Why do all liberal ideas result in more poverty?

[SSDD]

It seems that when we actually take a look at what happens to real people who find themselves on a grid that his heavy with renewables, we see that energy costs increase, household poverty risks increase, and household incomes decline. Why do all liberal ideas result in more poverty? Why can they not see that their nutty ideas invariably hurt the people who can least afford their madness?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544218325738

Energy that produces CO2, on the other hand lets to economic prosperity and industrialization.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...al_development_and_energy_policy_perspectives

reposted from NoTricksZone: "Not here to worship what is known, but to question it" – Jacob Bronowski. Climate and energy news from Germany in English – by Pierre L. Gosselin

 

[candycorn]

Hmmmm.....

I read recently where they were putting up 300 more wind turbines over in southern California the other day. Clearly the company putting them up is making money off of their installation. Clearly whomever services them is making money. Clearly the land owners are making money.

I doubt any of them are impoverished.

 

[Marion Morrison]

It seems that when we actually take a look at what happens to real people who find themselves on a grid that his heavy with renewables, we see that energy costs increase, household poverty risks increase, and household incomes decline. Why do all liberal ideas result in more poverty? Why can they not see that their nutty ideas invariably hurt the people who can least afford their madness?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544218325738

Energy that produces CO2, on the other hand lets to economic prosperity and industrialization.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...al_development_and_energy_policy_perspectives

reposted from NoTricksZone: "Not here to worship what is known, but to question it" – Jacob Bronowski. Climate and energy news from Germany in English – by Pierre L. Gosselin

Probably because they're intentionally designed to do just that? Poorer, more dependent people are more malleable than upwardly mobile ones.

 

[sealybobo]

It seems that when we actually take a look at what happens to real people who find themselves on a grid that his heavy with renewables, we see that energy costs increase, household poverty risks increase, and household incomes decline. Why do all liberal ideas result in more poverty? Why can they not see that their nutty ideas invariably hurt the people who can least afford their madness?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544218325738

Energy that produces CO2, on the other hand lets to economic prosperity and industrialization.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...al_development_and_energy_policy_perspectives

reposted from NoTricksZone: "Not here to worship what is known, but to question it" – Jacob Bronowski. Climate and energy news from Germany in English – by Pierre L. Gosselin

How come you understand this unfair income distribution but not all the other reasons?

 

[skookerasbil]

Its the great ruse...….trickle-up poverty economics s0ns! There are a lot of dummies in the middle class who like the romanticism of clean energy. The problem is, they wake up one morning with a huge bumpy cucumber planted permanently in their behinds and its too late......shit has to be paid for. They never think they'll be the ones footing the bill. You gotta admit.....its a brilliant scheme the DUMS have come up with!

 

[Moonglow]

It seems that when we actually take a look at what happens to real people who find themselves on a grid that his heavy with renewables, we see that energy costs increase, household poverty risks increase, and household incomes decline. Why do all liberal ideas result in more poverty? Why can they not see that their nutty ideas invariably hurt the people who can least afford their madness?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544218325738

Energy that produces CO2, on the other hand lets to economic prosperity and industrialization.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...al_development_and_energy_policy_perspectives

reposted from NoTricksZone: "Not here to worship what is known, but to question it" – Jacob Bronowski. Climate and energy news from Germany in English – by Pierre L. Gosselin

This issue has nothing to do with liberalism...
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equal rights

 

[Penelope]

It seems that when we actually take a look at what happens to real people who find themselves on a grid that his heavy with renewables, we see that energy costs increase, household poverty risks increase, and household incomes decline. Why do all liberal ideas result in more poverty? Why can they not see that their nutty ideas invariably hurt the people who can least afford their madness?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544218325738

Energy that produces CO2, on the other hand lets to economic prosperity and industrialization.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...al_development_and_energy_policy_perspectives

reposted from NoTricksZone: "Not here to worship what is known, but to question it" – Jacob Bronowski. Climate and energy news from Germany in English – by Pierre L. Gosselin

FACT CHECK: Did 58 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Say Global Warming is a Myth?
On 6 June 2017, Breitbart News ran an article titled “‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017”. This article, which is in essence merely a link to a post from a blog that goes by the name “No Tricks Zone” and some added musings on “grant-troughing scientists,” “huxter politicians,” “scaremongering green activists,” and “brainwashed mainstream media environmental correspondents,” claims that this ragtag collection of studies proves that the long-standing scientific consensus on climate change is nothing but a myth.

The blog post Breitbart linked to is a list of 80 graphs (so many graphs!) taken from 58 studies. The analysis of the findings presented by No Tricks Zone is crude, misinformed, and riddled with errors.

 

[Wyatt earp]

It seems that when we actually take a look at what happens to real people who find themselves on a grid that his heavy with renewables, we see that energy costs increase, household poverty risks increase, and household incomes decline. Why do all liberal ideas result in more poverty? Why can they not see that their nutty ideas invariably hurt the people who can least afford their madness?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544218325738

Energy that produces CO2, on the other hand lets to economic prosperity and industrialization.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...al_development_and_energy_policy_perspectives

reposted from NoTricksZone: "Not here to worship what is known, but to question it" – Jacob Bronowski. Climate and energy news from Germany in English – by Pierre L. Gosselin

FACT CHECK: Did 58 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Say Global Warming is a Myth?
On 6 June 2017, Breitbart News ran an article titled “‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017”. This article, which is in essence merely a link to a post from a blog that goes by the name “No Tricks Zone” and some added musings on “grant-troughing scientists,” “huxter politicians,” “scaremongering green activists,” and “brainwashed mainstream media environmental correspondents,” claims that this ragtag collection of studies proves that the long-standing scientific consensus on climate change is nothing but a myth.

The blog post Breitbart linked to is a list of 80 graphs (so many graphs!) taken from 58 studies. The analysis of the findings presented by No Tricks Zone is crude, misinformed, and riddled with errors.

So you telling us you were born after 1995?

We were bombarded by it in the 1970's

 

[Blues Man]

Hmmmm.....

I read recently where they were putting up 300 more wind turbines over in southern California the other day. Clearly the company putting them up is making money off of their installation. Clearly whomever services them is making money. Clearly the land owners are making money.

I doubt any of them are impoverished.

No just the people who will have to pay higher electricity rates will feel the pinch

 

[Wyatt earp]

It seems that when we actually take a look at what happens to real people who find themselves on a grid that his heavy with renewables, we see that energy costs increase, household poverty risks increase, and household incomes decline. Why do all liberal ideas result in more poverty? Why can they not see that their nutty ideas invariably hurt the people who can least afford their madness?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544218325738

Energy that produces CO2, on the other hand lets to economic prosperity and industrialization.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...al_development_and_energy_policy_perspectives

reposted from NoTricksZone: "Not here to worship what is known, but to question it" – Jacob Bronowski. Climate and energy news from Germany in English – by Pierre L. Gosselin

This issue has nothing to do with liberalism...
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equal rights

Liberals = spend my money on foolish things, pinko commie socialist faggots who only have a good idea if they steal it from the God fearing, God loving conservative's


.

 

[Penelope]

It seems that when we actually take a look at what happens to real people who find themselves on a grid that his heavy with renewables, we see that energy costs increase, household poverty risks increase, and household incomes decline. Why do all liberal ideas result in more poverty? Why can they not see that their nutty ideas invariably hurt the people who can least afford their madness?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544218325738

Energy that produces CO2, on the other hand lets to economic prosperity and industrialization.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...al_development_and_energy_policy_perspectives

reposted from NoTricksZone: "Not here to worship what is known, but to question it" – Jacob Bronowski. Climate and energy news from Germany in English – by Pierre L. Gosselin

FACT CHECK: Did 58 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Say Global Warming is a Myth?
On 6 June 2017, Breitbart News ran an article titled “‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017”. This article, which is in essence merely a link to a post from a blog that goes by the name “No Tricks Zone” and some added musings on “grant-troughing scientists,” “huxter politicians,” “scaremongering green activists,” and “brainwashed mainstream media environmental correspondents,” claims that this ragtag collection of studies proves that the long-standing scientific consensus on climate change is nothing but a myth.

The blog post Breitbart linked to is a list of 80 graphs (so many graphs!) taken from 58 studies. The analysis of the findings presented by No Tricks Zone is crude, misinformed, and riddled with errors.

So you telling us you were born after 1995?

We were bombarded by it in the 1970's

Also debunked.
FACT CHECK: Did a 1977 'Time' Story Offer Tips on 'How to Survive the Coming Ice Age'?

 

[Penelope]

It's 50 years since climate change was first seen. Now time is running out | Richard Wiles

 

[Penelope]

Here is a timeline that shows internal research and discussions by some of the biggest oil companies over the past 40 years and how their public statements and campaigns often included very different messages. It begins to draw the picture of what the fossil fuel industry knew about climate change and when and how it contrasted with their public stance:

July 1977: James Black, a scientist at Exxon, told the company’s top management that scientific evidence showed burning fossil fuels was causing climate change.

May 1981: In a paper written for Exxon’s head of research, the company scientist Henry Shaw estimated that global temperatures will increase by 3 degrees Celsius with the doubling of the carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere, which could cause catastrophic impacts as early as the first half of the 21st century.

November 1982: Exxon distributed a paper internally on climate change that advised “major reductions in fossil fuel combustion” for limiting global warming.
What oil companies knew about climate change and when: a timeline
and
My father warned Exxon about climate change in the 1970s. They didn't listen | Claudia Black-Kalinsky

 

[candycorn]

Hmmmm.....

I read recently where they were putting up 300 more wind turbines over in southern California the other day. Clearly the company putting them up is making money off of their installation. Clearly whomever services them is making money. Clearly the land owners are making money.

I doubt any of them are impoverished.

No just the people who will have to pay higher electricity rates will feel the pinch

Arguable.

 

[Care4all]

Why do all liberal ideas result in more poverty?

Social Security Lifts More Americans Above Poverty Than Any Other ...

https://www.cbpp.org/.../social-security/social-security-lifts-more-americans-above-po...

by K Romig -

Nov 5, 2018 - Without Social Security, 22.1 million more Americans would be poor, according to analysis using the March 2018 Current Population Survey. Although most of those whom Social Security keeps out of poverty are elderly, 6.7 million are under age 65, including 1.1 million children.

 

[Marion Morrison]

To clarify, (and Moonglow is right) they aren't "Liberal" ideas, they are Communist/Social Marxist ideas.

They may call themselves liberals, but that's a lie. They really are Communists/Globalists masquerading under the "Liberal" moniker.

 

[Blues Man]

Hmmmm.....

I read recently where they were putting up 300 more wind turbines over in southern California the other day. Clearly the company putting them up is making money off of their installation. Clearly whomever services them is making money. Clearly the land owners are making money.

I doubt any of them are impoverished.

No just the people who will have to pay higher electricity rates will feel the pinch

Arguable.

CA already has some of the highest rates in the country and they will only go up

 

[Care4all]

Initial costs are high on renewables because they have to prorate the cost of equipment... in their initial start up costs.

the oil and gas industry has been subsidized in the billions if not trillions, with infrastructure and tax write offs and tax breaks and cheap leases of govt land etc. since their inception...

even with a lot of CROOKEDNESS

Tea pot dome scandal

 

[Pilot1]

Liberal/Progressive (Democrat) policies are designed to create, and increase dependency, and more government purely to further control the populace. That's why they want to take away guns only from the Law Abiding.

 

[Care4all]

How much will be saved on less asthma cases, and less sickness, from the poisoned air and water of fossil fuel contamination?

Maine is clean as snow, even our electricity mostly comes from water power, not coal....

Yet, we can only have 1 fish per week, or 1 fish every 2 weeks to eat, because our fish in every lake, pond, river are poisoned with mercury, form all of the OTHER STATES that use dirty coal for electricity.

It is a damn shame.... we have such a beautiful state, with wonderful lakes and rivers galore... yet YOU ALL have poisoned them....

Warning:Mercury in Maine freshwater fish may harm the babies of pregnant and nursing mothers, and young children.

SAFE EATING GUIDELINES•
Pregnant and nursing women, women who may get pregnant, and children under age 8 SHOULD NOT EAT any freshwater fish from Maine's inland waters. Except, for brook trout and landlocked salmon, 1 meal per month is safe.

•All other adults and children older than 8CAN EAT 2 freshwater fish meals per month. For brook trout and landlocked salmon, the limit is 1 meal per week.


It's hard to believe that fish that looks, smells, and tastes fine may not be safe to eat. But the truth is that fish in Maine lakes, ponds, and rivers have mercury in them. Other states have this problem too. Mercury in the air settles into the waters. It then builds up in fish. For this reason, older fish have higher levels of mercury than younger fish. Fish (like pickerel and bass) that eat other fish have the highest mercury levels.

Small amounts of mercury can harm a brain starting to form or grow. That is why unborn and nursing babies, and young children are most at risk. Too much mercury can affect behavior and learning. Mercury can harm older children and adults, but it takes larger amounts. It may cause numbness in hands and feet or changes in vision.

The Safe Eating Guidelines identify limits to protect everyone