The Origin of our Energy.

Some guys (retired) have had a look at the cost of wind, solar and storage costs for New York.

The official 'scoping plan' say about $310 Billion, One retired guy says $4 Trillion and another retired guy say $30 Trillion

So which is it?

More Focus On The Impossible Costs Of A Fully Wind/Solar/Battery Energy System – Watts Up With That?

More guff. My suggestion is to read and quote contributions by people who know what they are talking about.

William Nordhaus estimates that it would cost 1.5% of global income to limit emissions so that a temperature increase is limited to 2°C. Assuming full participation of all countries. Big assumption - with only 50% participation he estimates that it is impossible to keep it below 3°, no matter how much those 50% spend. (Firgue 26, The Climate Casino, Yale U.P., 2013)

Why would we wish to follow a false doctrine such as climate change? The climate changes naturally by the second somewhere in the world and long may it do so. Have you ever wondered why these fanatics changed their brand from 'Global Warming' to 'Climate Change? Well the former can be validly challenged, but the latter cannot because it is true.

Follow the money.

I guess the question is whether we would wish to "follow" whjohnson who calls it "false", or 270 of the world's top climate scientists, along with a majority of nations of the world, including those who make a lot of national income from selling fossil fuels, who say it is a reality, and have been saying so for some thirty years now, most recently last year.

I agree it may be worth following the money. Most denialist claims are linked to support from the fossil-fuel extraction industries and nations. Merchants of Doubt, by Oreskes and Conway, has some details. It is also a decade old. 

Why would we want to follow a false doctrine such as climate change denial, promoted by those in the fossil fuel industry, who would like to keep things just the way they are?

Evidence of climate change keeps piling up.  But it suits many people to deny that it exists.

Why would we want to follow a false doctrine such as climate change denial, promoted by those in the fossil fuel industry, who would like to keep things just the way they are?

Evidence of climate change keeps piling up.  But it suits many people to deny that it exists.

Who's denying the climate is changing, I'm not. I just contest thats mam made co2 is not the control knob.

It's the alarmist bs that gets my goat. And there is plenty of it.

Eg David Attenborough alarmist properganda on Netflix and the BBC  about Walrus falling off cliffs as an exampe of climate change.

It suits even more people to allow the real science to be no-platformed and conveniently buried. A whole global industry has grown up around this, much in the same way that Health & Safety has. The Green lobbies are making billions off the backs of bad science and ignorant Governments who have been sold the woke ideal of something for nothing.

Great so long as the lights stay on during a windless sunless day.

Lots of feel-good virtue-signalling won't keep you warm and fed.

I agree, the climate changes by the second - it's as inevitable as the seasons and their changing weather patterns following each other. Climate change is a perfectly natural phenomena.

Oh it gets worse, the latest missives are complaining about domestic animal faeces and urine contributing to global warming and the death of diverse ecosystems. I kid you not! Some mad scientists in Ghent have come up with this one.

They seem to forget that wild mammals and birds also defecate and urinate too!

That's the weather.  Climate is not today's weather.