Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (22214)	6/21/2017 12:11:44 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 355638

> Case in point. My post clearly stated your case in point: "Now, we live with lots of unproved theories." But confidence in some are more important than in others. And in fact, some don't matter at all if the theory is wrong, so long as the result is approximately right. The point you missed is that for this one, trillions of dollars are on the line -- and we don't have that kind of money to flit away. The kinds of dramatic changes that climate alarmists are wanting, demanding, are insanely expensive. Things like curtailing carbon output overnight don't come cheap. We cannot afford to be wrong about this. >> You do have more than hysterics, I'm one of the few here who is NOT displaying hysterics. It is apparent that the only real panic here is to make sure people aren't sucked into pouring money down yet another sinkhole. As Illinois craters into bankruptcy. As predicted. And yes, California and other states will follow. No, we don't have 100s of billions of dollars to flush down the toilet.

To: combjelly who wrote (22214)	6/21/2017 12:12:57 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 355638

"You are classing wrongly fighting climate change on the same scale as a cometary strike on the planet." What's the worse that could happen if it's wrong? You have a house-full of LEDs lit with wind power, a zero-emission car powered by the sun, and the profound gratitude of all mothers of asthmatic children everywhere. If we make the necessary efforts to address this challenge – and supposing I’m wrong or scientists are wrong, 97 percent of them all wrong – supposing they are, what’s the worst that can happen? We put millions of people to work transitioning our energy, creating new and renewable and alternative; we make life healthier because we have less particulates in the air and cleaner air and more health; we give ourselves greater security through greater energy independence – that’s the downside. This is not a matter of politics or partisanship; it’s a matter of science and stewardship. And it’s not a matter of capacity; it’s a matter of willpower. (Applause.) John Kerry 2009-2017.state.gov

To: combjelly who wrote (22214)	6/21/2017 12:40:52 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 355638

>> You are classing wrongly fighting climate change on the same scale as a cometary strike on the planet. No, I'm not. EIA estimates subsidies to green energy today at 101 Billion/year; over the course of a generation that would go up to 223 Billion/year. I believe in green energy and always have, long before it was cool to do so. But subsidies are a poor substitute for innovation. If you want to subsidize rooftop PV installations, you have to go into that recognizing it is a terrible deal for taxpayers. And basically is untenable (to produce 6% of the 2030 power requirement by rooftop PV would require 1.7 billion rooftop installations). Do you want to spend money there? Probably not. OTOH, new technologies like Musk's new shingles may be more workable. You get far more bang for the buck out of innovation -- and the only incentive you REALLY need for innovation is tax breaks which pay for themselves anyway. WTF is so hard to understand about that? If it costs nothing, then sure -- just go on solve the problem whether it is one or not. As the nutjob left often says, "What's the harm in fixing it? We have a cleaner planet." The harm, of course, is that in real life, it costs plenty. Trillions. If we really wanted a clean, cheap source for energy we'd be building nuclear plants. But you cannot do that today because idiotic regulation. As I've tried to point out, this is an economic issue more than any other thing. Were it not for economics, it just wouldn't matter what we did. CJ, you've never been able to grasp basic economics for some reason. But if you want to understand this issue you're going to have to come to terms with it. Every problem has an economic component. When Barack Obama said, "We're going to raise your electricity bills through the roof" he was mistakenly stating the truth. But the subsidies, as it turned out, can be easily hidden in huge deficits.

To: combjelly who wrote (22214)	6/21/2017 10:08:05 AM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Recommended By TimF Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 355638

Now you are fear mongering Here we have some really basic economics, soberly expressed: there is such a thing as opportunity cost. Money spent on fighting global warming is money not available to be spent on something else. Money does not grow on trees. There is a lot of uncertainty surrounding global climate change both in terms of risk and the efficacy of options to combat it. It would seem wise to consider the marginal value of each additional dollar spent on the problem in comparison with other value that could be attained from it. It seems to me that throwing everything we have at the problem at the expense of other problems smacks of the same excess as hysteria and fear mongering about overspending.