Republican National Committee Just Officially Declared That Coal Is "Clean"

That is not the problem. She is an extreme sociopath. She knows the truth, and gets so far out of it's way, it becomes comical when she denies it. If you or I did what she did in relation to her emails, we would be in prison for decades, under criminal negligence, and espionage most likely. Her getting off does not surprise me. If Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, along with their cabinet, were not indicted under international war crimes statutes, it is obvious as to whether or not Hilary would go to prison for this, in an election year.

Huh, looks like you were right.

The e-mail investigation produced facts not in dispute backed by the FBI director that Hillary was not truthful in her comments as a result people have changed their opinion on her truthfulness which explains how her numbers rose and fell in the polls.

So her numbers rose, retroactively in the past, based upon what the FBI director said last week? You still have not articulated how her dropping due to, as you put it "Hillary's poll numbers are falling because of Honesty and Morality." also explains her rising in the polls as well.

I don't know about international law, but they did not violate US law.

Her number were rising until the FBI director made his public report not to indict Hillary. Since the report her number have been dropping and as of today Trump now holds a seven point lead nationally. Just for the heck of it I looked up Hillary's lies and was astounded at what I found.

Still not at all addressed. If it is her lack of morals and ethics that determined her drop in polls, what explains the times she rose in polls?

My worry about these harmful means of energy is that when we stop using them it'll be because the cost of extraction exceeds the economic return, which we will see in our lifetimes on all ends from oil, coal, and natural gas. One example of this already in effect is fracking profits themselves are so miniscule that high energy costs themselves are essential for making it profitable and since natural gas prices are tied to the barrel of oil costs when oil went down it became unprofitable to pursue for quite a while. My worry about when we move on from coal and oil and gas is that when we do it, we won't have the resources needed to transform our energy needs. Making solar and wind and other forms of renewable require lots of power themselves which won't be available when switching to them becomes imperative. Right now we need to transform to a renewable future, and we'll need the energy of the dirty fuels to get us there. Right now they're not we're doing that.

Planning for a radically different future too means making many big changes to our lifestyles. For instance, as a country we need to promote new technologies for things like localized food production, like indoor urban farms. We have to rezone our cities to mix up commercial, business, and residential to cut down on epic commutes, we have to redesign transportation that everyone can use and with an infrastructure that's manageable. We'll have to focus on urbanization to save money. Surely in the future too how we live is going to change. More people will likely need to be packed into single dwellings. We'll need to cut back on our materialism and individualism and work more collectively. More work, less leisure. The future is going to be a challenge.

If trains weren't killed off by automobiles, I'd guarantee steam trains would still be a thing in the US.

My apologies as to there was a miscommunication on my part. It looks as if I was agreeing with JimB's standpoint on her poll numbers falling, but I wasn't necessarily commenting on that as I was just trying to imply that a lot of politicians aren't honest or have morals they stand by.

Amen to that.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231265577_Development_of_Catalyst_Free_Carbon_Nanotubes_from_Coal_and_Waste_Plastics

CO2 product is a resource for mass carbon nanotube materials production. If there's a problem then there's an opportunity.

All jokes aside, it really does scare the living hell out of me the republican party. This isn't very surprising to hear considering most republicans still don't even believe that global warming is occurring. Clean energy and global energy should be the number priority, not only to the U.S. government, but to the whole entire world.

Global warming is occurring, but man made global warming is only 3% of the problem. Scientists have not been able to prove or disprove the man made global warming problem. Before you start citing that 97% of scientists believe in global warming look behind the green curtain they could not agree that is why it is a consensus and not fact. They just stopped arguing about it.

Someone one other than the Republicans said it. The source was from someone in the Obama Administration, the FBI Director.

wut?

Coal is clean and 2+2=5.

@drunk_pi: Not all scientists believe 2+2=4. Many of them argue that 2+2=5 but you won't hear that from our biased commie media.

Smoking cigarettes is good for you too. The camel said so.

Easy there dude, you don't want to be the guy who speaks scientifically sound, level-headed sentences here. This is a topic where the only opinions allowed are those of uneducated cretins, lest you be called a shill for whatever lobbies are flavor of the month.

Fairly sure the second principle of thermodynamics has something to say about that

There's expensive $$$$ price tag for carbon nanotube materials.

There's expensive $$$$ price tag for carbon nanotube materials.

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/carbon-nanofibres-atmosphere-licht

'Solar powered' nanofibre factory pulls CO2 out of the air

Do you know what the second principle of thermodynamics is?

Also, the article you linked has nothing to do with CO2. The only reason a newspaper even made an article out of this is because the guy publicizing his research managed to sneak the locution "CO2 reduction" into his attempt at advertising and of course the scientifically illiterate journalist who heard it fell for it hook, line and sinker.

So having morals is somehow incompatible with valuing science/evidence? Wut?

The only poll showing Trump with a lead is Rassmusen, which is biased towards Republicans. Rassmusen was completely wrong about the 2012 election because of that same Republican bias. Besides that poll and another one showing a tie nationally, Hillary is ahead in every other poll, though the race has narrowed somewhat.

You really need to look at all the data rather than just the data that you want to believe. That is part of being a well-informed person.

Great post. Frankly, considering the right's general philosophy about how people should be treated, the idea that they have some kind of monopoly on morality is frankly preposterous. The right is all about psuedo-morality like being against homosexuality, morality that doesn't actually make the world a better place. Whereas the left, though not even close to perfect (just look at all the disgusting racism from Bernie supporters), shows more compassion and concern for other human beings (that people on the right use "social justice warrior" as a pejorative term says it all really). It's weird that the right is so ultra-Christian because their callous lack of compassion and their constant need to judge other people flies in the face of Jesus' teachings. It's like they look at the Bible and say "Let's follow all the bad archaic stuff and ignore all the good stuff!"

It's not a surprising statement at all. Most of the people who feel the need to claim that they act based on morality (or whatever other generic, all-encompassing and meaningless word is flavor of the month at the moment), do so specifically because they want to go against science/evidence.

Not surprised in the slightest that that's their stance...

There's just too many idiots in the world. And sadly, a lot of them are in powerful positions in government.

Social Justice Warrior has lost all its meaning. I have been called one for the same statements I have been called a homophobe and an islamophobe for (two other terms that also lost their meaning). Some Cranks, will call you whatever is the extreme opposite of their position for simply not agreeing with their ridiculous agenda. Empiricism is the way to go, and sadly, it will make you more enemies than friends.

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

I find that quote to apply to both Sanders Supporters (especially the bunch who now hate Sanders because he endorsed Hillary) AND self proclaimed followers of Christ. Btw did you hear about Robert Jeffress... a christian pastor who would rather vote for Donald Trump than Jesus Christ? I find that to be very telling.

@GreySeal9: Yeah, the Democrats are not great across the board, but the Republicans keep reaching for new depths of repugnance. How anyone can say they are the party of morality with a straight face is beyond me.

Because of different moral values and standards... it can go right into crank territory too. Wasnt there a person who said just 2 weeks ago or so that actions that keep society stable (regardless of how detrimental they are) are moral. Even including atrocities like veiling women, suppressing human nature and killing apostates and blasphemers.

Of course, not all moral codes are created equally. Some moral codes are objectively better than others, as they lead to far greater well being to a society. Unusual punishments and laws are not moral. Likewise, the moral platform on the GOP are also very disgusting. But alas, as long as moral relativity remains, and intelligent discussion is often shut out of the moral atmosphere. Morality is one field that has probably more cranks than any other. Mistaking ideology for morality.

@foxhound_fox:

steam trains were killed off by gasoline / diesel and then diesel electric trains. it's not efficient for a train to have to be constantly stopping to refill it's boilers with more and more water

maybe we should bring back steam powered automobiles

@comp_atkins: Closed loops water systems. Nuclear trains. Think beyond!

a nuclear powered train wouldn't have much use for coal then would it?

Throwing my hat in here.

Nuclear has its own problems. Not as bad as coal, but it still has serious problems and fully embracing it with open arms may not be the best idea.

Uranium deposits are limited, and a huge proportion of it is on sanctioned native american lands. So that now brings up the issue of shitting on the natives, again, for profit. Then there's the actual issue of getting the uranium out, which absolutely obliterates the landscape that its in, and then there's the issue of safely disposing of nuclear waste. You gotta get rid of it somewhere, but no town ordinance is willing to have it stashed nearby.

All of the energy sources have problem. Hydroelectric power has killed more $$$ worth of fish than it has generated through the value of its electricity. Windmills kill birds, solar is expensive, uses toxic compounds, and has stupid maintenance problems, geothermal is extremely limited, etc etc etc.

All that being said though, **** coal. It and hydrofracking are by far the worst options available to us.

Just watched the DNC's first night.

I'm 100% decided. I'm voting democrat. Throughout all four nights the republicans failed to make even vague gestures about environmental issues.

Granted, my undergrad studies were in aquatic and fisheries science, so I'll be the first to admit that my perspective is skewed. All the same, the Democrats have at given the environment lip service, and their platform doesn't have retarded shit in it like "Coal is clean".