"Acting forcefully" in Obama-aaaktard'ese means destroying your electricity:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Putting Electricity Grid At Risk
When the temperature dips below freezing, reliable electricity becomes more than a matter of convenience but a matter of life and death. Unfortunately, the reliability of our electric grid is at-risk due to EPA regulations that are shutting down America’s coal plants.
Existing EPA regulations already have led to the scheduled shutdown of nearly 20 percent of the U.S. coal fleet. EPA’s newest carbon regulations being finalized this summer will lead to even more shutdowns. With coal responsible for generating nearly 40 percent of America’s electricity, these shutdowns will further strain our nation’s electricity grid and could leave many Americans in the dark this winter.
The electricity grid was already stretched to its limits last winter, when the polar vortex led to dramatic and sustained drops in temperature across much of the United States. This cold snap created an increased demand for energy, as fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil were needed to heat homes.
Utilities and energy experts agree that America’s electricity grid was barely capable of handling last year’s demands. PJM Interconnection, which serves 13 states in the mid-Atlantic, reported that they were within 2,000 megawatts of calling rolling blackouts across their service area. Utility company AEP had to call upon 89 percent of their coal-fueled generation scheduled to be retired this year in order to meet last year’s demand. FERC Commissioner Phillip Moeller told Congress that “the experience of this past winter indicates that the power grid is now already at the limit.”
If the grid was at its limit last year, things are only going to get worse as more coal plants are shutdown. There are already discouraging signs this winter. Earlier this month, Duke Energy and the Tennessee Valley Authority asked customers to conserve electricity due to concerns about the strained grid and potential blackouts.
In addition to coping with less reliable electricity, Americans are also facing skyrocketing utility costs. Natural gas is frequently used as a substitute for coal, but the demands being placed on gas are too great.
Unlike coal, gas is not usually stored at power plants but has to be transported via pipelines. When electricity demand spikes, utilities must purchase extra gas at expensive spot prices and then have the ability to get that gas delivered through a pipeline network that is already congested. This increases costs. Last winter, natural gas prices rose more than 20 percent and many customers received utility bills that were hundreds of dollars higher than usual.
Rather than recognize this danger and adjust course, the Obama Administration continues to move forward with regulations that will shutter more power plants, destroy electric reliability, and dramatically increase costs.
This winter, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity is embarking on a“Cold In the Dark” campaign to educate Americans about the risks they face from EPA regulations.
Through online videos, ads and an educational website, KeepAmericasPowerOn.org, we will make sure people understand why their utility bills are skyrocketing and why their power may go out.
Coal-based electricity is a critical resource for the United States and is essential for the reliability of our nation’s electrical grid. That is why when it comes to energy, Americans deserve an “all of the above” strategy not just an “all of the above” sound bite.
Robert “Mike” Duncan is president and CEO of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Putting Electricity Grid At Risk
When the temperature dips below freezing, reliable electricity becomes more than a matter of convenience but a matter of life and death. Unfortunately, the reliability of our electric grid is at-risk due to EPA regulations that are shutting down America’s coal plants.
Existing EPA regulations already have led to the scheduled shutdown of nearly 20 percent of the U.S. coal fleet. EPA’s newest carbon regulations being finalized this summer will lead to even more shutdowns. With coal responsible for generating nearly 40 percent of America’s electricity, these shutdowns will further strain our nation’s electricity grid and could leave many Americans in the dark this winter.
The electricity grid was already stretched to its limits last winter, when the polar vortex led to dramatic and sustained drops in temperature across much of the United States. This cold snap created an increased demand for energy, as fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil were needed to heat homes.
Utilities and energy experts agree that America’s electricity grid was barely capable of handling last year’s demands. PJM Interconnection, which serves 13 states in the mid-Atlantic, reported that they were within 2,000 megawatts of calling rolling blackouts across their service area. Utility company AEP had to call upon 89 percent of their coal-fueled generation scheduled to be retired this year in order to meet last year’s demand. FERC Commissioner Phillip Moeller told Congress that “the experience of this past winter indicates that the power grid is now already at the limit.”
If the grid was at its limit last year, things are only going to get worse as more coal plants are shutdown. There are already discouraging signs this winter. Earlier this month, Duke Energy and the Tennessee Valley Authority asked customers to conserve electricity due to concerns about the strained grid and potential blackouts.
In addition to coping with less reliable electricity, Americans are also facing skyrocketing utility costs. Natural gas is frequently used as a substitute for coal, but the demands being placed on gas are too great.
Unlike coal, gas is not usually stored at power plants but has to be transported via pipelines. When electricity demand spikes, utilities must purchase extra gas at expensive spot prices and then have the ability to get that gas delivered through a pipeline network that is already congested. This increases costs. Last winter, natural gas prices rose more than 20 percent and many customers received utility bills that were hundreds of dollars higher than usual.
Rather than recognize this danger and adjust course, the Obama Administration continues to move forward with regulations that will shutter more power plants, destroy electric reliability, and dramatically increase costs.
This winter, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity is embarking on a“Cold In the Dark” campaign to educate Americans about the risks they face from EPA regulations.
Through online videos, ads and an educational website, KeepAmericasPowerOn.org, we will make sure people understand why their utility bills are skyrocketing and why their power may go out.
Coal-based electricity is a critical resource for the United States and is essential for the reliability of our nation’s electrical grid. That is why when it comes to energy, Americans deserve an “all of the above” strategy not just an “all of the above” sound bite.
Robert “Mike” Duncan is president and CEO of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.
aaakphi-idiot's debate strategy:
Throw words like "math" and "science" around enough times, people will actually believe he's talking "math" and "science"
You can't parody this level of stupid.
Astrophysicist Dr. Dr David Whitehouse: 'The NASA press release is highly misleading...talk of a record is scientifically and statistically meaningless.'
Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer: ‘Why 2014 Won’t Be the Warmest Year on Record’ (based on surface data)– ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’
Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels debunks 2014 ‘hottest year’ claim: ‘Is 58.46° then distinguishable from 58.45°? In a word, ‘NO.’
No Record Temperatures According To SatellitesPhysicist Dr. Lubos Motl: ‘Please laugh out loud when someone will be telling you that it was the warmest year’
Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.: 'We have found a significant warm bias. Thus, the reported global average surface temperature anomaly is also too warm.'
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: 'With 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year, this implies that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade.'
Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer: ‘Why 2014 Won’t Be the Warmest Year on Record’ (based on surface data)– ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’
Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels debunks 2014 ‘hottest year’ claim: ‘Is 58.46° then distinguishable from 58.45°? In a word, ‘NO.’
No Record Temperatures According To SatellitesPhysicist Dr. Lubos Motl: ‘Please laugh out loud when someone will be telling you that it was the warmest year’
Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.: 'We have found a significant warm bias. Thus, the reported global average surface temperature anomaly is also too warm.'
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: 'With 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year, this implies that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade.'
We're doomed.
Even though the 'climate' has been 'changing' for millions of years, akphi-idiot's 'math' says we're doomed.
Show us those super-duper smart computer models designed by educated people making intelligent informed decisions that predict "rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe”... if we do not act forcefully?
k:
Even though the 'climate' has been 'changing' for millions of years, akphi-idiot's 'math' says we're doomed.
Show us those super-duper smart computer models designed by educated people making intelligent informed decisions that predict "rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe”... if we do not act forcefully?
k:Here's from the mathematician that developed confidence intervals. I'm sure Sheriff Joe's bloggers know more than this guy about what he developed...
A 95% confidence interval does not mean that for a given realised interval calculated from sample data there is a 95% probability the population parameter lies within the interval, nor that there is a 95% probability that the interval covers the population parameter. Once an experiment is done and an interval calculated, this interval either covers the parameter value or it does not, it is no longer a matter of probability. The 95% probability relates to the reliability of the estimation procedure, not to a specific calculated interval.[SUP][11][/SUP] Neyman himself made this point in his original paper:[SUP][3][/SUP]
"It will be noticed that in the above description, the probability statements refer to the problems of estimation with which the statistician will be concerned in the future. In fact, I have repeatedly stated that the frequency of correct results will tend to α. Consider now the case when a sample is already drawn and the calculations have given [particular limits]. Can we say that in this particular case the probability of the true value [falling between these limits] is equal to α? The answer is obviously in the negative. The parameter is an unknown constant and no probability statement concerning its value may be made..
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said, you guys are very dumb people... so you have absolutely no clue what NASA means with the 38% probability. They even tell you that you are misunderstanding them yet you continue to believe your nonsense. It is hilarious how dumb conservatives are.
A 95% confidence interval does not mean that for a given realised interval calculated from sample data there is a 95% probability the population parameter lies within the interval, nor that there is a 95% probability that the interval covers the population parameter. Once an experiment is done and an interval calculated, this interval either covers the parameter value or it does not, it is no longer a matter of probability. The 95% probability relates to the reliability of the estimation procedure, not to a specific calculated interval.[SUP][11][/SUP] Neyman himself made this point in his original paper:[SUP][3][/SUP]
"It will be noticed that in the above description, the probability statements refer to the problems of estimation with which the statistician will be concerned in the future. In fact, I have repeatedly stated that the frequency of correct results will tend to α. Consider now the case when a sample is already drawn and the calculations have given [particular limits]. Can we say that in this particular case the probability of the true value [falling between these limits] is equal to α? The answer is obviously in the negative. The parameter is an unknown constant and no probability statement concerning its value may be made..
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said, you guys are very dumb people... so you have absolutely no clue what NASA means with the 38% probability. They even tell you that you are misunderstanding them yet you continue to believe your nonsense. It is hilarious how dumb conservatives are.
Tracking Climate Fraud
NASA Rewriting US History | Real Science
30% Of GISS Warming Is Due To Data Tampering Since 2005
Visualizing How USHCN Hides The Decline In US Temperatures | Real Science
How NCDC Hides The Decline | Real Science
Visualizing How Wildly Corrupt NOAA And GISS Are | Real Science
Hansen Caught In Another Big Lie | Real Science
Another GISS Smoking Gun | Real Science
USHCN 2.5 Cheating Goes Full Hockey Stick | Real Science
NOAA Temperature Fraud Expands (Part 3)
USHCN 2.5 New Temperature Cheat | Real Science
Raising Arizona
Hiding The Decline In Louisiana
Record NOAA Fraud In North Carolina : Sixth Coldest Autumn On Record
USHCN Sets New Record For Adjusting “Raw” Data
The Real Hockey Stick
The Big Picture Of USHCN Adjustment Fraud
More Detail On The USHCN TOBS Cheat
Sea Level Data Tampering
NSIDC : Pretending That The Satellite Era Began in 1979
Mann Made Climate Change – Disappearing The MWP
Sea Level Tampering Smoking Gun
Satellite Sea Level Fraud
Hansen Busted Again, Turning A Cooling Trend Into A Warming Trend
NOAA’s Climate Summaries Are A Farce
NASA Rewriting US History | Real Science
30% Of GISS Warming Is Due To Data Tampering Since 2005
Visualizing How USHCN Hides The Decline In US Temperatures | Real Science
How NCDC Hides The Decline | Real Science
Visualizing How Wildly Corrupt NOAA And GISS Are | Real Science
Hansen Caught In Another Big Lie | Real Science
Another GISS Smoking Gun | Real Science
USHCN 2.5 Cheating Goes Full Hockey Stick | Real Science
NOAA Temperature Fraud Expands (Part 3)
USHCN 2.5 New Temperature Cheat | Real Science
Raising Arizona
Hiding The Decline In Louisiana
Record NOAA Fraud In North Carolina : Sixth Coldest Autumn On Record
USHCN Sets New Record For Adjusting “Raw” Data
The Real Hockey Stick
The Big Picture Of USHCN Adjustment Fraud
More Detail On The USHCN TOBS Cheat
Sea Level Data Tampering
NSIDC : Pretending That The Satellite Era Began in 1979
Mann Made Climate Change – Disappearing The MWP
Sea Level Tampering Smoking Gun
Satellite Sea Level Fraud
Hansen Busted Again, Turning A Cooling Trend Into A Warming Trend
NOAA’s Climate Summaries Are A Farce
My confidence interval that the liberal arts college flunky posts drunk at least 70% of the time is over 97.52%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmmm....who should we believe, actual scientists, or a liberal arts college flunky?
I know, so difficult. I think I'm going to have to sleep on it, lol.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Astrophysicist Dr. Dr David Whitehouse: 'The NASA press release is highly misleading...talk of a record is scientifically and statistically meaningless.'
Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer: ‘Why 2014 Won’t Be the Warmest Year on Record’ (based on surface data)– ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’
Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels debunks 2014 ‘hottest year’ claim: ‘Is 58.46° then distinguishable from 58.45°? In a word, ‘NO.’
No Record Temperatures According To SatellitesPhysicist Dr. Lubos Motl: ‘Please laugh out loud when someone will be telling you that it was the warmest year’
Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.: 'We have found a significant warm bias. Thus, the reported global average surface temperature anomaly is also too warm.'
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: 'With 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year, this implies that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade.'
Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer: ‘Why 2014 Won’t Be the Warmest Year on Record’ (based on surface data)– ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’
Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels debunks 2014 ‘hottest year’ claim: ‘Is 58.46° then distinguishable from 58.45°? In a word, ‘NO.’
No Record Temperatures According To SatellitesPhysicist Dr. Lubos Motl: ‘Please laugh out loud when someone will be telling you that it was the warmest year’
Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.: 'We have found a significant warm bias. Thus, the reported global average surface temperature anomaly is also too warm.'
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: 'With 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year, this implies that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade.'
Hmmmm....who should we believe, actual scientists, or a liberal arts college flunky?
I know, so difficult. I think I'm going to have to sleep on it, lol.
Small wonder the liberal arts college flunky is C&P "confidence intervals" links. lol
The difference between trumpeting "HOTTEST YEAR EVER!!" (uhh, only over the last 100 years on a planet 4.5 BILLION years old) and ending up with egg on their faces, as the 'warmers' always do, is hundredths of a degree.
THAT is what the argument is about - nothing.
And yet...
"The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe.” - Obama's State of Confusion
My "confidence interval" that these radical Marxists are full of shit and that FL will not end up under water is 99.942642783%
Stick that "math" in your pipe and smoke it, akphi-idiot.
Loser!@#0
The difference between trumpeting "HOTTEST YEAR EVER!!" (uhh, only over the last 100 years on a planet 4.5 BILLION years old) and ending up with egg on their faces, as the 'warmers' always do, is hundredths of a degree.
THAT is what the argument is about - nothing.
And yet...
"The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe.” - Obama's State of Confusion
My "confidence interval" that these radical Marxists are full of shit and that FL will not end up under water is 99.942642783%
Stick that "math" in your pipe and smoke it, akphi-idiot.
Loser!@#0
