In response to:

Smart Money Abandoning Renewable Energy

renewableguy Wrote: Apr 07, 2013 1:59 AM
I wouldn't expect a fossil fuel thinker to accept the external costs. Instead society pays for them while the fossil fuel companies merrily march along making insane profits. http://www.skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-is-too-expensive.htm government coal subsidies increased illness and mortality due to mining pollution climate change from greenhouse gas emissions particulates causing air pollution loss of biodiversity cost to taxpayers of environmental monitoring and cleanup decreased property values infrastructure damages from mudslides resulting from mountaintop removal infrastructure damage from mine blasting impacts of acid rain resulting from coal combustion byproducts water pollution
Colonialgirl Wrote: Apr 07, 2013 3:11 PM
More loads of liberal BS from a brainless greenie troll .
Mary Kay Wrote: Apr 07, 2013 2:20 PM
So how is mountaintop-removal for giant Bird Cuisinarts any better for the environment? Even avid Global Warming proponents admit that "Wind is a cul-de-sac that will take us nowhere."

Read Bjorn Lomborg's: "Climate Change Misdirection" at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323485704578258172660564886.html
renewableguy Wrote: Apr 07, 2013 2:04 AM
Long term fossil fuels are a real looser for our society. The link between co2 and rising earth temperature are clear and without a doubt. Its hard for fossil believers to wrap their heads around this. Chnage is needed in a big way to get to renewable energy or the consequences of a warming earth make it harder on human existence.
Pistol Wrote: Apr 07, 2013 3:05 AM
You may be right, renew. Time will tell. As we write, the proposed cures are counter productive.
David70 Wrote: Apr 07, 2013 7:18 AM
Renewableguy=chicken little.
Snarkasterous1 Wrote: Apr 07, 2013 8:58 AM
Well, I certainly don't want to back a "looser." Tighter is the way to go!

Not sure I agree with the need for "Chnage," though.

You've certainly explained the UTTER ABSENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING over the last 17 years, though, despite a significant rise in atmospheric CO2 during that period. Thanks for that.

Your thinking, spelling, and understanding of the issues are roughly equivalent - which is to say that they're all exceptionally poor.

Thanks for playing. I'll gladly just skip your nearly ncoherent, fact-free posts in the future.

- Snark
James64 Wrote: Apr 07, 2013 9:57 AM
There are external costs with everything. Alternative energy can include:
Government subsidies
Decreased property values
Large tracts of land required
Loss of biodiversity
Bird kill
Environmental monitoring
Habitat destruction
. . . and so on.

CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas overall and the link is rather unclear. Is the increase in CO2 the chicken or the egg? How come we ignore water vapor, the greatest greenhouse "gas"? It is far more prevalent in the atmosphere and affected by many things - though not Man, so much. Was CO2 chosen because, of the choices available, it was something of which Man's contribution could most readily be measured? I think so.
Frank391 Wrote: Apr 07, 2013 12:10 PM
The 5 year average earth temperature has budged in 20 years. There is no earth warming.
Colonialgirl Wrote: Apr 07, 2013 3:11 PM
More loads of liberal BS from a brainless greenie troll .
watermark Wrote: Apr 07, 2013 12:46 PM
Except there isn't any link between co2 and rising earth temperatures. Temperatures are actually cooling and global warming scientists (?) can't figure it out. End all the subsidies including ethanol, and the universities (scientists) who receive grants to push their agenda.
Look, it's not a perfect world but taxpayers are feed-up with a few politically connected people stealing from them while making billions (Al Gore).

British Petroleum is still one of the world’s biggest oil companies. But as early as the late 1990’s they didn’t want you think of them that way. CEO Lord John Browne of Madingley argued that “the transition to alternatives could be accelerated by changing industry practices today.” While other oil companies eschewed climate change alarmism, BP embraced it. In 2002, Lord Browne declared: “Climate change is an issue which raises fundamental questions about the relationship between companies and society as a whole, and between one generation and the next,”

As a result, Mother Jones reported in 2006: “BP...