"RealClear Politics Is Right: The Climate Hoax Is a Massive Financial Scam"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/02/26/realclear-politics-is-right-the- climate-hoax-is-a-massive-financial-scam/
"RealClear Politics recently posted an article titled rCLWas Climate
Change the Greatest Financial Scam in History?rCY in which Stephen Moore argues that the trillions of dollars spent on climate action have had no effect in stopping climate change but has slowed development and poverty reduction. Moore is right. Not only has the spending resulted in no
change in the rate of warming or reductions in the increase of
atmospheric carbon dioxide, but the money was spent in a way that made
life worse for people around the globe."
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2026/02/18/ was_climate_change_the_greatest_financial_scam_in_history_153854.html
"Moore references the climate spending estimate recently calculated by
Bjorn Lomborg, which comes out to at least $16 trillion over the past 30 years."
"rCLAnd for what?rCY asks Moore, rCLnot a single life has been or will be saved by this shameful and colossal misallocation of human resources."
"rCLThe war on safe and abundant fossil fuels has cost countless lives in poor countries and made those countries poorer by blocking affordable energy,rCY Moore continued."
"This is absolutely true."
"Fossil fuels are cheaper, more reliable, and more energy dense than renewable energy sources. Mainstream media outlets regularly claim that renewables like wind and solar are cheaper because their rCLfuelrCY rCothe wind and sunlightrCoare free. ThatrCOs true but largely irrelevant. The collection of that energy is not free, not even close. The most commonly referenced metric for the cost of different energy sources is the
Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE). However, the LCOE measurement
ignores many of the major costs that are unique to intermittent
resources like wind and solar. These include special subsidies only they receive via renewables credits, the cost of backing the power up for
when the wind doesnrCOt blow and the sun doesnrCOt shine, massive overbuilding, and transmission costs to remote areas."
"As discussed in many Climate Realism posts, including here, here, and
here, when the full costs are accounted for, wind and solar are
consistently some of the most expensive energy sources. For instance,
when full system costs are included, natural gas comes out at $40 per megawatt-hour, while solar, often touted as the least expensive
renewable, actually tops the chart at $413 per megawatt-hour. (See
graphic below)"
Lynn
"RealClear Politics Is Right: The Climate Hoax Is a Massive Financial Scam"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/02/26/realclear-politics-is-right-the-climate-hoax-is-a-massive-financial-scam/
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
"RealClear Politics Is Right: The Climate Hoax Is a Massive Financial Scam" >>
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/02/26/realclear-politics-is-right-the-climate-hoax-is-a-massive-financial-scam/
Ah yes, this is a science _fiction_ newsgroup, after all.
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
"RealClear Politics Is Right: The Climate Hoax Is a Massive
Financial Scam"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/02/26/realclear-politics-is-righ >>t-the-climate-hoax-is-a-massive-financial-scam/
Ah yes, this is a science _fiction_ newsgroup, after all.
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in >news:5XioR.108607$CbL8.98501@fx44.iad:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
"RealClear Politics Is Right: The Climate Hoax Is a Massive
Financial Scam"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/02/26/realclear-politics-is-righ >>>t-the-climate-hoax-is-a-massive-financial-scam/
Ah yes, this is a science _fiction_ newsgroup, after all.
Yes, but one could argue the science in science fiction is supposed
to be somewhat plausible. The climate change denialism is more like >flat-eartherism or holocaust denialism.
On 2/26/26 20:10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
"RealClear Politics Is Right: The Climate Hoax Is a Massive Financial-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Fossil Fuels release radioactivity into the atmosphere.
Scam"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/02/26/realclear-politics-is-right-
the- climate-hoax-is-a-massive-financial-scam/
"RealClear Politics recently posted an article titled rCLWas Climate
Change the Greatest Financial Scam in History?rCY in which Stephen Moore
argues that the trillions of dollars spent on climate action have had
no effect in stopping climate change but has slowed development and
poverty reduction. Moore is right. Not only has the spending resulted
in no change in the rate of warming or reductions in the increase of
atmospheric carbon dioxide, but the money was spent in a way that made
life worse for people around the globe."
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2026/02/18/
was_climate_change_the_greatest_financial_scam_in_history_153854.html
"Moore references the climate spending estimate recently calculated by
Bjorn Lomborg, which comes out to at least $16 trillion over the past
30 years."
"rCLAnd for what?rCY asks Moore, rCLnot a single life has been or will be >> saved by this shameful and colossal misallocation of human resources."
"rCLThe war on safe and abundant fossil fuels has cost countless lives
in poor countries and made those countries poorer by blocking
affordable energy,rCY Moore continued."
"This is absolutely true."
"Fossil fuels are cheaper, more reliable, and more energy dense than
renewable energy sources. Mainstream media outlets regularly claim
that renewables like wind and solar are cheaper because their rCLfuelrCY rCo
the wind and sunlightrCoare free. ThatrCOs true but largely irrelevant.
The collection of that energy is not free, not even close. The most
commonly referenced metric for the cost of different energy sources is
the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE). However, the LCOE
measurement ignores many of the major costs that are unique to
intermittent resources like wind and solar. These include special
subsidies only they receive via renewables credits, the cost of
backing the power up for when the wind doesnrCOt blow and the sun
doesnrCOt shine, massive overbuilding, and transmission costs to remote
areas."
"As discussed in many Climate Realism posts, including here, here, and
here, when the full costs are accounted for, wind and solar are
consistently some of the most expensive energy sources. For instance,
when full system costs are included, natural gas comes out at $40 per
megawatt-hour, while solar, often touted as the least expensive
renewable, actually tops the chart at $413 per megawatt-hour. (See
graphic below)"
Lynn
-a-a-a-aThe by-products of the combustion of most fossil fuel include lots
-a-a-a-a of other cancer causing products such as simple soot as well as
-a-a-a-aglobal heating gases.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Lives and health are lost from the pollution produced by
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a the inordinate use of FF by the great masses of humanity.
-a-a-a-aPeople die in the Climatic Disaster attendant on heating the
-a-a-a-aoceans in floods and solid precipitation smother ordinary
-a-a-a-aagriculture.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Counting the costs of climate change denial with the
-a-a-a-athe reversal of off-shore wind machine project which were
-a-a-a-anearly ready for use is not properly done until we account
-a-a-a-afor the nearly 9.5 Million human beings who will die because
-a-a-a-aof current American mal-administration's attempt to avoid
-a-a-a-athe used of cleaner power with no FF use.
-a-a-a-aReadClear politics must be bougtht and paid for the by the
-a-a-a-aCompanies poisoning the planet with the use of Fossil
-a-a-a-aFuels.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a It will be remembered in Primary Elections and in the
-a-a-a-aNovember Elections this year in the USA.
-a-a-a-abliss - not just my sole opinion
On 2/26/2026 11:28 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:That, it turns out, was just a warm-up to the current war with Iran.
On 2/26/26 20:10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
"RealClear Politics Is Right: The Climate Hoax Is a Massive Financialaaaaaaa Fossil Fuels release radioactivity into the atmosphere.
Scam"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/02/26/realclear-politics-is-right-
the- climate-hoax-is-a-massive-financial-scam/
"RealClear Politics recently posted an article titled oWas Climate
Change the Greatest Financial Scam in History?o in which Stephen Moore
argues that the trillions of dollars spent on climate action have had
no effect in stopping climate change but has slowed development and
poverty reduction. Moore is right. Not only has the spending resulted
in no change in the rate of warming or reductions in the increase of
atmospheric carbon dioxide, but the money was spent in a way that made
life worse for people around the globe."
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2026/02/18/
was_climate_change_the_greatest_financial_scam_in_history_153854.html
"Moore references the climate spending estimate recently calculated by
Bjorn Lomborg, which comes out to at least $16 trillion over the past
30 years."
"oAnd for what?o asks Moore, onot a single life has been or will be
saved by this shameful and colossal misallocation of human resources."
"oThe war on safe and abundant fossil fuels has cost countless lives
in poor countries and made those countries poorer by blocking
affordable energy,o Moore continued."
"This is absolutely true."
"Fossil fuels are cheaper, more reliable, and more energy dense than
renewable energy sources. Mainstream media outlets regularly claim
that renewables like wind and solar are cheaper because their ofuelo u
the wind and sunlightuare free. ThatAs true but largely irrelevant.
The collection of that energy is not free, not even close. The most
commonly referenced metric for the cost of different energy sources is
the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE). However, the LCOE
measurement ignores many of the major costs that are unique to
intermittent resources like wind and solar. These include special
subsidies only they receive via renewables credits, the cost of
backing the power up for when the wind doesnAt blow and the sun
doesnAt shine, massive overbuilding, and transmission costs to remote
areas."
"As discussed in many Climate Realism posts, including here, here, and
here, when the full costs are accounted for, wind and solar are
consistently some of the most expensive energy sources. For instance,
when full system costs are included, natural gas comes out at $40 per
megawatt-hour, while solar, often touted as the least expensive
renewable, actually tops the chart at $413 per megawatt-hour. (See
graphic below)"
Lynn
aaaaThe by-products of the combustion of most fossil fuel include lots
aaaa of other cancer causing products such as simple soot as well as
aaaaglobal heating gases.
aaaaaaa Lives and health are lost from the pollution produced by
aaaaaaaaa the inordinate use of FF by the great masses of humanity.
aaaaPeople die in the Climatic Disaster attendant on heating the
aaaaoceans in floods and solid precipitation smother ordinary
aaaaagriculture.
aaaaaaa Counting the costs of climate change denial with the
aaaathe reversal of off-shore wind machine project which were
aaaanearly ready for use is not properly done until we account
aaaafor the nearly 9.5 Million human beings who will die because
aaaaof current American mal-administration's attempt to avoid
aaaathe used of cleaner power with no FF use.
aaaaReadClear politics must be bougtht and paid for the by the
aaaaCompanies poisoning the planet with the use of Fossil
aaaaFuels.
aaaaaaaaa It will be remembered in Primary Elections and in the
aaaaNovember Elections this year in the USA.
aaaabliss - not just my sole opinion
"Cuba Becomes the First Country To Reach Net Zero. ShouldnAt We Be >Celebrating?"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/02/25/cuba-becomes-the-first-country-to-reach-net-zero-shouldnt-we-be-celebrating/
oThere it was on the front page of SaturdayAs New York Times: with a
small assist from the United States, the island nation of Cuba has
almost entirely ended the use of fossil fuels. Finally, we have the
first country in the world to achieve the climate movementAs Holy Grail
and nirvana u Net Zero! Or at least a very close approximation. This
should be cause for a huge celebration.o
oYou would think that the Times, which has been demanding the
elimination of fossil fuels for at least a couple of decades, would be >leading the celebrations. But weirdly, now that Cuba has finally shown
the way, the Times chooses to put a completely different spin on the >achievement. The headline and subheadline are (print edition): oU.S.
Choking Oil Deliveries To Cuba Ports; Military Action Brings a Nation to
Its Knees.oo
oThe piece reports that the Trump administration is helping Cuba to
achieve Net Zero by preventing oil tankers from landing there. Somehow
in this piece, that is spun as a bad thing. It has brought Cuba oto its >knees.oo
Looks like Net Zero sucks to me.
Michael Ikeda <mmikeda@erols.com> writes:
Yes, but one could argue the science in science fiction is supposed
to be somewhat plausible. The climate change denialism is more like >>flat-eartherism or holocaust denialism.
Indeed. But Lynn's worldview is conditioned on his finance dependence
on the fossil fuel industry.
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
Michael Ikeda <mmikeda@erols.com> writes:
Yes, but one could argue the science in science fiction is supposed
to be somewhat plausible. The climate change denialism is more like
flat-eartherism or holocaust denialism.
Indeed. But Lynn's worldview is conditioned on his finance dependence
on the fossil fuel industry.
To be fair, this is a very common dependence in this country.
On 3/1/2026 12:26 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
Michael Ikeda <mmikeda@erols.com> writes:
Yes, but one could argue the science in science fiction is supposed
to be somewhat plausible.-a The climate change denialism is more like
flat-eartherism or holocaust denialism.
Indeed.-a But Lynn's worldview is conditioned on his finance dependence
on the fossil fuel industry.
To be fair, this is a very common dependence in this country.
-a"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" - Upton Sinclair
Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 3/1/2026 12:26 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
Michael Ikeda <mmikeda@erols.com> writes:
Yes, but one could argue the science in science fiction is supposed
to be somewhat plausible.-a The climate change denialism is more like >>>>> flat-eartherism or holocaust denialism.
Indeed.-a But Lynn's worldview is conditioned on his finance dependence >>>> on the fossil fuel industry.
To be fair, this is a very common dependence in this country.
-a-a"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary >> depends upon his not understanding it!" - Upton Sinclair
Of course, even if the US worked hard to get ghg emissions down, Lynn's business would be safe.-a Under any scenario we will be working with volatile hydrocarbons for decades, and we will need to work more
efficiently with them, something that Lynn's expertise could help with.
And I am sure that Lynn knows this.
William Hyde
Here is a serious problem with so-called renewables ...
On 3/1/2026 3:38 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 3/1/2026 12:26 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
Michael Ikeda <mmikeda@erols.com> writes:
Yes, but one could argue the science in science fiction is supposed >>>>>> to be somewhat plausible.-a The climate change denialism is more like >>>>>> flat-eartherism or holocaust denialism.
Indeed.-a But Lynn's worldview is conditioned on his finance dependence >>>>> on the fossil fuel industry.
To be fair, this is a very common dependence in this country.
-a-a"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary >>> depends upon his not understanding it!" - Upton Sinclair
Of course, even if the US worked hard to get ghg emissions down, Lynn's
business would be safe.-a Under any scenario we will be working with
volatile hydrocarbons for decades, and we will need to work more
efficiently with them, something that Lynn's expertise could help with.
And I am sure that Lynn knows this.
William Hyde
Actually, my business is not safe. The employment in the crude oil and >natural gas production and exploration have dropped from 15 million in
the USA in 2008 to 9 million currently. The huge shale oil fields have >canceled most of the small oil fields due to their higher costs. As a >result, many smaller firms have merged into larger firms with extreme >downsizing. I had 14 employees in 2008, I now have 4.
Here is a serious problem with so-called renewables, they do not work
below 25 F and they do not work above 105 F as the energy demand doubles
by the public in both cases.
On 3/1/2026 3:38 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 3/1/2026 12:26 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
Michael Ikeda <mmikeda@erols.com> writes:
Yes, but one could argue the science in science fiction is supposed >>>>>> to be somewhat plausible.-a The climate change denialism is more like >>>>>> flat-eartherism or holocaust denialism.
Indeed.-a But Lynn's worldview is conditioned on his finance dependence >>>>> on the fossil fuel industry.
To be fair, this is a very common dependence in this country.
-a-a"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary >>> depends upon his not understanding it!" - Upton Sinclair
Of course, even if the US worked hard to get ghg emissions down,
Lynn's business would be safe.-a Under any scenario we will be working
with volatile hydrocarbons for decades, and we will need to work more
efficiently with them, something that Lynn's expertise could help with.
And I am sure that Lynn knows this.
William Hyde
Actually, my business is not safe.-a The employment in the crude oil and natural gas production and exploration have dropped from 15 million in
the USA in 2008 to 9 million currently.-a The huge shale oil fields have canceled most of the small oil fields due to their higher costs.
result, many smaller firms have merged into larger firms with extreme downsizing.-a I had 14 employees in 2008, I now have 4.
Here is a serious problem with so-called renewables, they do not work
below 25 F and they do not work above 105 F as the energy demand doubles
by the public in both cases.-a So not only do the renewables have to be replaced with fossil fuels under extreme conditions, the fossil fuels
have to generate double the previous demand.
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 3/1/2026 3:38 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 3/1/2026 12:26 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
Michael Ikeda <mmikeda@erols.com> writes:
Yes, but one could argue the science in science fiction is supposed >>>>>>> to be somewhat plausible.-a The climate change denialism is more like >>>>>>> flat-eartherism or holocaust denialism.
Indeed.-a But Lynn's worldview is conditioned on his finance
dependence
on the fossil fuel industry.
To be fair, this is a very common dependence in this country.
-a-a"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his
salary
depends upon his not understanding it!" - Upton Sinclair
Of course, even if the US worked hard to get ghg emissions down,
Lynn's business would be safe.-a Under any scenario we will be working
with volatile hydrocarbons for decades, and we will need to work more
efficiently with them, something that Lynn's expertise could help with.
And I am sure that Lynn knows this.
William Hyde
Actually, my business is not safe.-a The employment in the crude oil
and natural gas production and exploration have dropped from 15
million in the USA in 2008 to 9 million currently.-a The huge shale oil
fields have canceled most of the small oil fields due to their higher
costs.
Which problems have nothing to do with potential global warming solutions.
If you can't keep your business afloat in the presence of other
problems, you have my sympathies and I do hope your net worth isn't
entirely in the business.-a But I don't see why we should heat up the
planet for you.
A person in my circle of acquaintances started a chemical/hydrocarbon company and sold out for 50 million.-a He is now borrowing money from another friend to get by while his last valuable possession (a car) is
being sold.-a Don't be that person.
-aAs a
result, many smaller firms have merged into larger firms with extreme
downsizing.-a I had 14 employees in 2008, I now have 4.
Here is a serious problem with so-called renewables, they do not work
below 25 F and they do not work above 105 F as the energy demand
doubles by the public in both cases.-a So not only do the renewables
have to be replaced with fossil fuels under extreme conditions, the
fossil fuels have to generate double the previous demand.
I live in an area where the electric mix is almost entirely non-carbon.
And we are below 25F, far far below 25F, much of the year.-a We even
export power.
Thus you are refuted.
William Hyde
On 3/2/2026 5:56 PM, William Hyde wrote:Snip
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 3/1/2026 3:38 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 3/1/2026 12:26 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
Michael Ikeda <mmikeda@erols.com> writes:
Yes, but one could argue the science in science fiction is supposed >>>>>>>> to be somewhat plausible.-a The climate change denialism is more >>>>>>>> like flat-eartherism or holocaust denialism.
Indeed.-a But Lynn's worldview is conditioned on his finance
dependence
on the fossil fuel industry.
To be fair, this is a very common dependence in this country.
-a-a"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his >>>>> salary
depends upon his not understanding it!" - Upton Sinclair
Of course, even if the US worked hard to get ghg emissions down,
Lynn's business would be safe.-a Under any scenario we will be
working with volatile hydrocarbons for decades, and we will need to
work more efficiently with them, something that Lynn's expertise
could help with.
And I am sure that Lynn knows this.
William Hyde
Actually, my business is not safe.-a The employment in the crude oil
and natural gas production and exploration have dropped from 15
million in the USA in 2008 to 9 million currently.-a The huge shale
oil fields have canceled most of the small oil fields due to their
higher costs.
Which problems have nothing to do with potential global warming
solutions.
If you can't keep your business afloat in the presence of other
problems, you have my sympathies and I do hope your net worth isn't
entirely in the business.-a But I don't see why we should heat up the
planet for you.
A person in my circle of acquaintances started a chemical/hydrocarbon
company and sold out for 50 million.-a He is now borrowing money from
another friend to get by while his last valuable possession (a car) is
being sold.-a Don't be that person.
I live in an area where the electric mix is almost entirely non-
carbon. And we are below 25F, far far below 25F, much of the year.-a We
even export power.
Thus you are refuted.
William Hyde
Then you are lucky.-a Under 25 F in Texas, and many other states, the
solar panels and wind turbines are covered in ice.-a If you put heaters
on the wind turbines, that increases the expense due to the weight, and
uses most of the generated electricity for the heaters.-a I have not
heard of anyone putting heaters on the solar panels.
Correspondingly, above 105 F the wind stops blowing and the wind
turbines stop generating.-a In all cases the solar panels stop generating power as the sun goes down and people are getting home from work so that power demand has to be made up from quick response gas turbines.
Lynn
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 02:17:11 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (9,745K bytes) |
| Messages: | 200,610 |