[cinives]

just like all socialist “solutions” - they hurt far more than they will ever help

[CIDKauf]

ping

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH

---

[fatnotlazy]

I’ve been saying all along all these so-called “solutions” to “climate change” or whatever they’re called were junk science. Every time one of these theories gets thrown under a bus, I rejoice.

Thanks for posting this. You’re right, it won’t make the mainstream media.

[antiRepublicrat]

The Law of Unintended Consequences is the Achilles heel of the socialists.

[shield]

Man has a tendency to try and screw up God’s Creation. Man just needs to KEEP HIS HANDS OFF.

[Old Professer]

I wouldn’t have reported it either as it is nonsense on its face.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

there were even more worrisome revelations in this Reuters piece that folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio would find very inconvenient if media actually did their job and reported them

But of course, that depends on what "their job" actually is. "Objective journalists" say that their job is to objectively report "all the news that's fit to print." But in fact their job is to report whatever promotes journalism. And that has nothing to do with reporting things which are inconvenient for Al Gore.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

Okay, I don't actually understand this. It implies that by merely increasing production, they receive carbon credits. That doesn't make sense to me. It only makes sense if they do something like surreptitiously increase from X to Y, then say "Hey, look we are at Y, if we decrease down to X+D, you must give us credit(s)." In which case there would be a net increase of D.

I mean, I understand the general idea of a subsidy increasing the production of something. But, I don't understand the details of the carbon credit scheme that causes it to behave like a subsidy.