize that that's pretty much a fantasy on my part, and that parent is closer to the truth.

*sigh* I'm not super-proud of being a Canuck lately...

Monetizing debt is not the same as defaulting.

- I disagree. Monetizing debt is worse than just defaulting, selling assets and repaying maybe 20-35% on the dollar in the current dollars, whatever they are worth (though, seriously, USD is 30% below its value of 10 years ago in just currencies, and its maybe 300%-500% below in various commodities).

Monetizing debt means a dishonest way to buy back bonds, it's dishonest and it will destroy the dollar on one hand and will push long term interest up into double digits on another. Even if there is no hyper inflation immediately, the double digit interest rates will preclude any economic activity in US for a long time.

Our GDP still outstrips our debt obligations

- again, military spending, bail outs, bond sales, stimulus, all of this nonsense is part of this GDP.

What is US producing? Submarines I guess, because consumer goods show 50Billion/month trade deficit. Well, good luck eating submarines.

and tax rates on the wealthiest are still paltry compared to where they were in the '60's.

- I am sorry, that's just such a (expletive deleted) argument. First of all nobody was paying those stupid rates at the time, the effective taxes were LOWER than what the effective taxes today, that's why the capital is leaving. Secondly, why do you even think that there should be any income taxes at all, especially when what is actually LACKING is capital? Unbelievable.

We're not in any danger over the next decade unless the government gets really boneheaded

- hey, if putting hands over your ears and shouting "not listening" is working for you, it's fine then.

I moved all money into gold quite a while ago, seems to me to make more sense. Got out of North America, working on a business in Europe/Asia, targeting non-Americans as consumers, because I do think that what US gov't is doing will destroy economy of US within 1-2 years from now. QE2 is a very good indicator - Fed printing as much money in 6-7 months to buy those US bonds as much US gov't is aiming at borrowing by June 2011. AFAIC this is debt monetization and now and it is Fed being the lender of last resort to US gov't.

Why should Fed buy those bonds? Looks to me like nobody else is going to, that's why. Looks to me the US will soon have to buy back the bonds that are about to roll over, that's why. It's falling down right in front of us.

You know what you are reminding me of? Bernanke, when he was sitting in 2006, 2007 an 2008, saying: there is nothing going on, no housing bubble, no recession, nothing.

I think what you mean is the USD may not remain being the world reserve currency, which is not nearly the same thing as becoming irrelevant.

- what I actually mean, is that you'll be carrying those dollars in a little wheelbarrow to buy whatever you still can, but don't leave the load in front of a store, somebody may just dump the dollars and steal the barrow.

And yet the market, with all it's big players and such, don't seem to disagree with them all that much.

- really? Which indicators are you looking at? I am looking at these:

October 1 2010

Gold: new high
Silver: new 30 year high
Gold stocks hit 52 week high
Oil: strong day and strong week
Dollar: dropped 13 percent from peak 3 months ago

September is done, media says: this is best September in 71 years. Dow gained 7.7%, S&P gained 8.8%.

However this month of September.

CRB Index (commodities): gained 8.7% - beat DOW and just under S&P
Soy beans: up 9.5% - beat S&P
Copper: up 10% - beat S&P
Rice: up 10% - beat S&P
Oil: up 11% - beat S&P
Corn: up 12% - beat S&P
Silver: up 13% - beat S&P
Frozen concentrated orange juice: up 13% - beat S&P