Anyone on the right believe in climate change here?

[Cubo de Sangre]

Spend billions in one Canadian province to 'green the energy' for almost zero impact and you think that type of thing is a good idea, why?

That is the major problem with so many who so 'want to do something' they could care less how much it costs and how effective it is. They are being emotional and reactionary and could careless about effectiveness or cost.

Thus why they tried to push Kyoto for so long despite the fact that if enacted it would cost likely trillions and yet INCREASE man made emissions and CO2 into the atmosphere. The meek say 'ya lets do it. At least we are dong something' without a care over whether or not what we are doing is actually effective.

Yeah man, if Canada had a bad experience trying to implement some green energy then surely the rest of us should throw in the towel. If Canada can't make solar work then no way a place like Hawaii can. All these fools here converting to solar, burning less petroleum (which is how most of our electricity is generated), and saving money in the long run sure are stupid.

 

[sub_thug]

While I am probably more of a libertarian than anything, I have typically been siding with the conservatives, as of late. I 100% believe in climate change. I think it's absolutely absurd to think that taking trillions of tons of hydocarbons that have been buried deep within the earth, and then releasing them into the air for every living thing to breathe and be surrounded by, hasn't made a difference. I like my freedoms for sure, but it is terrible for the planet to continue to use oil, gas, and coal. I anxiously await the day when those industries have been replaced by industries that support sustainable energy.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Yeah man, if Canada had a bad experience trying to implement some green energy then surely the rest of us should throw in the towel. If Canada can't make solar work then no way a place like Hawaii can. All these fools here converting to solar, burning less petroleum (which is how most of our electricity is generated), and saving money in the long run sure are stupid.

Solar works in Germany, it can work in most if not all major Canadian cities

 

[5H3RD0G]

If you study how businesses treat their employees you can tell the future climate of mankind.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Or conversely does anyone on the left on this board believe it's a hoax?

I can't believe how this is a partisan issue when it's simple science.

The right leaves a bad taste in a lot of potential members with its denial of proven science based on politics

Climate change? Sure, but caused by man? That's a stretch

 

[MikeMcMann]

It's one thing to say a particular implementation was done poorly, or wastefully, or hurriedly, but that doesn't mean it can't work or it's a bad idea. You're like the guy in another thread discounting all medical science because he got a bad diagnosis from one doctor. The logic is fatally flawed (pun intended.)

As long as you agree you are like the guy who hears something warm and fuzzy and therefore does not even question or consider if the cure is viable. Faith healer anyone?

Lets be clear. The Ontario gov't was pressured to act and act quickly in the name of saving the planet (gaining those votes) which lead them to enact a policy that was wasteful and ineffective but locked in, LOCKED IN, with guarantees to the green energy providers for 20 years regardless of no economic or climate benefit. The Province is locked into buying this power regardless.

The profit motive to game the system is as high on the left (eco side) as it is on the right, often with the tax payer stuck in the middle paying to both. You do not see people on the left questioning this while pointing the finger at the right, and that is scary and sad. It seems that as long as you tell the left something warm and fuzzy (or goal is to save the planet) then discussions about cost or efficacy simply do not matter.

That is something to be very concerned about.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Yeah man, if Canada had a bad experience trying to implement some green energy then surely the rest of us should throw in the towel. If Canada can't make solar work then no way a place like Hawaii can. All these fools here converting to solar, burning less petroleum (which is how most of our electricity is generated), and saving money in the long run sure are stupid.

NO man.

What you should do is just question the profit motive on the right and never look at the left. Just have FAITH that the guys selling you this green energy, and the politicians implementing policies are all acting based on good principles and good motives and not cash.

Ignore the Ontario example and just pretend that if 10 other States and Provinces do the exact same thing they will obviously get it right as of course they are only interested in doing good and not profit. That is why the clean energy consortium that lobbied hard in Ontario prior to the last election (who bought the Premier) made sure she gave them a 20 year guarantee that the Province would buy their power no matter the cost or lack of benefits. lol. Ya they had the best interest of citizens at heart, while guaranteeing they get paid for 2 decades regardless.

Wait, would not typically someone trying to do good say 'give us the chance to prove the benefits and if not let us go'...instead of asking for 20 year guarantee regardless?

How sadly gullible the left is...yes the same left that would have gladly imposed Kyoto despite it being far worse then what has been imposed in Ontario because Kyoto would have raised C02 emissions world wide by pushing production to unregulated 3rd world countries with a pass.

 

[Cooz]

The 97% of scientists claim is backed up by WHAT

errr...scientific research?

 

[mike sherry]

errr...scientific research?

If you can't source the claim don't even try and be snarky. You are believing something on faith if you cannot cite the source

 

[SomebodyElse]

The 97% quote refers to living climate scientists that have published.

They analyzed nearly 12,000 published peer-reviewed articles.

The original source is

Cook, J, et al. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters (Vol. 8, #2).

If you don't have access through your profession or from an academic membership, here is a link:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Here is the Abstract:
"The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett.11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies."

There are six independent studies, from six different authors, that have confirmed estimates of 90% - 100%, with 97%.

Tol is specifically addressed in methodology and results.