It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why You Should Never Believe The Global Warming Hoax And Alarmism

page: 8
42
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit

You did say one thing that's true though, that no one knows how much humans are responsible for. That would seem to be necessary to find out before we completely revamp our entire economic and industrial system trying to combat something that we may not even be a prime factor in and that our efforts to change may not even provide measurable results.


Probably not the best idea to wait until we are sure we know why. It would be much smarter to take preventative measures now regardless. And I'm still baffled on how people think burning gas and coal is somehow better than clean energy. Wind, electric and solar and so much better for our planet. Do you really need to make sure we are not destroying our planet before deciding to move on to cleaner sources of power? Why? Economic? There are plenty of economic opportunities with clean energy. Capitalism will not suffer, only the gas and oil companies. boo hoo.


Yeah pretty much everything you just said is wrong.

The reason people don't want wind and solar is because they're not cost-efficient without subsidies. The oil companies get subsidies too, which I'm against, but they don't actually need them, they just get them because of cronyism. A lot of these green energy companies couldn't survive without their government help. Capitalism will indeed suffer. The oil and gas companies, on the other hand, would not. They would simply take their billions and switch over into the new industry. They're actually already starting to do that for when green energy actually becomes an economically-viable technology. Pretty much all the big oil companies have R&D programs into green energy so they can get in on that when the switch does happen eventually, when the technology is mature enough.

Wherever you've been getting your info, you've been misinformed.


originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: fleabit

You did say one thing that's true though, that no one knows how much humans are responsible for. That would seem to be necessary to find out before we completely revamp our entire economic and industrial system trying to combat something that we may not even be a prime factor in and that our efforts to change may not even provide measurable results.


Probably not the best idea to wait until we are sure we know why. It would be much smarter to take preventative measures now regardless. And I'm still baffled on how people think burning gas and coal is somehow better than clean energy. Wind, electric and solar and so much better for our planet. Do you really need to make sure we are not destroying our planet before deciding to move on to cleaner sources of power? Why? Economic? There are plenty of economic opportunities with clean energy. Capitalism will not suffer, only the gas and oil companies. boo hoo.



This is what I mean by wanton ignorance.

You can't honestly believe the total amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere isn't rising.

The ONLY debate has been HOW MUCH an effect, and what effect, this is having. The truth is the world's weather systems are so complicated nobody can say for sure.

The climate can't possibly not be changing if a major chemical component of the whole Earth's atmosphere is changing in quantity. That would be absolutely absurd.

Is it getting warmer? Maybe not. But it is certainly changing.


However, the one statistic I haven't noticed any inconsistency with lately, is ice cap melt statistics. They seem pretty spot on. Ice melt depends just as much on the ice's composition as the actual temperature. This is further complicated by the fact ice reduces the heat around it as it melts (meaning if a lot of it melts at once, temperatures will get very cold, rather than warmer.)



originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

It's not because their models are flawed.

It's because it is impossible to make precise predictions about the weather. (That doesn't mean you can't make broad predictions.)





Actually it is because their models are flawed. That's why none of their predictions come true. They've literally been modifying empirical data to fit the models instead of trying to fix their models to match data. That's not science bud.


Their predictions are coming true, just not by the AMOUNTS predicted. And the exact AMOUNT is something you can't predict.

The system is simply too complicated, and has too many confounding variables.

It doubt the most catastrophic predictions will come true, but probably some regions of the world will change, say from desert to savannah, or from good farm land to being too dry to realistically grow anything (as has happened in Syria.)

The outcome doesn't have to be a total apocalypse. It could just be very expensive and cause misery for poor people.


Again, you guys have to make stuff up in order to defend your position. Like I always say, that's usually a pretty good indication it's time for you to reconsider your position. I know you won't do that though because you're not interested in science or truth, you're just here to push a political agenda.

Very few people are claiming that CO2 levels aren't rising, and pretty much no one is claiming that the climate doesn't change. What's "wanton ignorance" is disregard for the most important questions on this issue. The questions of how much it's changing, how much man is contributing, and what the end result will be are critical questions, particularly if you want to come up with a realistic and effective plan to make a positive impact. But they've gone unanswered because ya'll spend all your time pushing lies like the "97% consensus" that doesn't exist. People aren't as dumb as you wish they were.

And then you wonder why no one listens to you. You lie about what scientists think. You lie about what your opposition thinks. Who in their right mind would listen to you? Go draw me a hockey-stick graph.
edit on 6 6 19 by face23785 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Of course this was the prediction in 1989, by the same body that is warning us today that we have only 10 years to act. What really happened during the warning period? We saw a small increase in temperatures and basically zero rising sea levels. Polar ice was melting a little but has regained most of that in the following 20 years. However, don't forget, 2000 was supposed to be the beginning of the end, not the end of the warming.

These people are stupid and they play on your being uninformed to try to get you to give up your freedom.


No logic whatsoever. So because one guy made a wrong prediction (about something that COULD happen, not WOULD happen), it invalidates all the hard science that proves humans are contributing to climate change? Come on..... It's clearly an issue, and it's funny how desperate you guys are to attack science dishonestly and pretend it's just a hoax. You people will lead to the destruction of us all and likely will still scream your BS until the end when you realize it's all your fault that we did nothing when facing a global crisis and your childish arrogance doomed us all.


edit on 6 6 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Give us real solutions, don't just demand money and pretend that will fix anything. I'm not paying money for a mystery prize because someone told me that I might die without it.

A meteor might destroy all life on this planet, in fact, it's quite likely it will happen someday. Give me 90% of your paycheck and I'll make sure it doesn't happen. How? Don't ask stupid questions, just give me your money, everything will be fine, trust me, you don't want to risk a meteor destroying the planet after all if you don't.



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Dfairlite
A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Of course this was the prediction in 1989, by the same body that is warning us today that we have only 10 years to act. What really happened during the warning period? We saw a small increase in temperatures and basically zero rising sea levels. Polar ice was melting a little but has regained most of that in the following 20 years. However, don't forget, 2000 was supposed to be the beginning of the end, not the end of the warming.

These people are stupid and they play on your being uninformed to try to get you to give up your freedom.


No logic whatsoever. So because one guy made a wrong prediction (about something that COULD happen, not WOULD happen), it invalidates all the hard science that proves humans are contributing to climate change? Come on..... It's clearly an issue, and it's funny how desperate you guys are to attack science dishonestly and pretend it's just a hoax. You people will lead to the destruction of us all and likely will still scream your BS until the end when you realize it's all your fault that we did nothing when facing a global crisis and your childish arrogance doomed us all.



Oh, it's only one guy made bad predictions? You don't seriously believe that do you?

And there's actually not any hard science that proves humans are contributing to climate change. That's the entire problem. Yes, the climate is changing, but what impact humans have isn't known. That seems to be a rather important thing to find out don't ya think? Otherwise you don't know what we even need to change to make a difference.

ETA: Just for fun, here's a great article about a bunch of alarmist catastrophe predicitons by scientists that were wrong. Most of them aren't about the climate. A lot of them are about global famine and overpopulation. There's a hilarious one about global cooling that the climate change nuts like to forget about or straight up claim "nobody was pushing global cooling decades ago." There's also some interesting things that currently get lied about, for example hurricanes aren't increasing and the US is actually doing its part to decrease emissions already.

The point is, scientists are wrong all the time. I love science, but science is a process, it's not an end-all, be-all. They're not even doing real science on this subject. When the data doesn't match the models, THEY CHANGE THE #ING DATA instead of admitting the models are #ed up. That's not science bud. You're getting scammed.
edit on 6 6 19 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 07:09 PM
link   
The species with the most to lose from climate change is our own.

Nature has a way of finding a way to return balance.

Runaway climate change results in the destruction of human society.

Planet wins and over time a natural equilibrium returns.

I can understand climate change from a preservation of human life perspective but to suggest we are damaging the planet is a stretch. Planet earth and its life have evolved through many disasters, through many ages of varying climates and from more dangerous threats than the industrial revolution.



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grenade
Although i think the impact of humans on the global climate is sensationalised it can't be good for our planet to be dumping toxins into the atmosphere.

Even if it has no lasting effect on the planet i'd rather my children didn't breathe in all the crap we currently pump into the air but is there really an alternative?

War or disease will kill majority of our species long before pollutants kill the planet.


Right. We have been concentrating our energy on the wrong things. CO from smog along with toxic metals affect those under the plume very badly but we are worried about CO2 which is a complete combustion and part of the cycle of life.



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Dfairlite
A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Of course this was the prediction in 1989, by the same body that is warning us today that we have only 10 years to act. What really happened during the warning period? We saw a small increase in temperatures and basically zero rising sea levels. Polar ice was melting a little but has regained most of that in the following 20 years. However, don't forget, 2000 was supposed to be the beginning of the end, not the end of the warming.

These people are stupid and they play on your being uninformed to try to get you to give up your freedom.


No logic whatsoever. So because one guy made a wrong prediction (about something that COULD happen, not WOULD happen), it invalidates all the hard science that proves humans are contributing to climate change? Come on..... It's clearly an issue, and it's funny how desperate you guys are to attack science dishonestly and pretend it's just a hoax. You people will lead to the destruction of us all and likely will still scream your BS until the end when you realize it's all your fault that we did nothing when facing a global crisis and your childish arrogance doomed us all.



Can anyone show us a working model of the prediction they made that came true?

Not yet.



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
You people will lead to the destruction of us all and likely will still scream your BS until the end when you realize it's all your fault that we did nothing when facing a global crisis and your childish arrogance doomed us all.



What have you been doing to reduce climate change? I guarantee you still have a gas-powered car, a non-renewable energy source to power your home, buy non-local food, use plastic, buy imported products, and so on.

Stop chastising other people for being skeptical about global warming doomsday when you your self do nothing about it.



posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: face23785


The reason people don't want wind and solar is because they're not cost-efficient without subsidies.


If that were true, then China wouldn't be pursuing it. (Who could possibly pay out a subsidy large enough to prop up an economy of China's size?)


The real reason Wind and Solar projects can't win is because OPEC has total control over oil prices. If a wind/solar project starts to gain ground, OPEC immediately dips oil prices for a few months. Just long enough to starve them out, and then just as immediately, it cranks the price right back to where it was.

When your competition has the freedom to charge as much or as little as they want, and to fluctuate the price as fast as they want, there is NO TECHNOLOGY that could EVER compete. No matter how good it was.

The only worry OPEC has when lowering their price is the long term concern, that they don't want to run out of oil.



The oil companies get subsidies too, which I'm against, but they don't actually need them, they just get them because of cronyism. A lot of these green energy companies couldn't survive without their government help. Capitalism will indeed suffer. The oil and gas companies, on the other hand, would not. They would simply take their billions and switch over into the new industry. They're actually already starting to do that for when green energy actually becomes an economically-viable technology. Pretty much all the big oil companies have R&D programs into green energy so they can get in on that when the switch does happen eventually, when the technology is mature enough.

Wherever you've been getting your info, you've been misinformed.


It is true. Oil subsidies are negligible, and usually only offered when drilling for domestic supply.

However, the Saudi royals effectively have no overhead. American companies handle all the drilling. The Saudis just sign the papers granting them permission to pump X amount of crude.





Actually it is because their models are flawed. That's why none of their predictions come true. They've literally been modifying empirical data to fit the models instead of trying to fix their models to match data. That's not science bud.




If even one scientist or corporation claiming to represent academia does that, you'll blame the entire body of work.

And unfortunately no large group of human beings is ever perfectly homogeneous.

Some do flub the numbers. But the basic prediction, that climates will get messed up, is entirely true.

It's only when they try to say exactly how much that they start making stuff up. (Because it is impossible to make precise predictions unless you are lying.)




Their predictions are coming true, just not by the AMOUNTS predicted. And the exact AMOUNT is something you can't predict.

The system is simply too complicated, and has too many confounding variables.

It doubt the most catastrophic predictions will come true, but probably some regions of the world will change, say from desert to savannah, or from good farm land to being too dry to realistically grow anything (as has happened in Syria.)

The outcome doesn't have to be a total apocalypse. It could just be very expensive and cause misery for poor people.


Again, you guys have to make stuff up in order to defend your position. Like I always say, that's usually a pretty good indication it's time for you to reconsider your position. I know you won't do that though because you're not interested in science or truth, you're just here to push a political agenda.


What do you think my position is?



Very few people are claiming that CO2 levels aren't rising, and pretty much no one is claiming that the climate doesn't change.


They're saying the change isn't man made.

If it is caused by CO2 levels rising, then it is therefore man made.

I think you are the one who needs to think through his position a little bit more carefully.


What's "wanton ignorance" is disregard for the most important questions on this issue. The questions of how much it's changing, how much man is contributing, and what the end result will be are critical questions, particularly if you want to come up with a realistic and effective plan to make a positive impact. But they've gone unanswered because ya'll spend all your time pushing lies like the "97% consensus" that doesn't exist. People aren't as dumb as you wish they were.

And then you wonder why no one listens to you. You lie about what scientists think. You lie about what your opposition thinks. Who in their right mind would listen to you? Go draw me a hockey-stick graph.


"How much it is changing" is actually not that critical of a question. Or not exactly. Any change is bad, for the most part, because it will require whole groups of people to migrate from one place to another.

Some places will experience permanent changes in the amount of rainfall. It will look like they're going through a drought, but it will turn out it's not a drought. It's the new climate for that region. Others will seem to be getting exceptional rainfall, .... but it will turn out to be the new average.

That's enough to be worth taking action.

I feel bad that some people are exaggerating the situation and claiming the whole world will end. But all I can do is shrug and wish they'd shut up.

It's like if someone told you a billion people would die from a meteor impact, and it turned out only 50 million were going to die. Does it suddenly stop mattering altogether?



posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The main reason China is looking into alternate fuels is to get out from under the thumb of the petro dollar, as the petro dollar is a large part of the US influence over the world. Which is also part of why the US is reluctant to look into alternate fuels. In BOTH cases, it's everything to do with power and control and nothing to do with caring about the environment.



posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The main reason China is looking into alternate fuels is to get out from under the thumb of the petro dollar, as the petro dollar is a large part of the US influence over the world. Which is also part of why the US is reluctant to look into alternate fuels. In BOTH cases, it's everything to do with power and control and nothing to do with caring about the environment.


Also, just because someone is pursuing it right now doesn't mean it's economically viable right now. They're preparing for the future for when the technology is better. Right now it sucks. As usual, media bias has been misleading people like posters in this thread to think that wind and solar are economically viable. They're not.


The Los Angeles Times last year reported that California’s electricity prices were rising, but failed to connect the price rise to renewables, provoking a sharp rebuttal from UC Berkeley economist James Bushnell.

“The story of how California’s electric system got to its current state is a long and gory one,” Bushnell wrote, but “the dominant policy driver in the electricity sector has unquestionably been a focus on developing renewable sources of electricity generation.”

Part of the problem is that many reporters don’t understand electricity. They think of electricity as a commodity when it is, in fact, a service — like eating at a restaurant.

The price we pay for the luxury of eating out isn’t just the cost of the ingredients most of which which, like solar panels and wind turbines, have declined for decades.

Rather, the price of services like eating out and electricity reflect the cost not only of a few ingredients but also their preparation and delivery.

This is a problem of bias, not just energy illiteracy. Normally skeptical journalists routinely give renewables a pass. The reason isn’t because they don’t know how to report critically on energy — they do regularly when it comes to non-renewable energy sources — but rather because they don’t want to.

edit on 7 6 19 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Barcs

Give us real solutions, don't just demand money and pretend that will fix anything. I'm not paying money for a mystery prize because someone told me that I might die without it.


Where did I demand money and pretend it will fix anything? I was arguing that it is a REAL problem, which should not be ignored or dismissed as conspiracy theory. It's backed by hard evidence. I hope you are not a member of any church, because if so you are paying money for a prize that you don't even know exists which is essentially the same as what you said.


A meteor might destroy all life on this planet, in fact, it's quite likely it will happen someday. Give me 90% of your paycheck and I'll make sure it doesn't happen. How? Don't ask stupid questions, just give me your money, everything will be fine, trust me, you don't want to risk a meteor destroying the planet after all if you don't.


LMAO! If you think you are going to have to pay 90% of your paycheck to combat climate change you are seriously deluded. The budget for science is NOTHING compared to the military. There is no reason to think you will be paying 90% tax because of warming LOL. I don't agree with carbon taxes, but something DOES need to be done and it can't be ignored, just because republicans are arrogant ass clowns that want to pollute nonstop and drive big ass trucks.

edit on 6 7 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
Oh, it's only one guy made bad predictions? You don't seriously believe that do you?


Again, the person said it COULD happen, not that it definitely would happen by that exact time.


And there's actually not any hard science that proves humans are contributing to climate change. That's the entire problem.


No, the entire problem is people denying the science. There is TONS of hard science that PROVES CO2 and other greenhouse gases raise global temperature and that humans put tons of that into the air on a daily basis. That is NOT up for debate.

climate.nasa.gov...

study.com...

LMAO @ claiming no evidence and pretending we don't know that humans contribute to that. They clearly do.



The point is, scientists are wrong all the time. I love science, but science is a process, it's not an end-all, be-all. They're not even doing real science on this subject. When the data doesn't match the models, THEY CHANGE THE #ING DATA instead of admitting the models are #ed up. That's not science bud. You're getting scammed.


Complete nonsense. Scientists aren't wrong all the time LMAO!!! They are usually right. LOL @ claiming they change the data. Yeah, this is a scientific position and if you really think humans aren't increasing the CO2 and greenhouse gases in the air you are completely delusional.



posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman
Can anyone show us a working model of the prediction they made that came true?

Not yet.


LOL! Yeah, not yet because it hasn't happened yet. By the time it does, it will be too late to do anything about it. LOL.



posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
What have you been doing to reduce climate change? I guarantee you still have a gas-powered car, a non-renewable energy source to power your home, buy non-local food, use plastic, buy imported products, and so on.

Stop chastising other people for being skeptical about global warming doomsday when you your self do nothing about it.


What a load of crap. I have a hybrid car, which has considerably less emissions, unlike all those arrogant pompous dumbasses driving hummers around. Every little bit helps. I am not wasteful, I recycle, I reuse things all the time. The biggest problem is not the average person, though, it is giant industrial corporations that are pumping greenhouse gases into the air. One person's car does not affect it much. I will leave it to science to solve this problem, but it won't get solved if people are too arrogant to make sacrifices and DO SOMETHING for our future.

Sorry, but I have very little trust for ANYBODY that thinks it's okay to pollute and doesn't care about the environment of our home. It's a ridiculous position to take and stems entirely from arrogance. I don't see how anybody can be against trying to preserve the environment. It's just a selfish mentality. They only care about living in indulgence now, not about our future. The oil companies are the same exact way.


edit on 6 7 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove



What the hell are you talking about? I never said a damn thing about anyone trying to kill us. I'm saying corrupt assholes who don't honestly give two #s about the planet, are using the climate change scare to manipulate people into giving them money


Pretty much everyone with a brain is aware of the Dollar-lubricated PR machinery team BigOil has going for them, stop bullsh!tting the kids and pick up a book?


Wry smile, coppin' legal weed from fake hole in the wall
I don't wanna go see Nas with an orchestra at Carnegie Hall
No man of the people, I wouldn't be caught dead with most of y'all





Give us real solutions, don't just demand money and pretend that will fix anything. I'm not paying money for a mystery prize because someone told me that I might die without it.


That's a comfortly numb armchair general position you have going there, respect! How much of your money do I have to pay for the gamer version on rolls?
But wait. OMG. You say they gonna rob us all? MY PRECIOUS FUTURE GAMER CHAIR!!!oneoneeleven


“When all are guilty, no one is; confessions of collective guilt are the best possible safeguard against the discovery of culprits, and the very magnitude of the crime the best excuse for doing nothing. ”

H. Arendt



posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs


Wow, what a load of nonsense. Where do we start?

Again, the person said it COULD happen, not that it definitely would happen by that exact time.


Scientists running around saying what COULD happen--and then being wrong about it--is a big deal. We see this in weather and geology. Weathermen issues sweeping warnings for wide areas about tornadoes and volcanologists warn of impending eruptions, then nothing happens and they lose credibility. There are reasons for that, because the prediction methods are an inexact science and they don't do a good enough job of explaining it to the public, but the end result is the same. They lose credibility. Science isn't about putting all the possibilities out into the public sphere to scare people. The main thing that tells you a scientific theory is accurate is if it can make good predictions. This isn't just a science question it's also a political one because you need public support for the policy changes you want. If you want people to take this seriously you need to clean up the models and predictions and stop fearmongering. The climate change brigade fails over and over in this department, and rather than fix their models, they doctor the data to fit their models. That's not good science and it's not good public policy either.



No, the entire problem is people denying the science. There is TONS of hard science that PROVES CO2 and other greenhouse gases raise global temperature and that humans put tons of that into the air on a daily basis. That is NOT up for debate.

climate.nasa.gov...

study.com...

LMAO @ claiming no evidence and pretending we don't know that humans contribute to that. They clearly do.


You very cleverly made a slight change to what I said. I never said greenhouse gases don't warm global temps or that we aren't releasing CO2. THAT is a major problem in this discussion is you have to make things up. Of course greenhouse gases increase temps and humans release CO2. But there's no data on how much of the temperature changes are related to human activity. All you can say is "oh we release CO2 so we must be causing SOME of it." As another poster already pointed out, that's a meaningless statement. When I breathe I release CO2. The important piece of data is how much I'm releasing, and how much that contributes to climate change. They haven't been able to quantify that. That's a crucial question. You clearly either don't understand this subject or you're willfully pushing misinformation. They know the climate is changing. How much man is responsible for and whether we can do anything about it is unknown.


Complete nonsense. Scientists aren't wrong all the time LMAO!!! They are usually right. LOL @ claiming they change the data. Yeah, this is a scientific position and if you really think humans aren't increasing the CO2 and greenhouse gases in the air you are completely delusional.


Yeah, so to combat this point you had to pretend that I literally meant scientists are wrong constantly and then you made something up out of thin air. "all the time" is a figure of speech, and you know that, so why the dishonesty? And yes, they do change the data. That's been documented earlier in this thread and you can't refute it. Your response was "LOL." Convincing.

You've made several dishonest points in this post. This is the biggest problem with your movement. You have to make things up and misrepresent the other side to try to make your points, and it's glaringly obvious to anyone with a brain. How do you expect to change people's minds like that? You're completely out of your league in this discussion. You don't have the facts or the ability to form rational arguments.



posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785


If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?


"It's the economy, Forbes!"
And that isn't even new news.


All in all, the German process of liberalisation and privatisation is primarily characterised as a privatisation process, which strengthened the market power of the large network energy supply companies. And not only at national level because large energy supply companies bought public and private energy supply companies throughout liberalised Europe.

Positive liberalisation effects – such as lower electricity prices for private householdshave not occured. However, employment has been reduced (directly after the liberalisation process it was higher than before), whereas employment conditions have stayed relatively constant. Profits made by the energy supply companies have increased
enormously.

Liberalisation, privatisation and regulation
in the German electricity sector
Torsten Brandt, Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut
(WSI)



posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

That pretty much says the same thing as my link said. They're making money, thanks to their subsidies, but they're not lowering energy prices. Thanks for the support.



posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

Sorry, but I have very little trust for ANYBODY that thinks it's okay to pollute and doesn't care about the environment of our home. It's a ridiculous position to take and stems entirely from arrogance. I don't see how anybody can be against trying to preserve the environment. It's just a selfish mentality. They only care about living in indulgence now, not about our future. The oil companies are the same exact way.



I agree, but we continue to feed that very same system. The thing is, even hybrid cars use gasoline. Even fully electric cars often use power from the grid that is non-renewable.

We can't ridicule people though when we are part of the problem. At least they don't think they're doing anything wrong. Whereas we, when we proclaim something is wrong, yet continue to do it, become hypocrites.

Everyone right now should call their utility company and switch their utility supplier to a renewable energy provider. It is literally as simple as them switching your grid supplier to a renewable source. You don't need anything installed or new equipment.




top topics



 
42
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join