My Three Global Warming Fraud Websites

I'm aware of the fact that world/national political leadership is USING GW as crisis to achieve goals. Most everybody realizes that. But, I'm DEPENDING on any media or political leadership to MAKE THE CASE that GW has been hyped WAAAY beyond any science that has "declared an emergency".

IN FACT, over the 30+ years I've been following this -- idjits like John Kerry/Al Gore just sound more unhinged and shrill than earlier as the EVIDENCE SHOWS -- the INITIAL catastrophic GW predictions were a mixture of hype, ignoring all other explanations, bad modeling and using WORSE case scenarios that haven't shown any empirical evidence to support them.
After just having declared a preference for hard science over political/media hype, why would you be concerned about predictions from Al Gore and John Kerry?
 
Last edited:
After just having declared a preference for hard science over political/media hype, why would you be concerned about predictions from Al Gore and John Kerry?
Because it's a political argument not a science argument. If it were science argument dissenting opinions would be included in the IPCC reports.
 
After just having declared a preference for hard science over political/media hype, why would you be concerned about predictions from Al Gore and John Kerry?
Great question, why do you?
 
I'm aware of the fact that world/national political leadership is USING GW as crisis to achieve goals. Most everybody realizes that. But, I'm DEPENDING on any media or political leadership to MAKE THE CASE that GW has been hyped WAAAY beyond any science that has "declared an emergency".

What goals would that be?
 
I'm still waiting for Crick to explain why he doesn't have solar or drive an EV.
 
1652638109782.png
I think solar and EV's are super affordable and great and will save the planet.

1652638133106.png
Why aren't you using them then?

aha.gif
 
However, since he's likely to forego answering, what power, what control and what money have politicians obtained by pushing AGW?

What sort of money is spent by federal, state and local governments on AGW?
Gotta be tens of billions annually. Easy.

As far as control, you've got clueless assholes deciding how much energy has to be generated from green sources, how soon all the cars sold have to be EVs, etc.

Don't tell me these things escaped your notice before I mentioned them.
 

“We could use up all of the proven oil reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.” – President Jimmy Carter, 1977


“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” – Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015

 
What sort of money is spent by federal, state and local governments on AGW?
Gotta be tens of billions annually. Easy.

Spent where? Biden's infrastructure bill "designates $50 billion for climate resilience and weatherization" but doesn't reduce GHG emissions. All that was left for the Build Back Better act.

As far as control, you've got clueless assholes deciding how much energy has to be generated from green sources, how soon all the cars sold have to be EVs, etc.

The amount of wind and solar energy infrastructure being built is controlled by private utilities who seem to make that decision based on their bottom line. I know of no government action mandating alternative energy technology.

Don't tell me these things escaped your notice before I mentioned them.

I'll tell you what escapes me: the money being spent or hoped to be spent on these things is not going into the pockets of any politicians. It's going to utilities and vendors to build infrastructure that will serve and benefit the public. The "control" you claim is being garnered is simply Congress making legislature as it has since 1787. And no one has garnered any additional power from any of this. You're fear mongering Todd.
 
Spent where? Biden's infrastructure bill "designates $50 billion for climate resilience and weatherization" but doesn't reduce GHG emissions. All that was left for the Build Back Better act.



The amount of wind and solar energy infrastructure being built is controlled by private utilities who seem to make that decision based on their bottom line. I know of no government action mandating alternative energy technology.



I'll tell you what escapes me: the money being spent or hoped to be spent on these things is not going into the pockets of any politicians. It's going to utilities and vendors to build infrastructure that will serve and benefit the public. The "control" you claim is being garnered is simply Congress making legislature as it has since 1787. And no one has garnered any additional power from any of this. You're fear mongering Todd.

Spent where?

Every fucking where.

The amount of wind and solar energy infrastructure being built is controlled by private utilities who seem to make that decision based on their bottom line. I know of no government action mandating alternative energy technology.

Really? No states or cities are mandating a certain amount/% of green energy?
A certain reduction of GHG?

I'll tell you what escapes me: the money being spent or hoped to be spent on these things is not going into the pockets of any politicians.

1652651484576.png


It's going to utilities and vendors to build infrastructure that will serve and benefit the public.

Like Solyndra.

The "control" you claim is being garnered is simply Congress making legislature as it has since 1787. And no one has garnered any additional power from any of this.

You're funny.
 
Show us some green money going into the pockets of politicians.

Show us the nation, a state or county mandating the technology choices of a private utility.

Show us anyone accruing powers via green legislation that they did not previously possess.
 
Show us some green money going into the pockets of politicians.

Show us the nation, a state or county mandating the technology choices of a private utility.

Show us anyone accruing powers via green legislation that they did not previously possess.

Show us some green money going into the pockets of politicians.

Solyndra executives and shareholders made hundreds of thousands of dollars to Obama's 2008 campaign for the White House and in an apparent quid pro quo was given over 1/2 Billion Dollars in Federal loan guarantees. On top of that Department of Energy officials regulary attended Solyndra Board Meetings as the Board steered the company over a cliff into a financial abyss.


Show us the nation, a state or county mandating the technology choices of a private utility.


Many states have multiple policies in place, as shown in the map below. Several states have binding statutory requirements to reduce statewide emissions and complete a statewide inventory measuring emissions. Several Northeastern states participate in both the RGGI and TCI, addressing the two highest-emitting sectors of the U.S. economy: power and transportation. Additionally, multiple states have implemented statutory GHG reduction and reporting requirements, as well as a carbon pricing policy. While not addressed in this document, 30 states have renewable or clean electricity standards, which require that a percentage of electricity sold by utilities comes from renewable sources. Several states have recently increased their standards to require 100% renewable or zero-emissions electricity by midcentury.

 
Show us some green money going into the pockets of politicians.

Solyndra executives and shareholders made hundreds of thousands of dollars to Obama's 2008 campaign for the White House and in an apparent quid pro quo was given over 1/2 Billion Dollars in Federal loan guarantees. On top of that Department of Energy officials regulary attended Solyndra Board Meetings as the Board steered the company over a cliff into a financial abyss.


Solyndra was driven into bankruptcy by an 89% drop over 18 months in the cost of its competitor's raw materials and a nearly simultaneous drop in the cost of natural gas. It was not a scheme to take taxpayer money, it was a scheme to build a tremendously successful business that failed due to nearly unforeseeable market changes. And from Wikipedia's article:
********************
Also in 2011, a US Department of the Treasury official confirmed that the criminal probe of Solyndra was focused on whether the company and its officers misrepresented the firm's finances to the government in seeking the loan or engaged in accounting fraud. Emails showed that the Obama administration had concerns about the legality of the Department of Energy's loan restructuring plan and warned OMB director Jeffrey D. Zients that the plan should be cleared with the Department of Justice first, which the Department of Energy had not done. The emails also revealed that, as early as August 2009, an aide to then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had asked a Department of Energy official if he could discuss any concerns among the investment community about Solyndra but that the official dismissed the idea that Solyndra had financial problems. The bankruptcy court approved the hiring of the chief restructuring officer Todd Neilson.

Thus failures in the management of loan guarantees to Solyndra were the responsibility of the DoE and took place despite efforts by the Obama administration to exercise greater care and restraint over the financial process.

Show us the nation, a state or county mandating the technology choices of a private utility.


Many states have multiple policies in place, as shown in the map below. Several states have binding statutory requirements to reduce statewide emissions and complete a statewide inventory measuring emissions. Several Northeastern states participate in both the RGGI and TCI, addressing the two highest-emitting sectors of the U.S. economy: power and transportation. Additionally, multiple states have implemented statutory GHG reduction and reporting requirements, as well as a carbon pricing policy. While not addressed in this document, 30 states have renewable or clean electricity standards, which require that a percentage of electricity sold by utilities comes from renewable sources. Several states have recently increased their standards to require 100% renewable or zero-emissions electricity by midcentury.

Well, color me corrected and very pleased. Just allow me to point out that specifying mandatory emission limits does not specify the technology to be used. If ABC Power and Light can meet its required emission limts while burning oily bituminous coal, more power to them.

So, the states that implemented statutory GHG reduction requirements or required a percentage of electricity sold come from renewable sources - did they do this using a power new to the state that they had used AGW to manufacture from whole cloth or were they accomplished making use of powers they had possessed all along? Eh?
 

Forum List

Back
Top