Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...

[fncceo]

Cool...let's do nothing then.

Finally! A suggestion worth acting on.

 

[fncceo]

That earns money ... the opposite of spending money ...

But, where does that money come from? It's not the traditional model of Capitalism where someone creates wealth by taking a low value commodity and, by value-adding, makes it a high value item (iron ore and coal into steel or cotton into haute coiture), or by arbitrage, taking a commodity that is common in one place, transporting it to where it is rare and selling at a profit.

Money from solar panels can only come from two places ...

A) Government diverting taxpayer money from government spending back to private incentive payments to engineer behavior -- OR

B) Utilities raising rates to pass a portion of that money back to consumers who sell them power at wholesale rates.

Neither of those methods actually creates wealth. They are both wealth distribution for social engineering.

 

[Crick]

But, where does that money come from? It's not the traditional model of Capitalism where someone creates wealth by taking a low value commodity and, by value-adding, makes it a high value item (iron ore and coal into steel or cotton into haute coiture), or by arbitrage, taking a commodity that is common in one place, transporting it to where it is rare and selling at a profit.

Money from solar panels can only come from two places ...

A) Government diverting taxpayer money from government spending back to private incentive payments to engineer behavior -- OR

B) Utilities raising rates to pass a portion of that money back to consumers who sell them power at wholesale rates.

Neither of those methods actually creates wealth. They are both wealth distribution for social engineering.

Utilities raising rates when the their cost of power decreases is certainly making wealth. Vendor's selling products to subsidized customers who couldn't otherwise afford it certainly makes wealth. Why do you say it does not?

 

[westwall]

This may be true, maybe not, I don't know enough to say, but I'm not sure why it matters. If the sea level rises because of natural or manmade reasons, the sea level still rises and that would spell disaster for many.

Indeed. So spend money on mitigation, not meaningless efforts that can't succeed.

Ever.

 

[Concerned American]

Utilities raising rates when the their cost of power decreases

As long as they are paying off multi billion dollar lawsuits because of wild fire responsibility, gas pipeline explosions in populated area and chemical pollution of the environment, the cost of the power is not a big concern. Many of these "so called" environmentally conscious states are just going out and purchasing power from coal fired plants outside of their states to make up for the difference.

 

[Likkmee]

Smoke a bowl

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Smoke a bowl

Too much CO2?

 

[Likkmee]

Good time for Qzar to settle. He hates rain !

 

[Crick]

As long as they are paying off multi billion dollar lawsuits because of wild fire responsibility, gas pipeline explosions in populated area and chemical pollution of the environment, the cost of the power is not a big concern. Many of these "so called" environmentally conscious states are just going out and purchasing power from coal fired plants outside of their states to make up for the difference.

I was addressing the comment that buying power back from their customers and charging higher rates to pay for it didn't create wealth. It certainly puts more money in the utilitiy's pocket.

 

[Concerned American]

I was addressing the comment that buying power back from their customers and charging higher rates to pay for it didn't create wealth. It certainly puts more money in the utilitiy's pocket.

In CA, before I left nine years ago, the utility companies had to pay peak prices for any power that was fed back into the grid.

 

[alang1216]

Indeed. So spend money on mitigation, not meaningless efforts that can't succeed.

Ever.

Alas, not all of us are smart enough to predict what and what won't succeed.

 

[westwall]

Alas, not all of us are smart enough to predict what and what won't succeed.

We can guarantee that what the government is spending money on now will do nothing except destroy the middle class.

 

[jc456]

Alas, not all of us are smart enough to predict what and what won't succeed.

They’ve predicted zip correctly

 

[alang1216]

We can guarantee that what the government is spending money on now will do nothing except destroy the middle class.

OK, got an example?

 

[alang1216]

They’ve predicted zip correctly

So the trained professionals have predicted zip correctly and you expect anyone to trust your predictions? Interesting.

 

[westwall]

OK, got an example?

Sure, carbon taxes, the go to for any so called climate mitigation causes EVERYTHING to increase in cost, and, because the polluters merely pay already rich bankers to manipula...I mean regulate the carbon credits they get to continue polluting at the same rate.

So, the middle class has ever more onerous costs to just live, the polluters continue polluting at the same rate, and the bankers get richer for taxing the air you breath.

Simple enough for you?

 

[westwall]

So the trained professionals have predicted zip correctly and you expect anyone to trust your predictions? Interesting.

The climatologists have a ZERO success rate for their predictions.

And you still demand we bow down to their "wisdom".

Sorry pal, that is religion. Not science.

 

[San Souci]

Liberals will never accept this study. It provides reasonable doubt to their theorem that humans can change the climate.

If Humans can change the Climate ,they can control the weather.

 

[alang1216]

Sure, carbon taxes, the go to for any so called climate mitigation causes EVERYTHING to increase in cost, and, because the polluters merely pay already rich bankers to manipula...I mean regulate the carbon credits they get to continue polluting at the same rate.

So, the middle class has ever more onerous costs to just live, the polluters continue polluting at the same rate, and the bankers get richer for taxing the air you breath.

Simple enough for you?

For me? Sure. However not everyone agrees with you. The Economist has long advocated a carbon tax as the best way to deal with climate change.

I guess the real question is whether climate change is a real threat. If so, it seems a carbon tax is a valid antidote.

 

[alang1216]

The climatologists have a ZERO success rate for their predictions.

And you still demand we bow down to their "wisdom".

Sorry pal, that is religion. Not science.

I think the cultist here is you. Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming