Climate Change Deniers Are Costing Big Business In The U.S. Billions

And you care so much that you created a thread about that ?

 

That must be why the right wing wants to starve the elderly to death by cutting Social Security and Medicare. Kill off the poor by eliminating the S.N.A.P. program (food stamps), force poor working people into the streets with their children, and cut off payments to the disabled and disabled veterans. To thin the population. But NO abortions, because human life is precious.

.

 

they also crash the economy on purpose


I have cold hard PROOF

 

Only right-wingers read it that way. The thread is about climate change and mankind's potential to save itself. Of course, it is going to take government money to get the ball rolling, but that has been the way since this country was founded. The private sector is not as crowded with free thinking innovators as the conservatives and neoconservatives like to think. These innovators need a push.

.

 

any corporate paid for science is kept from others



don't want to help the competition


public investment in science informs all people


making new entroprenuers

 

Right-wingers are so behind the times, they would be wearing powdered wigs like the conservative Tories that sided with Britain during the Revolutionary War, if not for TV and the Kardashians.

.

 

glenny Beck is selling solar panels

 

Until either the oil subsidies are removed or given to renewables as well...this situation will not change. Still, renewables are slowly becoming competitive regardless if only because they are effective and inevitable.

 

I hope some of them take the time to read the study. Green tech is huge for Denmark and has been for decades. Of course it has been very helpful that many states and in particular an economical giant like the US has been dormant for decades.

 

As I said in the OP, a new breed of billionaires with long-term goals must out bid the Kochs and other members of Big Oil and buy the GOP for their own. Then the new investments in new energy will take place.

.

- - - Updated - - -

I read this and blew coffee out my nose laughing. Except for the coffee mess, I enjoyed your joke, that studying part was funny..

.

 

My apologies!

 

The level of sheer bullheaded stupidity in the above post is truly cringe worthy. Frst were talking about mother jones which is, of all the environmental rags out and about the most singularly insane.

2nd no one is actually protecting the fossil fuel industry. Nor are those industries holding any one back or preventing any one from doing anything.

3rd the only protecting that's being done comes in the form of bio fuels where we continue to heavily subsidize the use of corn ethanol whose only real beneficiaries are the constantly maligned Monsanto and their competitors.

 

You are always good for a few laughs. Thank you.

.

 

If there is ever any greater evidence that liberalism is a mental illness, it's the argument that it's necessary to commit suicide in order to save the world. Liberals do everything in their power to accent our impact on the environment as "damage" oblivious to the reality that we are not transcendent of the environment. We are part of it. Not to mention the liberal conceit that their way of living / environment is the best way of living / environment....

 

Of course. People require transportation. Roads and infrastructure existed for transportation long before the invention of the automobile. Automobiles are designed to travel on the infrastructure that already exists, not for the infrastructure that might exist in the future.

I don't think you understand the point about the grid. Power is delivered on demand. When someone snaps on a light at home, or turns on an air conditioner, the power isn't waiting in the wire for them to accomplish this. The power has to be ramped up at the power plant to support that change in power demand. Solar generators, and wind generators can't do this. You can't speed them up and slow them down on demand to service the grid. These systems are always supported by traditional plants which allows the power to the grid to be regulated (turned up or turned down to meet demand).

And you don't feel that competition is important in order to ultimately create the highest quality lowest price product? Big business can't hold status of a product no one consumes. The only way they do that is through the power of the state...see Europe...

 

Guess you never heard of the pneumatic tire. Or the many decades of bike transportation before the car was invented and the need to create roads for the bike which cars benefited from later.

Here is something for you to read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Roads_Movement

But given that you write stuff like "liberalism is a mental illness" I don't think we need to go any further.

 

All your doing is proving him correct.

Bicycles were not made for roads but transport. That roads were changed to accommodate them is irrelevant. Im sure they would have had no problem on Roman roads

It all starts with hiking trails that later become wagon or cart trails then roads. Every now and then a technology comes along that changes what we use to build roads.

 

Thanks for trying to tell a Right Winger what the Right wingers read.... but it's the title of your freakin' thread.

No it's not. The thread is about bashing the Right wing, even though you have to put words in their mouths to do so.

If you were serious about climate change, you would approach it is an environmental issue, and not a political issue... like this thread.

Don't worry, you're not alone... a lot of you AGW sheep do this.

 

No. Vehicles for transportation were not invented to work on existing roads as you can clearly see. It's the opposite. Cars benefited immensely from movements all across the western world to create good roads for bikes.
Or do you think the first cars would have made it very far on dirt roads?
I imagine you are American and never read about riding bikes before the pneumatic tire and the pain it involved.

Infrastructure was built to accommodate new transport vehicles. The car just benefited from the fact that good roads were being built for bikes first.

 

You assume the US produces anything of value.

- - - Updated - - -

The first cars ran on dirt roads.

 

Bicycles were not designed to go on roads. They were simply a better way to get around than walking. I used to ride mine everywhere road or no road.

Good roads were being built for wagons which was how most things were transported back then. All a car or truck is is a wagon thats self propelled.\

They made it across the US and China

 

The article is just conjecture nonsense.

Anyone could do the same conjecture in the opposite direction. Driving up costs of electricity and other environmental controls will increase the costs of American products even higher.

This will cause tens of millions to become unemployed, cause massive inflation, social chaos, the US having to retreat from the world, oil and the world economy going off the US dollar, and bankrupt local, state and federal government costing the USA over $50 trillion dollars over the next decade.

^ This is valid a claim and actually makes more sense than the OP article's claim, which also relies on the LIE that the USA is the entire earth and all other countries are on another planet, so if the USA reduces carbon emissions shifting manufacturing elsewhere to even dirtier countries this won't affect earth as those countries aren't on earth.

 

The 'left' cares about the poor? Hilarious. The poor are the first victims of liberal's love of higher taxation and the rush to expensive green energy. Liberals have never hesitated to trample the 'proletariat' when it comes to fulfilling their progressive manifesto.

 

Bicycles?

Bicycles as primary transporation are for people whose drivers license has been suspended for DUIs.

 

Your comments still have not changed the findings and opinions of more than 33,000 scientists that contradict you.