Trudeau (Our Idiot) stands alone as Canada — and the world — abandons green energy

[grassfarmer]

Pity the whole thread is based on fake news again. Far from the world abandoning green energy it is embracing it like never before. 2017 saw the highest levels of investment in renewables ever. Global investment in solar development alone exceeded that of coal, gas and nuclear combined.
You can sit and tell yourselves that global warming isn't happening and it's all a tax scam and everybody is going back to coal - but it's simply not true.

[SASKFARMER3]

Wow it’s a flawed science your backing grass. The world is waking up it’s 15 min is just about up.

One idiot is left Trudeau.

He’s past his expired date.

[grassfarmer]

Wow it’s a flawed science your backing grass. The world is waking up it’s 15 min is just about up.

One idiot is left Trudeau.

He’s past his expired date.

No, it's the science accepted by 97% of the world's scientists. If you want to believe the other 3% that's your choice but it doesn't make your odds of being right very high.

[Hamloc]

Sask3 it would be nice if you were correct but I see the federal NDP are calling for an emergency debate in parliament on the latest IPCC report, the enviro's are digging in. Grassfarmer, the same type of predictions were made on the first earth Aprill 22, 1970, the environmental chicken littles just don't let up. Today in reality it is a large wealth transfer scheme. I am certainly in favor of efficient use of our resources but this imbissilic belief that shutting down Canada's energy economy will change the global environment defies logic!

[jazz]

No, it's the science accepted by 97% of the world's scientists. If you want to believe the other 3% that's your choice but it doesn't make your odds of being right very high.

So when a physicist accepts the findings of a physiologist you find that reassuring? What credentials do they have in the field other than being a scientist. Do you blindly accept the `findings` of your neighbor across the road just because he is a farmer too? My neighbor told me he grew 100 bu canola. Guess I have to accept those findings because I have no way to independently verify.

That is not peer review and it is not reproducing the results and it is NOT rigorous science. When the scientists across the globe can reproduce the model outcomes independent of each other, you know like we do for drug development and other clinical trials, then I will take a look, but we all know they cant and never will be able to, because its all so vague and misleading. Its 3degree today, then 4 tomorrow, then 7deg in a decade yada yada. And none of it proves out on the ground, ever.

[fjlip]

Gormely had Moore as a guest, he says UN and IPCC is complete and utter nonsense. Keep repeating the dooms day scare to the dumbed down masses. Main reason, US midterms and world wide love in soon in Poland. And he used to be Greenpeace till he saw the BS. I have 12 pages of a speech he gave, last few words were...To conclude, carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is the stuff of life, the staff of life, the currency of life, indeed the backbone of life on Earth.

[RedLentil]

No, it's the science accepted by 97% of the world's scientists. If you want to believe the other 3% that's your choice but it doesn't make your odds of being right very high.

That’s a dangerous assumption to make.
Example: How many investors believed that the housing bubble burst in the US wasn’t possible and how many said it was going to happen.

It happens all the time, just because 100 people say yes and 1 says no doesn’t automatically make yes the right answer. Maby that one guy is 100 times smarter than the rest.

How do we know that 97% vs 3% is accurate? Who gave us that information?

If it was the scientific community alone making claims of climate change I might be on board, but when politicians get involve to the level they have I have a really hard time deciding what to believe. History shows us that politicians are lying pieces of scum, so forgive me for being sceptical.

I’m not saying I’m a denier but **** me it’s hard to say it’s true, especially when I’m being told that a tax is the best way to deal with.

[fjlip]

Most of the numbers are WAGS, just made up, out of thin air...like who the **** weighs the gases escaping earth???

[LWeber]

P Global investment in solar development alone exceeded that of coal, gas and nuclear combined.

Global investment in solar development alone exceeded that of coal, gas and nuclear combined.



Unit costs for solar PV projects, which represent 8% of total energy investment worldwide, fell by nearly 15% on average, thanks to lower module prices and a shift in deployment to lower-cost regions.

The share of fossil fuels, including thermal power generation, in energy supply investment rose slightly to 59% as spending in upstream oil and gas increased modestly.




Source: International Energy Agency

[samhill]

Agree Red, the 97% are paid by who? I suggest that the companies that profit from the carbon supply pay the tax, but we know that won’t work because they pass the cost along to the end user and there’s no competition between the suppliers. Whatever happened to collusion is a crime. Oh yeah, slip some payola where it works, no need to compete.