Your boy JT did that already. Carney is just trying to undo the damage.Carney is killing Canadian cred at these talks.
Your boy JT did that already. Carney is just trying to undo the damage.Carney is killing Canadian cred at these talks.
I don't think it's really that complicated and intricate as you describe, I just honestly think he doesn't careCarney must know something about climate change
he doesn't want to disclose to his climate sheeple
supporters. He might have decided that it is inevitable
the world would be destroyed by impending climate
catastrophe after his term is over. It is only for good
measure to promote fossil fuel to improve our living
standard before we finally face the doom.
You have been informed multiple times that renewables do not have a snowballs chance in hell of displacing fossil fuel on any meaningful scale
go sit in the corner.
Your boy JT did that already. Carney is just trying to undo the damage.
you always post misleading bullshit![]()
Gasoline-0nly Cars are less than Half new Car Sales Globally for 1st Time since 1920s
Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) - China Daily reports from Mobility Global that in the first half of 2026, gas...www.juancole.com
you always post misleading bullshit
AI Overview
Approximately 5% of the total global car stock is electrified. [1]
That post was about sales, not existing stock.
Apples and oranges, larue.
You do love a bait and switch.
China Daily reports from Mobility Global that in the first half of 2026, gasoline-only automobiles accounted for less than half, 49%, of new car sales throughout the world. Zhou Shuchun points out that while the early Model T had competition from electric and steam-driven cars, since the internal combustion engine became dominant in the 1920s, this is the first time its sales have fallen to less than half the market.
Why use the term reality and AI in the same sentence when AI, yes even the AI Overview, is consistently wrong and pulls from sources just as incorrect as the ones you're arguing against?
That's not the point I'm arguing. Using AI overview which is consistently wrong is the issue. Sure you posted two sources I don't disagree with, if anything I disagree with that ChinaDaily article that reads like a propaganda piece.there are two separate references citied by AI
prove them incorrect or say nothing
That's not the point I'm arguing. Using AI overview which is consistently wrong is the issue. Sure you posted two sources I don't disagree with, if anything I disagree with that ChinaDaily article that reads like a propaganda piece.
there are two separate references citied by AI
prove them incorrect or say nothing