Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Much at Stake for Coal

July 24, 2013

Editor’s Note: Following are excerpts from a speech given Saturday by Robert E. Murray, chief executive officer of Murray Energy Cor....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Jul-30-13 7:28 AM

Badwater all you libbies drink the Obama Koolaid that coal output and jobs have increased, based on 2 year old figures.

They PEAKED in 2011, are on the downhill slide now that the war is ON.

Power plants are being FORCED to convert, not because it is so cost effective.

Yeah a NEW plant would likely go gas because it is cheaper NOW. But would you TEAR DOWN a functional plant and build a new gas plant on the basis of money alone?

Of course not, it is pressure from the EPA and the Gov.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-30-13 6:57 AM

Cleanwater needs to come clean. Just say what you mean: you will support any progressive agenda at any cost. You are intelligent, yes. But you cannot camoflouge your liberal roots. Paying a carbon tax penalty, or any penalty to the feds does not make someone guilty. It just means they are on the wrong end of a political agenda. Since you are into reseach, it shouldn't be hard to find scientific articles supporting global cooling in the early 1970's should it?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-29-13 11:08 PM

CleanWater “Candidates from both parties; please ... do something toward developing new industries for the coal counties.”

So you think politicians can develop industries? LOL I think you’re confusing politician with industrial engineer. But keep supporting politicians who promise to find jobs for you instead of supporting industrial development that actually produces jobs, and then keep wondering why you can’t find a job. Derrrrrr......

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-29-13 10:07 PM

Da wraith, the coal production/jobs example in my post stopped at 2011, not 1993. The decline from 2012 to your data point is largely attributed to natural gas, not the phony war on coal.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-29-13 9:48 PM

If first quarter holds for all of 2013, the coal output is BACK to the output of your 1993 figure dude!

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-29-13 9:44 PM

Badwater, it should be obvious to ANYBODY that figures from 1993 are 20 friggen years out of date and hence meaningless.

Of course, THAT would be the only way for you to make your point, namely LYING.


"Highlights for first quarter 2013:

U.S. coal production during first quarter 2013 totaled 245.1 million short tons. This was about 1.8% lower than the previous quarter and 8.0% lower than first quarter 2012. Production in the Western Region, which represented 52.7% of total U.S. production, dropped to 129.2 million short tons from 136.7 million short tons in fourth quarter 2012."

War on Coal: REAL.

20 year old data: FAIL!

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-29-13 8:17 PM

Candidates from both parties; please just shut up about a non-existent war on coal and do something toward developing new industries for the coal counties. To continue ranting about a phantom war on coal either shows your ignorance or shows you to be a liar.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-29-13 8:15 PM

DaWraith: today's weather forecast = global climate trend = hoax = conspiracy.

Back to the phony war on coal. Here are some facts taken directly from the National Mining Association's own website.

In 1923 there were 704,793 coal miners producing 564.6 million tons of coal in the US.

By 1953, 293,106 miners to produce 457.3 million tons.

In 1993 the number of miners had dropped to 101,322 yet production more than doubled to 945.4 million tons and by 2011 just 88,000 miners were producing 1,094.3 million tons.

It should be obvious that environmental restrictions have not cut into coal production, but technological advances have eliminated hundreds of thousands of jobs. There simply is no war on coal. There may be a war on coal miners, but it isn't the EPA or the President that is leading it. Politicians can rail against the EPA all they want, but those jobs are not coming back.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-29-13 7:59 AM

Funny wienerdawg quote a book written by Chris Mooney.

Chris Mooney is a science and political journalist, blogger, podcaster.

NO DEGREEE is Sciences, NO INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE in science, just a "Blogger"

Chris was born in Mesa, Arizona, and grew up in New Orleans, Louisiana; he graduated from Yale University in 1999, where he wrote a column for the Yale Daily News. Before becoming a freelance writer, Chris worked for two years at The American Prospect as a writing fellow, then staff writer, then online editor (where he helped to create the popular blog Tapped).

NO SCIENCE EXPERIENCE whatsoever. Just like Wienerdawg!

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-29-13 5:43 AM

Weather Channel:

"Folks in the Midwest must be wondering where summer went, with record-low temperatures blanketing the region this weekend and another unusually cool day expected Monday.

Saturday brought unseasonably chilly daytime temperatures from the upper Mississippi Valley to the Great Lakes.

Chicago saw a high of just 65 at O'Hare on Saturday, breaking the daily coolest-high record of 69 set in 1981. Up the road a bit, Milwaukee tied its 1981 record-cool high of 64.

Meanwhile, the Twin Cities also stalled at 64 degrees Saturday, a new July 27 record there, eclipsing the 1991 record-chilly high of 65 by one degree."

Some people are just too Effing dumb to get even the simplest concepts.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-28-13 9:13 PM

Wheel, I'll have to check the book out!!!

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-28-13 8:19 PM

WV, thanks for the feedback. I respect your perspective and viewpoints, but I cannot agree with them. The consensus of credible climate scientists is most definitely that human forcing is taking place, and the average global temperature is increasing. I did check out the source you cited and was puzzled that the reported "consensus" of scientists opposes the role of humans and even the reality of significant climate change. When I did additional background research on this source I learned it is not a scientific research organization but is instead a conservative group presenting conservative viewpoints on science issues.

FWIW, I just came across this book, "The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science- and Reality" Figured you might get a laugh out of it.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-28-13 12:07 PM

Wheel, The impact of civilization on the planet is undeniable, but to what extent is the question. From Forbes, "It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem."

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-28-13 8:39 AM

I notice the overnight low on 7/25 and 7/25 in 26003 was 52.

To date Wheeling has received 5.62 inches of rain in July; normal is about 4 inches.

Does THAT sound like global warming to any SANE person??? Thought it was supposed to HOT and DRY?

If a "climate scientist" told Wienerdawg to "eat scat and bark at the moon", the oldawg would be out howling all night with his nose covered in brown.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-28-13 7:47 AM

The nice thing about real science is that it is not changed by the politics of con men like Al Gore.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-28-13 7:46 AM

Get a clue, Poseurdawg. "Climate Science" is not a hard science, it is POLITICAL SCIENCE.

A few hundred researchers whose PAYCHECK depends on promoting the lie support it.

Over 30,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition stating there is NO REAL EVIDENCE of Global Warming.

When the IPCC, keepers of the data that allegedly proved Global Warming, have LOST that database, only science challenged housewife would consider that "science"

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-28-13 12:57 AM

Wheel, it's not about how I "feel." It's simply the way it is. But yes, that applies to all areas.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-27-13 9:56 PM

Troll, I assume you feel the same way about all forms of scientific research and study.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-27-13 7:04 PM

No conspiracy, Wheeldog. Simply economics and psychology. If your studies prove global warming, that’s exciting, that leads to more questions – how much, when, where, why - and you get funded to do more studies. If your studies prove no global warming, that’s boring, and what’s left to study, nothing? So you get no more funding. After you paid for a study that showed nothing was happening, would you fund a study designed to show that nothing is still happening?

Natural selection of studies. Studies that find something lead to more studies. Studies that find nothing lead to nothing. Is evolution a conspiracy? Same thing. But if you can’t understand that, I understand.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-27-13 6:51 PM

Troll, are you saying that more than 90% of accredited climate scientists are part of an international plot to perpetrate a falsehood regarding climate change? That's a pretty massive conspiracy. The reality is that human influenced global warming is real and poses a serious concern for the health of our planet and the future of our own specie.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-27-13 2:00 PM

In short, if you're not a "warmer" you're not welcome in the warmer "scientist" community. It's like not being invited to the Chicken Little party.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-27-13 1:59 PM

Wheeldog, those agencies typically hire “researchers” who toe the party line. And especially researchers who are able to obtain Government grant-funded studies that lead to follow-on Government grant-funded studies, with follow-on residuals to those agencies.

Who do you think gets the funding for the follow-on study? Researcher A whose previous studies indicate no global warming so no need for further studies, or Researcher B whose previous studies indicate global warming that needs to be further studied? And which researcher is more likely to be hired to do more Government grant-funded residuals-providing studies?

It’s like natural selection, with the researchers who find positive results being selected for future studies and the researchers who find negative results producing no future revenue so eliminated from the warmer community.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-26-13 11:45 PM

How is it that dah has not been hired as climate expert by NOAA, NWS, NASA, etc.? These agencies and a host of other professional climate research organizations and groups have somehow overlooked the enormous expertise of the omnipotent dah! Of course, they and 90% of credible climate scientists have been intentionally misleading us in a leftwing, commie effort to undermine the American Way! Uh huh.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-26-13 5:19 PM

Poseurdawg, at 150 ppm CO2 life ceases to exist on earth because all plant life dies.

We are at about 380-400 ppm.

It has been as high as 2000 ppm during the "Garden of Eden" days of the Dinosaurs and the earth OBVIOUSLY survived.

Scientists have proven a RISE in temperature comes about 800 YEARS BEFORE an increase in CO2.

CO2 cannot POSSIBLY be a cause of warming, it is an E-F-F-E-C-T of warming.

Go back to pandering on something ELSE you don't understand like Peak Oil or Sasquatch.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-25-13 11:53 PM

Oops, you’re right, CleanWater. And you’re wrong. I didn't mean anthropomorphic, which relates to human form. I didn't’ mean anthropocentric, either, which relates to human importance. I meant anthropogenic, which relates to human influence.

Any-who, enjoy that carbon tax. Because it will be passed directly on to your electric bill. So you’d better go solar and wind now. Be a leader and show us how it’s done. Without government subsidies, because that’s cheating. And we’ve had quite enough Solyndras lately, thank you very much.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 38 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.

I am looking for: