Co2 doesn’t honor national boundaries

Apr 10, 2014


I just got my April issue of National Geographic magazine. The featured article is all about coal and what we are doing to clean it up.

The headline states environmentalists say that clean coal is a myth. They pretty much go on to prove it.

According to the article, coal is the dirtiest, most lethal energy source in the world.

It also dumps more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere then all other sources combined, a lot more.

Carbon dioxide is the pollutant most responsible for global warming. In under-developed countries like  Russia, South Africa, India and China, black lung disease and other respiratory illness is rampant in the coal-burning areas.

The United States is frantically implementing ways to reduce carbon dioxide and the other pollutants in this country while at the same time doubling its exports to China.

That's a little like saying that we are cleaning up the bubonic plague in the U.S. while exporting it to China, doesn't it? How does that resonate?

It only makes sense from a purely monetary point of view.

The ethics of it are dreadful. They can't sell their dirty coal in this country, but they can sell it to China.

I don't like it, and I don't think Captain America likes it either.

Dave Page


Comments (6)
Posted by: steven d keeler | Apr 10, 2014 23:56

Carbon dioxide is the pollutant most responsible for global warming.

If Mr. Page had ANY knowledge of science, he should understand that atmospheric water vapor is the "claimed" amplifying factor that supposedly will cause his catastrophic man made global warming.  CO2 only plays a minor secondary role in any of the "scare" scenarios.

Once again, for all of Edmonds to read, the eco nuts lay out a "doom" prophecy, as hyped by the left of liberal National Geo, what use to be a great magazine, now taken over by the "agenda"

Do you have any other "fear phrases" to trot out ?


Steven Keeler

Edmonds, WA


Posted by: Nathaniel R Brown | Apr 11, 2014 10:07

Thank you Mr. Page, for daring the wrath of the ever-dyspeptic Mr. Keeler.  Your points are well taken, in line with both broad-based science and caution. One might add that though "They can't sell their dirty coal in this country, but they can sell it to China," some 10% of the resulting pollutants will blow back our way.  We are steadily losing our green earth.


Welcome now, to the club of those who know nothing about science, are spreading scare scenarios, and who are eco nuts, perhaps even watermelons!  Better these things, though, than standing on the bridge of the Titanic with Capt Smith and Mr. Keeler, asking for more speed and denying the icebergs.  Though one expects that Capt. Smith might have been more courteous....


Posted by: steven d keeler | Apr 11, 2014 13:12


Both Page and Brown have no scientific points.  Thus the usual 97 percent echo ( their consensus has been completely discredited with respect to the survey questions AND the follow up statistical methods ) which is followed by the usual scare phrases.


The warmists ignore both the lack of atmospheric warming ( they have NO current creditable explanation ) and the over 31,000 petition signers ( meteorologists, physicists and climate scientists ) of the Oregon petition.

Their consensus consists of groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, hey, if you have 30 bucks and a credit card, you too can be a concerned scientists ! The AMA is broad based science, with respect to climate science ?

yes, the ethics of their "agenda" are dreadful !

Posted by: Nathaniel R Brown | Apr 11, 2014 17:09

My point, Mr. Keeler, was less about Climate Change than about maintaining a degree of civility in these pages.  "Warmists" is certainly an improvement!  But I will continue to side with those of us who oppose exploitation, pollution and the "science" generated by Big Energy.  Perhaps you might give us some hints about the brighter, better, CLEANER  future you are working for?

Posted by: steven d keeler | Apr 11, 2014 17:35


NatGeo refences American Association for the Advancement of Science .

from the AAAS webpage :

However, AAAS's permanence was not preordained and, despite the many contributions it made during its first 50 years, the Association came close to extinction more than once. Ultimately, an alliance with Science magazine, which had failed as a private venture, rejuvenated both the magazine and AAAS.

Got a credit card ?  You too can be a member of this "stellar organization", perhaps a student member, a patron member, or a teacher member ! ?

Join and promote the "religion"

Posted by: Nathaniel R Brown | Apr 13, 2014 10:08

Once again, Mr. Keeler, you seem to avoid answering questions. I think most of us would like to know 1) why you are so vehement and willing to denigrate others who disagree with you, 2) why, given the possible consequences of Climate Change, you do not advocate any caution, 3) what vision you have of a cleaner, more livable planet, given the current rate of pollution, de-forestation and exploitation, whether these are the causes of Climate Change or not.

In the mean time, we read in today’s NYT:

“BERLIN — The countries of the world have dragged their feet so long on global warming that the situation is now critical, experts appointed by the United Nations reported Sunday, and only an intensive worldwide push over the next 15 years can stave off potentially disastrous climatic changes later in the century.

“We cannot afford to lose another decade,” said Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and co-chairman of the committee that wrote the report. “If we lose another decade, it becomes extremely costly to achieve climate stabilization.”

Or today’s Guardian:

“The authoritative report, produced by 1250 international experts and approved by 194 governments, dismisses fears that slashing carbon emissions would wreck the world economy. It is the final part of a definitive trilogy that has already shown that climate change is “unequivocally” caused by humans and that, unchecked, it poses a grave threat to people and could lead to lead to wars and mass migration.”


And we have already discussed the National Geographic.


Frankly, I am willing to listen to 1250 “international experts” and 194 governments, (even though printed in newspapers and the Geographic!), as well as to the “religion” of ecological preservation. The risks are simply too great to ignore - watermelon, fascist, scammer though I am sure you will label me. Nothing you have so far written persuades me that you have something better on offer.

If you wish to comment, please login.