“Experts Say”

Steve Goddard on Twitter: “By attaching the words “experts say”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to “Experts Say”

  1. arn says:

    First they sent out some stupid incompetent chick that got just 15.000 votes in a 700.000people district.

    She screams 3 times “Green new deal”(at least they put the New into 2nd place to avoid NWO accossiations)
    and all of a sudden the whole world wants and must have this green new deal(which in fact is just “old red agenda21”)
    or we gonna all day,
    and some invisible hand made all the media go crazy and support it like mad.

    Another new messiah to save us
    and ,i guess,another 97% consensus of experts who think the world will end in 12 years and that a thing that can not be done in 30 years is now manageable within a decade.
    (have much fun replacing many high power plants with millions of low power machines,and don’t even ask about how this can be all wired and transported)

  2. DM says:

    This expert says use the Green New Deal as a teachable moment. Doing so will reveal whether or not greenies can learn from experience. Or, that they are blind fools whose policies should be rejected by prudent people.

    Why? The GND will consume about 55% of US GDP during the 10 year implementation period. It will also at least double electricity prices and limit energy supplies. That means SLASHING by more than 55% funds available to Joe & Jane Mainstreet for food, shelter, health care, fun … The greenie’s useful idiots will suffer a similar decline in quality of life. After 2 or 3 years, one might reasonably expect a popular uprising surpassing France’s yellow jacket revolt.

    The GND will demonstrate the “Broken Windows Fallacy”. Very concisely, the BWF basics are: A community’s sole window supplier hires thugs to break windows in homes, offices … . The window firm profits by replacing windows. Property owners, in contrast, suffer because $ spent replacing windows is diverted from fun, then purchases that can be postponed then cutting essentials for life.

    A specific–replacing HVAC equipment–further illustrates the GND’s foolishness. The potential energy saving and thereby CO2 reduction are DWARFED by benefits derived from improving attic insulation and / or reducing air leakage in buildings. Adding insulation is CHEAP and doing so avoids environmental issues associated with discarded HVAC equipment. So, why not first improve insulation and reduce air leaks?

    Scotty, beam me away from greenies. There is no sign of intelligence amongst them:-(

    • John Farnham says:

      “why not first improve insulation and reduce air leaks?”
      Sounds like superinsulation to me, a practice that started in mobile ( manufactured ) homes in the 70’s. The practice was designed to be used with heat exchangers, which would capture energy from air flushed from the building. Cost-cutting ensued. Make-up air was discarded as a practice, causing depleted CO2-rich, moist air to build up. Voila – mould.

  3. Holly says:

    One of the issues I have with all of the climate change attention is the lack of attention to our healthcare “best practice” policies. If the projections of demented related diseases, T1 and T2 diabetes etc are accurate, not many humans will be around to worry about climate change. The few around will soon lose the ability to care.

    As in climate science the experts have played fast and loose with the data, keeping most American’s ignorant of bad medical practices. Case in point, HRT. If you have time, please listen to Dr. Peter Attia’s interview of Carol Tavris, Ph.D (Mistakes were Made but Not by ME) and Avrum Bluming, M.D. in which they discuss how the data was manipulated and experts were coerced into agreeing to the “minimal dose, shortest amount of time” HRT dosing policy; which appears to support your contention that there is reason to doubt the official recommendations even from such lauded organizations as NOAA and NASA. https://peterattiamd.com/caroltavris-avrumbluming/

    Having managed medical practices for twenty odd years, married to a still practicing physician, from our perspective climate change is the least of our worriers. (Did you catch the news that a large meta analysis of all Alzhemer’s drugs ACCELERATED mental decline? No? Have you now noticed that they’ve stopped advertising these drugs on TV?)

  4. DCA says:

    “Experts?” Really? Please name these people who assert that this GND is technologically feasible without sending us all back to the stone age.

  5. GW Smith says:

    Without appealing to some mysterious authority the left would seen as the fools they are.

  6. GW Smith says:

    Without appealing to some mysterious authority the left would be seen for the fools they are.

  7. Robert Forest says:

    I am hoping William Happer will ask you to help with Trumps new advisory panel on climate. Trump seems not to trust the experts from government and academia.
    Much like the lack of trust he seems to have in the Department of Justice, FBI, CIA, IRS, the FISA court, media, crooked politicians and the rest of the deep state that runs our country.

  8. Chris says:

    I just heard the GAO estimated the GND to cost $97 Trillion.


    That’s the closest break down I can find.

  9. Menicholas says:

    What catches my attention here is their conflation of the words “possible” and “feasible”.
    I am not in doubt that could find some supposed expert to say it is possible.
    That has nothing to do with being feasible, which means “easily doable”, “convenient”, “likely” or even “probable”.

    They know that the GDN is in no way feasible, and I doubt any serious person with the knowledge to offer an opinion of any value, would ever honestly say it is possible to do easily or conveniently.
    For one thing, there is no chance of finding a way to store grid scale power in even a one day supply.
    By the time any system of wind and solar is scaled up to allow storage of sufficient reserve power, it would take several times the amount of generating capacity of just meeting demand in real time under optimal conditions of wind and Sun.
    Beyond that, I cannot believe I am spending time even talking about this tripe.
    Bu how can we not?

    • Squidly says:

      I contend that it is not only not “feasible”, it is not even possible .. not even remotely .. not even in their wildest dreams .. Even the $97 trillion is grossly underestimated (always is) but the social upheaval during transition would utterly destroy this country before it even really got off the ground. There is absolutely no way this country could survive it.

      No, whoever is saying it is “possible” is a total moron.

  10. GeologyJim says:

    These clowns are not only climatologically ignorant, they are economically brain-dead.

    When they speak of “tens of millions of high-paying jobs” in the conversion to “green/sustainable energy”, they have no clue. What they imply is that X jobs that currently supply reliable, abundant, affordable base-load energy SHOULD BE replaced by 10X jobs that can only supply unreliable, intermittent, and expensive sun/wind electricity that has to be backed up by the aforementioned RELIABLE sources to cover the times when “green” electricity doesn’t work (80% of the time)

    Why on Earth would one propose to pay 10X workers to supply the energy we already have every day with X workers, especially when the “green” stuff is totally redundant??

    Total maroons, I tell ya.

  11. Squidly says:

    Hey Tony, why do my comments simply vanish into oblivion?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.