Why do all liberal ideas result in more poverty?

[Blues Man]

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

The problem is the short lifespan of the equipment that will have to be replaced, or rebuilt every 20 years or so now multiply that cost by the millions of windmills that would be needed to even make 25% of our electricity and tell me that electric rates will drop

 

[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.

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

Probably right. It has more to do with a lack of will to industrialize their state than it has to do with wind turbines. There is an offset for having such abundant beauty.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Yep.

We should stop subsidizing the farmers. All of them have been dependent on the subsidy and now the tariff bail out for far too long. Oh wait. They are largely conservatives.

You want to cut them off too and you want Trump to not bail them out...right?

 

[Pilot1]

Farmers actually CREATE something tangible, and necessary for human life. Do you want to not have food available? Maybe we should just throw more money away to more social programs in order to social engineer the society? How about we create an inner city plantation for Blacks? Oh wait.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

The Title is misleading since No Tricks Zone didn't write that title, this is what they wrote: 80 Graphs From 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warming

Breitbart/Delingpole wrote the misleading title, to which Snopes cried over. They also missed the AUTHOR of the No Tricks Zone blog post statement about the misleading title:

"Kenneth Richard 8. June 2017

The Breitbart headline – which is obviously not something we can control here – purposefully sensationalizes the content of this article by using the phrase “Global Warming Is A Myth.” Apparently it worked, as there are now about 10,000 comments logged at Breitbart…and nearly 20,000 shares and re-tweets here...…"

Did 58 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Say Global Warming is a Myth? That was Delingpole/Breitbart who made that title.

========================

What Snopes did was illegal since they used the webpage capture method to prevent anyone from going directly to the actual websites:

"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."

Both links listed in the quote doesn't go the actual websites at all, it is a WEBPAGE capture, which prevent real traffic, a dishonest tactic.Make it harder to see what Snopes left out in their dishonest "investigation".

====================

Now this section from SNOPES is so dishonest that they destroyed their entire claim because No Tricks Zone didn't make those conclusions at all:

"This is false. We reached out to many of the authors of the studies included on this list via email to see if they agreed with Breitbart and No Tricks Zone’s analysis. While not everyone we reached out to responded, not a single researcher that we spoke to agreed with Breitbart’s assessment, and most were shocked when we told them that their work was presented as evidence for that claim."

black and red bolding mine

Notice it is what BREITBART said, NOT No Tricks Zone who presented a very different conclusion, but Snopes was carful in omitting that part.

This is the beginning of each article below, notice how different they are from each other?

Breitbart:

“Global warming” is a myth — so say 80 graphs from 58 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in 2017.
In other words, the so-called “Consensus” on global warming is a massive lie. And Donald Trump was quite right to quit the Paris agreement which pretended that the massive lie was true.

By “global warming” these papers don’t, of course, mean the mild warming of around 0.8 degrees Celsius that the planet has experienced since the middle of the 19th century as the world crawled out of the Little Ice Age. Pretty much everyone, alarmists and skeptics alike, is agreed on that.

Rather, they mean “global warming” in the sense that is most commonly used today by grant-troughing scientists, and huxter politicians, and scaremongering green activists, and brainwashed mainstream media (MSM) environmental correspondents. “Global warming” as in the scary, historically unprecedented, primarily man-made phenomenon which we must address urgently before the icecaps melt and the Pacific islands disappear beneath the waves and all the baby polar bears drown.

What all these papers argue in their different ways is that the alarmist version of global warming — aka Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) — is a fake artefact."

No Tricks Zone:

"Last year there were at least 60 peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals demonstrating that Today’s Warming Isn’t Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable.
.
Just within the last 5 months, 58 more papers and 80 new graphs have been published that continue to undermine the popularized conception of a slowly cooling Earth temperature history followed by a dramatic hockey-stick-shaped uptick, or an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times.
.
Yes, some regions of the Earth have been warming in recent decades or at some point in the last 100 years. Some regions have been cooling for decades at a time. And many regions have shown no significant net changes or trends in either direction relative to the last few hundred to thousands of years.
.
Succinctly, then, scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals have increasingly affirmed that there is nothing historically unprecedented or remarkable about today’s climate when viewed in the context of long-term natural variability"

===================

Snopes too often sucks and dishonest in their so called investigations, it wasn't hard to notice because I did something YOU didn't do, look through the stuff.

You have been snookered, Penelope!

 

[Penelope]

The OP has been debunked. Breibart, LOL.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Penelope idiotically writes:

"The OP has been debunked. Breibart, LOL. "

I never supported the Breitbart article you moron! What I did was to show the dishonest Snopes "investigation" where they attacked No Tricks Zone THROUGH the misleading Breitbart article. Yet they never addressed the veracity of the No Tricks Zone article itself at all, which was very different from what Breitbart wrote. Snoped had employed the "guilt by association" attack, which YOU completely missed.

You make clear you STILL don't even realize you are snookered by it all.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

Yep.

We should stop subsidizing the farmers. All of them have been dependent on the subsidy and now the tariff bail out for far too long. Oh wait. They are largely conservatives.

You want to cut them off too and you want Trump to not bail them out...right?

Your dumb partisan attacks make you look ignorant and foolish, here is the true story that began in the 1920's, in which BOTH political parties were active participants in it, from Wikipedia:

Agricultural policy of the United States

"Beginning of price supports
At the end of World War I, the destructive effects of the war and the surrender burdens enforced on the Central Powers of Europe bankrupted much of Europe, closing major export markets in the United States and beginning a series of events that would lead to the development of agricultural price and income support policies. United States price and income support, known otherwise as agricultural subsidy, grew out of acute farm income and financial crises, which led to widespread political beliefs that the market system was not adequately rewarding farm people for their agricultural commodities.

Beginning with the 1921 Packers and Stockyards Act and 1922 Capper–Volstead Act, which regulated livestock and protected farmer cooperatives against anti-trust suits, United States agricultural policy began to become more and more comprehensive. In reaction to falling grain prices and the widespread economic turmoil of the Dust Bowl (1931–39) and Great Depression (October 1929–33), three bills led the United States into permanent price subsidies for farmers: the 1922 Grain Futures Act, the June 1929 Agricultural Marketing Act, and finally the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act – the first comprehensive food policy legislation.

Out of these bills grew a system of government-controlled agricultural commodity prices and government supply control (farmers being paid to leave land unused). Supply control would continue to be used to decrease overproduction, leading to over 50,000,000 acres (200,000 km2) to be set aside during times of low commodity prices (1955–1973, 1984–1995). The practice was eventually ended by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996."

LINK for more

Stop being a partisan twit, then you will learn better.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Try talking to the people whose utility bills are increasing...

 

[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

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

that would be classical liberalism...not neo liberalism which is nothing more than repackaged socialism.

 

[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

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.

Any issues with the methods or findings of these particular papers or is an ad hominem logical fallacy the best you can muster?

 

[SSDD]

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.

Social security doesn't lift anyone out of poverty...social security is a recipe for barely making ends meet...

 

[SSDD]

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

How many species of raptors, bats, and migratory birds are you willing to see go extinct because of those inefficient, meat grinders?

 

[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

that would be classical liberalism...not neo liberalism which is nothing more than repackaged socialism.

Hardly is a philosophy changed to meet the demands of an oppositions party definition to defame during a campaign season.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I think Fusion is the way to go..much safer, less pollution! Not as much power output as fission, though.

After further reading, it's just not feasible.

 

[karpenter]

Hmmmm.....

I read recently where they were putting up 300 more wind turbines over in southern California the other day.

With Subsidies ??

Clearly the company putting them up is making money off of their installation.

From Subsidies ??

Clearly whomever services them is making money.

Off Subsidies ??

Clearly the land owners are making money.

Because Of Subsidies ??

I doubt any of them are impoverished.

Because Of All The Subsidies ??

What Happened To Cries Of
Corporate Welfare !!
....??

 

[Moonglow]

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

How many species of raptors, bats, and migratory birds are you willing to see go extinct because of those inefficient, meat grinders?

a lot less than the losses due to oil production and use.

 

[Moonglow]

Hmmmm.....

I read recently where they were putting up 300 more wind turbines over in southern California the other day.

With Subsidies ??

Clearly the company putting them up is making money off of their installation.

From Subsidies ??

Clearly whomever services them is making money.

Off Subsidies ??

Clearly the land owners are making money.

Because Of Subsidies ??

I doubt any of them are impoverished.

Because Of All The Subsidies ??

What Happened To Cries Of
Corporate Welfare !!
....??

Only around 50 billion a year in oil subsidies..

 

[candycorn]

Hmmmm.....

I read recently where they were putting up 300 more wind turbines over in southern California the other day.

With Subsidies ??

Clearly the company putting them up is making money off of their installation.

From Subsidies ??

Clearly whomever services them is making money.

Off Subsidies ??

Clearly the land owners are making money.

Because Of Subsidies ??

I doubt any of them are impoverished.

Because Of All The Subsidies ??

What Happened To Cries Of
Corporate Welfare !!
....??

No

 

[karpenter]

How Come No Liberal Failure Can Ever Be Repealed
As It Continues To Cost Year After Year

Yet They Will Say Any Conservative Measure
That Can't Be 100% Effective
Is Just A Waste Of Money