saragnac wrote:I believe the term is cherry picking data. What's amazing about all this is that it has not been proven that CO2 is actually causing much, if any significant warming. In fact, last year's data is showing that solar radiation is seeding clouds which may just be the culprit to all this. It would also explain the cyclical changes when you look at it from a proper point of view, say over thousands of years, not just 60.
This blog post was not about climate change or warming. The words "warming" and "climate" don't even appear in the paper. I wrote the blog because mountain top mining is destroying Appalachia -- not just our mountain tops and valleys below, but the economy and the health of those who live there. Please take another look at the paper, and let me know if there is something in it that you don't think to be true.
- David Stanghttp://davidstang.com/?p=89
Too much information was gleaned from the internet and not qualified in my humble opinion. Be careful of statistics. Figures can lie and liars can figure.
In my brief read of the article, I ended up confused at to what your primary goal and position was. If your beef is not with coal, but only mining technics, then focus on the mining pros and cons, not the product pros and cons.
Don't forget long wall mining too, it has planned subsidence of the ground above. Should it be limited or curtailed also?
Don't leave it at coal mining. There are many other mineral mining techniques that have left vast superfund clean up sites. Look at copper, lead, uranium, silver and gold mining also.
Enviromental issues are tough to balance as everbodys tipping point is different and there is so much to be gained from peddling junk science.