Economist suggests world needs to price coal correctly to reduce reliance on it (Update)

September 18, 2015 by Bob Yirka, Phys.org report

Credit: Grant Wilson/public domain
(Phys.org)—Economist Ottmar Edenhofer with Technische Universität Berlin, has published a Perspectives piece in the journal Science outlining the reasons for coal dominance as a means for producing electricity around the world, and the problems that it is causing. He suggests it is time for world governments to start looking at the actual cost of coal use as a means for deterring its use before emerging countries build coal fired plants that will almost assuredly cause the world to go over its goal of holding global temperature rise to just two degrees Celsius.

Over the past decade, use has come to replace oil as the leader in greenhouse gas emissions— Edenhofer suggests there is a very simple reason for that, burning coal is the cheapest way to produce electricity. But, he also notes, that is only because its cost does not truly reflect reality. He suggests there are two main reasons why the cost of using coal is understated. The first is because of governments subsidizing coal and other fossil fuels by allowing them to be sold in domestic markets below market prices. The other is because of governments ignoring other associated with the use of coal, such as the price in lives of those that succumb to air pollution, associated medical costs and other problems associated with such pollution—and of course the costs, whatever they may be, of global warming. He claims that data from the IMF suggests that if the true costs of coal use were used in decision-making, that its cost would climb higher than that for renewable resources such as solar and wind.

The real problem, he adds, is that keeping coal use prices artificially down now, is very likely to cause much bigger problems for the world later. Emerging countries that are not among the big emission producers right now, are building coal fired power plants—plants which once put online, will not be shut down simply because it has become cheaper to produce it in other ways. Many such plants are being built, with many more to come, a problem that could be exacerbated by even lower global prices if more developed countries move from coal to renewable resource technology. That means the artificially low cost of coal right now is going to cause huge long-term increases in emissions later, along with an associated rise in .

We need to do something to change this, he warns, before it is too late.

Explore further: Coal renaissance is bad news for greenhouse gas mitigation efforts

More information: King Coal and the queen of subsidies, Science 18 September 2015: Vol. 349 no. 6254 pp. 1286-1287. DOI: 10.1126/science.aad0674

Abstract
Coal is the most important energy source for the Chinese economy. Other rapidly growing economies in Asia and Africa also increasingly rely on coal to satisfy their growing appetite for energy. This renaissance of coal is expected to continue in the coming years (1) and is one of the reasons that global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are increasing despite the undisputed worldwide technological progress and expansion of renewable technologies (2). The implications for long-term GHG emissions are serious because, once installed, a coal power plant will emit for decades. Fossil fuel subsidies support investments in coal capacities around the globe and thereby threaten the achievement of climate change mitigation goals. Targeted reform of these subsidies could yield benefits for climate change mitigation as well as other development objectives.

Related Stories

Is natural gas a 'bridge' to a hotter future?

December 8, 2014

Natural gas power plants produce substantial amounts of gases that lead to global warming. Replacing old coal-fired power plants with new natural gas plants could cause climate damage to increase over the next decades, unless ...

Recommended for you

Coffee-based colloids for direct solar absorption

March 22, 2019

Solar energy is one of the most promising resources to help reduce fossil fuel consumption and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions to power a sustainable future. Devices presently in use to convert solar energy into thermal ...

131 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
1.6 / 5 (28) Sep 18, 2015
It is time to stop subsidizing poison, and make the producers and users of it accountable economically. We have known for generations the real cost of coal, but the political pressure from the coal companies was too great, they owned too many politicians.

Now, we have Don Blankenship going on trial for killing his workers, and can see the end of this filthy fuel.
jdbertron
2.2 / 5 (13) Sep 18, 2015
Another idiotic economist, studying how high density energy source is worse for the economy than lower density ones. Luckily, his bid to make horse and buggy more economical than coal will never work, but it's a fantastic opportunity for the governments of this world to divide the populations between the rich who can afford any energy they wish and the poor, who are always guilty of consuming the resources our wise overlords disapprove of.
antigoracle
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 18, 2015
Uh huh, and they can also reduce our reliance on medicine by letting you die.
marcush
3.9 / 5 (11) Sep 18, 2015
it's a fantastic opportunity for the governments of this world to divide the populations between the rich who can afford any energy they wish and the poor, who are always guilty of consuming the resources our wise overlords disapprove of.


In other words, never mind the unfolding extinction event, just business as usual please.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (30) Sep 18, 2015
"Luckily, his bid to make horse and buggy more economical than coal will never work,"
---------------------------------------

Coal IS horse and buggy.

And central plants were a good idea when generation technologies were crude, but now decentralized and distributed sources offer greater efficiency and efficacy.
ab3a
4.2 / 5 (19) Sep 18, 2015
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that governments like China would be receptive to such advice to raise the price of coal. Someone gets this money. Who gets it and what does it get spent on? How should that money be reviewed to prevent corruption from taking hold?

There aren't idle questions. These are genuine "how is this going to work" questions that MUST be answered before going down this road, or the result will be no better than the Kyoto Protocols. Note to Diplomants: this isn't something you can wave your hands to make magic emerge from scientists and engineers. There has to be a sense of direction or this will fail spectacularly.
kenglick
2.5 / 5 (6) Sep 18, 2015
"The other is because of governments ignoring other costs associated with the use of coal, such as the price in lives of those that succumb to air pollution…"

Yeah, good luck with that. Such 'pricing' is impossible because who's to say how much value of the life - any life - is worth&
MR166
2 / 5 (8) Sep 18, 2015
"In other words, never mind the unfolding extinction event, ........."

Well THAT is what needs to be proven isn't it. Governments have given Trillions to crony corporations and still that is not enough. They will not be happy until we all impoverished.
MR166
3 / 5 (6) Sep 18, 2015
"Yeah, good luck with that. Such 'pricing' is impossible because who's to say how much value of the life - any life - is worth&"

You cannot calculate the true costs of fossil fuels without including the benefits they have granted mankind. Fossil fuels are one on the main reasons lifespans have increased so much.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (26) Sep 18, 2015
The days of dirty fuels are over, and everybody knows it but the few unable to admit failure.
denglish
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 18, 2015
You cannot calculate the true costs of fossil fuels without including the benefits they have granted mankind. Fossil fuels are one on the main reasons lifespans have increased so much.

This.

I used to think that those who thought this whole "AGW, Green Revolution" thing were trying to cut the population down were lunatics.

Not so much anymore.

I find two things ironic:
1. Those railing against "dirty fuels" are the most dependent on it.
2. Those calling for alternative energy seem to have no clue (or perhaps they do, see above) that at the moment, humanity's prosperity cannot be maintained by any other energy source (other than nukes, but they're against that too).
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (26) Sep 18, 2015
The days of dirty fuels are over, and everybody knows it but the few unable to admit failure.


I just saw a freight train rolling by. Over 100 cars loaded up with coal, since the days are "over" maybe they were taking it back to the mine, eh?

You wonder why people make fun with your new-agey slogans?
gkam
1.6 / 5 (26) Sep 18, 2015
Those without education or experience in power generation rely on smart remarks instead of analysis of trends. I suggest the poster above BUY one of those coal plants he loves.

I'll help him find one.

Meanwhile:
http://www.utilit.../405798/
philstacy9
2 / 5 (4) Sep 18, 2015
denglish
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 18, 2015
Those without education or experience in power generation rely on smart remarks instead of analysis of trends. I suggest the poster above BUY one of those coal plants he loves.

I'll help him find one.

Meanwhile:
http://www.utilit.../405798/

Be very careful of the links this person provides.

I followed one, and it was to a gay website. I'm not saying what he does there is bad, but its not my thing...not to mention the indiscretion. What if I had been underage?
gkam
1.8 / 5 (25) Sep 18, 2015


That reference is just another Denier Special, distorting the situation. In fact, the story claims "This assumption is necessary, as CO2 disappears from the atmosphere over long periods, . . . "!

Really? Does it go where the water went from the world-wide flood?
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (28) Sep 18, 2015
Those without education or experience in power generation rely on smart remarks instead of analysis of trends.


Analyisising the trends are showing an increased use of fossil fuels, every single year up to and including right now Skippy. So when you say "over" maybe you should have said "I wish they were over".

I suggest the poster above BUY one of those coal plants he loves.


Never said I loved them Skippy. I don't even like them. But they are here and unless you got something more than slogans and rallying cry babies, they are going to be here for a while.

Every postum you write is about either you, some silly new-agey slogan, or political stuffs. Whenever you try to talk nuts and bolts and technical stuffs, you usually get your head handed to you. You are not helping the cause Cher. You are not changing any minds, you are not bringing anybody around. Like I told you, you are the liberal's example of the Sarah Palin.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (25) Sep 18, 2015
Ira, I am not going to play your silly game of trading insults. You offer nothing to these discussions but cute remarks off-topic.

If you want to champion coal use, I already told you where to buy plants of your own, at real good prices, I'll bet. That's because they are not only uneconomical, they have contaminated, polluted their surroundings and are now liabilities, like old nukes.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (26) Sep 18, 2015
If you want to champion coal use, I already told you where to buy plants of your own, at real good prices, I'll bet.


Still got that problem with telling the trut, eh Cher? Guess it's in your blood or genes and you can not help it. I have never championed coal. I never did even say that I was not for using less of it. Just because a person thinks you are a really foolish man, doesn't mean they don't support the same causes you act so silly with. It means you are hurting the causes more than helping them. But you do not care about that do you?

That's because they are not only uneconomical,


If they are uneconomical, why are there so many of them up and running?

they have contaminated, polluted their surroundings and are now liabilities, like old nukes.


See what I mean? All you got is new-agey slogans. Windmills and solar panes are not able to replace them, other then in the new-agey dreamers minds.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (24) Sep 18, 2015
"If they are uneconomical, why are there so many of them up and running?"
------------------------------------

Many reasons, including the time it takes to replace infrastructure. You would be hard to find one person who predicted in the past how fast we would dump coal today. Shall I send you a list of the closings in the last few years? The others scheduled to close? How many new coal plants are being built? You can tell me that one, I'll bet.

Meanwhile, let's keep to the issues.
adam_russell_9615
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 18, 2015
"The first is because of governments subsidizing coal and other fossil fuels by allowing them to be sold in domestic markets below market prices."

How does government subsidize prices, do they pay the seller?
It sounds like you are saying that merely allowing it to be sold at whatever price the seller chooses amounts to subsidization and Im sure you cant possibly mean it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (21) Sep 18, 2015
I just saw a freight train rolling by. Over 100 cars loaded up with coal, since the days are "over" maybe they were taking it back to the mine, eh?
Ahaaa thats a good one.

Maybe clean coal needs to produce trendy t shirts to attract melonheads like gkam.

Fashion is everything in his world no?

Oh wait heres some
http://www.cafepr...t-shirts
Zzzzzzzz
1.9 / 5 (22) Sep 18, 2015
Good article. Not figuring the cleanup costs into the price of coal is the subsidy. If the true price was charged the buying would dry right up, and other technologies would take its place. That is happening right now in some parts of the world, or I should say it started happening almost ten years ago.
There is a such thing as sort of clean coal - in the sense that it has dirtier forms. That does not make it a clean source of energy. The cleanest coal process possible today is still a dirty source of energy. That "clean coal" technology makes solar look really, really cheap. gkam can be a little melodramatic, but he has his head in the right place on this.
Zzzzzzzz
2 / 5 (23) Sep 18, 2015
The true cost of coal makes solar and any other renewables look really, really cheap. Make Nuclear pretty attractive, too. Of course the solar & renewables are getting more competitive all the time. When this statement is made, there is usually some response about subsidy. However, as already pointed out, coal has is own substantial subsidy.
SamB
3 / 5 (8) Sep 18, 2015
If I was poor and you made my coal too expensive for me to buy, I would burn plastic, garbage, wood.. whatever I could find to keep my family warm. So, unless you are going to give all the poor solar panels or windmills then you are not solving anything. And a lot of the worlds poor are not on any power grids. As for the power industry, it would seem that nuclear energy is the way to go. Good Netflix documentary on this subject called: "Pandora's Promise ". Give it a look.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (23) Sep 18, 2015
If you are poor, you have no chance of nuclear power. It is now the most expensive stuff we have, even discounting the waste storage problem.

What you want is alternative and appropriate technologies.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (22) Sep 18, 2015
Poor nations would have to import everything for nukes, from the technology to the workers to the engineers to the materials to the fuel, then folk to take care of the wastes. That is colonialism, to lock those folk into that dungeon of debt.
Estevan57
4.6 / 5 (20) Sep 18, 2015
If you are poor, you take whatever source provides it for your house. Then you adjust your budget accordingly. Poor people don't have the luxury of "alternate and appropriate technologies", unless that is what is currently being provided by the utility.

Of the roughly 645,000 homes and business with rooftop solar panels in the US, less than 5 percent are households earning less than $40,000, according to a report earlier this year from the George Washington University Solar Institute. http://solar.gwu....come-gap

Please read a political science book on what colonialism is. And what country are you talking about? If the economic deal is to provide a service for a price, how is that colonialism?
Please explain.

gkam
1.2 / 5 (21) Sep 18, 2015
No, I am not going to get into an argument over definitions.

If they have to pay others for all of it, all their money goes out of the country, and they are more and more dependent on the other nations. We can help them build systems with less complex and costly components and technologies, systems they are more likely to understand, be able to operate, repair, and improve.
Estevan57
5 / 5 (18) Sep 18, 2015
If you don't want an argument over definitions, then use them correctly.

Do you know what the word world trade means? Goods and services flow in both directions.
Money out, services and goods in, in this case.

And be specific, what country are you talking about? Perhaps Kenya, which is in the process of acquiring a power generating station? If Kenya needs power generation badly enough (it does) to acquire it from another country what is wrong with that?
I gave you links to the ongoing education of Kenyans toward this goal. Did you read them? The first class of nuclear engineers is next year.

Since you have the same answer in this section as the other, actually about Kenya, what are the technologies that would be suitable for Kenya?

Since you supposedly are a "power consultant" an actual answer would be nice for once.
dogbert
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 18, 2015
This article is just another in a continuing effort to use GW as an excuse to redistribute resources. That the author seeks to deny emerging economies affordable energy is really refreshingly honest. The effort to deny energy to those economies remains wrong, but the honest assertion that the author wants to harm those economies lacks the hypocrisy of most such articles.

Coal is one of the worlds most abundant energy sources. We cannot sustain our current technology without energy and emerging economies cannot become technological societies without energy. Shutting down access to affordable energy will result in the death of many human beings from the many effects of poverty.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (22) Sep 18, 2015
Sorry, doggie, but we cannot allow you to ruin our climate.
Estevan57
4.4 / 5 (20) Sep 18, 2015
Sorry, doggie, but we cannot allow you to ruin our climate.

Who is "we"? And how do you stop dogbert from making an effect on the climate? Do you assume that dogbert uses more electricity than you? Is "our climate not "his" climate?

Since you have the same answer in this section as the other, actually about Kenya, what are the technologies that would be suitable for Kenya?

Since you supposedly are a "power consultant" an actual answer would be nice for once.

plasmasrevenge
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 18, 2015
Environmentalists are really losing it. Most of the things they tell us they want these days all cause some form of side effects -- one of the most significant, if any of these plans go through, would be the public's change in perspective of science itself.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (23) Sep 18, 2015
I see it as a long term transition - that will probably take a good 100 years. Am I still a new agey dreamer?


No that makes you are realistic Skippy living in the real world

I am all for changing over to not the fossil fuels. Really I am. Right now my biggest concern is the Louisiana wetlands. The switching over to gas from coal is killing our swamps, a few football fields per HOUR, day in and day out too.

Nuclear is clean, but everybody is against that. Solar and such can not fill the demand now, maybe one day, but an industrial society needs concentrated powerplants.

glam-Skippy acting like Sarah Palin doesn't help the cause. Emotion and slogans and claiming to be some sort of expert while the people he is "debating" with hand him his head because he doesn't know the technical stuff, only the slogans from the political activist sites. I really do wish he would switch sides, he is hurting causes I hold dear by being so silly.
victoryengineer
2.5 / 5 (10) Sep 18, 2015
Wind and solar technologies as they are now simply are not able to supply the energy needs of the world. Not even close. Clearly there are many that believe wind and solar will improve to the point that they can supply all the energy needed. Maybe they will and maybe they won't.

It's at least as likely that another technology will emerge that is able to cleanly supply the worlds needs. Until that happens we should not penalize those that depend on their energy regardless of the source.

Unfortunately, nuclear power is politically/socially incorrect even though the waste from coal produces far more radioactive waste. Also, looking at current nuclear technology that uses very abundant thorium, there is very little waste.

If only we would put online enough thorium reactors (also very safe btw) to satisfy our power needs, we would be able to dramatically reduce negative emissions. All while having more time to develop alternative power sources.
victoryengineer
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 18, 2015
Wanting something to be so and reality are two different things.
howhot2
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 18, 2015
NAYD:
Wanting something to be so and reality are two different things.

Lick the big one; I wish I knew what you were talking about. But typical of the global warming deniers, science is not your big thing. Sorry looser.

howhot2
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 18, 2015
NAYD:
If only we would put online enough thorium reactors (also very safe btw) to satisfy our power needs, we would be able to dramatically reduce negative emissions. All while having more time to develop alternative power sources.
If thorium was that good, it would have already been done by now. Thorium or Tokamak fusion It's not as clean as you think,

However, the SUN drops multi-multi-terrawatts of energy on to our planet constantly and all that needs to be done is to harvest it. No digging required, just solar energy harvesting. That is the next money cow.
howhot2
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 19, 2015
All in favor of destroying the world with a massive CO2 greenhouse cooker, when you post your comment here, say AYE at the very beginning of you comment. If you want your political affiliation added, say AYER or if your opposed to a global warming heat death for mankind, add NAYR for Republican or NAYD for Democrat. Or use AYEI for denier independent

It will make for some interesting discourse over the shouting we do in forums like this.
victoryengineer
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2015
NAYD:
Wanting something to be so and reality are two different things.

Lick the big one; I wish I knew what you were talking about. But typical of the global warming deniers, science is not your big thing. Sorry looser.


Let's go down the list.
1. "Lick the big one" Really? Are you in sixth grade?
2. "I wish I knew what you were talking about". I'm sure you do. I would guess you feel that way a lot.
3. "Typical of the global warming deniers" Wrong again slick. I'm well aware of the damage man is doing.
4. "Science is not your thing" If you understood anything in my post you would not have assumed that.
5. "looser" Is that the opposite of someone who tightens things? In addition to your lack of comprehension, you also can't spell the word loser.

Hopefully one day you'll be able to shed your inadequacies allowing you to participate in a discussion without resorting to assumptions, name calling and juvenile ridicules.
howhot2
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 19, 2015
NAYD:
Hopefully one day you'll be able to shed your inadequacies allowing you to participate in a discussion without resorting to assumptions, name calling and juvenile ridicules.


Good points, all of them. However, your the denier not me. I'm purposely trying to provoke you. You say in #3
"Typical of the global warming deniers" Wrong again slick. I'm well aware of the damage man is doing
So if you purposefully are aware of the damage you are doing, (which implies that you know *what* damage your doing), Why the hell are you such a denier ass?
Hopefully one day you'll be able to shed your inadequacies allowing you to participate in a discussion without resorting to assumptions, name calling and juvenile ridicules.

Chill man. Climate denialism is Anti-Science.
howhot2
5 / 5 (2) Sep 19, 2015
NAYD: Also @victoryengineer YOU "looser" i'M Glad you can spell. Kidding. All I care about is seeing mankind survive the global warming extinction event.
howhot2
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 19, 2015
NAYD:
Wind and solar technologies as they are now simply are not able to supply the energy needs of the world. Not even close


I totally 100% disagree. The amount of potential solar irradiance on the planet usable for energy is 100+ fold more than what humans use now for all energy sources. A good read is here;

http://www.sandia...FAQs.pdf

Enjoy it @Victory and then join the NAY (to global extinction) side.
victoryengineer
1.9 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2015
@greenonions

Yes a network of thorium plants would be costly and take time. If we knew for sure that cleaner emerging technologies would be fully ready by a specific time I'd be inclined to forgo the expense and effort to build the thorium reactors, but while we may be hopeful that we are right around the corner with alternative methods, we really don't know how long it will take.

I'm all for solar, wind, wave etc and we should pursue these means, but we can also do more for our environment/future by going with thorium and eliminating fracking, coal and other fossil fuels now.

IMO, it may not be the ideal solution but i think it would be a step in the right direction until greener solutions are fully viable.

howhot2
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 19, 2015
NAYD: @greenonions asked me about my thoughts;
If thorium was that good, it would have already been done by now


I'm not an expert either, but from what I know, thorium is not that great as a reactor fuel. The temps are off or something like that as far as I know. However, read the sandia paper in my previous comment. That will explain why I don't think thorium is that important in the overall energy system compared to solar/wind for mankind's energy needs..

If I was investor with a long term outlook in energy stocks, I would be poking around solar.
someone11235813
5 / 5 (2) Sep 19, 2015
@If thorium was that good, it would have already been done by now.


This looks pretty solid to me. https://www.youtu...__yYbsZ4
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2015
Here is an interesting look at the global subsidy picture for coal subsidies - http://cleantechn...r-fuels/ It seems we have created a mess regarding our energy world - and figuring out how all the subsidies, and supports work. It is like a big ball of spaghetti.


So you're saying we need to subsidize fissionable spaghetti? There's several things wrong with that statement. Sophist.

Not an expert here - but have watched a couple of videos

Well that's obvious from your posts, stay out of the kitchen, commie.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (8) Sep 19, 2015
gkam must think nuclear power is more of a threat to humanity than global warming.
denglish
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2015
gkam must think nuclear power is more of a threat to humanity than global warming.

That person also thinks the US sold nuclear secrets to N Korea and Pakistan. Their liberal mental disorder is in full bloom.

For anyone wondering how much fossil fuels benefit humanity, you may find this interesting:

http://object.cat...a715.pdf

Fossil fuels make humanity prosperous. Take away prosperity, and one is left with dependence. Population dependence on government is the end game. Dependency most likely being a very comfortable position for those in favor of taking away that which gives us prosperity.

For those of us that are willing and able to work and make our own way, dependence is unacceptable. Thus, the political rift between those who believe in Wanting, and those that believe in Needing.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 19, 2015
I pointed out that your are confusing and contradictory with your arguments.


Since your blinking twice at me telling you that climatology is retrodictive, I'm guessing that's a you-problem.

You wouldn't happen to have any links that support your odd claim about climate models only being 'retrodictive' would you?


Odd is it?

"Another use [retrodiction] refers to a process by which one attempts to test a theory whose predictions are too long-term to be tested by waiting for a future event to occur. Instead, one speculates about uncertain events in the more distant past, and applies the theory to consider how it would have predicted a known event in the less distant past. This is useful in, for example, the fields of archaeology, climatology, evolutionary biology, etc." - Wiki [or any definition found on the internet]

Saying that it's predictive and not just retrodiction is redundant. Both are valid of course.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 19, 2015
So as not to confuse you further....

EDIT: "Saying that it's predictive and not just retrodictive is redundant [under the condition that the theory can not at present be validated through future predictions]. IOW, objecting to my use of the word "retrodiction" by saying the theory can make predictions of past occurances, is redundant,... as that is what retrodiction means.

docile
Sep 19, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 19, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 19, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 19, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 19, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (22) Sep 19, 2015
"glam-Skippy acting like Sarah Palin doesn't help the cause."
----------------------------

Stop the personal nonsense. You have no cause, but to make silly comments pretending to be something YOU are not. You use that-there cutesy-pie goober-speak and think you are fooling us. We are not tourists, for whom to go through your act.

I maintained I had certain experience, and you deprecated it, accused me of lying, and kept it up until I proved it. Even then, you could not bring yourself to admit what I sent, choosing once again to deprecate it.

Now, please stop the nonsense and join us in getting rid of fossil fuels, or go to facebook for your personal stuff and those silly games.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 19, 2015
You were arguing that climate science is not verifiable. I was arguing that it is. You made a very bold claim that 'it' - referring to climate science - is not verifiable. I argue that it is verifiable.


In that same post I made it clear that I was referring to "furture predictions" and in that same post I said this...."This means it can be sound in terms of correlation between CO2 and global temp" ,.... confirming verifiability (wrt retrodiction) ... then the rest of that sentence,... refuting verifiability (wrt future predictions). Subsequently I pointed out why,... has not been enough time.

I even attempted to explain the difference between retrodiction and prediction,... evidently I have failed. We will leave it at that.

The above post was a joke that referenced your habit of misrepresentation of my posts,.. as you just did again.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (21) Sep 19, 2015
Stop the personal nonsense
Nothing personal george. We couldnt care less about who you are. Who you are is meaningless here.

But we do care a great deal about WHAT you post. And you have consistently shown your complete disregard for the integrity of this site and for science in general by lying about what you know and by making up your own facts.

Why do you think the people here would tolerate this?
You have no cause... pretending to be something YOU are not
You flat out lied about your degree, which ira proved to you and all your potential clients who might find their way here. Take responsibility.
cutesy-pie goober-speak and think you are fooling us
You misuse technical words, exposing your ignorance, and think you are fooling us.
I maintained I had certain experience
-But most of what you post is fabricated bullshit.
accused me of lying
-PROVED that you lied.
kept it up until I proved it
What you sent proved you LIED about your degree.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (20) Sep 19, 2015

We have to forgive otto, who got beat at his own gotcha game, and now can only display his psychopathy for all to see.

But can we get back to the issue of quantifying the real costs of fossil fuels combustion? We must all agree, if we have deviated to personal attacks in ego games.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (19) Sep 19, 2015
Retrodictive. Retro-dictive. RetroDICtive.

Gosh.

How obsequious.
denglish
2 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2015
Federal report re: subsidies and returns on energy sources:
http://www.eia.go...subsidy/

How can we say with a straight face that coal must be removed when there is no viable alternative (excepting nukes, but the green-team doesn't like that either) to step in?
gkam
1.4 / 5 (21) Sep 19, 2015
otto, I understand your frustration at being beat at your own gotcha game. You are a phony, an admitted gamer here for fun, one who bragged about it.

Your use of the"otto" name in its various forms to hide behind, your inability to admit error, your quickness to anger, your need for hurting others, even your continual references to psychopathy are obvious SCREAMS for help.

Somebody needs to get you into "helping hands".

Now, the rest of us can discuss the death of coal.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (22) Sep 19, 2015
Now, please stop the nonsense and join us in getting rid of fossil fuels,.


I am begging you to unjoin us in getting rid of fossil fuels. Do you think you are "getting rid of fossil fuels" by making 50 or 49 postums a day of silly bumper sticker slogans? How has any of your emotional and make-it-up-as-you-go helped "get rid of fossil fuels", eh? You have done nothing to help. You are usually wrong and the silly pretending only hurts the credibility of the causes you are pushing. You don't get a pass on the foolishment because of your "team".

Name one benefit of all the silly stuffs you have postumed here. Just one Cher, one way anything thing you ever wrote here has helped anybody. I can only think of one benefit, it has given us a lot of stuffs to laugh with. You are like that disheveled couyon down in front of the Parish Courthouse with the tattered sign shouting about the end of everything is here and all is doomed. (And also like the Palin-Skippette.)
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (21) Sep 19, 2015
We have to forgive otto, who got beat at his own gotcha game, and now can only display his psychopathy
You've never been able to provide examples of these games or where I claimed to be playing them.

Your empty assertions carry no weight here as you've proven yourself to be a compulsive liar.

But you've admitted many times to playing the goobers here like cheap kazoos.

This is yet one more example of your psychopathic nature.

Keep posting. Keep exposing your sickness to everyone (including potential 'clients') but yourself.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (21) Sep 19, 2015
I tried to get you off the personal stuff, Ira, but it is all you have.

Please play your games elsewhere.

This issue is the cost of using that coal you like to deliver. You are part of the problem, Ira, with your deliveries of Dirty Fuels. And to "clean" nuke plants??? Nuke plants still use coal in the South? Yuk!
gkam
1.2 / 5 (19) Sep 19, 2015
otto, your continual attacks on my character and your repeated references to any future work are prime examples of Internet Libel.

You may continue if you wish. You are warned.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (19) Sep 19, 2015
an admitted gamer here for fun, one who bragged about it
Please reference where I admitted to this.

Come on george, heres your chance to prove you didnt just make it up like you did that nonsense about fallout being the main cause of lung cancer, or that manure is a major constituent of pollution in the 'high air' (?) of the central valley, or that you know this manure is called volatile solids because you have an MS in environmental management which you never earned, or that an H2-initiated Pu nuclear explosion threw non-existent vessel parts 130km even though a thermonuclear device can't throw debris more than a few km.

You know you've posted dozens of such lies here, all documented, all for everyone to see including potential clients.

So at least prove you're not lying about otto playing games like George does.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (20) Sep 19, 2015
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2015
saying that climate models are retrodictive - and therefore climate science is not verifiable - is false.

You're either dishonest or your reading comprehension is poor....

In fact I confirmed myself that it is verifiable retrodictably; In the same post you are referencing I said, "This means" global warming is "sound in terms of correlation between CO2 and global temp" !!!.... therefore your above charge can't possibly be true wrt retrodiction,... and the next sentence referenced "future prediction", making it clear I was referencing predictions (future).

There is an interesting debate about the precision of the predictions (hence error bars)


The error-bars are not representative of the accuracy of the model for future prediction,... just representative of the errors expected in data used and scenarios presumed.

Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (21) Sep 19, 2015
Please play your games elsewhere.


I do decline that thing Skippy. You made up your bed. You can rip off the linen and make him over, or sleep in him that way, or sleep you on the floor, don't matter at all to me which you choose non.

This issue is the cost of using that coal you like to deliver.


More of the empty Palin-like foolishment. What you know about what I like?

You are part of the problem, Ira, with your deliveries of Dirty Fuels.


Another silly slogan that do not say anything about the real world.

And to "clean" nuke plants???


Why would I do that? You don't read to good.

Nuke plants still use coal in the South?


I am sure you think that means something, you took the time to write him. But to everybody else here he is looking just like more of Palin-like slogans.

Yuk!


See what I mean? Your are the new-agey version of the Palin-Skippette.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (21) Sep 19, 2015
Soon, they will not be able to send coal to Grand Gulf, for its "powerhouse" you alleged all nuke plants have.

The issue here is coal, not your need for games. The South is stinking itself up with it, and your radiation hazards must be relatively high, with all those radionuclides from coal emissions and radioactive gases from the nukes.

Now, you folk are trying to dig yourselves out of the messes you made, the bad choices, the hubris of thinking you could get away with it forever.

Like in Europe, American companies are now spinning off their coal and nukes, hoping to sell them off to others to put their eggs into the renewable basket.

http://www.utilit.../405882/
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (19) Sep 19, 2015
otto, your continual attacks on my character... prime examples of Internet Libel.

You may continue if you wish. You are warned
More threats george? If you didn't continue to lie and fabricate then you wouldn't be having problems here, and potential clients would have no reason to doubt your integrity.

But your lies and delusions (like your team of VA shrinks monitoring my every post) are well-documented by myself and others. You can deny them but they are here, posted by George kamburoff for anyone to read.

Which leads us to wonder whether george posted his real name not as an indication of his fearless integrity but as a way of threatening people who he knew would be accusing him of lying and making up facts.

That indicates a certain level of gutlessness that anyone but a psychopath would be ashamed to exhibit in public.

Lies are lies and you have filled these threads with them. And YOURE the one who has tied them to george kamburoff; not us.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (21) Sep 19, 2015
Do you think we can't get through http://proxy2974....oxy.php?
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 19, 2015
"Even if the climate alarmists were correct — and there is no indication they are so or are anything other than pathological liars — there are many things worse than a little sea level rise or some extra bad weather. One of those things is totalitarian society. Review your 20th century history if you don't believe me."
http://www.breitb...keptics/
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (20) Sep 19, 2015
Uncle Ira - What is it about switching from coal to gas that is hurting the wet lands?


More demand for gas means more drilling and pipelines through the Louisiana wetlands. It gets worser and worser every year. The gas boom is the death knell for our swamps and protections from the really big storms.

Hope we can get better organized soon. I think we are on the same page - just want to see the best solutions explored. I am a supporter of Nukes - and hope they are part of our future.


Yeah I think we are on the same page Cher. I am not against Nukes if it means less use of gas, oil and coal. Solar panes and windmills is great but like you say, that is going to take years and years before it can take the place of the others. I am stuck in the real world and don't see things as "all or the nothing". I prefer the idea of nukes to fossils stuffs.

Have a good weekend.


Thank you for that and you have a good one too.
denglish
3 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2015
Do you think we can't get through http://proxy2974....oxy.php?

Dang that's creepy. this person's mental disorder is in full sail.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Sep 19, 2015
Do you think we can't get through http://proxy2974....oxy.php?
@gkam
what does this even mean?

Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (21) Sep 19, 2015
Do you think we can't get through http://proxy2974....oxy.php?


Are you on drugs today Cher? That makes less sense than any slogan you put up yet. Skippy, you need to work on that "saying him all in eight words" thing you got the habit of. One, because you really are not that smart. And two, if you don't really have anything to say at all you are making everybody think you are a really silly couyon.

Now, just where or who is you trying to get through to? And why you want to go where they don't really want you anyway? Is this part of that getting the boot at the Walmart thing? Why they kick you out of there anyway? Maybe here is another chance for you to tell one of those really interesting stories about your self.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. Are you wearing your silly looking pointy cap today? Non, not the Air Force one, I mean the one with the stars and moons on it?
fay
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2015
so the situation is as follows - states are subsidizing coal left and right, germany is switching from nuclear to brown coal, japan from nuclear to oil, 50 big ships throw more polluting $hit into air than all the cars on the planet, EU is mandating biofuels which cannot even pay for themselves neither in money nor in co2, crony entrepreneurs rip off general public on green subsidies etc etc, and then every day i am told i have to compromise and maybe instead of driving car (i am even too poor to get one atm) ride a bike or mass transit because i am killing the planet.
now is anyone surprised im not exactly a fan of "climate action" - which means solely taking more money from me which will end up god knows where - when i see this $hit? I dont deny global warming but i deny any action until its meaningful. Until then, let the coral reefs die, let the dutch drown, let the snow melt. I dont give a single $hit.
ZBar
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2015
How do you make steel without coal (coke)?
How do you refine ores needed to make solar panel, windmills and all the other technology in a fossil fuel free world?
How do we charge 100 million electric cars?
How do you mine the ore to make neodymium magnets?
Is there an alternative to plastic?
ZBar
4 / 5 (9) Sep 19, 2015
Thanks, greenonions. I'm a fourth generation coal miner, mining the best met coal. My questions were honestly looking for answers. It will be interesting to see how the technology evolves, till we all kill each other over the last of the poisoned water.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (21) Sep 20, 2015
Zbar, nobody is suggesting we do not use any carbon. This is not a religious crusade, it is an technical/economic evolution.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2015
Noumenon
You're either dishonest or your reading comprehension is poor....

Please tell us on what basis you declare that climate science is unverifiable.


I have already done this (confirmed verifiability wrt retrodiction) before you ever responded to my post in the other thread in the very post that you objected to, and yet again above.

You deliberately refuse to accept or read my comments either because you're a half-wit or utterly dishonest.

That fact that you don't know that AGW models are retrodictive is telling. I've posted references to that effect both from Wiki and SkepticalScience.com,.... and yet you continue to be confused,... retrodiction is a form of verifiability,.... so saying the theory can make predictions of past occurances, is redundant,... as that is what retrodiction means. Climatology makes predictions of "long term trends" for which not enough time has elapsed since the models were ready.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2015
@greenonions,

Why don't you explain how subsidies for 'big balls of spaghetti' is going to help anything.

I can parse out your comment and read into it, what I want just as you can, and arrive at a strawman to counter just as you can.
ryggesogn2
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 20, 2015
life span increased because this growth was assisted by hygiene, education, medical science, environmental science, improved population management (housing, birth control etc).


All of which depend upon low cost energy.
When energy is expensive, hygiene, education, medical science all suffer.

Interesting term, 'population management'. Who manages population?
Noumenon
5 / 5 (5) Sep 20, 2015
@greenonions... while it's easier to earn 5's that way by inventing an strawman argument, it is not constructive nor is it interesting, only repetitive and pointless. We probably agree on more than you think but will never get there stuck on the same misunderstood point.

Now, why do you propose subsidies for big balls of spaghetti?

ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 20, 2015

Is there an alternative to plastic?

In many cases yes. No plastic.


Plastics are critical for low cost medical care.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2015
So we manage the population


Who is 'we'?
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2015
Your premise is factually wrong. I never stated that climate science is not verifiable, without ALSO supplying conditional context. Here is the original post,....

In climate science, the opposite is the case; it is an unverifiable science buried in a complex of phenomena ,... mostly hard to measure data (in fact manipulated data), presumptions, chosen scenarios, likely incomplete understanding, and unverified correlations.

[A] This means it can be sound in terms of correlation between CO2 and global temp, but at the same time [B] speculative wrt the severity of the effect for humanity in future predictions. - Noumenon


The 2nd paragraph in which I state "THIS MEANS...." supplies the conditional context,... i.e. [A] it is validated via retrodiction, and [B] it is not validated through "future predictions".

These conditionals, refutes your claim of me stating as a generality that "climate science is not verifiable". Retrodiction, yes, long term Prediction, no.

ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Sep 20, 2015
If I were king - that would be my proposal -


And it would fail because you will use state power to control the lives of others.

Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2015
@greenonions,....

If you were an honest person or carefully had read the original post, 1) you would not have ignored the included context, especially given the summarizing phrase "This means....", 2) You would not have implied that I stated 'there has been no warming' as [A] refutes that charge, 3) you would not be engaging in an 'accusationary' style of discussion, 4) you would not feel entitled to decide what another poster thinks, 5) you would have accepted subsequent clarification, if you had honestly misunderstood the original, 5) you would have asks for clarification instead of making charges.....

You can have the last word,... then we will move on.

Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2015
on what basis do you assert that climate science is not verifiable


You have chosen to leave of the conditional context of my statement, therefore the premise of your question is invalid.

.... the theory of AGW - has been supported by observation (ie. is verifiable).


My statement [A],.... "it can be sound in terms of correlation between CO2 and global temp",.... should have made it clear to you that I agree with your quoted statement [wrt retrodiction].

No where have I stated that AGW models are not based on observation.

The people rating you 5's are reading these posts with even less attention to detail than you are,... only the screen names.
denglish
2 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2015
So we manage the population.

And the end game of the AGWs is admitted. Wow.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (19) Sep 20, 2015
Getting rid of nasty coal is only part of what we must do:

http://www.thegua...mit-2015
gkam
1.2 / 5 (19) Sep 20, 2015
If you are tired of these spammings, go to:

https://ultimate-...rt.html,

and make your views known.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2015
Those who contribute to society by paying taxes, organising, innovating.


How does wealth plundered by the state contribute to society?

Does this mean you don't pay taxes, organize or innovate because you said 'those'. 'We' implies that 'you' are included in the group.
Do you consider managing food supply, housing, hospitals, sewers as some kind of "end game" ?

Yes, when the manager is the state.
Since we managed that the life expectancy increased.

Sewage and clean water requires much energy. Switching from septic tanks to a central sewer requires significant capital: money, digging equipment, pipe, labor.
Creating this capital required low cost energy and time.
alfredh
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2015
I wonder who appointed him god of pricing. All of these central planning wonks seem to think that they and they alone are God's gift to economic success. But experience tells us that every government is by definition corrupt and their minions are no better than a poor darts player when making decision. Let the market decide.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (21) Sep 20, 2015
"The Market" is corrupt.
denglish
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2015
"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern.
They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters"
― Daniel Webster
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2015
"The Market" is corrupt.


Why do you think this? How can capitalism in an arena of freedom, which was/is the greatest force for economic progress in human history, be considered corrupt, if the result has been raising the standard of living for everyone?

Such a system is fully compatible with human instincts, individualism and egoism, so it's resounding success is not surprising,... while socialistic central planning systems operate counter to human instincts to force economic equality through social engineering, even though such a premise of equality is unnatural and artificial. You can not have forced equality at the same time as free society
gkam
1.4 / 5 (20) Sep 21, 2015
"Why do you think this?"
--------------------------------------

Because not everybody has the same connections, the same knowledge, the same access to funding, the same opportunities, and it is based on greed, the Gateway Sin.

Tell me the stock market is not manipulated. Tell me the oil market is not manipulated. Tell me the fat greedy Hunt Brothers did not try to own the silver market, and screw the rest of us. The Big Boys eat the rest of us.

It reminds me of the new fantasy football setups for suckers, thinking they have as much a chance as anybody, . . except for those others with special computer programs, who are already in business in those games.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2015
Because not everybody has the same connections, [..]knowledge, [..]access to funding, [..]opportunities,


Why does everyone have to have the same in your world,… only a child would expect this. That is faux reality.

Inequality is a natural consequence of a free society, therefore it is not a defect. Freedom does not guarantee equality of results.

"'The oaks are just too greedy; We will make them give us light; Now there's no more oak oppression; For they passed a noble law; And the trees are all kept equal; By hatchet, axe and saw" – Rush 'The Trees'

and it is based on greed, the Gateway Sin.

The charge of "greed" denotes an emotional and subjective response to "unfairness" via the sin of envy, which is itself predicated on selfishness. Egoism is a morality of the highest order,… precisely because it is intrinsic to human nature,… to oppress or regulate that would be an evil of the highest order.
denglish
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 21, 2015
Liberalism is a mental disorder, enabling a way of life that requires adherence to the lowest common denominator.

When there is competition, they do not see an open challenge to be the best you can be; they see an obstacle that they don't have the gumption to overcome; thus, the obstacle must be removed by appealing to the pity of those who worked their way into their position.

Not hard to understand why that person had no career. Everything was everybody else's fault.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2015
A corrupt market is caused by the violence of state control of that market.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (20) Sep 21, 2015
Are markets manipulated? Did you answer those particular questions?

"Inequality is a natural consequence of a free society"

You decided that? Or is it the order no matter the society? We are unequal in many regards at birth.

Markets are useful. They are not natural. We invented them, along with money, finance, and religion, and change them at our whim. Ain't nothing pure about them.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (18) Sep 22, 2015
We are unequal in many regards at birth
Well yeah. Your kind thrives on this.

"Another psychopath admitted that he never targeted attractive women - he was only interested in those who were insecure and lonely. He claimed he could smell a needy person "the way a pig smells truffles."

"The callous use of the old, the lonely, the vulnerable, the disenfranchised, the marginalized, is a trademark of the psychopath. And when any of them wake up to what is happening, they are generally too embarrassed to complain.

"One of the chief ways psychopaths prey on others is to make use of the normal person's need to find meaning or purpose in life. They will pose as grief counselors, or "experts" of various sorts that attract followings of people who are looking for answers. They are masters of recognizing "hang-ups" and self-doubts that most people have, and they will brazenly pander to them to gain a follower..."
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (17) Sep 22, 2015
Markets are useful. They are not natural. We invented them, along with money, finance, and religion, and change them at our whim. Ain't nothing pure about them
"Most people are able to combine ideas that have consistent thought themes, but psychopaths have great difficulty doing this. Again, this suggests a genetic restriction to what we have called the Juvenile Dictionary. Not only are they using extremely restricted definitions, they cannot, by virtue of the way their brains work, do otherwise. Virtually all of the research on psychopaths reveals an inner world that is banal, sophomoric, and devoid of the color and detail that generally exists in the inner world of normal people. This goes a long way to explain the inconsistencies and contradictions in their speech."

-More evidence.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (18) Sep 23, 2015
Thermodynamics. You realize you are alone supporting this sicko dont you? This is only because you havent taken the time to research what he posts or read the drivel he posts in other threads.

If you did you would see that he does lie as many others have found out. And worse, he fabricates facts which are easily debunked when people take the time to do so.

You put a great deal of thought and effort into what you post. I would think you would be greatly offended by individuals who would rather fabricate facts and then expect us to believe them because of false claims of 'experience' and ' education'.

Gkam lied about his MS, claiming that it was in environmental management, a bonafide degree from the university, when it was in fact an honorary degree for 'life experience'. He continues to use it to validate his non-existent expertise.

You dont believe it?
http://phys.org/n...ack.html

-Take the time to read it.
barakn
2.4 / 5 (20) Sep 24, 2015
Ghost, do you spend any time debunking his claims or do you waste thousands of characters in off-topic posts sniping at his character? When claiming he is a psychopath, are you either A) His psychiatrist breaking doctor-client confidentiality or B) a non-psychiatrist who has never had physical access to gkam to apply the proper tests and make a valid diagnosis. I doubt you are A, and B probably makes you guilty of libel. And your obsessive pursuit of gkam makes you just about as sick as you claim he is. It's hard to feel sorry for a troll complaining about other trolls.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (17) Sep 24, 2015
" . . makes you guilty of libel, . . "
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (15) Sep 24, 2015
or B) a non-psychiatrist who has never had physical access to gkam to apply the proper tests
Well of course I am a rank amateur who is only offering unqualified opinions. But what makes YOU think you need physical access to a person to develop an opinion?
http://vistriai.c...athtest/

If you are really interested, read this.
http://www.cassio...path.htm

-And then familiarize yourself with what gkam has posted in the past.

and B probably makes you guilty of libel
"Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion."

-I never claimed to be an expert capable of making a diagnosis. I have often stated that these are only opinions.

Libel is 'an untruth about another' and so it would be necessary for the defamed to produce adequate evidence that he is not what he appears to be.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Sep 24, 2015
" . . makes you guilty of libel, . . "
@gkam
don't get your hopes up: it says
B probably makes you guilty of libel
keyword= probably

this has also been discussed already in PM

http://dictionary...ted=1153

it also opens you up to retaliatory counter litigation
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (16) Sep 24, 2015
makes you just about as sick as you claim he is. It's hard to feel sorry for a troll
George kamburoff has been using his 'MS in Environmental Management' to justify his 'knowledge and experience' re things environmental. Did you read the link to the thread above?
http://phys.org/n...ack.html

-Ira went to great efforts to prove that this degree is a lie.
obsessive pursuit of gkam
You arent aware of the scale of the offense. Most every day he lies. These lies cant go unanswered on a science site.

Do you really think that lying about these sorts of things is acceptable here?

He still claims to be an engineer which is particularly offensive.

Every time george sends somebody something about his past in order to justify the nonsense he posts, it turns out to be no justification at all, rather exaggerations, delusions, and fantasy.

Ask the others here who have tangled with him: AA, stumpy, ira, eikka, denglish et al.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (16) Sep 24, 2015
it also opens you up to retaliatory counter litigation
Yeah. George, who routinely claims 'expertise' in many fields, and is in constant consultation with his crack team of shrinks down at the VA whom george says are monitoring my every post, has called me a monomaniac as well as a psychopath, not to mention a goober.

Many times.

I never claimed to have consulted professionals. George has.

Want to see the relevant threads george?

He has also claimed that my postings have cost him work. He would have to provide hard evidence that disgruntled clients were discouraged by the opinions that I and others have posted rather than the garbage he has posted.
gkam
1 / 5 (18) Sep 24, 2015
Stumpy:

http://www.traver...slander/

I'm in process. We will see.
denglish
3 / 5 (4) Sep 24, 2015
This person can't present anything worth reading, gets called out on their lying (albeit a bit excessively), and now resorts to online threats, pouring fuel on the fire.

Also, if one has the indiscretion to post nonsense on a science blog and then loses business because of it, then perhaps they should stop posting nonsense, and start posting things that will clearly demonstrate they have an ability to produce useful inputs.

This place is in desperate need of an impartial moderator. It is infested by trolls.
gkam
1 / 5 (16) Sep 24, 2015
denglish, your take is evidence of your maladjustment, not mine. If you wish to take the word of the assassins, then you are one of them.

When we get a moderator, you are gone for your personal insults.
gkam
1 / 5 (17) Sep 24, 2015
How did this forum turn into such an adolescent playground, with all these folks screaming insults at the others?

Did otto cause it, did he just awaken the cowardly assassin in others, or was this site always infected with such childish demonstrations of poor character?

thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2015
Ghost said:
You arent aware of the scale of the offense. Most every day he lies. These lies cant go unanswered on a science site.


You are right. I am offended by lies. However, this site is bombarded by lies every day. Think about Rygg2, who brands everyone who argues with him as a socialist. Think about Antigorical who is so obsessed with his view of the world that he jumps in with his one line reference to Woodfortrees starting in 1998 so often that everyone has tried to correct him. Think about WaterBowl who professes his prowess at prognostication with his bowl of ice. Yes, I am offended by them but you don't see me tracking them down on each thread to admonish them or call them names (well, maybe WaterBowl a couple of times). I try to be constructive and usually don't say anything unless it is in my field. I would just like to see the threads less cluttered with sniping. I have no problem with you and will abstain from voting on this issue.
gkam
1 / 5 (16) Sep 24, 2015
No, folks, I did not "lie", I offended others who screamed "LIAR!" and other accusations in ALL CAPS. Between him and his buddy, he has all of you starting to believe him.

The psych cases here have driven out most all of the real folk, and left us with denglish and otto and others who think their temporary anonymity gives them protection.

denglish
3 / 5 (4) Sep 24, 2015
No, folks, I did not "lie", I offended others who screamed "LIAR!" and other accusations in ALL CAPS. Between him and his buddy, he has all of you starting to believe him.

The psych cases here have driven out most all of the real folk, and left us with denglish and otto and others who think their temporary anonymity gives them protection.

Think rants like this may hurt you with prospective clients?

I refer you to the first post in this thread. You had an opportunity to start the dialogue with something worthy of thought, but instead resorted to politics.
denglish
2 / 5 (4) Sep 24, 2015
Or George, it could be the indiscretion you show by linking strangers to gay websites. I certainly wouldn't hire someone that that routinely engages in indiscretion.

Or perhaps its the multiple accounts. That is an example of juvenile reasoning.

Jeepers man, you gotta drop back 10 yards, punt, and do a mea culpa. A little bit of introspection would do ya good.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (15) Sep 24, 2015
No, folks, I did not "lie"
You lied about your degree yes or no?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (16) Sep 24, 2015
mia culpa
I'm afraid you might be wasting your breath.

"And make no mistake about it: you can NOT hurt their feelings because they don't have any! They will pretend to have feelings if it suits their purposes or gets them what they want. They will verbalize remorse, but their actions will contradict their words. They know that "remorse" is important, and "apologies" are useful, and they will give them freely, though generally in words that amount to blaming the victim for needing to be apologized to."

-As always, IMHO.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Sep 24, 2015
Deng said:
This place is in desperate need of an impartial moderator. It is infested by trolls.


This is one of the first times I completely agree with you. I hope there is some moderation on this site but I am not getting my hopes up.
Shabs42
5 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2015
How does wealth plundered by the state contribute to society?

Sewage and clean water requires much energy. Switching from septic tanks to a central sewer requires significant capital: money, digging equipment, pipe, labor.
Creating this capital required low cost energy and time.


So do you think each neighborhood should pay for their own sewer systems, or does that not count as a contribution to society from the state via its plundered wealth?

Does this mean you don't pay taxes, organize or innovate because you said 'those'. 'We' implies that 'you' are included in the group.


Ah, is English not your first language? "Those" is often used as an inclusive plural first person. Usually it would be "those of us who" but a simple "those who" does not exclude the speaker. Either way, arguing semantics when the meaning of the post is obvious is a clear sign of a losing argument.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2015
contribution to society from the state

Its not a 'contribution'.
Our town put in a central sewer and the users are paying for it.

arguing semantics


Words have meaning. Which is why 'liberals' keep changing their definitions to make them, the 'liberal'/socialist/'progressive' sound less extreme.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (16) Sep 26, 2015
Ghost said:
You arent aware of the scale of the offense. Most every day he lies. These lies cant go unanswered on a science site.


You are right. I am offended by lies. However, this site is bombarded by lies every day
Few claim to be experts and waste peoples time sending them false claims of 'education' and 'experience'. George Kamburoff has so little respect for the people here that he thinks they cant tell one MS degree from another.

He thinks providing evidence that he was one of hundreds to receive an 'airman of the month' free dinner makes him an authority on military policy and surveillance tech.

He expects goobers like you and me to eat this shit up.
I have no problem with you and will abstain from voting on this issue.
Thank you. You may want to check what he posts from time to time and flag any lies or fabrications you discover.
Shabs42
5 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2015
[q[Its not a 'contribution'.
Our town put in a central sewer and the users are paying for it.

Via taxes? Is this not what you meant by plundered wealth? Or does your town have an opt-out clause where people who do not want access to the sewer can refuse to pay their portion for it? Does your town also pay for their own roads, public education, and military out of their own pockets while avoiding paying taxes? Sounds like a neat town.

Words have meaning. Which is why 'liberals' keep changing their definitions to make them, the 'liberal'/socialist/'progressive' sound less extreme.


Yes, and the point of my post was that you clearly don't understand the meaning of those words.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.