Wind turbines

[oil pan 4]

Problem is utility providers by law in a lot of states can't make more than a certain % of profit. So if they can spend a billion dollars to force people to buy more expensive renewable trash energy, they can rake in tens of millions of dollars more profits.

[redpoint5]

The idiot voters in Oregon take the "Green" distraction hook-line-and sinker to elect corrupt politicians who are in bed with utilities, fleecing their customers.

I'm reminded of George Carlin saing "imagine how dumb the average person is, and realize half are dumber than that".

[oil pan 4]

Another case of "cheaper wind power" being more expensive.
https://coloradopeakpolitics.com/202...limate-change/

[redpoint5]

As we've already discussed, utilities love expensive operating costs, because their profits are a fixed percentage of those costs. Any increase in cost to the customer results in increased profit.

The politicians have incentive to shame voters into believing they are personally responsible for global warming, then lie to voters about their ability to mitigate global warming by instituting policy that drives the cost of energy up. Utilities pretend global warming is so important that driving costs up are necessary; except the utilities don't mention increasing costs in the literature, only the pounds of CO2 they will curtail. Try asking the marketers of the utility how much the typical bill will increase, and they will switch the subject to how exciting blending methane with natural gas is, and how it's "sustainable".

There's literally no alternative interpretation of my analysis of what's going on. Any other argument is the distraction of what is happening.

[Piotrsko]

Listened to Kai Rhyssdal interview Mary Bara yesterday on Marketplace. Every time he asked a difficult question, she went off on a tangent and did not answer the question. She was an engineer for God's sake and should know better.

[oil pan 4]

That's what you do when you know the answer and don't want to say it.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

There's literally no alternative interpretation of my analysis of what's going on. Any other argument is the distraction of what is happening.

What is your interpretation of that second sentence?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

What is your interpretation of that second sentence?

There are those who align themselves with reality, and there are those who distort reality to align with their agenda.

When a parent testifies against their child, you can take that to the bank because they have a strong incentive to advocate for them. I love technological progress, and was completely enthralled by photovoltaics back when you could buy a 1cm x 2cm cell for $8 (and that was all the money I had). There is only motive for me to advocate for better technology, and zero motive for me to be antagonistic towards it.

I'm the parent testifying against the child, and politicians and executives in monopolistic utilities are the motivated liars and crooks.

https://newdiscourses.com/2021/08/ca...ic-gnosticism/

As always, I'm willing to be wrong, but zero people will argue against what I've said because there are no believable arguments. "Yeah, but still" is about the strongest counter, and that's good enough for many, many people.

[freebeard]

As always, I'm willing to be wrong [humblebrag], but zero people will argue against what I've said because there are no believable arguments parsable phrasing.

I'd have gone with 'Any other argument is the distraction from what is happening.' Which is [drumroll] arguable.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I'd have gone with 'Any other argument is the distraction from what is happening.' Which is [drumroll] arguable.

I use absolute terms to motivate others to test understanding. I also use it to condemn bad-faith actors.

Humility comes with becoming humiliated, which as I say, I'm willing to subject myself to.

Maybe I should include "change my mind" in my signature?