White House: Strong economy best way to combat Climate Change

[Flopper]

There is literally nothing dumber than that statement.

Neither a strong nor a weak economy will necessarily help combat climate change at this point in time. When we reach a point that businesses can see that it will effect their 5 year plan, they will do something, a bit late of course.

 

[RollingThunder]

Only government worshiping central planners think that "tax revenue" is a necessity for technology to advance, here's a hint : no amount of government "investment" will make any difference if the market isn't interested in consuming the fruits of said "investment", if consumers want "cleaner" technology private enterprise will provide it at a price consumers are willing to pay for it, if the market doesn't want it no amount of government "investment" and authoritarian posturing will make them want it.

And the retarded denier cult troll, NuttyFuckhead, spews more deranged meaningless drivel based on his crackpot rightwingnut ideology....not reality.

One example from the real world....

California's Solar Success Story:
How the Million Solar Roofs Initiative Transformed the State's Solar Energy Landscape
by Lindsey Hallock, Frontier Group, and Michelle Kinman
Environment California Research & Policy Center
California is a leader in solar energy. In 2014, the state led the country in cumulative solar energy capacity, with over four times the amount of solar energy capacity as Arizona, the next highest state. The growth in solar energy in California is helping the state meet its goals for reducing emissions of global warming pollutants while reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and spurring a new and vibrant clean energy economy.

A future in which solar energy is increasingly abundant and cost-competitive was the goal envisioned by policymakers a decade ago when California adopted the landmark Million Solar Roofs Initiative (SB 1, 2006). The decade-long, $3.3 billion initiative was designed to pave the way for a clean energy future – bringing solar energy within reach of more California residents and businesses.

California’s Million Solar Roofs Initiative is a success – bringing a future of abundant renewable energy within closer reach. The California Solar Initiative (CSI), the portion of the initiative administered by the investor-owned utilities, is currently on track to reach the goals of the program two years ahead of schedule.

By bringing about economies of scale in the solar energy industry, the Million Solar Roofs Initiative helped create a “virtuous cycle” that will spur further innovation and growth in solar energy. But the work of building a solar energy future is not over. California must build on the success of the Million Solar Roofs Initiative by adopting and expanding strong policies that will continue the state’s momentum and help it to achieve Governor Jerry Brown’s goals to increase the percentage of electricity derived from renewables to 50 percent by 2030.

The Million Solar Roofs Initiative was designed to lower the cost of solar energy and make it a mainstream source of energy.

• The program’s goal is to stimulate growth and demand in the solar energy market by providing upfront financial incentives for solar energy installations. The financial incentives provided under the program were designed to decline over time as experience, innovation and competition in the field continued to lower prices.
• The initiative consists of three main solar PV system installation programs:

1. The California Solar Initiative (CSI) General Market Program, an incentive program for areas served by investor-owned utilities (Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric). CSI is also home to two solar energy programs that focus on low-income housing: the Multifamily Affordable Solar Housing (MASH) program and the Single-family Affordable Solar Homes (SASH) program;
2. A parallel program for publicly owned utilities;
3. The New Solar Homes Partnership, which supports solar energy on new homes built within investor-owned utility territories.

• In addition, the initiative set up the CSI Solar Thermal program and required a five-fold increase in the state’s highly successful Net Energy Metering program, allowing more solar energy generators to receive fair compensation for the excess solar energy they supply to the grid.
• A 2004 Environment California Research & Policy Center report estimated that a program similar to the California Solar Initiative could reduce the average installed cost of a solar PV system to $5.51/W (AC) by 2014. By mid-2014, the cost of a residential solar PV system had fallen to $5.32/W (AC), a 45 percent reduction from costs in 2007, when the CSI began.

California’s solar photovoltaic capacity has increased more than 12-fold thanks to the Million Solar Roofs Initiative. In 2006, the year before the initiative began, California had 156 MW of customer-sited solar PV energy capacity. By November 2014, 1,891 MW of customer-sited solar PV energy had been installed under the Million Solar Roofs Initiative alone. This is 12 times as much solar PV capacity as the entire state had in 2006.

- See more at: California's Solar Success Story | Frontier Group

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is literally nothing dumber than that statement.

I agree. You can't combat climate change, as it is a natural cycle of the planet.

It always amazes me that denier cult retards like this one are so stupid they can believe that the existence of "natural cycles" that influence the Earth's climate absolutely precludes the possible existence of un-natural factors, created by the activities of seven and a half billion humans, that also can affect the climate.

It's like believing that because forest fires were started naturally by lightning and volcanoes for hundreds of millions of years, no forest fires in our time have ever been started by humans.

Deniers are insane!

In the real world, the un-natural 46% increase in atmospheric levels of a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2, that is a result of human activities and that has happened mostly in the last half century or so, is the scientifically confirmed cause of the abrupt, rapid, and accelerating global warming and consequent changes that the world is experiencing.

How many trillions do we need to spend on windmills to prevent any future change in the climate?

 

[SSDD]

There is literally nothing dumber than that statement.

I agree. You can't combat climate change, as it is a natural cycle of the planet.

There's nothing natural about the changes we've seen over the past half-century, and pretty much all climatologists agree on that, you fucking moron.

Actually, genius, there is nothing going on in the climate over the past century that even approaches the boundaries of natural variability...but if you think you can point out some thing that has gone past the boundaries of natural variability and definitely points the finger at us for causing climate change, by all means, lets see it.

 

[skookerasbil]

There is literally nothing dumber than that statement.

you sir........are stoopid to the level of profound.

There is a great irony.......renewables, especially solar, are directly tied to growth rates.

duh

Progressives are praying for a Trump recession but that will destroy solar energy. Article happened to be in REALCLEAR this morning.........


Did Wall Street Accidentally Kill Solar Energy? | Inverse

The global warming alarmists often are referred to as mental cases in here.........this is another example. They live in this fantasy that green energy can grow significantly in a low-growth economy. LOL.....Iin 8 years under Obama, solar grew.......ready for this........0.5% to bring solar to 1% in supplying our electricity. How fucking laughable is that

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

There is literally nothing dumber than that statement.

I agree. You can't combat climate change, as it is a natural cycle of the planet.

There's nothing natural about the changes we've seen over the past half-century, and pretty much all climatologists agree on that, you fucking moron.

Scientists will agree to anything that keeps their funding coming in.

That is by far the dumbest conspiracy theory ever devised.

Actually, I would attribute that to the idea human beings are responsible for climate change.

 

[RollingThunder]

There is literally nothing dumber than that statement.

I agree. You can't combat climate change, as it is a natural cycle of the planet.

It always amazes me that denier cult retards like this one are so stupid they can believe that the existence of "natural cycles" that influence the Earth's climate absolutely precludes the possible existence of un-natural factors, created by the activities of seven and a half billion humans, that also can affect the climate.

It's like believing that because forest fires were started naturally by lightning and volcanoes for hundreds of millions of years, no forest fires in our time have ever been started by humans.

Deniers are insane!

In the real world, the un-natural 46% increase in atmospheric levels of a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2, that is a result of human activities and that has happened mostly in the last half century or so, is the scientifically confirmed cause of the abrupt, rapid, and accelerating global warming and consequent changes that the world is experiencing.

How many trillions do we need to spend on windmills to prevent any future change in the climate?

How many times do we need to tell you to pull your head out of your ass?

In the real world.....

The world can be powered by alternative energy, using today's technology, in 20-40 years, says Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson
A new study – co-authored by Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson and UC-Davis researcher Mark A. Delucchi – analyzing what is needed to convert the world's energy supplies to clean and sustainable sources says that it can be done with today's technology at costs roughly comparable to conventional energy. But converting will be a massive undertaking on the scale of the moon landings. What is needed most is the societal and political will to make it happen.
University of Stanford News Report
BY LOUIS BERGERON
January 26, 2011
If someone told you there was a way you could save 2.5 million to 3 million lives a year and simultaneously halt global warming, reduce air and water pollution and develop secure, reliable energy sources – nearly all with existing technology and at costs comparable with what we spend on energy today – why wouldn't you do it?

According to a new study coauthored by Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson, we could accomplish all that by converting the world to clean, renewable energy sources and forgoing fossil fuels.

"Based on our findings, there are no technological or economic barriers to converting the entire world to clean, renewable energy sources," said Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering. "It is a question of whether we have the societal and political will."
***

RENEWABLE ENERGY MYTHS
6 MYTHS ABOUT RENEWABLE ENERGY,
BLOWN AWAY
MYTH 1
RENEWABLE ENERGY IS TOO EXPENSIVE
In recent years the costs of wind and solar energy have declined substantially. Today renewable technologies are the most economical solution for new capacity in a growing number of countries and regions, and are typically the most economic solution for new grid-connected capacity where good resources are available.

• Citigroup: The age of renewable energy is beginning. Increasingly cost competitive with coal, gas and nuclear in the US. Source

• HSBC: Wind energy is now cost competitive with new-build coal capacity in India. Solar to reach parity around 2016-18. Source

• Deutsche Bank: solar now competitive without subsidies in at least 19 markets globally. In 2014 prices to decline further. Source

• Unsubsidised renewable energy is now cheaper than electricity from new coal and gas fired power plants in Australia. Source

But it doesn't stop there. There are no input costs for wind and solar energy. So for example, while one needs to buy coal for a coal-fired power plant to generate electricity (and coal mining itself has massive environmental costs), solar and wind energy don’t have input costs like that – sunlight and wind are free. As a result, they replace more expensive production in the electricity market, loweringwholesale electricity prices. This is good for consumers but – unsurprisingly – upsets the producers of dirty energy.

THE HIDDEN COSTS OF COAL AND NUCLEAR
Market price aside, coal and nuclear power have huge hidden costs that aren’t included in the price that you and I pay for electricity.

We’re talking about the costs of water pollution, health impacts, the plant’s huge water footprint, and climate change.

For instance, in the United States, accounting for these hidden costs, conservatively doubles to triplesthe price of electricity from coal per kWh generated. In South Africa, the Energy utility Eskom is currently building a coal-fired power plant, and it’s estimated that the plant will cause damage of up to 5.7 bln US$ for every year it operates.

These massive costs aren't taken into account when the price of coal power is calculated -- but they are still very real!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is literally nothing dumber than that statement.

I agree. You can't combat climate change, as it is a natural cycle of the planet.

It always amazes me that denier cult retards like this one are so stupid they can believe that the existence of "natural cycles" that influence the Earth's climate absolutely precludes the possible existence of un-natural factors, created by the activities of seven and a half billion humans, that also can affect the climate.

It's like believing that because forest fires were started naturally by lightning and volcanoes for hundreds of millions of years, no forest fires in our time have ever been started by humans.

Deniers are insane!

In the real world, the un-natural 46% increase in atmospheric levels of a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2, that is a result of human activities and that has happened mostly in the last half century or so, is the scientifically confirmed cause of the abrupt, rapid, and accelerating global warming and consequent changes that the world is experiencing.

How many trillions do we need to spend on windmills to prevent any future change in the climate?

How many times do we need to tell you to pull your head out of your ass?

In the real world.....

The world can be powered by alternative energy, using today's technology, in 20-40 years, says Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson
A new study – co-authored by Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson and UC-Davis researcher Mark A. Delucchi – analyzing what is needed to convert the world's energy supplies to clean and sustainable sources says that it can be done with today's technology at costs roughly comparable to conventional energy. But converting will be a massive undertaking on the scale of the moon landings. What is needed most is the societal and political will to make it happen.
University of Stanford News Report
BY LOUIS BERGERON
January 26, 2011
If someone told you there was a way you could save 2.5 million to 3 million lives a year and simultaneously halt global warming, reduce air and water pollution and develop secure, reliable energy sources – nearly all with existing technology and at costs comparable with what we spend on energy today – why wouldn't you do it?

According to a new study coauthored by Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson, we could accomplish all that by converting the world to clean, renewable energy sources and forgoing fossil fuels.

"Based on our findings, there are no technological or economic barriers to converting the entire world to clean, renewable energy sources," said Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering. "It is a question of whether we have the societal and political will."
***

RENEWABLE ENERGY MYTHS
6 MYTHS ABOUT RENEWABLE ENERGY,
BLOWN AWAY
MYTH 1
RENEWABLE ENERGY IS TOO EXPENSIVE
In recent years the costs of wind and solar energy have declined substantially. Today renewable technologies are the most economical solution for new capacity in a growing number of countries and regions, and are typically the most economic solution for new grid-connected capacity where good resources are available.

• Citigroup: The age of renewable energy is beginning. Increasingly cost competitive with coal, gas and nuclear in the US. Source

• HSBC: Wind energy is now cost competitive with new-build coal capacity in India. Solar to reach parity around 2016-18. Source

• Deutsche Bank: solar now competitive without subsidies in at least 19 markets globally. In 2014 prices to decline further. Source

• Unsubsidised renewable energy is now cheaper than electricity from new coal and gas fired power plants in Australia. Source

But it doesn't stop there. There are no input costs for wind and solar energy. So for example, while one needs to buy coal for a coal-fired power plant to generate electricity (and coal mining itself has massive environmental costs), solar and wind energy don’t have input costs like that – sunlight and wind are free. As a result, they replace more expensive production in the electricity market, loweringwholesale electricity prices. This is good for consumers but – unsurprisingly – upsets the producers of dirty energy.

THE HIDDEN COSTS OF COAL AND NUCLEAR
Market price aside, coal and nuclear power have huge hidden costs that aren’t included in the price that you and I pay for electricity.

We’re talking about the costs of water pollution, health impacts, the plant’s huge water footprint, and climate change.

For instance, in the United States, accounting for these hidden costs, conservatively doubles to triplesthe price of electricity from coal per kWh generated. In South Africa, the Energy utility Eskom is currently building a coal-fired power plant, and it’s estimated that the plant will cause damage of up to 5.7 bln US$ for every year it operates.

These massive costs aren't taken into account when the price of coal power is calculated -- but they are still very real!

If someone told you there was a way you could save 2.5 million to 3 million lives a year and simultaneously halt global warming, reduce air and water pollution and develop secure, reliable energy sources – nearly all with existing technology and at costs comparable with what we spend on energy today – why wouldn't you do it?

Because bad investments based on bad data are bad for the economy.

 

[Wyatt earp]

There is literally nothing dumber than that statement.

I agree. You can't combat climate change, as it is a natural cycle of the planet.

There's nothing natural about the changes we've seen over the past half-century, and pretty much all climatologists agree on that, you fucking moron.

I see another one slept in the 2nd grade when they were talking about Ice ages and stuff


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Only government worshiping central planners think that "tax revenue" is a necessity for technology to advance, here's a hint : no amount of government "investment" will make any difference if the market isn't interested in consuming the fruits of said "investment", if consumers want "cleaner" technology private enterprise will provide it at a price consumers are willing to pay for it, if the market doesn't want it no amount of government "investment" and authoritarian posturing will make them want it.

And the retarded denier cult troll, NuttyFuckhead, spews more deranged meaningless drivel based on his crackpot rightwingnut ideology....not reality.

One example from the real world....

California's Solar Success Story:
How the Million Solar Roofs Initiative Transformed the State's Solar Energy Landscape
by Lindsey Hallock, Frontier Group, and Michelle Kinman
Environment California Research & Policy Center
California is a leader in solar energy. In 2014, the state led the country in cumulative solar energy capacity, with over four times the amount of solar energy capacity as Arizona, the next highest state. The growth in solar energy in California is helping the state meet its goals for reducing emissions of global warming pollutants while reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and spurring a new and vibrant clean energy economy.

A future in which solar energy is increasingly abundant and cost-competitive was the goal envisioned by policymakers a decade ago when California adopted the landmark Million Solar Roofs Initiative (SB 1, 2006). The decade-long, $3.3 billion initiative was designed to pave the way for a clean energy future – bringing solar energy within reach of more California residents and businesses.

California’s Million Solar Roofs Initiative is a success – bringing a future of abundant renewable energy within closer reach. The California Solar Initiative (CSI), the portion of the initiative administered by the investor-owned utilities, is currently on track to reach the goals of the program two years ahead of schedule.

By bringing about economies of scale in the solar energy industry, the Million Solar Roofs Initiative helped create a “virtuous cycle” that will spur further innovation and growth in solar energy. But the work of building a solar energy future is not over. California must build on the success of the Million Solar Roofs Initiative by adopting and expanding strong policies that will continue the state’s momentum and help it to achieve Governor Jerry Brown’s goals to increase the percentage of electricity derived from renewables to 50 percent by 2030.

The Million Solar Roofs Initiative was designed to lower the cost of solar energy and make it a mainstream source of energy.

• The program’s goal is to stimulate growth and demand in the solar energy market by providing upfront financial incentives for solar energy installations. The financial incentives provided under the program were designed to decline over time as experience, innovation and competition in the field continued to lower prices.
• The initiative consists of three main solar PV system installation programs:

1. The California Solar Initiative (CSI) General Market Program, an incentive program for areas served by investor-owned utilities (Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric). CSI is also home to two solar energy programs that focus on low-income housing: the Multifamily Affordable Solar Housing (MASH) program and the Single-family Affordable Solar Homes (SASH) program;
2. A parallel program for publicly owned utilities;
3. The New Solar Homes Partnership, which supports solar energy on new homes built within investor-owned utility territories.

• In addition, the initiative set up the CSI Solar Thermal program and required a five-fold increase in the state’s highly successful Net Energy Metering program, allowing more solar energy generators to receive fair compensation for the excess solar energy they supply to the grid.
• A 2004 Environment California Research & Policy Center report estimated that a program similar to the California Solar Initiative could reduce the average installed cost of a solar PV system to $5.51/W (AC) by 2014. By mid-2014, the cost of a residential solar PV system had fallen to $5.32/W (AC), a 45 percent reduction from costs in 2007, when the CSI began.

California’s solar photovoltaic capacity has increased more than 12-fold thanks to the Million Solar Roofs Initiative. In 2006, the year before the initiative began, California had 156 MW of customer-sited solar PV energy capacity. By November 2014, 1,891 MW of customer-sited solar PV energy had been installed under the Million Solar Roofs Initiative alone. This is 12 times as much solar PV capacity as the entire state had in 2006.

- See more at: California's Solar Success Story | Frontier Group

^^ climate change for big dummies

 

[Old Rocks]

There is literally nothing dumber than that statement.

Yeah but only if you believe that a weak economy generates the innovation and market incentives that lead to lower pollution production and goods & services.

If he had equivocated with that point, the remark MIGHT have been 3% less stupid. He did not. Fact is, the market is not designed to reduce carbon footprints, and reduce the size of the plastic island in the pacific.

Uh-huh and where do you figure the necessary resources & technology will come from to "reduce carbon footprints" if not from "the market"?

Government investment in technology. It's how we got to the moon, dipshit. .

LOL, Where do the resources for "government investment in technology" come from? Try not to swallow your tongue while you're thinking about the answer, K?

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." --- Murray N. Rothbard

If you destroy the environment in the seeking of money, then there will come a time when the seeking of money is futile, because you have destroyed the source of that money.

 

[Old Rocks]

There is literally nothing dumber than that statement.

I agree. You can't combat climate change, as it is a natural cycle of the planet.

You could not be more wrong. We should be, by the natural cycles, the Milankovic Cycles, slowly cooling, not in a very rapid warming. So, you claim that this is part of a natural cycle? How about pointing out what that cycle is? And what is driving it?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yeah but only if you believe that a weak economy generates the innovation and market incentives that lead to lower pollution production and goods & services.

If he had equivocated with that point, the remark MIGHT have been 3% less stupid. He did not. Fact is, the market is not designed to reduce carbon footprints, and reduce the size of the plastic island in the pacific.

Uh-huh and where do you figure the necessary resources & technology will come from to "reduce carbon footprints" if not from "the market"?

Government investment in technology. It's how we got to the moon, dipshit. .

LOL, Where do the resources for "government investment in technology" come from? Try not to swallow your tongue while you're thinking about the answer, K?

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." --- Murray N. Rothbard

If you destroy the environment in the seeking of money, then there will come a time when the seeking of money is futile, because you have destroyed the source of that money.

 

[Old Rocks]

Only government worshiping central planners think that "tax revenue" is a necessity for technology to advance, here's a hint : no amount of government "investment" will make any difference if the market isn't interested in consuming the fruits of said "investment", if consumers want "cleaner" technology private enterprise will provide it at a price consumers are willing to pay for it, if the market doesn't want it no amount of government "investment" and authoritarian posturing will make them want it.

And the retarded denier cult troll, NuttyFuckhead, spews more deranged meaningless drivel based on his crackpot rightwingnut ideology....not reality.

One example from the real world....

California's Solar Success Story:
How the Million Solar Roofs Initiative Transformed the State's Solar Energy Landscape
by Lindsey Hallock, Frontier Group, and Michelle Kinman
Environment California Research & Policy Center
California is a leader in solar energy. In 2014, the state led the country in cumulative solar energy capacity, with over four times the amount of solar energy capacity as Arizona, the next highest state. The growth in solar energy in California is helping the state meet its goals for reducing emissions of global warming pollutants while reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and spurring a new and vibrant clean energy economy.

A future in which solar energy is increasingly abundant and cost-competitive was the goal envisioned by policymakers a decade ago when California adopted the landmark Million Solar Roofs Initiative (SB 1, 2006). The decade-long, $3.3 billion initiative was designed to pave the way for a clean energy future – bringing solar energy within reach of more California residents and businesses.

California’s Million Solar Roofs Initiative is a success – bringing a future of abundant renewable energy within closer reach. The California Solar Initiative (CSI), the portion of the initiative administered by the investor-owned utilities, is currently on track to reach the goals of the program two years ahead of schedule.

By bringing about economies of scale in the solar energy industry, the Million Solar Roofs Initiative helped create a “virtuous cycle” that will spur further innovation and growth in solar energy. But the work of building a solar energy future is not over. California must build on the success of the Million Solar Roofs Initiative by adopting and expanding strong policies that will continue the state’s momentum and help it to achieve Governor Jerry Brown’s goals to increase the percentage of electricity derived from renewables to 50 percent by 2030.

The Million Solar Roofs Initiative was designed to lower the cost of solar energy and make it a mainstream source of energy.

• The program’s goal is to stimulate growth and demand in the solar energy market by providing upfront financial incentives for solar energy installations. The financial incentives provided under the program were designed to decline over time as experience, innovation and competition in the field continued to lower prices.
• The initiative consists of three main solar PV system installation programs:

1. The California Solar Initiative (CSI) General Market Program, an incentive program for areas served by investor-owned utilities (Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric). CSI is also home to two solar energy programs that focus on low-income housing: the Multifamily Affordable Solar Housing (MASH) program and the Single-family Affordable Solar Homes (SASH) program;
2. A parallel program for publicly owned utilities;
3. The New Solar Homes Partnership, which supports solar energy on new homes built within investor-owned utility territories.

• In addition, the initiative set up the CSI Solar Thermal program and required a five-fold increase in the state’s highly successful Net Energy Metering program, allowing more solar energy generators to receive fair compensation for the excess solar energy they supply to the grid.
• A 2004 Environment California Research & Policy Center report estimated that a program similar to the California Solar Initiative could reduce the average installed cost of a solar PV system to $5.51/W (AC) by 2014. By mid-2014, the cost of a residential solar PV system had fallen to $5.32/W (AC), a 45 percent reduction from costs in 2007, when the CSI began.

California’s solar photovoltaic capacity has increased more than 12-fold thanks to the Million Solar Roofs Initiative. In 2006, the year before the initiative began, California had 156 MW of customer-sited solar PV energy capacity. By November 2014, 1,891 MW of customer-sited solar PV energy had been installed under the Million Solar Roofs Initiative alone. This is 12 times as much solar PV capacity as the entire state had in 2006.

- See more at: California's Solar Success Story | Frontier Group

^^ climate change for big dummies

Climate change for those that would be actually informed. Big dummies like Bear need not read it.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[GaryDog]

There is literally nothing dumber than that statement.

I agree. You can't combat climate change, as it is a natural cycle of the planet.

There's nothing natural about the changes we've seen over the past half-century, and pretty much all climatologists agree on that, you fucking moron.

Scientists will agree to anything that keeps their funding coming in.

That is by far the dumbest conspiracy theory ever devised.

Actually, I would attribute that to the idea human beings are responsible for climate change.

Mine has scientific support.

You, however, believe these scientists are in on a grand heist to get slowly dripping grant money from the govt.

CAN'T be the oil companies arguing the reverse in exchange for billions in subsidies from the government, right?

LMAO @ you

 

[GaryDog]

There is literally nothing dumber than that statement.

I agree. You can't combat climate change, as it is a natural cycle of the planet.

There's nothing natural about the changes we've seen over the past half-century, and pretty much all climatologists agree on that, you fucking moron.

Scientists will agree to anything that keeps their funding coming in.

That is by far the dumbest conspiracy theory ever devised.

Actually, I would attribute that to the idea human beings are responsible for climate change.

But go ahead and ban be right before you reply to another of my posts, you prick.

 

[Wyatt earp]

There is literally nothing dumber than that statement.

I agree. You can't combat climate change, as it is a natural cycle of the planet.

You could not be more wrong. We should be, by the natural cycles, the Milankovic Cycles, slowly cooling, not in a very rapid warming. So, you claim that this is part of a natural cycle? How about pointing out what that cycle is? And what is driving it?

How about you provide what temperature should the earth be?



.

 

[Flopper]

There is literally nothing dumber than that statement.

I agree. You can't combat climate change, as it is a natural cycle of the planet.

It always amazes me that denier cult retards like this one are so stupid they can believe that the existence of "natural cycles" that influence the Earth's climate absolutely precludes the possible existence of un-natural factors, created by the activities of seven and a half billion humans, that also can affect the climate.

It's like believing that because forest fires were started naturally by lightning and volcanoes for hundreds of millions of years, no forest fires in our time have ever been started by humans.

Deniers are insane!

In the real world, the un-natural 46% increase in atmospheric levels of a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2, that is a result of human activities and that has happened mostly in the last half century or so, is the scientifically confirmed cause of the abrupt, rapid, and accelerating global warming and consequent changes that the world is experiencing.

How many trillions do we need to spend on windmills to prevent any future change in the climate?

How many times do we need to tell you to pull your head out of your ass?

In the real world.....

The world can be powered by alternative energy, using today's technology, in 20-40 years, says Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson
A new study – co-authored by Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson and UC-Davis researcher Mark A. Delucchi – analyzing what is needed to convert the world's energy supplies to clean and sustainable sources says that it can be done with today's technology at costs roughly comparable to conventional energy. But converting will be a massive undertaking on the scale of the moon landings. What is needed most is the societal and political will to make it happen.
University of Stanford News Report
BY LOUIS BERGERON
January 26, 2011
If someone told you there was a way you could save 2.5 million to 3 million lives a year and simultaneously halt global warming, reduce air and water pollution and develop secure, reliable energy sources – nearly all with existing technology and at costs comparable with what we spend on energy today – why wouldn't you do it?

According to a new study coauthored by Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson, we could accomplish all that by converting the world to clean, renewable energy sources and forgoing fossil fuels.

"Based on our findings, there are no technological or economic barriers to converting the entire world to clean, renewable energy sources," said Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering. "It is a question of whether we have the societal and political will."
***

RENEWABLE ENERGY MYTHS
6 MYTHS ABOUT RENEWABLE ENERGY,
BLOWN AWAY
MYTH 1
RENEWABLE ENERGY IS TOO EXPENSIVE
In recent years the costs of wind and solar energy have declined substantially. Today renewable technologies are the most economical solution for new capacity in a growing number of countries and regions, and are typically the most economic solution for new grid-connected capacity where good resources are available.

• Citigroup: The age of renewable energy is beginning. Increasingly cost competitive with coal, gas and nuclear in the US. Source

• HSBC: Wind energy is now cost competitive with new-build coal capacity in India. Solar to reach parity around 2016-18. Source

• Deutsche Bank: solar now competitive without subsidies in at least 19 markets globally. In 2014 prices to decline further. Source

• Unsubsidised renewable energy is now cheaper than electricity from new coal and gas fired power plants in Australia. Source

But it doesn't stop there. There are no input costs for wind and solar energy. So for example, while one needs to buy coal for a coal-fired power plant to generate electricity (and coal mining itself has massive environmental costs), solar and wind energy don’t have input costs like that – sunlight and wind are free. As a result, they replace more expensive production in the electricity market, loweringwholesale electricity prices. This is good for consumers but – unsurprisingly – upsets the producers of dirty energy.

THE HIDDEN COSTS OF COAL AND NUCLEAR
Market price aside, coal and nuclear power have huge hidden costs that aren’t included in the price that you and I pay for electricity.

We’re talking about the costs of water pollution, health impacts, the plant’s huge water footprint, and climate change.

For instance, in the United States, accounting for these hidden costs, conservatively doubles to triplesthe price of electricity from coal per kWh generated. In South Africa, the Energy utility Eskom is currently building a coal-fired power plant, and it’s estimated that the plant will cause damage of up to 5.7 bln US$ for every year it operates.

These massive costs aren't taken into account when the price of coal power is calculated -- but they are still very real!

All that would require cooperation and support of many governments putting aside existing priorities, which is not going to happen. Further it would require active support of businesses around the globe. That of course is not going to happen either. In 20 to 40 years, most of the largest businesses will have different ownership. Their CEO's will have been long gone. Their shareholders will have retired or just made their killing in the market. Most national leaders will be in their grave.

I think the scientist are right. Global climate change is happening and it will accelerate. I do not agree that the nations of this earth will be able make the necessary changes in time to prevent massive loss of life and planet wide devastation. So in effect, I believe we will fiddle as Rome burns. The few descendants that remain in a few hundred years will curse us and wonder how we could have been such fools.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I agree. You can't combat climate change, as it is a natural cycle of the planet.

There's nothing natural about the changes we've seen over the past half-century, and pretty much all climatologists agree on that, you fucking moron.

Scientists will agree to anything that keeps their funding coming in.

That is by far the dumbest conspiracy theory ever devised.

Actually, I would attribute that to the idea human beings are responsible for climate change.

Mine has scientific support.

You, however, believe these scientists are in on a grand heist to get slowly dripping grant money from the govt.

CAN'T be the oil companies arguing the reverse in exchange for billions in subsidies from the government, right?

LMAO @ you

The oil companies were the ones who spent billions in green energy tard

 

[Old Rocks]

There is literally nothing dumber than that statement.

I agree. You can't combat climate change, as it is a natural cycle of the planet.

There's nothing natural about the changes we've seen over the past half-century, and pretty much all climatologists agree on that, you fucking moron.

I see another one slept in the 2nd grade when they were talking about Ice ages and stuff


.

Damn, another idiot willfully demonstrating their idiocy. You must have slept through the 2nd grade, and quit school after that. The Milankovic Cycles control the ice ages. And by those cycles, we should be slowly cooling as we had been for a thousand years until we started dumping GHGs into the atmosphere. Now, in spite of a cooling solar cycle, and being in the cooling period of the Milankovic Cycles, we are very rapidly warming.