U of R professor Jim Warren asks on Pipeline Online: Can supporters of a rational, economically-feasible transition to renewable energy reasonably hope to convince enough policy makers and members of the public that the overly zealous goals of dogmatic environmentalists are irrational and potentially dangerous?
there is no rational, economically-feasible transition to misnamed “renewable” energy available, it’s all rent seeking and forced mandates
^^^That^^^
As long as we all understand the basic math, which clearly tells us that wind and solar are not “renewable” with the present collection methods
H
If they fail at electrical generation, if food production fails, if people freeze in the winter, will gov’t be held to account?
No, I don’t mean defeated in an election, to be replaced by another group which says “we’ll do this better” …
I mean, will people hang?
If there are no real repercussions to failure, why would there be for those who refuse to go along with this idiocy from the start?
There will be no accountability, they write the rules and are the sole determinants of violations. Miraculously, they are never wrong and should it look that way, it will be ignored.
WROL. Without rule of law.
We are subjects of the rule of dictat.
Subjects are not always compliant.
That article makes some very good reasoned arguments. Its true about information silos and how each side is stuck in its own silo. He’s right the support for reasoned use of fossil fuels needs to get its act together and start communicating in more effective ways. We have let the idealogues and zealots hold the microphone for too long. There are still reasonable people out there who need to hear a rational message and who can still be convinced not to fall for the hysteria.
Can supporters of a rational, economically-feasible transition to renewable energy reasonably hope to convince enough policy makers and members of the public that the overly zealous goals of dogmatic environmentalists are irrational and potentially dangerous?
Spot the contradiction…win a prize.
You don’t need logic, or reason, or even achievable goals when you’re talking about religion. The Trinity of Progressivism is global warming, diversity, and totalitarian public health. You already have the last two in Canada. One more and you’ll all be believers, or else.
The frozen dead will require no health care. Just a backhoe. Electrically powered, of course.
What transition?
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/26/opec-says-oil-demand-will-hit-110-million-barrels-per-day-in-2045.html?__source=iosappshare%7Ccom.apple.UIKit.activity.Mail
Warren makes an interesting point about information silos. I have asked multiple journalists, in email exchanges, if they have ever read any of the “contrarian” articles on JoNova.com, wattsupwitthat.com, judithcurry.com, etc. They never, EVER say they have. Never.
No. Next question. And “will anybody face any repercussions for being so gloriously wrong about Covid” isn’t actually a different question, it’s the same question.
From the lead-in [typo alert]:
“Can supporters of
a rational, economically-feasible transition to renewable energyunicorns, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy […]”There. Fixed the typo. Should have had an editor review that piece for spelling.