Green Energy Scams Costing Taxpayers Billions


Bar Sinister
+1
#61
Quote: Originally Posted by WakeView Post

You are STILL avoiding the fact that the Canadian economic/socialist system has destroyed business in your country and that the the top 10 companies are banks and oil companies which the government has decided to keep their mitts off of since they destroyed their country from the last fiddling.

Socialism does not work and it INEVITABLY leads to totalitarianism. I know that everyone has told you that it was the right wing that does so but all you had to do was pay attention in history class and you've shown that you didn't.

Sadly you know nothing about the Canadian economy. What has hurt the Canadian economy more than anything is the almost unrestricted ability of foreign transnationals to buy up Canadian companies. This action has been condoned by both the Liberal and Conservative parties. The last PM who actually attempted to do anything about it was Pierre Trudeau. Unfortunately he was followed by Brian Mulroney a PM who actually went out of his way to encourage foreign takeovers of Canadian firms.

As for socialism causing totalitarianism I guessed you missed the fact that the most democratic nations on the planet are all socialist. 20 most democratic countries in the world...do you live there? | Angloinfo World: Expat Life (external - login to view)

And save your pathetic insults for someone else - all that shows me is that you have run out of intelligent things to say.
 
Wake
+1
#62
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

Sadly you know nothing about the Canadian economy. What has hurt the Canadian economy more than anything is the almost unrestricted ability of foreign transnationals to buy up Canadian companies. This action has been condoned by both the Liberal and Conservative parties. The last PM who actually attempted to do anything about it was Pierre Trudeau. Unfortunately he was followed by Brian Mulroney a PM who actually went out of his way to encourage foreign takeovers of Canadian firms.

As for socialism causing totalitarianism I guessed you missed the fact that the most democratic nations on the planet are all socialist. 20 most democratic countries in the world...do you live there? | Angloinfo World: Expat Life (external - login to view)

And save your pathetic insults for someone else - all that shows me is that you have run out of intelligent things to say.

So you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about and then you tell me that America owns all of the companies in Canada. Good move. You sound really bright. That STILL doesn't change the fact that the only large Canadian companies are banks and oil companies.

But I'm sure that in a grab for money to pay your socialized government they will soon sell those off as well. Though why anyone would want a Canadian dollar I don't know. As bad as the American dollar is the Canadian dollar makes it look like pure gold.
 
Danbones
#63
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious CdnView Post

Wake appears to work for an oil company. Expect a steady stream of Kochonomics form this source.

better then the steady stream of useless toilet cleaner at the box factory chickench!t from you

dearie
 
petros
#64
Quote:

That STILL doesn't change the fact that the only large Canadian companies are banks and oil companies.

Canadian mining companies are heavy hitters and have market control of several minerals.
 
pgs
#65
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Canadian mining companies are heavy hitters and have market control of several minerals.

CPR now there is a profitable company .
 
Wake
#66
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Canadian mining companies are heavy hitters and have market control of several minerals.

That's true but the WORTH of them aren't really large. They are just sole sources for some minerals.

Canada used to be tops in a lot until the decided to follow Great Britain into socializing everything.
 
Bar Sinister
#67
[QUOTE=Wake;2427694]So you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about and then you tell me that America owns all of the companies in Canada. Good move. You sound really bright. That STILL doesn't change the fact that the only large Canadian companies are banks and oil companies.

But I'm sure that in a grab for money to pay your socialized government they will soon sell those off as well. Though why anyone would want a Canadian dollar I don't know. As bad as the American dollar is the Canadian dollar makes it look like pure gold.[/QUOTE

Once again a deliberate misreading of my post. Either you can't read or you are too stupid to understand what I said.

This is what I was referring to. More of Canada is owned by foreigners than almost any other industrialized nation, about 20% of Canada's economy in total. That sends a huge amount of profits out of the country each year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreig...nies_of_Canada (external - login to view)
 
Cliffy
+1
#68
Canadian mining companies are among the worst human rights violators operating in third world countries. They hire goons and beat, and murder indigenous peoples for trying to protect their land and water. Makes ya proud to be Canadian, eh. Bunch of scum bags.
 
Wake
#69
[QUOTE=Bar Sinister;2428011]
Quote: Originally Posted by WakeView Post

So you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about and then you tell me that America owns all of the companies in Canada. Good move. You sound really bright. That STILL doesn't change the fact that the only large Canadian companies are banks and oil companies.

But I'm sure that in a grab for money to pay your socialized government they will soon sell those off as well. Though why anyone would want a Canadian dollar I don't know. As bad as the American dollar is the Canadian dollar makes it look like pure gold.[/QUOTE

Once again a deliberate misreading of my post. Either you can't read or you are too stupid to understand what I said.

This is what I was referring to. More of Canada is owned by foreigners than almost any other industrialized nation, about 20% of Canada's economy in total. That sends a huge amount of profits out of the country each year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreig...nies_of_Canada (external - login to view)

If we agree on something stop trying to start arguments about it. It turns into nothing more than an exchange of insults which gains nothing for either of us.

This is a discussion of AGW. This was NEVER in any manner proven as a hypothesis and has out of nowhere become fact. And it isn't CANADA that did this. It is almost exclusively political sources like the IPCC and the Obama government which is thankfully over.
 
Bar Sinister
#70
[QUOTE=Wake;2428377]
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

If we agree on something stop trying to start arguments about it. It turns into nothing more than an exchange of insults which gains nothing for either of us.

This is a discussion of AGW. This was NEVER in any manner proven as a hypothesis and has out of nowhere become fact. And it isn't CANADA that did this. It is almost exclusively political sources like the IPCC and the Obama government which is thankfully over.

I certainly agree with the useless exchange of insults. If you read my posts you will notice that I don't retaliate in kind unless someone insults me first.

And actually I really don't care about GW as much as I care about pollution. China is not really into green energy because it is afraid the world is getting warmer, it simply wants to cut down on the atmospheric filth created by burning coal and oil.

The interesting thing about attempting to lower greenhouse gas emissions is that it is a no lose situation. If man-made global warming is actually occurring then cutting down on emissions worldwide simply makes sense. However, if it is not then everyone gets air that is a little cleaner, and I can't think of a reason to argue with that.
 
pgs
#71
[QUOTE=Bar Sinister;2428500]
Quote: Originally Posted by WakeView Post


I certainly agree with the useless exchange of insults. If you read my posts you will notice that I don't retaliate in kind unless someone insults me first.

And actually I really don't care about GW as much as I care about pollution. China is not really into green energy because it is afraid the world is getting warmer, it simply wants to cut down on the atmospheric filth created by burning coal and oil.

The interesting thing about attempting to lower greenhouse gas emissions is that it is a no lose situation. If man-made global warming is actually occurring then cutting down on emissions worldwide simply makes sense. However, if it is not then everyone gets air that is a little cleaner, and I can't think of a reason to argue with that.

If they sold it as pollution it might be easier to get behind , the hysterical calling of the end of the world is a little much to take .
 
Cliffy
#72
[QUOTE=pgs;2428531]
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

If they sold it as pollution it might be easier to get behind , the hysterical calling of the end of the world is a little much to take .

I'm pretty sure that that is why it has been framed as GW and that carbon dioxide is the culprit so people will fight about it. It is a scam to cover up the fact that we are poisoning air, land and water. Some of the biggest culprits in land and water pollution are industrial farming methods: pesticides, herbicides and artificial fertilizers. And now we have the entire Pacific contaminated by plastics, all the chemical run off from agriculture, industry and pharmaceuticals and radiation leaking from Fukushima and Hanford.
 
petros
+1
#73
CO2 is a poisoning the air? There is no such thing as artificial fertilizer they are all just salts no matter the source. What is non-idustrial farming? Pulling a plow with a yak?
 
Wake
+2
#74
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

CO2 is a poisoning the air? There is no such thing as artificial fertilizer they are all just salts no matter the source. What is non-idustrial farming? Pulling a plow with a yak?

The third graders are being sold a bill of goods and Cliffy is buying.
 
Bar Sinister
#75
[QUOTE=pgs;2428531]
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

If they sold it as pollution it might be easier to get behind , the hysterical calling of the end of the world is a little much to take .


As I said - it is a no lose situation. If the climatologists are right we avoid a world wide disaster. Mind you it wouldn't be the end of the world - the Earth would still be here, but there might be a few less humans.

And if the climatologists are wrong we still get cleaner air and better transport.
 
EagleSmack
+1
#76
Quote: Originally Posted by WakeView Post

The third graders are being sold a bill of goods and Cliffy is buying.

Cliffy is a liberal and will believe anything he's told to believe.
 
petros
#77
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post


As I said - it is a no lose situation. If the climatologists are right we avoid a world wide disaster. Mind you it wouldn't be the end of the world - the Earth would still be here, but there might be a few less humans.

And if the climatologists are wrong we still get cleaner air and better transport.

Why do only 36% of geoscientists (earth scientists) believe man is behind Climate Change?
 
Wake
#78
[QUOTE=Bar Sinister;2428983]
Quote: Originally Posted by pgsView Post



As I said - it is a no lose situation. If the climatologists are right we avoid a world wide disaster. Mind you it wouldn't be the end of the world - the Earth would still be here, but there might be a few less humans.

And if the climatologists are wrong we still get cleaner air and better transport.

Why gave you done a rapid side-step away from the questions I asked? What are YOU willing to do?

Also we aren't talking about "pollution" which you also plainly do not understand. Your entire rants on here have been about AGW and not pollution until cornered.

This isn't some sort of joke. YOU are the one claiming that "man" is destroying the atmosphere and so what YOU personally are willing to do to help prevent this is of utmost importance.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Why do only 36% of geoscientists (earth scientists) believe man is behind Climate Change?

When you are behind something for political reasons it doesn't really matter who says what.
 
Bar Sinister
#79
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Why do only 36% of geoscientists (earth scientists) believe man is behind Climate Change?


Where did you get that made up number? Oh, let me guess you did a personal survey of all climatologists. Here's my number. I'd guess the other 3% are shills for oil and coal companies.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...termediate.htm (external - login to view)

[QUOTE=Wake;2429176]
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

Why gave you done a rapid side-step away from the questions I asked? What are YOU willing to do?

Also we aren't talking about "pollution" which you also plainly do not understand. Your entire rants on here have been about AGW and not pollution until cornered.

This isn't some sort of joke. YOU are the one claiming that "man" is destroying the atmosphere and so what YOU personally are willing to do to help prevent this is of utmost importance.

Do you want an intelligent exchange of ideas or do you just want to exchange insults? Your latest post adds nothing to the discussion and quite frankly I'm a little tired of having a "discussion" with someone who immediately resorts to insults when he can't prove his point any other way. I've stated my point of view - now try to find something wrong with it.
 
Wake
#80
[QUOTE=Bar Sinister;2429408]Where did you get that made up number? Oh, let me guess you did a personal survey of all climatologists. Here's my number. I'd guess the other 3% are shills for oil and coal companies.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...termediate.htm (external - login to view)

Quote: Originally Posted by WakeView Post


Do you want an intelligent exchange of ideas or do you just want to exchange insults? Your latest post adds nothing to the discussion and quite frankly I'm a little tired of having a "discussion" with someone who immediately resorts to insults when he can't prove his point any other way. I've stated my point of view - now try to find something wrong with it.

I have several times given you a reference: Climate Change: No, It (external - login to view)

You COULD have actually read the his review of the problems but apparently since it isn't directly from NOAA you've decided it isn't worthwhile.
 
petros
+2
#81
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

Where did you get that made up number? Oh, let me guess you did a personal survey of all climatologists. Here's my number. I'd guess the other 3% are shills for oil and coal companies.

www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...arming-crisis/ (external - login to view)



Only 53% Of Climatologists & Meteorologists, 36% Of Engineers & Geoscientists, 19% Of Agronomists Are ‘Consensus’ Believers (external - login to view)

Americans’ beliefs about climate change were recently surveyed by the Pew Research Center, and the results were made public a few days ago. Pew pollsters found that a combined 51% of Americans agree that (a) there is no clear evidence the Earth is warming, or (b) natural factors are the main cause of climate changes. Therefore, just 48% of Americans believe the Earth is getting warmer, and this warming is mostly caused by humans. This belief percentage has essentially remained unchanged for the last 10 years.

Of course, the presupposition underpinning this opinion question is the claim that upwards of 97% climate scientists — translated into “almost all” for the Pew survey — believe that climate changes since the mid-20th century have been mostly (i.e., more than 50%) caused by humans. This oft-cited 97% figure was derived from a subjective abstract-counting exercise conducted by “Skeptical Science” blogger John Cook and colleagues (Cook et al., 2013, “Quantifying the Consensus…”). Selected abstracts from 11,944 scientific papers published between 1991 and 2011 were used for the sample size, and of those papers just 65 (0.5% of the 11,944) were classified by Cook and his fellow raters as endorsing the specified Category 1 position that “Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming” (Legates et al., 2013). This wouldn’t do, of course. So, to ultimately reach the 97% endorsement percentage the Cook team had set out to obtain in the first place, they intentionally combined the (65) Category 1 quantified “consensus” statement papers with the (934) Category 2 and (2,933) Category 3 endorsement papers that only needed to state (2) or just imply (3) that humans are a cause of climate changes. These Category 2 and 3 papers did not quantify the contribution or indicate humans are a primary (>50%) cause of climate change, but they were nonetheless combined with Category 1 papers anyway.

Of course, nearly all scientists would agree that a human contribution greater than 0% exists, or that humans can be a cause — however modest — of some degree of climate change. So by combining the very high endorsement rates from Categories 2 and 3 (that even most skeptics acknowledge, as they agree humans contribute to climate change to some degree) with the negligibly small endorsement rates for Category 1 (just 65 papers), and by excluding many hundreds of papers from consideration that were published by scientists questioning the theory, Cook et al. (2013) were ultimately able to get away with proclaiming that 97% of scientists believe that climate changes since 1950 have mostly been caused by humans.

But as the evidence from the Pew survey indicates, despite their best efforts, John Cook and cohorts have not been able to convince the general public that subjective abstract-counting exercises are a sound or scientific means to gauge “consensus.” As mentioned, only 27% of Americans believe that “almost all” (i.e., 97%) climate scientists maintain the belief that humans are the primary cause of changes in the climate system. Not only that, just 28% Americans agree that climate scientists even understand (“very well”) what factors cause climate changes.

And Americans may be right. According to analysis found in the peer-reviewed scientific literature (Prokopy et al., 2015, Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012, Stenhouse et al., 2016), surveys of professional climatologists, engineers, geologists, and agronomists indicate that the percentage of these scientists who believe that changes in the climate system are primarily caused by humans falls abysmally short of the claimed 97%. In fact, these studies reveal that only 53% of climatologists and meteorologists, 36% of professional engineers and geoscientists, and 19% of agronomists believe that changes in the climate system are mostly human-caused.

53% Of Climatologists Believe, 19% Of Agronomists Believe

In a survey of Midwest-based climatologists and agronomists (here called “extension educators” who have “at least a Masters degree” in agronomic sciences), just 53% of climatologists and 19.2% of agronomists believe that changes in the climate system are primarily caused by humans.

Prokopy et al., 2015

Ninety-Seven Percent Bunk

To summarize, the American public is about as likely to believe that climate changes are mostly caused by humans as are meteorologists and climatologists (48% vs. 53%, respectively). And Americans in general are much more likely to believe that humans are the primary cause of climate changes as professionals trained in the physical sciences: 48% of U.S. citizens are believers, whereas ~20-35% of professionals with physical science degrees (engineers, Earth scientists, agronomists) are believers.

To put it non-delicately, the claim that “almost all” scientists (i.e., 97%) believe that most changes in the climate system are caused by humans is … bunk.

And most Americans already knew that.

- See more at: Only 53% Of Climatologists & Meteorologists, 36% Of Engineers & Geoscientists, 19% Of Agronomists Are ‘Consensus’ Believers (external - login to view)
 
MHz
#82
If there was a quest to keep the population as poor as possible this would help in a big way. I'm a big fan of produce the electricity yo need onsite for an emergency situation. The extra power would come from large power plants near the industrial centers. Rural would be produce what you need when maxed out running all the devices you have. That is still pretty small by today\s standards. Solar roof panel on the sunny-side of the roof and herbal garden on the shady side. Having a shop/barn in the rurals would give you 220AC power for time periods you set as you spin up the weight and let go of the clutch. The falling chain type holds the most potential IMO. Try ordering 400 ft of anchor chain suitable tug boat from ACME and see how much paperwork would be involved. You could probably use a belt drive and hang the pots that you grow your herbs in and enough heavy pots you end up with the same weight as the anchor chain and no shipping charges.
 
petros
+1
#83
Research "cuckoo clock" weights.
 
Cliffy
+1
#84




 
petros
+1
#85
What's your point Lumpy?
 
Bar Sinister
#86
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...arming-crisis/
Only 53% Of Climatologists & Meteorologists, 36% Of Engineers & Geoscientists, 19% Of Agronomists Are ‘Consensus’ Believers
Americans’ beliefs about climate change were recently surveyed by the Pew Research Center, and the results were made public a few days ago. Pew pollsters found that a combined 51% of Americans agree that (a) there is no clear evidence the Earth is warming, or (b) natural factors are the main cause of climate changes. Therefore, just 48% of Americans believe the Earth is getting warmer, and this warming is mostly caused by humans. This belief percentage has essentially remained unchanged for the last 10 years.
Of course, the presupposition underpinning this opinion question is the claim that upwards of 97% climate scientists — translated into “almost all” for the Pew survey — believe that climate changes since the mid-20th century have been mostly (i.e., more than 50%) caused by humans. This oft-cited 97% figure was derived from a...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post

Wow, that's a long answer. But I don't trust posts from people who do not understand the chemistry of combustion.

[QUOTE=Wake;2429626]
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

Where did you get that made up number? Oh, let me guess you did a personal survey of all climatologists. Here's my number. I'd guess the other 3% are shills for oil and coal companies.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...termediate.htm (external - login to view)


I have several times given you a reference: Climate Change: No, It (external - login to view)

You COULD have actually read the his review of the problems but apparently since it isn't directly from NOAA you've decided it isn't worthwhile.


Sorry I don't respond well to news site supported by the coal and oil industry. Try posting some real science not something made up by some right wing "expert."
 
Bar Sinister
#87
[QUOTE=Wake;2429626]
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

Where did you get that made up number? Oh, let me guess you did a personal survey of all climatologists. Here's my number. I'd guess the other 3% are shills for oil and coal companies.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...termediate.htm (external - login to view)


I have several times given you a reference: Climate Change: No, It (external - login to view)

You COULD have actually read the his review of the problems but apparently since it isn't directly from NOAA you've decided it isn't worthwhile.


Why don't you use this as a source? It is just as reliable as your others.

New York AG: Rex Tillerson Used An Email Alias at Exxon | Time.com (external - login to view)
Last edited by Bar Sinister; 1 week ago at 03:03 AM..Reason: spelling
 
EagleSmack
+1
#88
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Canadian mining companies are among the worst human rights violators operating in third world countries. They hire goons and beat, and murder indigenous peoples for trying to protect their land and water. Makes ya proud to be Canadian, eh. Bunch of scum bags.

Indigenous people's land LOL

They could give two sh*ts

This is how they treat their land when the cameras are gone.

 
Wake
#89
[QUOTE=Bar Sinister;2429882]
Quote: Originally Posted by WakeView Post



Why don't you use this as a source? It is just as reliable as your others.

New York AG: Rex Tillerson Used An Email Alias at Exxon | Time.com (external - login to view)

Do you know what just happened? The FINAL American solar cell company just went bankrupt because they are so efficient and useful. They even bounced the paychecks of the worker's final pay. Though they claim they'll make good on it.

These are the same people that were installing rooftop solar cells and had ALL of these claims that their electric bills had fallen to zero. These are also the same people calling me up to install them on my roof in order to drop my $200 electric bill to zero. Until the latest electric cost increase I was paying $20 month. So who could POSSIBLY be paying $200 and what would they be using it for?

Tell you what, when you HAVE no access to solar power how do you intend to use it?
 
Curious Cdn
#90
[QUOTE=Wake;2431730]
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

Do you know what just happened? The FINAL American solar cell company just went bankrupt because they are so efficient and useful. They even bounced the paychecks of the worker's final pay. Though they claim they'll make good on it.

These are the same people that were installing rooftop solar cells and had ALL of these claims that their electric bills had fallen to zero. These are also the same people calling me up to install them on my roof in order to drop my $200 electric bill to zero. Until the latest electric cost increase I was paying $20 month. So who could POSSIBLY be paying $200 and what would they be using it for?

Tell you what, when you HAVE no access to solar power how do you intend to use it?

Was it another Trump company, by any chance?
 

Similar Threads

18
Green Energy Bust
by EagleSmack | Jun 7th, 2016
34
Greens vs Green Energy
by Locutus | Aug 13th, 2012
5
Green Energy Act
by scoops11 | Jun 12th, 2009
no new posts