Politics of Energy Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: RetiredNow who wrote (7536)	4/27/2009 5:58:17 AM
From: Bearcatbob	Read Replies (2) of 86356

"In fact, most of the US has already made up their minds that we need to move to renewables fast. So those Dems are a reflection of most Americans. " Be very careful with the text above. You are introducing a second issue. Moving to renewables is a totally different issue than GW. Why? A move to renewables will/can be a progressive event where when the supply becomes available it replaces or supplements existing (helps supply the demand growth). GW alarmism is all about trashing the existing without having a reliable replacement. It is very important to this debate that the distinction is made. Those of you who are alarmists on GW need to stay on GW and the numbers associated with your proposed policies. I use the words idiocy and fools and liars in this discussion for deliberate effect. The policy of huge percentage reductions is idiocy - it is plain and simple stupid and not possible without an economic train wreck. I use the word fools to be charitable. Being charitable we can assume the alarmists are simply misguided - the reality may be far worse. The popular group think on GW needs to be challenged and challenged strongly. This is not a parlor debate. Bob

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next