John Kerry

Debunking John Kerry's Claim That Climate Change Is a Great Investment Opportunity

If renewable, new nuclear, or even fusion energy is actually becoming cheaper than conventional fossil fuels, why would the world need an international treaty at all?

|

John Kerry
State Dept.

Lima, Peru – Secretary of State John Kerry jetted down today for the 20th Conference of the Parties (COP-20) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). His entourage invaded the press conference room and spent an inordinate amount of time adjusting the lectern, fiddling with the microphones, and minutely tweaking and cleaning the teleprompters not once, not twice, but three times before Kerry showed up. Does our diplomatic service demand obsequiousness?

At the beginning of his climate change pep talk, Kerry singled out his "special guest" Al Gore who was installed in the front row. Kerry noted that Gore was "the leader with all of us on this issue, but the first among equals, believe me, in his passion and commitment to this." I suspect that the Nobel Peace prize winner might think himself a bit more than merely a first among equals in the ranks of climate change combatants.

Kerry recalled that he was at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro at which the UNFCCC was negotiated and had participated in numerous subsequent COPs. (I, too, was there, John.) After 22 years of negotiations, Kerry asserted, "The science of climate change is science, and it is screaming at us, warning us, compelling us—hopefully—to act." Because the international community has failed adequately to heed the science, "We are still on a course leading to tragedy."

The blame for two decades of failed international climate policy rests with both rich and poor nations. "If you are a big developed nation and you are not helping to lead, then you are part of the problem," Kerry declared. But he added that since "more than half of all greenhouse gas emissions are now from developing countries. It is imperative that they act, too."

Kerry noted that the U.S. is on track to meet President Obama's commitment that the country would cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent below their 2005 levels by 2020. He hailed the joint announcement on climate change with China last month as an example of progress toward reining in climate change. But is it really? In the announcement the U.S. intends by 2025 to cut its emissions by as much as 28 percent below their 2005 levels and China intends to peak its emissions by 2030. The announcement creates no obligations of any sort on either nation.

Kerry concluded by arguing that solving climate change is a vast investment opportunity. "The solution to climate change is energy policy," he asserted. Kerry claimed that the trillion dollar infotech boom of 1990s will pale in comparison with the six trillion dollar cleantech boom that an ambitious climate agreement In Paris would spark. In his talk, the Secretary of State somehow overlooked the fact that no vast international treaty specifying quotas, mandates, and taxes was needed to force the creation of infotech markets, innovation and prosperity. If renewable, new nuclear, or even fusion energy is actually becoming cheaper than conventional fossil fuels, why would the world need an international climate change treaty at all?

In any case, will the negotiations here at COP-20 in Lima really set the stage of an ambitious climate agreement in Paris next year? Interestingly, the optimistic atmosphere among the conference tents has dissipated. The old familiar divide between the rich and poor countries has cracked opened again.

On one side, the rich countries, including the U.S., want an agreement in which all countries put forth intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs in diplo-speak) during the first three months of next year. The developed countries largely want to limit INDCs to quantifiable pledges to cut or manage the future emissions of greenhouse gases, e.g. so many millions of tons of carbon dioxide per year. They also want to adopt a set of transparent reporting standards so that it will be easy to compare and evaluate each country's INDC pledges. Additionally, the European Union wants to incorporate a formal process in the Paris agreement for evaluating the adequacy of INDCs, while the U.S. doesn't think that it's absolutely necessary for the new treaty. The EU is also arguing that INDCs should be legally binding for all countries. The U.S. opposes this because that means that Paris agreement would have to gain the assent of the Senate, which is unlikely.

For their part, most poor countries don't want to limit INDCs in the Paris agreement to just efforts aimed at cutting and controlling greenhouse gas emissions. They want to include provisions dealing with climate finance, efforts at adaptation, and so forth. Such INDCs would specifically obligate rich countries to provide funds to developing countries to help them reduce their emissions.

The U.S. and the E.U. respond that the atmosphere is warming because of the accumulation of greenhouse gases and that that should be the chief way to measure success in the effort to reduce future warming. Including finance and adaptation would make it harder to compare INDCs to see how much they are furthering the goal of slowing global warming. Some poor countries are still insisting on the UNFCCC principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" which they interpret as imposing legally binding targets on developed countries while exempting poor countries from such a requirement. Both China and India argue that a formal process for evaluating INDCs would violate their national sovereignties.

The conference is supposed to wrap up by this evening. The current negotiating text is a Chinese menu list of options indicating that no hard decisions have been agreed to at this point. In a press statement, the charity Oxfam warned, "Unless the text improves, whatever options negotiators choose over the next day will leave many very difficult issues unresolved and keep the world headed down a treacherous road towards extreme warming." Evidently, the climate negotiators here in Lima are treating Kerry's hectoring as so much hot air.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

120 responses to “Debunking John Kerry's Claim That Climate Change Is a Great Investment Opportunity

  1. Perhaps cashing in on the scam is lucrative, but actual business in that area isn’t so good. It’s particularly hard in the energy sector with oil prices continuing to drop.

    1. It worked for Powerpoint Meister Al Gore.

      1. You mean the guy who has to beg masseuses to give him a hand-release?

  2. You know who else spread “man-made” tragedy…

    1. Yes, I know this one: Wernher von Braun.

    2. Dr. Frankenstein?

    3. Amanda Marcotte?

    4. Lex Luthor (except for Earth-3 Lex Luthor)

      1. It’s sad you know that.

    5. Genghis Khan?

      1. The real one or the “modern day” one?

    6. Johnny Fuckerfaster!

  3. “Unless the text improves, whatever options negotiators choose over the next day will leave many very difficult issues unresolved and keep the world headed down a treacherous road towards extreme warming.

    I just want to slap the shit out of this guy. Fuck him, and fuck everyone like him.

    1. Yes, well put!!

  4. Looks like we ought to bring the UN model where the individual states get to say no to the US. I mean, the problem here seems to be that there is no overarching governing body that can impose these sanctions on the individual nations. Problem with socialist style policies like these(redistribution programs, nationalization via regulation, etc), is that someone has to get screwed and nobody wants to be the one getting screwed, and so long as it’s voluntary, nobody gets screwed (these conferences end up doing nothing).

  5. “The science of climate change is science, and it is screaming at us ….”

    So, the science is settled, but it hasn’t settled down?

    1. That’s what a baby does when it has a fever!

    2. The “science” of “Climate Science” is largely bullshit, and everybody who has taken a serious look at it knows this. Kerry isn’t a serious person. He doesn’t think ahead, and gets outraged when that catches up with him. That alone disqualifies him to be President, and should disqualify him to work for one in any important capacity.

      Sadly, the bunch of clowns currently infesting 1600 Penn. Ave. are so grossly incompetent and unintelligent that Kerry disappears into the smog.

      But every time he emerges he reminds us that he is, fundamentally, a third rate faux Kennedy; like a bad Elvis Impersonator, but less amusing.

      1. So there must be hundreds of peer reviewed papers published showing exactly how it is all bullshit. Can you reference them please?

        Or let me guess, there is a world wide conspiracy cranking out this. Oh and they are all doing it for grant money, right? Or is there another global conspiracy to stop the proof from getting out?

        Before the insults start flying…i am not for these BS treaties which mean nothing, or crippling our economy by a host of new taxes and regulation. Better to let the market work through these things.

        1. So there must be hundreds of peer reviewed papers published showing exactly how it is all bullshit.

          “We know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.” – Richard Horton, Lancet Editor

          There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print – Drummond Rennie, Deputy Editor of JAMA

          1. Well that settles it then.

          2. No conspiracy is required when a carrot will suffice.

        2. You do know the difference between models and facts, don’t you?

        3. Here you go.

          More Scientists Debunking Climate Change Myths

          1. It won’t read them. The truth causes tears.

        4. all you need to know about “peer review” is contained in the phrase itself. When people who believe something see research from others that makes similar claims, do you think they will give it a thumbs up or thumbs down?

          1. I participate in the peer review process quite a bit. In most cases it works rather well. The reviewers are unknown (unless they desire to be known) to the writer, and are chosen by an editor. A good editor will choose at least one person who might disagree with some of the results or conclusions.

            The global warming situation is very unusual since it was hijacked by the warmists and now several journals have become poisoned.

            1. Of course. And you know this how?

              1. Climategate gives one clue.

                The testimony of skeptics who’ve had their papers rejected by mainstream journals is another, along with the prevalence of flimsy warming papers in those journals.

                1. Awww, isn’t that cute? I remember when I thought making cogent points counted when an idiot warmer spoke up… you can’t get those days back.

            2. The “peer-review” process has NOTHING to do with the scientific method and everything to do with the publishing business. It is meaningless to anyone but a troll (see above.)

              1. Spot on, GregMax… on all points, including Tony.

                When the mainscream media took over spreading Internet rumors as “truth,” the Scientific Method and Critical Thinking left the stage.

                I just can’t imagine any way to turn back the clock on that kind of stupidity.

        5. If you accelerate a car from 0 to 50 MPH, at some point it’s going 25 MPH, right? I’ve heard about AGW doomsday for 20-30 years, but so far I haven’t seen any demonstrable change in the weather. The climate models I’ve seen are inaccurate to varying degrees. I’ve read the science and watched Cosmos, though. I’m interested in solutions that do not involve aggrandizing the elites through new regulations and taxes.

          1. I think that even Tyson drank the warmite KoolAide towards the end of his Cosmos series. Got all emotional about it and left a lot of science behind, even the plausible ‘imaginative parts’ that made the rest of the series so good.

            I watch the high/low temps chart just about every day in our local paper. What have I noticed? While there are frequent excursions above the 30-year maxima and below the minima, the general trend has beautifully kept ‘reverting to the mean’ and returning to somewhere smack in-between the max and min lines.

            And nobody seems to notice, especially the warmites.

          2. I also watched Cosmos. The episode concerning AGW was interesting. Tyson uses walking a dog on a beach as a metaphor for the difference between climate & weather. The only problem is, the metaphor had him walking parallel to the beach. If AGW were true, he’d be walking at an angle towards the water, i.e. the planet getting warmer. But it’s not, for the past couple decades.

        6. Jim Smithy|12.12.14 @ 12:06PM|#
          “So there must be hundreds of peer reviewed papers published showing exactly how it is all bullshit. Can you reference them please?”

          You seem to have a very poor grasp of logic.
          You, and those like you make the positive claim that X is happening. Those who disagree are not required to disprove anything; you are required to prove it is happening.
          And, before insults start flying, I am convinced that the climate is changing and that man lays some role in the matter.
          I am NOT convinced the change is catastrophic, nor that any solution means turning the economy over to the governments.

          1. The primacy granted to peer review is an effect of the leftoids’ fundamental cause: collectivism. In this context, they project the tribal premise of collectivism into epistemology, making the validity of knowledge to be dependent not upon reference to objective reality, but by reference to social subjectivism; if others think it’s true, it’s true because it’s the consensus; QED.

            The vapid parasitism of this sort of epistemic fantasy should be readily apparent. But generations of lamestream intellectuals have been taught that objective reality doesn’t exist (lol), it’s all just subjective whims and “social construction”.

        7. I see no evidence that the “climate science” community even knows how to calculate the temperature of a croquet ball under a sun lamp .

          Otherwise they would have repudiated Hansen’s claim that Venus’s surface temperature can be explained by a “runaway greenhouse” effect long ago . It only takes undergraduate computations of radiative balance to show that’s innumerate nonscience by an order of magnitude .

          But apparently you can have a comfortable sinecure as a PhD “climate scientist” w/o having even an undergraduate understanding of the essential physics .

  6. I suppose it’s a great investment opportunity. If you’re a crony.

    1. ^this^

      We – the government – will choose who gets this juicy contract. Just make sure you know the right people and donate to the right campaigns.

  7. All this and Kerry still had time to pose for the NE Patriots logo.

  8. If by “investment” Kerry means what all politicians mean by “investment” than John Kerry is 100% correct.

    Just like 9/11 was a great “investment” opportunity. Just like the market crash of 08 was a great “investment” opportunity.

  9. Secretary of State John Kerry jetted down today for the 20th Conference of the Parties (COP-20) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In his climate change pep talk, Kerry warned that unmitigated man-made global warming will lead to “tragedy.”

    Blatant hypocrisy bolded.

    1. Thank you, I was just about to point that out.

      I mean seriously. This is 20motherfucking14. We should be doing all of these meetings via skype or whatever hologram conference call program SHIELD used in CA2.

      1. Again, spot on! If Kerry or ANY of the others involved really gave a shit about what they call a Problem or gave a real shit about finding a Solution, they’d be Skyping all of these ersatz meetings.

        And they think we don’t see through that bullshit.

        Very sad about them…

        1. Sometimes clown’s flying carbon pig no-worky:

          http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10…..ienna.html

  10. “If renewable, new nuclear, or even fusion energy is actually becoming cheaper than conventional fossil fuels, why would the world need an international treaty at all?”

    Because he’s flat-out lying. But you knew that.

  11. Is this article here just to flush out the “$70/hr work from home” troll?

    You know who else offers a “great investment opportunity”?

    If I ask another rhetorical question can I Napalitano the thread?

  12. Even if there were a grain of truth in Kerry’s lies, they’d still be irrelevant in that the total return would represent the glazier’s bill for the broken windows.

  13. Would you take investment advice from this man?

    Kerry: I just want to say one word to you. Just one word.
    Me: Yes, sir.
    Kerry: Are you listening?
    Me: Yes, I am.
    Kerry: Ketchup.

    1. Hahahaha!

  14. I want to invest in the climate,and the sky ,the moon,grass and children’s smiles.Oh,you poor countries,don’t even think about bringing electric power to all your people,and GMO’s to feed your masses,no.Use sunshine and wind and toil with shovels and hoes to survive.Oh,and die young so you don’t over populate.

    1. and toil with shovels and hoes to survive

      At least that’ll give people jobs!

        1. When the Chinese guy told Milton Friedman that they’d employed tens of thousands of citizens to shovel dirt for one of their massive dam projects, Friedman smiled and suggested that they swap out the shovels for teaspoons and ’employ’ even more folks!

          Morons, everywhere!

  15. The push back is picking up. Good article from a couple days ago:

    The unsinkable German anti-CO2-Titanic just found its iceberg

    1. According to comments in various press articles, the German government seems to have realized its vessel is taking in water and is starting to list. So while the ship’s orchestra composed of green and socialist parties together with assorted NGO’s and the accomplices in the media is doing its best to drown out first anxious noises by playing climato-patriotic anthems at full pitch, the power brokers in Berlin seem to be hammering out a plan B in a desperate attempt to fend off a catastrophic breakdown of the nets.

      This is actually an excellent article. I love that description of political forces in Germany.

      1. What if CO2 isn’t a leader of climate change, but a follower? (I’m so not saying that scientifically.)

      2. You know who else was a political force in Germany?

    2. nonsensical. here is reality:

      http://energytransition.de/201…..m-fiction/

      1. Haha!! Bunch of BS.

      2. ah, I see. Appeal to authority. And why is the information in your source superior? Other than it confirming your beliefs.

        1. One website dedicated to climate change skepticism does not trump science.

          1. Re: Tony,

            One website dedicated to climate change skepticism does not trump science.

            Not even phony science!

          2. Tony|12.12.14 @ 1:15PM|#
            “One website dedicated to climate change skepticism does not trump science.”

            Seventeen years and counting, Tony.

            1. You mean you’ve been polluting the internet with this completely false denier talking point for 17 years?

              1. Ha prove the “false” dickhead.

                Even NASA has been caught fixing the number to show climb in temp.

                http://www.omsj.org/blogs/nasa…..data-again

              2. That Tony doesn’t know or acknowledge what is behind the 17 year figure is telling.

              3. Tony|12.12.14 @ 2:35PM|#
                “You mean you’ve been polluting the internet with this completely false denier talking point for 17 years?”

                Asshole, why do you deny scientific data?

              4. Tony, we established a LONG time ago that you will not believe any data that does not support your beliefs. So discussion is pretty futile.

                But you keep coming here with the same ‘arguments’ and claims. Definition of insanity. You’re not going to change our minds, nor will our links, data, facts or whatever impact your beliefs.

                So, just chillax somewhere else, ok?
                Thanks!

      3. This seems to contradict some of your older posts’ claims.

        It also jibes with the Watssup story.

        http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..-high.html

    3. I also read that article. I found it very interesting – the description of the split as like creating a “bad” bank and a “good” bank makes a lot of sense.

      Then I googled other news stories.

      The other news reports were business stories saying how smart eon was for getting out of the old energy market, and another news story saying how this proves Merkel’s energy u-turn is winning.

      So, which is correct?

      The answer can only be known if Germany needs coal base load plants, or if they do not.

      If they need them, then the first story is the better story, and the rest of the stories are just business fluff or shallow analysis.

      Since I suspect Germans will want to drive on cloudy days, I also suspect they will need those base load plants that EON is offloading.

      I bet they end up being nationalized.

      1. “If they need them, then the first story is the better story, and the rest of the stories are just business fluff or shallow analysis.”

        Unless the unicorn-fart plants come on line, I really don’t think they have a choice.

  16. Such INDCs would specifically obligate rich countries to provide funds to developing countries to help them reduce their emissions.

    In other words, Daddy needs a new Caddy.

  17. The reason Mr. Kerry wants people to “invest” is only because either he himself or a “friend” is already “in” and they need to get the Ponzi party started.

    Wake up everyone it is all a scam!

  18. Greenpeace deface world heritage site. Someone please rid us of these a-holes.

    Greenpeace activists caused “irreparable damage” to a large area of the Nazca lines, an ancient monument, during a publicity stunt, according to a Peruvian prosecutor investigating the incident.

    The damage is spread over an area of 1,600 square metres beside a stylised figure of a hummingbird etched into the desert soil, the prosecutor said.

    Peru to prosecute.

  19. Kerry claimed that the trillion dollar infotech boom of 1990s will pale in comparison with the six trillion dollar cleantech boom that an ambitious climate agreement In Paris would spark.

    The tech boom was such because it brought about greater efficiencies. It was not a spending-money-to-make-money boondoggle–which is what Kerry suggests.

    Keynesian idiot!

    1. did I miss the conference of TopMen that sparked the tech boom? I seem to recall something about garages, startups, entrepreneurs, but maybe I am mistaken.

      1. Yes. To my recollection, many people and Top Men were against it because–as usual–they were wedded to existing technologies. I had a hard time getting folk to migrate from facsimile to email in the early 90s–as an example.

  20. I buy almost everything except food and clothing from online auctions most people aren’t aware of the almost I unbelievable deals that they can get from online auction sites the site that has the best deals is…..
    BEST HOME BASE GIFT…..http://snipr.com/29inp5v

  21. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.

    This is wha? I do ==== === http://www.Work4Hour.Com

  22. Kerry is obviously a fan of the “broken window” fallacy. Not surprising, as that face of his has probably broken a lot of them.

    1. Mirrors, his face has broken a lot of mirrors.

  23. Hypothetical premises: 1) Climate science is presenting facts and is not actually a conspiracy of mustache-twirling grant-hungry Al Gore?worshiping charlatans who’ve somehow managed to suppress all the real science and haven’t been found out by any real scientists the world over. 2) Because we’ve never priced carbon-emitting fuels to include environmental damage, there are trillions of dollars in profits to be made from proved reserves, far, far more oil to be burned than the planet can take.

    So let’s say the market won’t, in history’s happiest moment of serendipity, deal with the problem on its own. Do any of you favor large-scale government intervention then? Just how deep does this market worshiping cult bullshit go?

    1. Re: Tony,

      1) Climate science is presenting facts
      2) Because we’ve never priced carbon-emitting fuels to include environmental damage, there are trillions of dollars in profits to be made from proved reserves

      The second premise is not a premise but a question-begging conclusion.

      Who told you there’s environmental damage because of CO2 emissions, if all life except plants emit CO2? Who told you those can be priced? By which criteria? Only the market is able to place a price on goods or services. Anything else is a guessing game.

      So let’s say the market won’t […]deal with the problem on its own.

      Indeed, just like it does not deal with the problem of a potential alien invasion.

      Do any of you favor large-scale government intervention then?

      Not derived from your assertions and question-begging, no.

      But thank you for playing. Here are a few parting gifts.

      1. What’s especially hilarious about his abject hatred of CO2 is that it is necessary for plant life and he wants to get rid of it because of a rounding error.

        1. None of the prophesied catastrophic events have come to pass. Climate science doesn’t really deal with such predictions. Most models only concern themselves with temperature change but not with other variables which are impossible to predict.

          The Tonys of the world confuse the current research with the wild predictions (and speculations) pushed mostly by activists and journalists, as if the science validate them all. This presents a very grave problem for climate researchers because their research is closely linked to these extraordinary claims, poisoning the well for their results. But the Tonys of the world do not see this. They’re committed to destroying capitalism and if they have to throw researchers under the bus, they will.

          1. I may or may not have an ideological agenda. Either way, I’m the one who understands and accepts scientific fact, and you are denying it because of ideology.

            1. You need to learn to distinguish between models and actual physically measured data.

              They are completely separate things.

              The physical data is not matching the models that scare you into drastic, quixotic actions.

        2. You could at least attempt to seem like you know a mote of what the fuck you’re talking about.

          Yes, CO2 is an important chemical in the maintenance of life. As with all chemicals, that does not fucking mean that there can never be too much.

          You have to try very very hard to be this ignorant. This is what libertarianism does to otherwise perfectly sound minds. It makes you believe stuff gradeschool children would laugh at.

          1. CO2 is an element. A chemical is “a compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, especially artificially.”

            I’m not pointing this out to be pedantic but to counter your attempt to sound scientific when you probably know very little about chemistry or science.

            1. Tony knows one thing really well: That he is right and that we all deserve to be executed for not agreeing with his political views.

            2. CO2 is a molecule, not an element.

    2. I love how you’ll call people who don’t swallow this load of bullshit right wing deniers and conspiracy nuts and think corporations are evil and only motivated by profit but then think that companies are involved in some vast conspiracy to shut down renewable’s that are supposedly cheaper and easier.

      The cognitive dissonance of thinking that companies who are only interested in profits wouldn’t jump on cheaper energy, no matter where it came from, must make your ear drums bleed.

      1. Are corporations motivated by something other than profit? Have you told the shareholders?!

        The problem, and it’s a big, inherent, and fatal one, is that corporations are motivated by short-term profit. If Exxon and BP were motivated by long-term profit, even while being motivated by nothing else, they would have stopped pumping money into anti-science propaganda and lobbying long ago and figured out how to monetize something besides drilling and burning oil. I don’t fully understand the sociopathy behind these corporations. But you aren’t required to defend them. They aren’t even operating in anything resembling a free market. When a major fundamental force in this market is the autocratic government of Saudi Arabia, how the hell do you get off defending their practices on the basis of free-market capitalism?

        I personally don’t care if clean energy is cheaper based on current pricing. There are bigger problems than whether the free market gods are sated (again, this is not a free market in any way). I care about preventing global climate catastrophe. I wish you were right and the science was totally wrong. But you’re not, and you’re making a fool of yourself by insisting that it is.

        1. ” I care about preventing global climate catastrophe”

          No you don’t. All you actually care about is forcing everyone to live “your” way because you are smarter and better…..then you know everyone….cause mom said so.

          Fuck off! end of subject!

        2. ” corporations are motivated by short-term profit.”

          As though we needed more proof of how stupid tony is.

        3. The “science” doesn’t even show that there has been any major warming, let alone that there will be catastrophic warming. But you keep beating that drum, one day it’ll be true.

          And the only companies focused on short term profits are newer cronies that know they have a limited window to get theirs. Once again you…you know what, I don’t know why I even bother. I’m out.

        4. Tony:

          I don’t fully understand the sociopathy behind these corporations.

          Yeah, anyone who isn’t a sociopath knows better than to produce oil.

          All those people who enjoy cheap gas, heating fuel, and power… all those governments that enjoy the same… they’re pure as driven snow.

          Really, it’s all the fault of the bastards that make the oil that everyone burns.

          It’s a really satisfying, convenient perspective: it’s not the consumer’s fault for consuming, it’s the producers fault for producing what they enjoy consuming. That way, we can demonize a minority and go after them with the government. It also let’s us hand-wave away the idea that normal people may have to actually pay any costs associated with environmental impacts, because, really, they’re just innocent bistandards in all of this.

          We’re just a moon program away from cheap, clean energy, and everyone knows it. Really, I don’t understand why the government hasn’t fixed it already.

    3. There is very little in science that is factual. But the truth is, there has always been climate change and always will be. However, science has not proven that any change in climate is due to what man has done on this earth. Then too, there have always and will always be people who are easily persuaded by charlatans.

    4. Tony:

      So let’s say the market won’t, in history’s happiest moment of serendipity, deal with the problem on its own. Do any of you favor large-scale government intervention then?

      I think an intelligent answer to this question is: “What large scale government intervention do you have in mind?

      Because “We have to do something! Here’s a vague something! Let’s do that!” is a pretty ridiculous way to think about policy.

  24. It was the same thing with the stimulus and green jobs. Obama was pumping how China was getting all these green jobs and we needed to spend shitloads of money or else we wouldn’t get them.

    1. The Big Government types who want government to be the investor, picking and choosing winners, had their way: they chose Solyndra, and several other defunct solar companies in the USA.

      Actual Wall St. investors poured billions into China. Some company without any manufacturing experience got 1.5 billion dollars!

      And rightly so. Anyone with a brain looks at a solar panel and says “sort of like electronics, fair amount of labor” send production to China.

      And the reason why solar is getting cheaper is these Wall St. investors invested too much capacity.

      Of course, the entire demand was from subsidized German consumers. Those are gone now, so the price is even lower as the Chinese try to stay alive.

      Honestly, Obama thought he could pick better solar companies than the market.

      I guess he figures any donor to him must be pretty smart.

  25. Kerry concluded by arguing that solving climate change is a vast investment opportunity.

    Many a scam has started with such wonderful words.

    “Act now! Time is ticking away!”

  26. I got a FEVER.

    And the only CURE

    is MORE REGULATION.

  27. When a guy like Kerry talks about “investment” it usually means rent-seeking. If you look at it in those terms then “climate change” really is a great opportunity, at least for people with the right connections.

  28. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week…….

    http://www.Jobs-spot.com

  29. The science of climate change isn’t science. Its the latest tool for some to get rich (Al Gore in particular), to scare people so they agree to have more of their money confiscated by the corrupt politicians and scammers, and a boon to the careers (and money) of “scientists” who say and do anything to get one more government grant.

  30. Nice to hear that Al Gore has been rehabilitated. Hope he was out on the Nazca plain with Greenpeace and is headed for a nice Peruvian prison cell. That’ll fix his chakras right up.

  31. Perfect Money is an Electronic Funds. Mostly people can’t upload $ with their credit card and debit card. There is good option to get perfect money. We offer to buy / Sell Perfect Money and other all E-currencies. Easy method. You can send fund with Western Union and Money gram
    Check full details now! …. http://WWW.MONEYKIN.COM

  32. Natalie . even though Steven `s artlclee is nice… I just purchased Peugeot 205 GTi after earning $6824 thiss month and-even more than, ten grand this past-month . with-out any question its my favourite job Ive had .
    Best way to keep join======== http://www.jobsfish.com

  33. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.jobs700.com

  34. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.jobs700.com

  35. First of all we just went through this with Gore a few years ago and found out he falsified the findings.

    Second take a look at Morro Rock on Morro Bay sometime. It was underwater not too long ago. And there were no emissions at that time.

    Barry is propagating this from the White House for one reason. As another excuse to interfere with business and capitalism in America. Of course he is. He is a Marxist. He is already trying to take over the means of production by dictating business practice with healthcare. And he is trying to take over the healthcare system itself. He wants to have massive forced increases in wage in non skilled jobs to “even out inequality.”

    So I’m supposed to believe this nonsense about the climate why?

    If we don’t start recognizing this for what it is we are doomed to lose our country. Don’t take my word or my writings message for truth. That truth was based on history. This is how the Marxist operates. Creates a fear backed by a need of government takeover. Reminds me of a little man who once ruled Germany a long time ago. And if we don’t change our mindset then we will be headed down the same path.

    Charles Hurst. Author of THE SECOND FALL. An offbeat story of Armageddon. And creator of THE RUNNINGWOLF EZINE.

  36. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.jobs700.com

  37. The investments to which Kerry refers, are investments by the 1% rich in the form of campaign cash, to get legislation/regulations that make their businesses, like Solyndra, more valuable/profitable to them at taxpayer/consumer expense. Kerry also refers to his “investment” in promoting more government control over energy production and use which gives politicians more ability to sell favors. And he brings Al Gore, who has made himself one of the 0.1% investing exactly this way: a way that essentially steals from citizens.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.