MIT professor: global warming is a ‘religion’

[freedombecki]

We're going to spend tens of trillions no matter what.

Assume we spend it on the green wish list, how much lower is CO2 in 2080?
10 ppm? Less?

Sooner, will allow us to spend it on sustainable energy.

If we do, how much CO2 do we keep out of the atmosphere?
I need to know if spending money on less reliable, more expensive energy has an upside.

PMZ wants trillions, but cannot tell you how much or little reduction there will be at the end of the 6 decades of financing the hoax.

Naughty, naughty!

Reduction in what? There will be no reduction. We're talking about the amount of increase. Please try to keep up.

Keep up with what? That you can't answer the questions about the benefit from this scatterbrained schema to reduce something that nature puts in the air through volcanic activity and takes out again through increases in forestation?

 

[PMZ]

PMZ wants trillions, but cannot tell you how much or little reduction there will be at the end of the 6 decades of financing the hoax.

Naughty, naughty!

Reduction in what? There will be no reduction. We're talking about the amount of increase. Please try to keep up.

Keep up with what? That you can't answer the questions about the benefit from this scatterbrained schema to reduce something that nature puts in the air through volcanic activity and takes out again through increases in forestation?

I have answered every question asked of me here.

Except, why are so many conservatives unable to think?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fossil fuel energy more expensive over time due to supply and demand.

Right, like natural gas has gotten more expensive over the last 5 years. LOL!

I have no idea what this question even means.

Science and reading weren't your best classes.

What I said I needed. The least cost path forward.

Least cost is not wasting tens of trillions for a tiny reduction in future CO2.

 

[PMZ]

Fossil fuel energy more expensive over time due to supply and demand.

Right, like natural gas has gotten more expensive over the last 5 years. LOL!

I have no idea what this question even means.

Science and reading weren't your best classes.

What I said I needed. The least cost path forward.

Least cost is not wasting tens of trillions for a tiny reduction in future CO2.

Fossil fuel energy more expensive over time due to supply and demand.

Right, like natural gas has gotten more expensive over the last 5 years. LOL!

No, like gasoline has gotten more expensive.

I have no idea what this question even means.

Science and reading weren't your best classes.

Science and math were.

What I said I needed. The least cost path forward.

Least cost is not wasting tens of trillions for a tiny reduction in future CO2

Obviously you don't read my posts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fossil fuel energy more expensive over time due to supply and demand.

Right, like natural gas has gotten more expensive over the last 5 years. LOL!

I have no idea what this question even means.

Science and reading weren't your best classes.

What I said I needed. The least cost path forward.

Least cost is not wasting tens of trillions for a tiny reduction in future CO2.

Fossil fuel energy more expensive over time due to supply and demand.

Right, like natural gas has gotten more expensive over the last 5 years. LOL!

No, like gasoline has gotten more expensive.

I have no idea what this question even means.

Science and reading weren't your best classes.

Science and math were.

What I said I needed. The least cost path forward.

Least cost is not wasting tens of trillions for a tiny reduction in future CO2

Obviously you don't read my posts.

I read the posts where you couldn't quantify the reduction in CO2 we'll pay tens of trillions for. No thanks!

 

[PMZ]

Fossil fuel energy more expensive over time due to supply and demand.

Right, like natural gas has gotten more expensive over the last 5 years. LOL!

I have no idea what this question even means.

Science and reading weren't your best classes.

What I said I needed. The least cost path forward.

Least cost is not wasting tens of trillions for a tiny reduction in future CO2.

Fossil fuel energy more expensive over time due to supply and demand.

Right, like natural gas has gotten more expensive over the last 5 years. LOL!

No, like gasoline has gotten more expensive.

I have no idea what this question even means.

Science and reading weren't your best classes.

Science and math were.

What I said I needed. The least cost path forward.

Least cost is not wasting tens of trillions for a tiny reduction in future CO2

Obviously you don't read my posts.

I read the posts where you couldn't quantify the reduction in CO2 we'll pay tens of trillions for. No thanks!

You've conclusively demonstrated your inability to solve even simple problems so there is not the slightest expectation that you, or any conservative really, will make any contribution to our energy path forward. We don't need or value your input. We are doing and will continue to do what needs to be done.

Carry on.

 

[bripat9643]

Fossil fuel energy more expensive over time due to supply and demand.

Right, like natural gas has gotten more expensive over the last 5 years. LOL!

No, like gasoline has gotten more expensive.

I have no idea what this question even means.

Science and reading weren't your best classes.

Science and math were.

What I said I needed. The least cost path forward.

Least cost is not wasting tens of trillions for a tiny reduction in future CO2

Obviously you don't read my posts.

I read the posts where you couldn't quantify the reduction in CO2 we'll pay tens of trillions for. No thanks!

You've conclusively demonstrated your inability to solve even simple problems so there is not the slightest expectation that you, or any conservative really, will make any contribution to our energy path forward. We don't need or value your input. We are doing and will continue to do what needs to be done.

Carry on.

Actually, no you won't because the public is no longer falling for your scam.

The game is over, boys.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fossil fuel energy more expensive over time due to supply and demand.

Right, like natural gas has gotten more expensive over the last 5 years. LOL!

No, like gasoline has gotten more expensive.

I have no idea what this question even means.

Science and reading weren't your best classes.

Science and math were.

What I said I needed. The least cost path forward.

Least cost is not wasting tens of trillions for a tiny reduction in future CO2

Obviously you don't read my posts.

I read the posts where you couldn't quantify the reduction in CO2 we'll pay tens of trillions for. No thanks!

You've conclusively demonstrated your inability to solve even simple problems so there is not the slightest expectation that you, or any conservative really, will make any contribution to our energy path forward. We don't need or value your input. We are doing and will continue to do what needs to be done.

Carry on.

Your "solution" is to spend tens of trillions of dollars.
And you don't know, or care, how large a reduction in CO2 that spending will buy.
At least we'll have more expensive, less reliable energy.......

 

[PMZ]

I read the posts where you couldn't quantify the reduction in CO2 we'll pay tens of trillions for. No thanks!

You've conclusively demonstrated your inability to solve even simple problems so there is not the slightest expectation that you, or any conservative really, will make any contribution to our energy path forward. We don't need or value your input. We are doing and will continue to do what needs to be done.

Carry on.

Actually, no you won't because the public is no longer falling for your scam.

The game is over, boys.

How many new coal fired power plants are under construction? Oil refineries?

Follow the new capacity investments. Follow where auto manufacturers are going with the new CAFE standards. Hear those footsteps? Cap and trade is coming.

You have no game. No science. No resources. No organization. No plan. No support except for big oil and the conservative media political entertainers.

And, of course, the sheep.

 

[PMZ]

I read the posts where you couldn't quantify the reduction in CO2 we'll pay tens of trillions for. No thanks!

You've conclusively demonstrated your inability to solve even simple problems so there is not the slightest expectation that you, or any conservative really, will make any contribution to our energy path forward. We don't need or value your input. We are doing and will continue to do what needs to be done.

Carry on.

Your "solution" is to spend tens of trillions of dollars.
And you don't know, or care, how large a reduction in CO2 that spending will buy.
At least we'll have more expensive, less reliable energy.......

And yet my solution is cheaper than yours.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You've conclusively demonstrated your inability to solve even simple problems so there is not the slightest expectation that you, or any conservative really, will make any contribution to our energy path forward. We don't need or value your input. We are doing and will continue to do what needs to be done.

Carry on.

Your "solution" is to spend tens of trillions of dollars.
And you don't know, or care, how large a reduction in CO2 that spending will buy.
At least we'll have more expensive, less reliable energy.......

And yet my solution is cheaper than yours.

Tens of trillions for zero benefit is cheaper?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You've conclusively demonstrated your inability to solve even simple problems so there is not the slightest expectation that you, or any conservative really, will make any contribution to our energy path forward. We don't need or value your input. We are doing and will continue to do what needs to be done.

Carry on.

Actually, no you won't because the public is no longer falling for your scam.

The game is over, boys.

How many new coal fired power plants are under construction? Oil refineries?

Follow the new capacity investments. Follow where auto manufacturers are going with the new CAFE standards. Hear those footsteps? Cap and trade is coming.

You have no game. No science. No resources. No organization. No plan. No support except for big oil and the conservative media political entertainers.

And, of course, the sheep.

Why Is Germany's Greenest City Building a Coal-Fired Power Plant? | InsideClimate News

Why Is Germany's Greenest City Building a Coal-Fired Power Plant?

If you look east or south, however, Moorburg becomes something else entirely. Just a stone's throw from the church, towering smokestacks and boxy buildings mark the site of a new power plant that next year will begin converting enormous amounts of coal, one of the world's dirtiest fuels, into electricity. Some of that coal may come from the United States.

Follow where auto manufacturers are going with the new CAFE standards.

Bankruptcy.

 

[boedicca]

Maybe the Germans are getting tired of electricity being a Luxury Good.

Germany's agressive and reckless expansion of wind and solar power has come with a hefty pricetag for consumers, and the costs often fall disproportionately on the poor. Government advisors are calling for a completely new start.

If you want to do something big, you have to start small. That's something German Environment Minister Peter Altmaier knows all too well. The politician, a member of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), has put together a manual of practical tips on how everyone can make small, everyday contributions to the shift away from nuclear power and toward green energy. The so-called Energiewende -- literally "energy turnaround" -- is Chancellor Angela Merkel's project of the century.

"Join in and start today," Altmaier writes in the introduction. He then turns to such everyday activities as baking and cooking. "Avoid preheating and utilize residual heat," Altmaier advises. TV viewers can also save a lot of electricity, albeit at the expense of picture quality. "For instance, you can reduce brightness and contrast," his booklet suggests. ...

How Electricity Became a Luxury Good - ABC News

 

[PMZ]

Your "solution" is to spend tens of trillions of dollars.
And you don't know, or care, how large a reduction in CO2 that spending will buy.
At least we'll have more expensive, less reliable energy.......

And yet my solution is cheaper than yours.

Tens of trillions for zero benefit is cheaper?

Yes. Show us the science that says otherwise. Not the politics. The science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And yet my solution is cheaper than yours.

Tens of trillions for zero benefit is cheaper?

Yes. Show us the science that says otherwise. Not the politics. The science.

I asked you for the science backing up your spending wishes.

What is the reduction in CO2 in ppm after we waste tens of trillions?

You said you don't know and don't care.

Sounds like zero benefit to me. If you get any facts proving otherwise, come back y'all.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'd rather spend the money on terraforming mars

 

[PMZ]

Maybe the Germans are getting tired of electricity being a Luxury Good.

Germany's agressive and reckless expansion of wind and solar power has come with a hefty pricetag for consumers, and the costs often fall disproportionately on the poor. Government advisors are calling for a completely new start.

If you want to do something big, you have to start small. That's something German Environment Minister Peter Altmaier knows all too well. The politician, a member of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), has put together a manual of practical tips on how everyone can make small, everyday contributions to the shift away from nuclear power and toward green energy. The so-called Energiewende -- literally "energy turnaround" -- is Chancellor Angela Merkel's project of the century.

"Join in and start today," Altmaier writes in the introduction. He then turns to such everyday activities as baking and cooking. "Avoid preheating and utilize residual heat," Altmaier advises. TV viewers can also save a lot of electricity, albeit at the expense of picture quality. "For instance, you can reduce brightness and contrast," his booklet suggests. ...

How Electricity Became a Luxury Good - ABC News

As usual, here's the rest of the story.

"One of the topics in this election season is the price of electricity. There is a lot of confusion around. Many people don’t understand that the renewable revolution caused by the German feed-in tariff model*has lowered prices."

"This is also a season to discuss the surcharge, which will be fixed for next year on October 15. Spiegel has*an article*on the topic, and*Craig Morris has discussed that article here."

"Morris links to an interesting*study done by Brainpool*(PDF) for the German Green Party, which looks at the next surcharge decision in some detail."

"We learn (page 1) that German wholesale electricity prices are down from 5.115 cents estimated in 2012 to around 3.9 cents. Let’s just note that*renewable energy has reduced wholesale prices* by 1.2 cents per kWh.*Multiply that by the 482 TWh they expect Germany to consume next year (page 21) , and we see that*renewable energy will reduce wholesale prices by EUR 5.784 billion*next year."

"Of course these lower prices will lead to a higher surcharge next year, since the surcharge is calculated by the difference between the feed-in tariff and the wholesale price.*But that’s only a temporary effect. It will be gone after a decade or two."

"In contrast, the lower prices from a higher renewable share are here to stay. Those solar panels are not going anywhere."

"Even if renewable energy did not reduce prices, as it already does, it would add to Germany’s price stability as a hedge against higher fossil fuel prices in the future.*But it does.*Renewable energy reduces electricity prices in Germany.*And this is still only the beginning. Over the next couple of decades, electricity will reach at least 80 percent renewable share*(Article 1 of the Law on Priority for Renewable Energy)."

"Of course there is also that “global warming” problem we seem to have. The analysis above doesn’t even mention that phasing out fossil fuels will reduce the costs from global warming damages."

"We also learn from the Brainpool study mentioned above (page 21) that the surcharges are expected to go up by 0.07 cents for another 4 GW of solar over the year. That’s a killer number (007) that should lay to rest forever the outdated idea that solar is expensive.*And trying to slow down new solar in Germany right as costs have come down and we can finally reap the benefits from introducing it rock bottom prices is a very stupid idea. If it was the right thing to build the world’s biggest solar infrastructure back when prices were really high (and it was the right thing to do) then it doesn’t make any sense at all to stop now."


Read more at Renewable Reducing Electricity Prices In Germany | CleanTechnica

 

[PMZ]

Tens of trillions for zero benefit is cheaper?

Yes. Show us the science that says otherwise. Not the politics. The science.

I asked you for the science backing up your spending wishes.

What is the reduction in CO2 in ppm after we waste tens of trillions?

You said you don't know and don't care.


Sounds like zero benefit to me. If you get any facts proving otherwise, come back y'all.

Toddbot, we'll never know if your acting stupid is an act or for real.

There is no zero cost option. What the science from the IPCC will give us is the lowest cost option. The reason that you don't want that, is that you want to impose your solution on the country. Your solution not based on what is, but what you wish was.

We don't care what you want to be. We care about what is. And you're not smart enough to find that. We will follow expertise, not ignorance. You lose.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The fastest way to cut co2 is to build 200 nuclear plants(outside of earthquake zones)....

Of course promote wind, solar and wave but you're not serious unless you do above.

Or we can drop a few more tens of billion into a large fusion like system.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes. Show us the science that says otherwise. Not the politics. The science.

I asked you for the science backing up your spending wishes.

What is the reduction in CO2 in ppm after we waste tens of trillions?

You said you don't know and don't care.


Sounds like zero benefit to me. If you get any facts proving otherwise, come back y'all.

Toddbot, we'll never know if your acting stupid is an act or for real.

There is no zero cost option. What the science from the IPCC will give us is the lowest cost option. The reason that you don't want that, is that you want to impose your solution on the country. Your solution not based on what is, but what you wish was.

We don't care what you want to be. We care about what is. And you're not smart enough to find that. We will follow expertise, not ignorance. You lose.

There is no zero cost option.

Who claimed there was a zero cost option for something?

You want to spend tens of trillions for something that reduces CO2 levels by some tiny amount.

The reason that you don't want that, is that you want to impose your solution on the country.

What do you imagine I want to impose? Link?

Your solution not based on what is, but what you wish was.

You're projecting. That's your wish for less reliable, more expensive energy.

What the science from the IPCC will give us is the lowest cost option.

Lowest cost option for what? Spell it out. Be as precise as you can.