Warren Buffett’s Green Cash Washes Over Coal Country
The state’s utilities commission, which sets electricity rates, has pressed power producers to use their coal-fired power plants more despite the high cost.
In 2019, the state legislature passed a bill granting the coal-fired Pleasants Power Station, which employs about 150 workers, a $12.5 million annual tax break. The focus on coal has helped push electricity rates in West Virginia up faster than in most other states.
What a scam…
Well here’s what people actually pay for electricity in West Virginia. It’s a fraction of what people pay who live in states which demand a high use of renewables.
Instead of subsidizing demand increase supply. We’re too stupid to do that.
This summer was the hottest on record.
Phoenix has grown by millions in the last several decades. A massive concrete jungle in the desert. The urban heat island effect explains why it’s setting all these “records.”
Here’s another Nobel Prize winning kook with a conspiracy theory.
Yet, when “climate scientists” adjust raw temperate data they only modify newer temperatures higher.
Ok, I am going to expect people who live in SF to understand the impact of clouds, since it’s the same as the fog effect which keeps the city cool. Can’t wait to see the pivot and denial on this one.
This is the same guy who signed the anti-science declaration:
Keep wheeling out the same guy?
Anyway, I like my approach of trusting the scientific consensus more. But if you like to believe in every random musing of Nobel laureates, how about this guy?
Kary Mullis, the 1993 winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, revels in his reputation as a “maverick.” In his autobiography, Dancing Naked in the Mind Field, he extols the virtues of astrology, describes a possible encounter with aliens (which appeared to him in the form of a talking, glowing raccoon), and cheerfully admits his repeated use of LSD.
Unfortunately, Mullis’ maverick theories also include AIDS denialism. He has lent his Nobel Laureate star power to endorsing the theories of molecular biologist Peter Duesberg, who asserts—despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary—that the HIV virus is harmless and that AIDS is actually caused by recreational drug use and anti-HIV pharmaceuticals.
Are you also a fan of James Watson?
James Watson is a category unto himself. The co-discoverer of the structure of DNA doesn’t miss an opportunity to offend.
During a lecture at Berkeley, he suggested there are biochemical links between sexual libido and skin color (“That’s why you have Latin lovers.”) and between body weight and ambition. He declared in an interview that “some anti-Semitism is justified.” He never gave credit to Rosalind Franklin, whose work with X-ray crystallography made his discovery possible—though he made it a point to criticize her appearance and taste in clothing.
Just when it seemed there were no more lines to cross, Watson declaredhimself “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really.”
It’s fascinating that your logic for dismissing him is to reference other Nobel Prize winners. In your mind, does that some how discredit the specific guy mentioned? It’s telling that you don’t address the point that lack of clouds in the models is missing a major variable. You obviously can’t refute that, since SF weather proves it on a regular basis. You can’t attack the specific scientist, so you attack people who are completely unrelated to the topic.
The whole point of wheeling that guy out is because he won a Nobel. Reason why he’s the first name on that list of “scientists and professionals” who say CO2 has nothing to do with climate change.
Climate models don’t account for clouds? Which models? All of them? Did you verify that claim? Just trust him blindly because he won a Nobel?
Hard to believe all those PhD’s in climate science did not know cloud exists. How much impact does that have on the model predictions?
When you can’t talk science and go to the personal attacks, you’re revealing how weak your position is.
As for how much do clouds matter, how much warmer is SF on a non-foggy vs. foggy day? How would a drought where there are no clouds impact temperatures?
NASA admits clouds make the earth cooler.
“What about when you look at the effect of all clouds together? Cooling wins. Right now, Earth’s surface is cooler with clouds than it would be without the clouds.”
If clouds don’t matter, then I guess NSA is just wasting money by studying their impact on climate?
Let’s focus on CO2 though. It’s up 50% since the 60’s and the temperature is up by what percentage?
Wait a minute. Didn’t you say climate scientists didn’t know clouds exist? So you are telling me not only do they know about clouds but they are also factoring that into their models?
Wow. Who knew?
If that’s your take away, then I don’t really have anything to say.
Heat death in Mariposa County, Arizona.
Chart from this WSJ article:
WSJ: Record Heat Deaths in Arizona Spur Push for Disaster Assistance
The problem is particularly acute in Arizona: The state endured an unprecedented 31 straight days above 110 degrees between June 30 and July 30. In the Phoenix area, a record 22 days in August exceeded 115 degrees.
“It was the hottest summer on record,” said Matthew Hirsch, lead meteorologist at the National Weather Service’s Phoenix office. “But the hottest summer on record has actually happened five times out of the past 11 years. So we keep on breaking records.”
