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

[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.

[jazz]

The way to effect change is not a regressive tax and distribute scheme. You never punish people for their success.

Instead, you incentivize them. For anybody that takes on an efficiency project that will reduce emissions, they get a tax credit or break. Panels, wind, electric cars, insulation, furnace upgrades, whatever. Then you let people decide. Many will take the tax break and make a change. Some wont. But the money stays here and it is reinvested directly into the economy. The spin offs would be huge. Make it a 10 yr program. Thats what Sheer should be pushing instead of a tax and redistribute scheme.

[jazz]

The other night on 60minutes, Trump said that scientists have an agenda. Of course they do. They get funding and grants directly from govt. They dont create any wealth on their own. They arent risking their own funds like we do. Thats why they are socialists. And they came up with something that can be studied forever and ever and endless cash to it.

Scientists are no snowflakes. They work the system as good as any politician. Now they are in bed with them too.

Why didnt any single one of those thousands of scientists come up with a solution to the problem. I mean Musk is the only guy doing anything practical about it. Why doesnt the govt pay every citazen in the country to plant trees on their property. Or bring back the old shelterbelt programs. Farmers could put up billions of trees along property lines. Declare all diesel and gas to be 50% ethanol and biodiesel. Simplest solutions ignored.

And the one readily available technology we have (nuclear) to offset ommisions was killed by greenpeace 30 yrs ago and again in the IPCC report they warned against it. These guys have no clue. Always a tax.

[Guest]

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.

excuse me ? gonna need some proof on this line of bs
sorry just gotta call BS ,when i see it

[LWeber]

excuse me ? gonna need some proof on this line of bs
sorry just gotta call BS ,when i see it

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 Reply With Quote

[sumdumguy]

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.

Tell me Grassy, do you think any of these 97% of some kind of “scientists” have given up their cars, their air travel, their air conditioners or their gas barbeques? I bet if you went to 97% of their houses, you wouldn’t see evidence of any carbon saving measures. It’s just as easy for me to make that proclamation as it is for them to unequivocally proclaim that we as human beings are somehow responsible for some imaginery phenomenon. BS.

[Oliver88]

And the one readily available technology we have (nuclear) to offset ommisions was killed by greenpeace 30 yrs ago and again in the IPCC report they warned against it. These guys have no clue. Always a tax.

Great points.
It sure is interesting how the climate alarmists are against the largest way to cut emissions!!!

Nuclear power doesn’t fit into the wealth redistribution planning as well as money pits like solar and wind.