Claim: Same Sex Marriage The Model for Climate Action

David Hochschild

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

David Hochschild, environmental commissioner on the California Energy Commission, thinks climate activists should learn lessons from the same sex marriage movement, about how to convince the public to take action on climate change.

How Gay Marriage Suggests A Strategy For Climate Change

Jeff McMahon, CONTRIBUTOR

I cover green technology, energy and the environment from Chicago.

The iPhone shows how rapidly society can change if it wants to, a California energy commissioner said last week, and same-sex marriage shows that change can happen in public policy too.

Climate policy could be next, said David Hochschild, the environmental commissioner on the California Energy Commission and an architect of Proposition B, San Francisco’s successful $100 million solar initiative.

“There was gay marriage nowhere until 2004, then we saw that state by state by state by state it got adopted, and now of course it’s in all 50 states,” Hochschild said during a Stanford University seminar last week. “Over a very short period of time. You go back 12, 13 years and you ask how many people think gay marriage is universal and I think most people would assert, it’s not going to happen.”

The iPhone is his model for change potential: “It’s gone from basically not existing to being ubiquitous in a decade,” he said.

Read more: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2017/02/15/how-gay-marriage-suggests-a-strategy-for-climate-change/

The point well meaning people like Hochschild don’t understand, is there currently is no viable alternative to fossil fuels.

The IDEA of renewables is popular. I like the idea of renewables. Who wouldn’t want a magic solar panel on the roof, which makes all the utility bills go away, forever?

The REALITY is renewables don’t deliver a viable alternative to fossil fuels. The cost and unreliability of renewables is a showstopper.

In 2014, a team of top Google engineers admitted failure – there is no economically feasible means to replace fossil fuels with renewables.

Leading greens like Microsoft Founder Bill Gates and prominent British environmentalist David Attenborough acknowledge the problems – they want a Renewable Energy Apollo Project, to fix the problems which prevent renewables from being a viable solution to the world’s energy needs.

Until the problems identified by Google, Gates and Attenborough are solved, no solution for making renewables viable is available. There may never be a solution to making renewables a viable replacement for fossil fuels.

Hochschild can mount as many public campaigns as he wants, but the most Hochschild will achieve with currently available technology is misery and public waste on a vast scale.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
172 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
February 16, 2017 9:25 am

In the US, same sex marriage was imposed by the Courts. This does seem to be the preferred way to achieve the progressive agenda.

ossqss
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
February 16, 2017 9:39 am

100% correct on both counts, and not by popular demand like an IPhone.

Simon
Reply to  ossqss
February 16, 2017 10:24 am

ossqss February 16, 2017 at 9:39 am
“100% correct on both counts, and not by popular demand like an IPhone.”
Not so sure about that. I think you will find that most gay couples support gay marriage.

MarkW
Reply to  ossqss
February 16, 2017 10:41 am

That covers 1% of the population.

Reply to  ossqss
February 16, 2017 11:09 am

That covers 1% of the population.

Actually 1.6% https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr077.pdf plus perhaps some fraction of the 1.8% in-betweeners, something-others, or decline-to-state categories.

Simon
Reply to  ossqss
February 16, 2017 3:47 pm

MarkW February 16, 2017 at 10:41 am
“That covers 1% of the population.”
But it is the 1% who it concerns.

ossqss
Reply to  Simon
February 16, 2017 7:54 pm

And it impacts the 100% involved. Just sayin.

Simon
Reply to  ossqss
February 16, 2017 9:54 pm

ossqss February 16, 2017 at 7:54 pm
“And it impacts the 100% involved. Just sayin.”
Ohh please!!!! How does what two people do with their lives in a bedroom make any difference to you and you life? Arn’t you busy fighting the climate change monster?

MarkW
Reply to  ossqss
February 17, 2017 8:47 am

Simon, tell that to the bakers and florists who have been fined out of existence because they don’t want to help celebrate gay weddings.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  ossqss
February 17, 2017 10:12 am

I guess I can understand the reasoning behind the anti-discrimination laws. But I just do not understand how anyone (e.g., an activist) could use those laws to force someone to perform any act that is against their personal moral codes. To me that’s pretty lowlife.

Louis
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
February 16, 2017 11:28 am

Yes, he seems to be advocating for using the courts to impose the warmist agenda. It’s important to note that the courts overturned a clear voter consensus in favor of traditional marriage in California. Being from California, David Hochschild should know that. Apparently, consensus is only important when it agrees with you, and is to be ignored or overturned when it doesn’t.

Greg
Reply to  Louis
February 16, 2017 11:38 am

He’s a bit late with the idea, the same sex marriage movement got the idea of getting it imposed by the courts from the green movements success at doing just this with war on CO2. Get it decided by bureaucrats and enforced by the courts.
eg. endangerment finding and CPP

michael hammer
Reply to  Louis
February 16, 2017 12:41 pm

Louis; Hmmm, I thought that was more or less the definition of a dictatorship. So all that is needed to get CAGW “accepted” is to abandon democracy and do it by force! Oh, of course that is already being advocated.

Reply to  Louis
February 16, 2017 5:36 pm

That happened several times in California where the voters turned it down, but special interest groups through the courts overturned the decision of the people. That is when I stopped voting for some decades afterwards. Funny, how the current Democrats are crying about the majority voting for Hillary, but did not mind a super majority being overruled by a tiny minority.

Reply to  Louis
February 16, 2017 7:45 pm

Same here in NC. The NC Marriage Amendment, declaring that North Carolina recognizes only marriages between one man and one woman, passed overwhelmingly. I think the margin was 61%-to-39%. But the activist courts declared the people’s wisdom “unconstitutional.”

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
February 16, 2017 11:57 am

Same sex marriage is an oxymoron as it is the formalisation of a relationship that either does or may end in children. And in some societies you’re only considered to be marriage once you have children.

gnomish
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
February 16, 2017 1:19 pm

and if you pay close attention you will notice that the courts ruled on the basis of ‘rights’.
nobody was debating ‘da science’ of biology.
those who tried to debate on any basis other than ‘rights’ lost.
nobody listens to a word i say but i want this comment to exist so i can point to it as an object lesson.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
February 16, 2017 5:48 pm

What ever happened to equal protection before the law?
If gay people want to marry, they get to marry. So, what?
Marriage is a contract between two people. Contracts have legal force. The state recognizes the civil contract, and that’s the end of it.
The state has no business with marriage-the-sacrament. It has business with the orderly enforcement of legal contracts.
Churches are in the marriage-as-sacred business. Some churches will marry gay people, some will not; both options as a matter of dogma and belief. That’s each church’s business. The state has no authority there and should stay away. Couples will find the churches that suit them.
Civil contract gives married people, including married gay people, the power of attorney. They can combine their wealth, they can visit their spouses in hospital, they can legally make the life decisions that couples make on their own behalf.
Cohabitation contracts between consenting adults is the business of no one else but them. The state’s interest is orderly procedure.
Those who are upset about gay marriage need to get with the constitution. The U.S. is about the right to lives one’s life as one sees fit, within the context of the rights of others.
No one has the right to interfere in the private life of anyone else, absent criminal abuse.

Steve Case
Reply to  Pat Frank
February 16, 2017 6:02 pm

Liberals hate the idea of marriage. That’s why they want no fault divorce, same sex marriage, single parent households, they want the institution of marriage to be marginalized. They want to be promiscuous and they don’t want any of the responsibilities that come with it. In fact they want you to pay for their indiscretions.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pat Frank
February 16, 2017 7:49 pm

Why should anyone care what liberals, think, Steve?
The issue is right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness under the constitution. I’d expect every conservative to understand and respect that principle.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Pat Frank
February 16, 2017 9:33 pm

The free exercise of my religion includes sacrificing virgins to volcanoes – oh wait – that’s criminal abuse – let’s try again: The free exercise of my religion includes sacrificing babies to Moloch – oh wait – that’s criminal abuse too? – oh, so if I do it before the infant is born it’s OK?

gnomish
Reply to  Pat Frank
February 16, 2017 9:42 pm

noaaprogrammer
of course you may put anybody you own into a volcano.
your grasp on the concept of rights is truly sophomoric.
there can be no such thing as a right to violate rights.
you really should examine how it comes to be that you fail to understand this.

Dave in Canmore
Reply to  Pat Frank
February 17, 2017 8:22 am

Pat Frank you have the clarity of ten ordinary men! Thank you for so clearly explaining the difference between rights and preferences. Something that too often muddles up these types of issues. Only when rights and preferences are delineated can one understand who may, or may not interfere in someones else’s life.

Reply to  Dave in Canmore
February 17, 2017 9:20 am

I totally agree. Who’s to tell me how to live. I should have multiple wives at the same time. Or if you’re a woman who enjoys men, many husbands. And if you’re bisexual, her and her and him and him all together. ” we love each other, it’s plain to see. I really don’t see why we can’t go on as 3. your mother’s ghost stands at your shoulder, face like ice, a little bit colder, you can not do that it breaks all the rules. ” Jefferson Airplane.

MarkW
Reply to  Pat Frank
February 17, 2017 8:49 am

Now that the courts have given gays the right to marriage, the courts have decided that anyone who fails to properly genuflect before the new right must be put out of business.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pat Frank
February 17, 2017 9:08 am

noaap — you’re ignoring the “ …under the constitution.” part of my comment.
Thanks, Dave. 🙂
MarkW I sympathize. But stupid judges don’t abrogate the principle.

page488
Reply to  Pat Frank
February 18, 2017 1:25 am

You must be my sister from another mother or something. I have made these same points for years, often til blue in the face. Glad you posted before I got here – saved me the trouble of writing it down…………again!

george e. smith
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
February 22, 2017 2:52 pm

Can hermaphrodites legally marry themselves ??
Who needs somebody else ?
g

February 16, 2017 9:27 am

The most important thing about climate science is that it should all be done in the best POSSIBLE taste.

Leo Smith
Reply to  ptolemy2
February 16, 2017 1:07 pm

LOL!

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Leo Smith
February 16, 2017 9:37 pm

Kenny Everet, a brilliant comedian, and gay! Sadly died many years ago.

rapscallion
Reply to  Leo Smith
February 17, 2017 4:55 am

Good ole Kenny. How I miss his utterly insane, but highly infectious humour. He used to have me literally crying with laughter. How he ever got away with calling the act posted by Leo above as Cupid Stunt, I shall never know.

February 16, 2017 9:32 am

Great. More propaganda on the way.
Like there isn’t enough of it.
Andrew

Latitude
Reply to  Bad Andrew
February 16, 2017 10:46 am

the science is settled…and they have to trick us into it

Reasonable Skeptic
February 16, 2017 9:34 am

It is easy to adopt something very quickly if it makes sense. This is why gay marriage, a social change and the smart phone a technology change, were adopted so rapidly. Renewables offers nothing the public doesn’t already have so it can only be sold as a moral issue.

MarkW
Reply to  Reasonable Skeptic
February 16, 2017 10:00 am

Gay marriage was never adopted. It was forced on us by the courts.

Dave in Canmore
Reply to  MarkW
February 17, 2017 8:12 am

The courts forced you to have a gay marriage? Wow… America is even more strange than I thought! Lol

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
February 17, 2017 8:51 am

There is something about this issue that brings out the stupid in it’s supporters.

The Original Mike M
Reply to  MarkW
February 18, 2017 6:40 am

Dave in Canmore: “The courts forced you to have a gay marriage?”
No, they changed the definition of the word “marriage” which has always meant between a man and a woman.
But in reality it still does mean that because, in closed company, every heterosexual I know doesn’t accept the redefinition at all. Whenever speaking of a same sex couple …. well there … I just did it!

simple-touriste
February 16, 2017 9:35 am

Nominated for most bizarre comparison, ever.

Latitude
Reply to  simple-touriste
February 16, 2017 10:47 am

I vote for the global warming/tobacco one

February 16, 2017 9:39 am

Public acceptance of same sex marriage, and homosexualtiy in general, asks nothing in return but respect. Acceptance of the idea that fossil fuels must be quickly abandoned, even if universally accepted by the public, would require huge, and potentially devastating personal sacrifices.
It will take more than mass delusion to transform the world’s energy economy. When people realize that accepting the idea of climate disaster requires devastating negative consequences to nearly every person on earth, especially those in underdeveloped countries, the reality will quickly displace the pernicious illusion.
And all of the politicians that advocated for the lunacy will, hopefully, face the wrath of the general population, including David Hochschild

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  lancifer666
February 16, 2017 10:16 am

Same sex marriage demands we accept the premise that marriage is simply a matter of convention that may be changed at will according to the whims of fashion. History would argue otherwise, and even Justice Roberts who signed on to the majority opinion admitted that we could have no idea about the ultimate effects of the change.
More-or-less traditional marriage is recorded by every civilization which has left a record, and has always had both civil and religious recognition as something extremely important. It is typical modern arrogance to assume all that history is just “baggage” we can discard at will.

biff33
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
February 16, 2017 1:26 pm

More-or-less traditional marriage is recorded by every civilization which has left a record…

Give me your top three examples.

Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
February 16, 2017 4:02 pm

Chief Justice Roberts did not “sign on to the majority opinion.” Roberts’ dissent included the words “Who do we think we are?” Gay “marriage” was forced onto 330 million Americans and all future Americans by one man: Anthony Kennedy.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
February 16, 2017 5:28 pm

biff33:

Give me your top three examples.

Imperial China, Imperial Egypt, Classical Crete, Classical Greece, Classical Persia, Classical Carthage, Classical Rome, Byzantine Empire, Christian Europe, etc., etc.
At one historical point, polygamous marriage was dominant. At some later point monogamous marriage became dominant. I say “more-or-less traditional marriage” to cover polygamy. I am not aware of any civilization in the record which permitted same sex marriage. Are you?

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
February 16, 2017 5:31 pm

Chuck Peebles:
I confess I was going by memory of a news report and did not research it. I have a rather dim opinion of Justice Roberts from the original Obamacare decision. But I do believe it was Roberts who stated we had no idea where this decision would lead.

Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
February 16, 2017 11:33 pm

In other words, every age and history can define marriage according to its own social mores and practices, except this one. Have I got that right?

MarkW
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
February 17, 2017 8:53 am

brokenyogi: Every time it’s been put to a vote, gay marriage loses.
It’s only because the courts invented the right that it is now the law.
Strange how the courts, not the people define morality these days.

Curious George
Reply to  lancifer666
February 16, 2017 11:16 am

Same sex marriage is inherently Islamophobic, unless we accept Polygamy as well.

Greg
Reply to  Curious George
February 16, 2017 11:32 am

Outrageous suggestion, polygamy is IMMORAL Screwing around western style is fine, just don’t try to turn it into stable, committed relationships.

schitzree
Reply to  Curious George
February 17, 2017 7:17 pm

Orgy-Porgy!

Eric
Reply to  lancifer666
February 16, 2017 12:56 pm

“Public acceptance of same sex marriage, and homosexualtiy in general, asks nothing in return but respect.”
I don’t agree. Advocates for homosexual marriage are well aware that most societies regard Marriage as a sacred institution, and that associating it with homosexuality is disrespect of the highest order. But they don’t care. They are perfectly willing to take something which is sacred to somebody else and demean it. They then add insult to injury by calling their opponents bigots, homophobes, nazis, intolerant narrow minded religious fundamentalists, etc.
Homosexual marriage is the epitome of intentional disrespect for somebody else’s sacred space.
It’s no surprise that climate warmists and homosexual marriage advocates come from the same stock. They are social justice warriors (SJWs). It’s a compulsive obsessive disorder.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Eric
February 16, 2017 7:11 pm

I’m a thorough AGW skeptic, I voted for DT, and I think gay people have as much a right to marry as any other people. Just not in your church.
Marriage is about religion. Cohabitation contracts are about civil law and power of attorney. The two do not intersect, except by optional choice.
No one has any right to prevent two consenting adults from entering a civil contract of cohabitation. The marriage part is just frosting on the legal cake. Churches are good at that.

MarkW
Reply to  Eric
February 17, 2017 8:54 am

Now that the courts have declared gay marriage a human right, how long until churches that don’t perform gay marriages start being fined?

george e. smith
Reply to  lancifer666
February 22, 2017 2:56 pm

Well you gave us the main criterion in your first sentence; and that is the stumbling block.
g

February 16, 2017 9:40 am

global warming is responsible for increase in safe sex and the same sex marriages. Humanity is doomed, it is heading for extinction. /sarc (now I’m in big trouble)

Sheri
Reply to  vukcevic
February 16, 2017 9:58 am

Yes, you are. 🙂

Auto
Reply to  vukcevic
February 16, 2017 2:32 pm

Forrest,
+ lots and lots.
And it is worse than we thought!
Auto

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  vukcevic
February 16, 2017 5:56 pm

It is only responsible for bad things, though…

Mark Lee
February 16, 2017 9:44 am

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but there is more than one problem with the renewable energy options. First is the intermittent nature of the power generation, which goes to the second problem, energy storage. Third would be the cost of the infrastructure to generate the power, but I really want to concentrate on problem 2. Storage. At present, the cost, both in materials and in pollution associated with manufacturing and disposing of batteries makes renewable sources untenable. In 1982, Robert Heinlein published his novel “Friday”. One of the inventions in the book was the “Shipstone”. A mysterious battery that was produced in different sizes, small enough for a flashlight or large enough for a freighter or even a spaceship. And it never ran out.
Anyway, renewables on a global scale will never be viable until there is a relatively cheap, long lasting, non-polluting (acceptable pollution) battery/storage option.

Sheri
Reply to  Mark Lee
February 16, 2017 10:02 am

It may not be acceptable even with battery storage. The amount of land, materials, etc required to produce a workable amount of electricity using energy from weather is astronomical. I’ve seen estimates in the millions of turbines. Resources are limited, even if wind and sun are available for free on their schedules. How many batteries are needed for 7 days of calm, very dark and cloudy weather to power Los Angeles?
If we put these in individual homes, that’s more materials. Plus, a repair crew to go out at 3 AM and turn someone’s lights and heat back on (people are not going to do this themselves). I don’t see batteries being a panecea. Energy from weather has too many problems outside of storage.

JJ, too.
Reply to  Sheri
February 16, 2017 10:35 am

Sheri,
I would offer a partial solution. The living abode is a ‘storage system’ due to it’s insulation and thermal mass. Long ago homes were often made of sod, brick, heavy timbers or stone. The big benefit of that was that the inside temperature was heavily moderated as it was slow to cool down and slow to warm up. The living conditions did not easily go to the extremes. Today most homes are stick built with a lot of windows and low thermal mass. Despite high r values, the thermal mass is very low and the homes gain and lose heat quickly. Simply changing the building requirements could easily make for a better ‘storage battery’ requiring much less power to heat or cool. Such a change in construction would lessen the need for fossil fuels and make renewables a bit more effective.

Griff
Reply to  Mark Lee
February 16, 2017 10:32 am

Well the starting point is to replace some of the fossil fuel power with renewables, then introduce grid scale batteries to assist with the ramp up needed as renewable power (absolutely predictably) drops off (e.g solar in the evening). Batteries are better than spinning reserve at frequency response. Add solar CSP to cover further into the evening plus pumped storage, if either available. Remember wind and solar are often operating at different times of day or season. Connect to nearby countries or regions with different weather patterns or hydro resource. Add in demand reduction (LED lighting and street lighting) and active demand management.
And so on…
Bear in mind that only the best resourced places or those where all fuel needs to be imported even have a target for 100% renewables before 2050.

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 10:42 am

Making already un-economical power sources twice as expensive.
A good way to go broke twice as fast.

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 10:50 am

BTW, Griffies “solution” still requires 1MW of fossil fuel power capacity be built for every 1MW of “renewable” capacity. Not only do we have to pay to build it, we have to pay to maintain it and keep it ready to start up with only a few hours notice, any time of day or night. Which means it has to be fully staffed at all time, because you won’t have enough time to call in your crew. Not to mention the possibility of bad weather making it difficult to get to work.
So we have to pay trillions for renewable energy sources that work 20% of the time if we are lucky.
We also have to pay trillions for batteries so that we can have enough energy storage to switch over to fossil fuel for those occasions when the clouds and wind don’t cooperate.
Finally we still have to pay trillions to build the exact same fossil energy system that we were going to build anyway, before the do gooders decided to save the world. Not only do we have to still pay to build it, but we have to pay pretty much the same amount for staffing and maintenance that we were going to have to pay anyway.
So total savings: $0
And we are still out the trillions spent to build and maintain the renewables and batteries.
What a deal.

Rob Morrow
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 10:55 am

C’mon Mark, Griff’s solution is better than that.
We won’t need backup capacity – we’ll just borrow power from our neighbours 😉

Malcolm Carter
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 11:30 am

Not to mention that charging a battery is only about 70% efficient and then discharging is only about 70% efficient. About a 50% loss overall. Ok there is that hypothetical moon shot to make everything way more practical but most of these technologies are already fairly mature and there is only so much available energy in wind and light without scaling up numbers of turbines and solar panels.

Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 11:55 am

Griff
You would love it in MonteNegro (Crna Gora). We have 3 electricity power stations (2 hydro total 650 MW and one coal 200MW see link. It can’t get much better than that.

Brad
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 12:09 pm

I guess Griff doesn’t care about all the real environmental damage done by mining the rare earth elements that go into making his batteries.

Robert Austin
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 12:48 pm

Brad,
Rare earths in batteries? Try magnets for generators.

Steven Miller
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 12:53 pm

@Griff I am not aware that “grid scale batteries” exist as you define them from your description of their use. The closest match to your description that I can think of is pumping water to a higher elevation and then using the water to power a turbine to generate power in the evening. There are problems with the amount of space required for the “renewable” power generation and storage site compared to conventional power plants.; there are problems with the efficiency of such a plant; and there are problems with the expense as compared to conventional power plants.
As long as we have huge of coal reserves, as long as we have huge reserves of oil and natural gas, as long as we have a supply of fuels for nuclear power plants, as long as we have sites that could be better utilized for hydro-electric power, as long as any number of other options such as molten salt reactors are possible… a plant powered by solar or wind using power stored by pumping a liquid to a higher elevation is not likely to be able to compete without massive government subsidies.

Brad
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 3:04 pm

Robert Austin,
” Most computer, cell phone, and electric vehicle batteries are made with rare earth metals.”
http://geology.com/articles/rare-earth-elements/

Gjunga Din
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 3:33 pm

Griff February 16, 2017 at 10:32 am
Well the starting point is to replace some of the fossil fuel power with renewables,

Hmm….so confuse and convince the young (before the hormones hit) that what is between their legs doesn’t matter. What matters is some adult tells them what they “feel like” (before biology and normal growth steps in) is what they are for life? Nobody’s “renewed” in that lie. (Sure, adoption and “education” give it a bit longer life to the lie.)
Kind’a the same as replacing what works in the energy field with “renewables”. Without fossil, hydro or nuclear backup (the real thing) and without the green prop$ and “education”, “renewables”, would die on the vine.
There’s just no delivery.
PS Some of the most sexy and feminine women I’ve known were called “Tomboys” before their hormones hit. (I’m going back quite a few decades.) Today such can join “The Cub Scouts”.
(If they ever become Boy Scouts I hope their adult parents/co-raisers/sub-raisers/adopters/etcs, make sure that they remember the motto, “Always Be Prepared!”
(Or was that the “Girl Scouts’s”?)
Things have gotten so confusing! 😎

Gunga Din
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 3:37 pm

MOD!
That’s me. Just a typo in my screen name.

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
February 17, 2017 8:56 am

Robert, no rare earth’s in batteries, but the mining of lithium is still quite polluting when proper environmental protections are not included. (As is the case in most developing countries.)

February 16, 2017 9:48 am

Gay marriage doesn’t cost you any money, and will not wreck your economy. In contrast, committing yourself to 80% renewables by 20XX, …

Coeur de Lion
February 16, 2017 9:50 am

He looks very lovely. Is he married?

Greg Woods
February 16, 2017 10:05 am

Mr. McGuire: I want to say just one word to you. Just one word.
Benjamin: Yes, Sir.
Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?
Benjamin: Yes, I am.
Mr. McGuire: Batteries.
Benjamin: Exactly how do you mean that?

Reply to  Greg Woods
February 16, 2017 12:48 pm

Cue S&G 🙂

February 16, 2017 10:08 am

LGBTQIAPDCAGW

TomRude
Reply to  Max Photon
February 16, 2017 10:18 am

yep, same ideology

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
Reply to  TomRude
February 16, 2017 5:17 pm

More to add:
LGBTQIAPDCAGWSHARIALAW

Gary
Reply to  Max Photon
February 16, 2017 10:23 am

First he’s got to get solar panels and windmills to go trans-tech, then use the same bathrooms. It’s all downhill after that.

J Mac
Reply to  Max Photon
February 16, 2017 1:01 pm

Letters left over at the end of a game of Scrabble?

Reply to  Max Photon
February 16, 2017 3:21 pm

You mean like these?comment image

Reply to  Max Photon
February 16, 2017 5:38 pm

Who can resist a woman who kick-starts her vibrator and rolls her own tampons?

george e. smith
Reply to  Max Photon
February 22, 2017 3:16 pm

Well that’s not a French word; at least it’s not a French Swiss word.
They say QWERTZUIOP.
Dunno whz !

South River Independent
February 16, 2017 10:09 am

Homosexuality and other sexual deviancies are mental disorders caused by arrested development. The same is true of liberalism. As we used to say at boat school, some things are obvious to the casual observer. Misuse and misunderstanding of science is rampant.

Reply to  South River Independent
February 16, 2017 11:29 pm

Quantum mechanics is not obvious to the casual observer, and most of life is governed by quantum mechanics. So maybe you want to re-think that analogy?

South River Independent
Reply to  brokenyogi
February 17, 2017 1:19 pm

i said that some things are intuitively obvious by observation, not everything. Actually quantum mechanics is described only by mathematical formulae. Just because the formulae are useful for making predictions does not mean that they accurately describe the underlying nature of the world. The model is not the system; the map is not the territory. It is obvious that the climate models are wrong and, therefore, climate science is not “settled.” it is also obvious that there is something wrong with a man who wants to cut off his genitals to become a woman. A mental disorder.

John Bell
February 16, 2017 10:14 am

I want to see Hochschild lead the way, do with less energy, drive less, fly less, etc. He will not I bet.

urederra
February 16, 2017 10:20 am

I wish they were as respectful to climate sceptics as they are to married homosexuals.

Non Nomen
Reply to  urederra
February 16, 2017 11:29 am

No problem. Just see that all climate skeptics become married homosexuals.

Resourceguy
February 16, 2017 10:21 am

This is a cheap suggestion of court-ordered solutions without saying so directly and using unrelated cases to plant the suggestion.

February 16, 2017 10:21 am

There’s a huge difference between “allowing same-sex marriage” and “taking action on climate change.”
One allows some people to do things, which don’t objectively harm anyone except possibly themselves, but which might cause some individuals to feel offended.
The other seeks to enforce policies on people, which are against their best interests.

nn
February 16, 2017 10:27 am

So, he proposes to apply the Pro-Choice quasi-religious/moral doctrine? Does he have a judge, a liberal judge, with a twilight faith, for that?
The “=” or congruence movement was notoriously selective, opportunistic, and unprincipled.

Tom Judd
February 16, 2017 10:28 am

It’s undeniable that men like to look at women’s breasts. They just don’t like to get caught doing so. Well, I’ve recently learned that women like to look at men’s buttocks. And, while men’s brains may be back there their eyes aren’t so woman don’t have to worry about being caught looking.
The trouble for guys like me is that I don’t have buttocks. My body goes straight into my legs. I’m as flat chest, er, … buttocked as flat buttocked can be. So, I’d like to propose buttock augmentation surgery. I could call the surgery center, ‘Manly Buttocks’ or BM for short. Heck, we could start a Buttocks Movement and really get that BM to mean something.
We could attach the same significance to BMs that we attach to Climate Change. And, come to think of it, any s.e.x.u.a.l orientation, whether straight, gay, or any multiple of variations, could benefit from a good BM just like the environmental bureaucrats.
Come to think of it, we can attach anything to anything at all regardless of how far fetched it is. BMs for climate!

Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
February 16, 2017 10:33 am

Is it ‘entitlement’ or simply just ‘removal from from the real world that this guy’s got?
In this present world where the human animal is not able to run some water down a hillside in a concrete ramp, does he not realise that a single misplaced zero or one could blank out, possibly forever, every single one of his precious iPhones.
Within microseconds, every last one of them could become a brick – even before the sun does a Carrington or a supernova goes off nearby
Who would be left to carry this dead-weight clown around?
Likewise new versions of Windows, you cannot stop updates coming in so its now quite possible for some malevolent type, possibly anywhere on the planet, to brick the entire lot.
What then- when almost everything relies on ‘Just In Time’ delivery?
Meanwhile – Western Power find batteries can only deliver 80% availability instead of the 99% expected of them and other power systems. Read it here:-
http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/wpd-disappointed-by-storage-availability-performance/1295482

ferd berple
February 16, 2017 10:53 am

Hopefully the author doesn’t plan to use the Same Sex Marriage approach to Renewables in the Islamic world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam
Extreme prejudice remains, both socially and legally, in much of the Islamic world against people who engage in homosexual acts. In Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Iraq, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen, homosexual activity carries the death penalty.

Logoswrench
February 16, 2017 10:56 am

Oh, i get it. We need more activist judges ramming climate crap down our throats, then use the state’s coercive power to silence any critique. Yeah that’s the ticket.

waterside4
February 16, 2017 10:59 am

Homosexual,so called marriage, inevitably leads to the extension of the human race. Why do I think that a similar fate awaits the human race that depends on unreliable s. But then Enrich and our present Pope seems to think that will solve the Population Bomb.

Cliff Hilton
February 16, 2017 11:06 am

iPhones are a small segment of the cell phone space (like renewables). Actually, Android devices rule. Poor comparison. Is he saying we’d all be better off being Gay? Like they want renewable’s? Like all of mankind going Gay, going all renewable’s would spell the end of mankind. Gay folks marriage will not replace this opposite sex combo thingy. Opposite sex can produce another mankind thingy while Gay marriage produces……..? I seem to remember reading about a couple of cities where being Gay was a pretty “hot” thing. I wonder what happened there?

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Cliff Hilton
February 16, 2017 11:32 am

Market share in August 2016 was 86% Android to 13% iOS.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Cliff Hilton
February 16, 2017 11:35 am

He may have meant “iPhone” to represent touch-screen smartphone-computer-camera combos generically, like “Xerox” or “Kleenex”.

Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 16, 2017 3:18 pm

Having iPhone become a generic term is the fast track for Apple to lose that trademark. It’s an odd fact of intellectual property that branding — owning a word in the public’s mind — can backfire if it is too successful.

MarkW
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 17, 2017 9:00 am

Case in point. Thermos was at one time a brand name. The company failed to protect their brand name when other companies started using the word to describe their products. As a result the courts ruled that the term had enter popular usage and no longer qualified as a brand name.

Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 17, 2017 9:03 am

Xerox got precariously close to having the same thing happen.

george e. smith
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 22, 2017 3:23 pm

A thermos is the most amazing thing ever invented.
It keeps the hot food hot, and it keeps the cold food cold.
Nobody knows just how the hell it knows !
G

Gunga Din
Reply to  Cliff Hilton
February 16, 2017 3:55 pm

😎
A good word has been subverted.
Ever see the original “The Mummy”?
When they find it and read the inscription with it’s horrible description and curse, one of the characters (the first to die, think) quips, “Maybe he was getting too gay with the temple virgins.”.

Annie
Reply to  Cliff Hilton
February 16, 2017 11:33 pm

Too right! I still posses a dress, bought in the 70s, labelled ‘Gay Lady’. I like the proper, original meaning of the word and resent it’s being hijacked for something so different.
Also, I know women whose name was ‘Gay’. However must they feel, having been named back in the 1940s and 1950s?
If they mean homesexual then darned well say homosexual and be honest.

MarkW
Reply to  Cliff Hilton
February 17, 2017 9:01 am

Gay was a common nickname for Gayle.
My ex-wife has a cousin named Gay. She married a young man with the last name of Love.

Tom in Florida
February 16, 2017 11:16 am

Actually it is exactly the same. The government screws us without a chance of us getting pregnant.

February 16, 2017 11:21 am

Instead of reading, Same Sex Marriage The Model for Climate Action, … shouldn’t the subtitle read, …. No-Sex Marriage The Model for Climate Action?? .. in other words, deny basic needs, in order to foster an ideal of self control? … sort of like the priesthood? … hence, religion?
… just an alternate point of view.

February 16, 2017 11:29 am

It seems some do not understand little Griffin so meaning, renewableso are fine, you just need to stay in doors after dark and reduce the size of the population to match the amount of electric you can generate!
Obvious really

michael hart
February 16, 2017 11:38 am

David Hochschild should be careful what he wishes for.
Climate alarmism has relied on party-political division. If his followers discover that many climate-skeptics don’t actually give a flying toss about gay marriage then that may puncture the bubble.

Tom O
February 16, 2017 11:46 am

I suppose that one helpful solution to the current “renewables” issue might be that the money governments are willing to put up for “subsidies” for current renewables technology could be used, instead of being given to the companies that built the existing sites, for paying for real research into determining legitimate, affordable renewable systems. The existing companies have already been paid for the building of the facilities, so let them earn a fair market price during the life span of the technology, and maybe by the time these facilities go off line, we will have actual, affordable alternative technologies. If all they have to pay for is maintenance, perhaps we can get a fair rate for electricity that doesn’t require low income homes to have to choose between food and heat. Yes that’s probably a lot of debt that has to be swallowed by someone, but at least it allows for people to live in the present with hope for a future, and just maybe we can find our way to real alternative energy sources that will put carbon based energy sources our of the picture.

DWR54
February 16, 2017 11:50 am

It is well known that belief in global warming can lead to … gayness…
For heaven’s sake WUWT, what were you thinking to allow this article?

Reply to  DWR54
February 16, 2017 9:06 pm

I think it might be the other way ’round DW.
We should design a conclusive experiment…

richard verney
February 16, 2017 11:52 am

Same sex marriage does not impact on most people. For most, it is an irrelevance.
Further, same sex marriage does not cost a dime. I recall that there was a survey that suggested that about 90% of all US citizens would not even be willing to pay US$1 per month to combat climate change.
I guess that it is the economy stupid, and renewables simply are not economic.

Reply to  richard verney
February 16, 2017 9:05 pm

Richard; I wrote essentially the same thing before going back to read other comments. Thanks, no offense intended.

Scottish Sceptic
February 16, 2017 11:53 am

The technique they used was to viciously attack anyone who dared to put the case for the protection of children through real marriage. (And to totally ignore the fact that marriage is primarily an institution to protect children from “the stupidity of their parents”)

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
February 16, 2017 12:05 pm

Marriage was instituted to provide a way to pass property on to one’s legal children while preventing illegitimate children from having a claim on that property. This way royalty could screw around as much as they liked without endangering their hereditary line.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
February 16, 2017 9:02 pm

So Tom, since gay “parents” end up going through a complicated legal process to adopt children, far more complex than “marriage”, there really shouldn’t be much of a protection argument?
Wo cares if gay people “marry”? it’s no more meaningful than a legal partnership and anyone can do that. Polyamory (for example) is nothing more than a corporation. It’s perfectly legal to form a corporation of any number of individuals without ever disclosing the sexual proclivities of its principals.
The whole thing was just a dog and pony show. There was never any substance to it.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom in Florida
February 17, 2017 9:07 am

Bartleby: I used to agree with you. But that was before the courts started fining companies who didn’t want to participate in gay weddings on religious grounds.

Power Grab
Reply to  Tom in Florida
February 17, 2017 11:30 am

Indeed.
However, these days I think it’s more of a make-work program for lawyers.

Power Grab
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
February 17, 2017 11:33 am

As I said, it’s a make-work program for lawyers.
Another reason it’s not such a good idea to let judges legislate.

Brad
February 16, 2017 12:07 pm

From fertilizer to plastics, there oil products essential to the modern way of life that just can’t be replaced with a windmill.

Joel Snider
February 16, 2017 12:12 pm

Society didn’t ‘change’. This was ‘imposed’. Dissenters were persecuted, prosecuted, defamed, and bankrupted.

Power Grab
Reply to  Joel Snider
February 17, 2017 11:34 am

Grrr…my last comment was meant to respond to Joel.
…make-work for lawyers…don’t let judges legislate…
I’m sure you get it.

DonM
February 16, 2017 12:16 pm

Seems a reasonable analogy & comparison.
1 to 2% or marriages are now outside the (previous) norm, and are accepted. So, we should be be shooting for 1 to 2% of energy needs being outside the previous norm … wait a second, we’ve gone past that … as a society we are over-achievers.
So, Mr Hochschild, we’ve passed the upper limit of your analogy, so shut the hell up and leave us alone.

knr
February 16, 2017 12:43 pm

Given renewable problems are related to the rotation and orbit of the planet what ‘tech ‘ can make a difference to that is dam good question. They hope of some magic storage turning up does nothing for the inability to produced power for reason for which there is technological solutions currently or perhaps ever possible .
Let us take a classic example , highest need is in winter , however that is always the time with lest sun and often not much wind. Anyone know a technical solution to that?

Reply to  knr
February 16, 2017 8:57 pm

Yes. Solar collection and storage systems in both hemispheres.
Now we just need to solve the transmission problem…

J Mac
February 16, 2017 1:09 pm

David Hochschild’s utterance was the dumbest piece of fliberty-gibberish I’ve witnessed in quite a while…..
Cleaning the lint trap in the ‘drier’ has greater value and satisfaction than reading anymore of this.

Reply to  J Mac
February 16, 2017 8:55 pm

Thank you for mentioning this, I’d forgotten to put my bathrobe in the dryer…
Which was far more useful than Hochschild’s rambling.

MDS
February 16, 2017 1:16 pm

So, instead of using real science, meaning data based model validation, to convince us, the Totalitarian coercive party wants more PR and then court cases to shut down dissent. Typical.

Todd
February 16, 2017 1:16 pm

If you have not read the judges decision on Proposition 8 (constitutional definition of marriage) in California, it is worth a scan (long at 138 pages). Completely ignore which way the actual decision went, that isn’t what concerns me. The law and logic presented are stunning in their incompetence. You would think that in order for a judge to wipe out the decisions of 8.3 million people, their reasoning would have to be flawless with substantial evidence for every point. Instead, you see a judge that used TV commercials as a prime source of truth. No evidence was given that the commercials represented the voters views. A judge that repeatedly claimed the only reason people voted for proposition 8 was to feel superior to other people. Absolutely no evidence was given to support this claim either. The judge refused to allow testimony from pro-proposition 8 supporters on quality of life issues and then featured testimony from an anti-proposition 8 women who said the proposition “made her sad”. Judge Walker also stated in his decision that gay marriage was inherently superior to heterosexual marriage. I would have thought that would have raised a few flags.
I fully expected Proposition 8 to be overturned. What I didn’t expect was a judge to use the decision as a forum to bash those he disagrees with. It wasn’t about truth and logic, it was about anger and punishment for daring to disagree. From my point of view, warmists already use this approach.

MarkW
Reply to  Todd
February 16, 2017 1:35 pm

Another point was that the judge in this ruling was in a relationship with another man, and hence not a neutral party by any stretch of the imagination.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
February 17, 2017 9:08 am

The judge wanted to get married, and he struck down a ruling that got in his way.

Reply to  Todd
February 16, 2017 7:34 pm

Bad law never lasts long, or when it does, it almost always is overturned, ignored or completely forgotten.

Reply to  Duckhomie
February 16, 2017 7:55 pm

Would that it were so. Killing unborn babies has been legal in the United States for 44 years. Slavery was legal almost everywhere for millennia. The powerless victims of bad laws are rarely asked whether the laws should change.

simple-touriste
Reply to  Duckhomie
February 17, 2017 6:45 am

Forgotten laws are there to bite you.
The dems will try to use the badly written and inept “Logan Act” to destroy the Trump administration.

Reply to  simple-touriste
February 17, 2017 10:42 am

Lawyers vs lawyers, nobody wins but them, they can do nothing to Trump, he’s lived this his entire life, that’s why they’re so worried.

Reply to  Duckhomie
February 17, 2017 8:38 am

You’re wrong, Duck. In England, the Corn Laws lasted from 1815 to 1846. For a generation, they made food more expensive than it need have been. More than a little like the CAGW freud, no?

Reply to  Neil Lock
February 17, 2017 10:44 am

Yes, but I believe this benefited the US in the long run, we got some very good immigrants from this bad law. It’s always the unintended consequences that prove interesting. The be careful of what you wish for outcome.

Walter Sobchak
February 16, 2017 3:24 pm

“Renewable Energy Apollo Project, to fix the problems which prevent renewables from being a viable solution to the world’s energy needs.”
You mean like the sun going down every day?

MarkG
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
February 16, 2017 7:35 pm

“You mean like the sun going down every day?”
At one point, NASA proposed attaching huge mirrors to a Lunar Module so you could launch it into Earth orbit and have a guy up there control the orientation to reflect sunlight back to Earth at night. So maybe that’s what they mean.

February 16, 2017 5:11 pm

“The iPhone shows how rapidly society can change if it wants to”
no.
The iphone contrasted with climate change shows that society readily accepts good ideas and rejects bad ideas.

February 16, 2017 8:05 pm

When they converted over from leaded gas to non leaded, they used a cap and trade system. Which worked quite well since there were definite benefits and low cost. Cap and trade in the carbon trade is virtually no benefits and extremely high costs. It’s amazing the number of rabbits the CAGW people try to pull out of the same hat. I brought up cap and trade because it is a lot like selling same sex marriage. Just another trick in this dog and pony show.

old construction worker
February 16, 2017 8:30 pm

“Same Sex Marriage The Model for Climate Action.”
Some have argued “We must overturn Roe VS Wade”. I say to them Roe VS Wade is a double edge sword. If it wasn’t for Roe VS Wader, the government could a couple how many children they can have.

February 16, 2017 8:43 pm

Eric Worrell notes: “the most Hochschild will achieve with currently available technology is misery and public waste on a vast scale.”
He’s a California policy maker Eric. That’s par for the course in CA.

February 16, 2017 8:46 pm

Eric: It’s also worth noting that remarkably few people give a hoot about gay marriage and it has no detectable financial impact on any of them. Hochschild is just a fool, and they’re a dime a dozen. I wonder how many folks at Stanford actually came to listen to his talk?

February 16, 2017 9:11 pm

Finally (I hope), there’s nothing remotely “sustainable” about same sex marriage. Without bi-sexual couples, the entire species would die out in a generation.
So, how again is gay marriage “sustainable”? Sheesh. That anyone would have to explain this…

barry
Reply to  Bartleby
February 17, 2017 12:45 am

how again is gay marriage “sustainable”?
Because there are heterosexuals.
I guess your concern would be warranted if there was a serious proposal to ban heterosexual sex…

February 16, 2017 10:51 pm

The big difference between the two is that same-sex marriage doesn’t cost anyone who supports it a dime. If alternative energy were free, of course everyone would support it just as enthusiastically. It has nothing to do with the courts, which can’t require people to support costly energy projects. And the Supreme Court didn’t support it until it was already popular and legalized in many states already, most often through legislation.

MarkW
Reply to  brokenyogi
February 17, 2017 9:11 am

“doesn’t cost anyone who supports it a dime”
Unfortunately, if you don’t support it, it could cost you everything you own.

Johann Wundersamer
February 16, 2017 10:53 pm

Calexit:
“There was gay marriage nowhere until 2004, then we saw that state by state by state by state it got adopted, and now of course it’s in all 50 states,” Hochschild said during a Stanford University seminar last week. “Over a very short period of time. You go back 12, 13 years and you ask how many people think gay marriage is universal and I think most people would assert, it’s not going to happen.”
or calcession – Californian Secession.
Mind cal stands it.
Was’nt, didn’t, won’t happen.
____________________________________________
Retreat battles are cruel and memorable for long times.

February 16, 2017 10:53 pm

Bartleby, just because same sex marriage is legal, it doesn’t mean anyone but those who are already gay will couple up that way. The survival of the human race is not in doubt, at least not for that reason. Nothing to worry about unless your own sexual desires are deep in the closet.

Johann Wundersamer
February 16, 2017 11:02 pm
Steve Borodin
February 17, 2017 2:21 am

Climate activists should learn lessons from SCIENCE. Things like EVIDENCE. Ever heard of it? Nah, I thought not. Things like prejudice, bigotry and ignorance must eat up a lot of your time.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Steve Borodin
February 18, 2017 9:46 am

Hear hear.

Patrick MJD
February 17, 2017 2:59 am

Pat Frank in his posts is totally correct. A civil union contract CAN have the exact same rights as a marriage contract because in law, that is all marriage is, a contract between two people. In usual marriage it is “assumed” and “automatic”. Nothing in law prevents those right from being documented in a civil union. It’s a contract between two people and protects the “assets”, when it breaks up. Nothing more, nothing less.

cedarhill
February 17, 2017 3:48 am

It makes all the sense in the world of political action campaigns. Why use a campaign model that failed when one that worked can be used. After all, deceit, fear, hatred, outright lies and obfuscation is the hallmark of the Left/Greenies.

drednicolson
February 17, 2017 7:32 am

Whenever reality becomes ideologically inconvenient, prog-leftists push to legally rewrite reality. If you prefer to live in reality, then you will be affected by whatever they’re pushing for, sooner or later.

Tad
February 17, 2017 9:12 am

Well, sodomy and “climate change” both involve sticking it to someone, so I can see why the state of California would support both.

bqrq
February 17, 2017 10:52 am

I believe that most honest and reasonable people would agree with the premise that same sex marriage is a form of legalized child molesting which should never be encouraged or promoted in any way.

Reply to  bqrq
February 17, 2017 7:02 pm

Well, certainly not if they don’t adopt children.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of perverts out there: people like Chad Sevearance, and couples like Frank Lombard & Kenneth Shipp, Mark Newton & Peter Truong, George Harasz & Douglas Wirth, etc.

February 17, 2017 5:49 pm

Except letting my gay friends get married doesn’t cost me anything, except maybe wedding presents. Same-sex marriage doesn’t raise my cost of energy, or destabilize the electric grid.

Hocus Locus
February 17, 2017 8:04 pm

I had to cross my eyes and bear down where the sun don’t shine to parse it out and realize that his same-sex argument is not actually about tupping.
It is about indoctrination. Which hilariously, doesn’t involve real doctors either.
I think my dictionary is broken.

Pamela Gray
February 18, 2017 9:43 am

And this is an argument for their side how? It would work just as well if not better for our side. Clearly publishing scientists with skeptical views have had a tremendous row to hoe. As have loving couples finding room for their views on getting a marriage license let alone finding a fricken wedding cake or flowers in their local shopping venue, or for the rare church or court that would let them in to seal the deal.
I really hate posts like this.

Bob
February 18, 2017 2:36 pm

I think Hockschild’s analogy is perfect and makes total sense. Let’s take it all the way shall we.
Let us say I am absolute ruler of the world and the homosexual community has convinced me that the homosexual choice is the only choice so I command that everyone must be a homosexual. What would be the result? Mankind would end within a couple generations. If on the other hand I had commanded that everyone be a heterosexual what would be the consequences? There would really be no consequences as everything would pretty much go on the way it has for thousands of years.
The point is that the homosexual choice really isn’t a credible or doable choice as it can’t exist in the absence of heterosexuality. The same goes for solar, wind and many other alternate choices, they can not provide the power necessary for our modern life in the absence of fossil fuel or nuclear.
I have no problem with solar or wind I just don’t want some jackass telling me that they must be my choice or that I have to subsidize those who make it their choice.

February 23, 2017 7:47 pm

> there currently is no viable alternative to fossil fuels.
Yes, there is: nuclear energy.

%d bloggers like this: