Or are you opposing PC just as a matter of habit?

Jun 7, 2019 at 12:40 PM | AK

I thought I had explained .......

"Jun 6, 2019 at 10:34 AM | Phil Clarke
You rely on Mann's Hockey Stick, Bloomberg and Steele's Dodgy Dossier. Are you a reliable source?
Jun 6, 2019 at 5:52 PM | golf charlie"

Bloomberg has "invested" in Global Warming propaganda, and even flies to COPs that Trump realises are a waste of jet fuel. As Climate Science founders on lack of science and evidence, panic is setting in. Trump is likely to cut funding leaving the likes of Bloomberg to pay the Climate Science wage bill without taxpayer assistance.

Try Googling Bloomberg Greta
She might aswell make stuff up herself for the next IPCC report front cover

Could GC be confusing the Bloomberg news service, which I have quoted, with its founder Michael Bloomberg, who I have not? Needless to say, I am not paid by either Bloomberg.

I've never posted anything about Steele or his dossier, so far as I remember. So it goes. In other news Dr. Mann settles his case in the  BC Supreme Court.

GolfCharlie. No I was wondering specifically why you were seemingly attacking PH's contributions about Trump's excuses for not releasing his tax affairs (which other Presidents have done without fail). Those contributions I found pertinent, yet seemingly as a matter of course you attacked them, but did not offer any reasons. I wondered why, that's all.

"I wondered why, that's all.
Jun 8, 2019 at 2:22 PM | AK"

Because Phil Clarke is 97% wrong 97% of the time with his prepaid propaganda, why should his sources be given the benefit of the doubt?

As Trump has been FALSELY accused by liars within the Obama Administration, FBI, DOJ etc, and innocent people have been victimised, penalised and jailed because of those corrupt liars, why should Trump expect to be treated fairly?

On a more general note on this "Trump" thread, I have just reread the first five pages. I had a gut feeling that bits of the Steele Dossier were not quite right, but had no idea how extensive the con trick, conniving and conspiracy was.

"Media Hoar, I was not a Trump fan but ...
The more I realise who he is annoying the most, the more I like him. Too many are relying on dossiers more dodgy than anything produced on behalf of Blair.
Jan 23, 2017 at 1:15 PM | golf charlie"

"Stewgreen. Ahah, you mean those "alternative facts" eminating from Trump Central? Just how do you determine whose "truth" is true?
Jan 24, 2017 at 1:48 PM | Supertroll"

Bloomberg proves he is not to be trusted, but can afford to pay US Climate Scientists as they lose Taxpayer funding.

"Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg will spend another $500 million to continue his war against the coal industry.
Bloomberg will fund environmentalist campaigns at the state and local level to replace coal plants with wind and solar energy.
Conservative critics said Bloomberg’s campaign will kill thousands of jobs and leave communities devastated."
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/09/mike-bloomberg-devotes-500-million-to-kill-coal-jobs-influence-2020-elections/

The highly subsidised US coal industry has been shedding jobs since 1985, as energy production moved to cheaper gas and environmental standards on mercury and other emissions were tightened. Trump has tried to further subsidise the industry but it's future is grim simply due to market forces.

100,000 coal mining jobs gone in 3 decades, I don't recall 'conservative critics' kicking up much of a fuss when it was the invisible hand of the market laying people off.

Jun 10, 2019 at 8:56 AM | Phil Clarke

Why is Bloomberg trying to corrupt market forces with professional propaganda?

That is why people want Trump to keep generating jobs.

So when the US Government pours $Bilions into coal, including tax credits, foregone royalties, undervalued leases and technological subsidies, that's a free market.

When an individual uses his own money to fund an entirely lawful campaign, that's 'propaganda'.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Hey Phil - care to elaborate where the taypayer funded subsidies that Obamah handed out to solar and wind went vs. the cost / benefit?

Is Bloomberg going to run in 2020 ? = we aren't looking at undead philanthropy here

Trump takes credit for new mining jobs in a Pennsylvania coal plant planned and opened before the 2016 election. Such prescience!

Jun 10, 2019 at 1:06 PM | Phil Clarke
Green propaganda is your professional area of expertise.

President Donald Trump is taking credit for the opening of a new coal mine in the state of Pennsylvania, even though plans were made for the mine to open "well before his election" and the mine is expected to generate only 100 permanent jobs, according to the Los Angeles Times. Trump called the coal mine the first of the "Trump era" in a tweet.

- Salon

Agent Orange also made this eyebrow-raising claim

 you know, in Pennsylvania, two weeks ago they opened the mine -- the first mine that was opened in decades.  Opened a mine.

And you know all the people that were saying the mining jobs?  Well, we picked up 45,000 mining jobs in a very short period of time.  And everybody was saying, well, you won’t get any mining jobs.  We picked up 45,000 mining jobs, and the miners are very happy with Trump and with Pence.  And we're very proud of that

According to the US Bureau of Labour Statistics at the time the total number of coal mining jobs in the entire country was around 50,800. So the US coal mining industry was being run on a skeleton staff until the Donald magicked up an 800% boost in employment.

Pants permanently on fire.

tomo, You could try
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4585696/New-coal-touted-Trump-opens-Pennsylvania.html
One of several hundred entries on the topic.
Mildly surprised at your inability.
Note coal is for making steel, not for thermal power plants which would be needed to significantly increase mining workforce.
Also entries when inputting "US coal mining jobs" and "Trump" vary widely, but overall PC is probably correct when he writes that US is in decline because of market forces (= competition with natural gas) and environmental pressures are not helping. Trump IMHO is probably pushing a losing cause (but one which makes political sense for him).

Should be "US coal is in decline"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/20/pennsylvania-coal-company-to-open-second-mine-since-trump-took-office.html

The chief executive of Pennsylvania-based Corsa Coal Corp. said Sunday the company is opening a second coal mine since President Trump took office, declaring “the war on coal is over” and attributing the growth to the president’s economic policies.

“I think it’s a direct link,” company CEO George Dethlefsen told Fox News, pointing specifically to Trump’s efforts to deregulate the U.S. economy and a “very strong market” for steel.

“The steel industry is undergoing a real Renaissance,” he said..

Again a PROJECTED new coal mine for METALLURGICAL coal. A future event, perhaps indicating Trump's beneficial influence upon heavy industry in Pennsylvania rather than indicating a return to thermal coal production. Analogous to the proposed offshore Cumbria coalfield to produce metallurgical coal in the UK? Possibly no longer required.

"Again a PROJECTED new coal mine for METALLURGICAL coal."
Jun 11, 2019 at 7:51 AM | AK

I appreciate that different coals are better/worse more/less cost effective for different purposes, but are you using "METALLURGICAL Coal" as a nitpick over the "wrong sort of coal"? The US is increasing coal production as artificial constraints are lifted.

Germany's production of the dirtiest Brown coal is to be maintained/increased.
Australia can now supply more coal to China and elsewhere.

I do not celebrate coalmining, but appreciate that real world economics is proving more sustainable than fantasy Green Blob computer modelled economics.

Where Trump leads, others will follow. The Chinese will be encouraged to develop their "colonies" in Africa based on coal fired electricity generation.

As Unreliable power fails so regularly, the sooner the UK gets Fracking the better, as it is safer for everyone including Mother Earth.

The US is increasing coal production as artificial constraints are lifted.

U.S. coal production decreased by about 19 million tons, or 2%, to 756 million tons in 2018 compared to the prior year, the U.S. Energy Information Administration wrote in its April short-term energy outlook. Coal production is forecast to continue to fall as domestic consumption and export demand are expected to decline through 2020.

More than 7 GW of coal-fired generation is expected to retire by the end of 2020, contributing to a wave of recent retirements as electricity generators transition to other fuels. Coal production is expected to decline 9% to 684 million tons in 2019 before falling another 6% to 640 million tons in 2020. The forecast numbers are already significantly lower than the EIA’s March forecast when the outlook suggested coal production would fall to 695 million tons in 2019 before declining to 664 million tons in 2020.

About 10% of U.S. coal-fired generation will be retired between 2018 and 2023, Moody’s Investors Service wrote in a January note to investors, adding that recent policy actions are not enough to reverse that trend.

“Export opportunities for U.S. coal producers support free cash flow generation at least through 2019, but will diminish in the medium term,” the Moody’s note said. “U.S. coal producers’ export economics depend on relatively high pricing and would be much less profitable in an environment of lower prices, since they are far from their export markets.”
The EIA forecast that exports of metallurgical and steam coal will decline in 2019 and 2020.

Source

When people talk of 'artificial constraints' or 'deregulation', what they mean is they are in favour of more mercury, asthma and heart attacks.

GolfCharlie
"are you using "METALLURGICAL Coal" as a nitpick over the "wrong sort of coal"? "
Not at all, metallurgical coal is required in relatively small quantities relative to the requirements of a coal-powered electricity generating plant. So a newly commissioned coalmine for metallurgical coal is nowhere as significant for employment. I read figures around jobs for 100 miners for the 2017 Pennsylvania mine and I assume a similar number for the proposed new mine: important to those employed but chicken-feed to total employment figures IWHT. US statistics for coalminer figures show a continuing fall, regardless of what Trump proclaims.

GOLFCHARLIE.
Coal powered electricity generating plants are just plane uneconomic. Why do you think British coal plants closed? British coal mines were the most economic and highly mechanized in the world. British coal powered stations were the most non-polluting in the world. Yet they could not compete against natural gas. It wasn't environmental regulations, although the cost of upgrading older power stations helped clear them away. It was that gas-powered stations were cheaper to build and operate, less polluting and more versatile. Coal became economically non viable. The same is happening in the USA.

Tomo. Wish I was as confident as you about the quantities of produceable gas in Lancashire. Optimistic forecasts by production companies do not a reserve make. Some of the most favourable sites in Europe were supposedly in Poland. I don't see Poland listed as a major gas producer.
However I don't see much relevance here in a Trump thread of your and my last posts.