BBC: What Happened to Global Warming?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.

url


Yeah I like that joke Monckton uses. "The greens are too yellow to admit they're a bunch of reds." :wink:

I agree with Krauthammer because I actually met reds in university that shamelessly used the erroneous hockey stick graph and I could see how it fit with their ideology. Then when you look at the U.N. which everyone knows is corrupt (oil for food scandal for eg.) it doesn't take much to connect the dots of self-interest. Then you get the usual suspects of protestors that protest green initiatives but also every other left-wing initiative. Then you add people like Bono getting annoyed that his cause might compete with Al Gore's. Then they managed to work that out by having money available to alleviate poverty and fight the results of climate change at the same time.

At this point so many left-wing interests are aligned except for industry. Then the argument was to attack self-interest on the energy industries by dividing and conquering. The problem though was that the energy industry provides cheaper energy than the green technologies can so you couldn't divide the consumers (who need cheaper energy) from the suppliers. Now we are at a point in a big recession where the average person with some basic intellect and self-interest realize that as long as green energy is too expensive it will not be in their interests to protest fossil fuels because any taxes will be passed on in higher electricity bills. Unless green energy is cheaper it won't completely take over and when it is cheaper we will freely adopt it in the market.

Then you add people who stand to make billions like Al Gore and others affiliated with the U.N. (and Wall Street traders) and the public can tell that some are going to increase their standard of living (and carbon footprint) at the expense of a shrinking middle class. How do you grow an economy and create jobs for young people with more expensive energy? When you are trying to save for retirement extra electricity bills or carbon taxes will make that financial freedom less achievable and also leaves less money to spend on other products so the standard of living would have to reduce.

Marxists like to use the term 'praxis' on how to make their theories into reality and with free societies in the world there is always a place to defect to. Yet if there are world taxes and a world currency, then you can't escape any financial abuse, that's why Marxists need monopolistic control over capital and energy control is the most comprehensive way possible to achieve their 'praxis' to experiment in social engineering with no escape.

Yes, there's that word again, socialism. And the same people that object to it and call it a boogeyman argument will be the same people that argue in favor of a government run health care system in this forum. Bet ya.

Boy you are right about this. This is another tactic that actually is very successful. This is how they want the ignorant public to view conservatives:

YouTube - Monty Python - Rant Against Communists

Nevermind that communists still run countries and abuse people today. Nevermind that China is now using the Copenhagen talks to ostracize the Dalai Lama.

Denmark Trades Dalai Lama for Climate Treaty | CFACT Europe

I suppose the term communist though is outdated because it never was, or could be, achieved. It's a dreamy mental abstraction. All 'communism' is, is a fight between statism and democracy. There are different kinds of statism but more inequality is a result no matter the claims or goals with good intentions. Whether it is facist, communist, absolutist, monarchy, or religious dictatorship it ends up being all the same. Those who are on top are always right and those on the bottom are politically incorrect.

At least Monty Python believes in equal opportunity potshots:

YouTube - Monty Python Communist Quiz sketch
 
purpleoscar, is this like a religion to you or something? It's actually starting to disturb me, this level of devotion of yours.
 
at the end of the day, the anti-climate change folks are simply anti-intellectuals.

don't want those eggheads telling me how to live my life. you don't know me. i do what i want.
 
RealClearPolitics - The Climate-Change Travesty (George Will)

Consider the sociology of science, the push and pull of interests, incentives, appetites and passions. Governments' attempts to manipulate Earth's temperature now comprise one of the world's largest industries. Tens of billions of dollars are being dispensed, as by the U.S. Energy Department, which has suddenly become, in effect, a huge venture capital operation, speculating in green technologies. Political, commercial, academic and journalistic prestige and advancement can be contingent on not disrupting the (postulated) consensus that is propelling the gigantic and fabulously lucrative industry of combating global warming.

Copenhagen also is prologue for the 2010 climate change summit in Mexico City, which will be planet Earth's last chance, until the next one.
 
purpleoscar, is this like a religion to you or something? It's actually starting to disturb me, this level of devotion of yours.

It's a pet peeve since university. That Anthropology teacher got under my skin with that bloody hockey stick graph and her manipulation of immigrants in the class and the envy she was stoking against the west. I also had a teacher that was even worse (because he pretended to like capitalism) who marked political opinions in business ethics class (who the fuck marks opinions? only knowledge about the subject should be marked) and gave fives to conservatives and nines to socialists. I found out later on the internet an article he posted in which he called capitalism pathological and that we should eliminate borrowing and lending (because he was a Catholic socialist). If we eliminated borrowing and lending money COMPLETELY and call it usary we would be in the middle ages. I had to write like a socialist to pick my mark up to a 7 (of course he knew I was lying and he probably took pleasure in it). I then told a friend of mine who was going to take the course next and I told him to just regurgitate everything the instructor said and he got a 9. :D Though he had a intimidated pasty face look afterwards. Going through a class like that is like going through a proctology exam. The instructor was so smooth that he would lower his voice very low to make it harder to hear him and much harder to respond to his ideas. If you raised your hand he would never allow you a response. You had to shout it out and you had to have him look in your direction. It was also smart at the beginning to say openly that he likes capitalism and thought it was a part of human nature so he could make conservatives trust him. Once he targeted you then there was NO chance you would get a nine in the class.

Since then I've always had mistrust left-wing intellectuals. They know the humanities (with a Marxist perspective of course) very well but when it comes to politics and economics they can't be taken seriously. I think the religious fervor of these kind of instructors is much more disturbing than my point of view. I would never bash a socialist student or even allow my point of view to become front and center in a class like that. NAZI sympathizer instructors are considered intolerable but Communist sympathizers I guess mean well so we must tolerate them. I'll never understand that double standard. I even remember my history teacher said he went to the Soviet Union and didn't find anything wrong there. :doh:

Maybe American schools are different or I was unlucky but I doubt it. My nieces are 4 and 6 and they are already talking about how good Obama is and how much better than Bush he is. What the hell do 4 and 6 year old girls know about politics and economics? They should be learning how to READ.
 
It's a pet peeve since university. That Anthropology teacher got under my skin with that bloody hockey stick graph and her manipulation of immigrants in the class and the envy she was stoking against the west. I also had a teacher that was even worse (because he pretended to like capitalism) who marked political opinions in business ethics class (who the fuck marks opinions? only knowledge about the subject should be marked) and gave fives to conservatives and nines to socialists. I found out later on the internet an article he posted in which he called capitalism pathological and that we should eliminate borrowing and lending (because he was a Catholic socialist). If we eliminated borrowing and lending money COMPLETELY and call it usary we would be in the middle ages. I had to write like a socialist to pick my mark up to a 7 (of course he knew I was lying and he probably took pleasure in it). I then told a friend of mine who was going to take the course next and I told him to just regurgitate everything the instructor said and he got a 9. :D Though he had a intimidated pasty face look afterwards. Going through a class like that is like going through a proctology exam. The instructor was so smooth that he would lower his voice very low to make it harder to hear him and much harder to respond to his ideas. If you raised your hand he would never allow you a response. You had to shout it out and you had to have him look in your direction. It was also smart at the beginning to say openly that he likes capitalism and thought it was a part of human nature so he could make conservatives trust him. Once he targeted you then there was NO chance you would get a nine in the class.

Since then I've always had mistrust left-wing intellectuals. They know the humanities (with a Marxist perspective of course) very well but when it comes to politics and economics they can't be taken seriously. I think the religious fervor of these kind of instructors is much more disturbing than my point of view. I would never bash a socialist student or even allow my point of view to become front and center in a class like that. NAZI sympathizer instructors are considered intolerable but Communist sympathizers I guess mean well so we must tolerate them. I'll never understand that double standard. I even remember my history teacher said he went to the Soviet Union and didn't find anything wrong there. :doh:

Maybe American schools are different or I was unlucky but I doubt it. My nieces are 4 and 6 and they are already talking about how good Obama is and how much better than Bush he is. What the hell do 4 and 6 year old girls know about politics and economics? They should be learning how to READ.

Good God could you engage in any more stereotypes in one post?

This completely misplaced suspicion that there are Marxists and Communists around every corner trying to brainwash unsuspecting people and take over the world is dumbfounding.
 
Last edited:
Maybe American schools are different or I was unlucky but I doubt it.

Um, I attended two top Canadian universities (one for undergrad, one for law) and frankly never experienced what you're talking about. In undergrad, I have no idea what leanings any of my science profs had (didn't come up) and the few social science/humanities courses I took really didn't contain political proselytizing either, except maybe in seminar discussions and the sources of that were students. In law school, I was mostly surrounded by right-wing corporate types, I'm sure you would have enjoyed that immensely. Except the two corporate tax professors who were decidedly leftist and an unexpected breath of fresh air.

No idea where you went to school but frankly I've never come across anyone else who had an experience quite like yours...
 
It's a pet peeve since university. That Anthropology teacher got under my skin with that bloody hockey stick graph and her manipulation of immigrants in the class and the envy she was stoking against the west. I also had a teacher that was even worse (because he pretended to like capitalism) who marked political opinions in business ethics class (who the fuck marks opinions? only knowledge about the subject should be marked) and gave fives to conservatives and nines to socialists. I found out later on the internet an article he posted in which he called capitalism pathological and that we should eliminate borrowing and lending (because he was a Catholic socialist). If we eliminated borrowing and lending money COMPLETELY and call it usary we would be in the middle ages. I had to write like a socialist to pick my mark up to a 7 (of course he knew I was lying and he probably took pleasure in it). I then told a friend of mine who was going to take the course next and I told him to just regurgitate everything the instructor said and he got a 9. :D Though he had a intimidated pasty face look afterwards. Going through a class like that is like going through a proctology exam. The instructor was so smooth that he would lower his voice very low to make it harder to hear him and much harder to respond to his ideas. If you raised your hand he would never allow you a response. You had to shout it out and you had to have him look in your direction. It was also smart at the beginning to say openly that he likes capitalism and thought it was a part of human nature so he could make conservatives trust him. Once he targeted you then there was NO chance you would get a nine in the class.

Since then I've always had mistrust left-wing intellectuals. They know the humanities (with a Marxist perspective of course) very well but when it comes to politics and economics they can't be taken seriously. I think the religious fervor of these kind of instructors is much more disturbing than my point of view. I would never bash a socialist student or even allow my point of view to become front and center in a class like that. NAZI sympathizer instructors are considered intolerable but Communist sympathizers I guess mean well so we must tolerate them. I'll never understand that double standard. I even remember my history teacher said he went to the Soviet Union and didn't find anything wrong there. :doh:

Maybe American schools are different or I was unlucky but I doubt it. My nieces are 4 and 6 and they are already talking about how good Obama is and how much better than Bush he is. What the hell do 4 and 6 year old girls know about politics and economics? They should be learning how to READ.

I look at shit like this, and I look at how you usually construct your arguments on this topic and it's very clear that you look at the extreme right's party line first/ your wallet and then you look for science to back that up. You go at it completely backwards. It's a conformist/ party sheep mentality. Most free thinkers that have graduated middle school science would find a lot of your "science" completely laughable. But then you make a post like this and I have to wonder if you're just a character, or are there still people your age that honestly believe this paranoid stereotype crap... I'm hoping for your sake you're just an elaborate character and you've been pulling our leg this whole time.
 
It's a pet peeve since university. That Anthropology teacher got under my skin with that bloody hockey stick graph and her manipulation of immigrants in the class and the envy she was stoking against the west. I also had a teacher that was even worse (because he pretended to like capitalism) who marked political opinions in business ethics class (who the fuck marks opinions? only knowledge about the subject should be marked) and gave fives to conservatives and nines to socialists. I found out later on the internet an article he posted in which he called capitalism pathological and that we should eliminate borrowing and lending (because he was a Catholic socialist). If we eliminated borrowing and lending money COMPLETELY and call it usary we would be in the middle ages. I had to write like a socialist to pick my mark up to a 7 (of course he knew I was lying and he probably took pleasure in it). I then told a friend of mine who was going to take the course next and I told him to just regurgitate everything the instructor said and he got a 9. :D Though he had a intimidated pasty face look afterwards. Going through a class like that is like going through a proctology exam. The instructor was so smooth that he would lower his voice very low to make it harder to hear him and much harder to respond to his ideas. If you raised your hand he would never allow you a response. You had to shout it out and you had to have him look in your direction. It was also smart at the beginning to say openly that he likes capitalism and thought it was a part of human nature so he could make conservatives trust him. Once he targeted you then there was NO chance you would get a nine in the class.

Since then I've always had mistrust left-wing intellectuals. They know the humanities (with a Marxist perspective of course) very well but when it comes to politics and economics they can't be taken seriously. I think the religious fervor of these kind of instructors is much more disturbing than my point of view. I would never bash a socialist student or even allow my point of view to become front and center in a class like that. NAZI sympathizer instructors are considered intolerable but Communist sympathizers I guess mean well so we must tolerate them. I'll never understand that double standard. I even remember my history teacher said he went to the Soviet Union and didn't find anything wrong there. :doh:

Maybe American schools are different or I was unlucky but I doubt it. My nieces are 4 and 6 and they are already talking about how good Obama is and how much better than Bush he is. What the hell do 4 and 6 year old girls know about politics and economics? They should be learning how to READ.

This pretty much renders all of your posts useless.
 
Good God could you engage in any more stereotypes in one post?

This completely misplaced suspicion that there are Marxists and Communists around every corner trying to brainwash unsuspecting people and take over the world is dumbfounding.

Why would it be a stereotype if they weren't hiding it? Look at Chavez. Even moderate liberals would have to admit he's a communist. BTW I didn't say they were around the corner. There are people who benefit from statism (hello the U.N.) so I don't think what I'm saying should be a shock. Naomi Klein is capable of selling books so there is some popular constituency.

And this is proof of what to you? That their teachers are socialists?

Puhhhhleeeeze.

:lol: Who are you fooling? Kids being pushed to like Obama (even singing about him in the U.S. :huh:) is an eyebrow raiser at least.

Um, I attended two top Canadian universities (one for undergrad, one for law) and frankly never experienced what you're talking about. In undergrad, I have no idea what leanings any of my science profs had (didn't come up) and the few social science/humanities courses I took really didn't contain political proselytizing either, except maybe in seminar discussions and the sources of that were students. In law school, I was mostly surrounded by right-wing corporate types, I'm sure you would have enjoyed that immensely. Except the two corporate tax professors who were decidedly leftist and an unexpected breath of fresh air.

No idea where you went to school but frankly I've never come across anyone else who had an experience quite like yours...

I had a sociology teacher that was open Marxist as well but he was actually fair in the marking of our tests (marking knowledge not opinion) but the rest I described were bad. The only conservatives I met were in economics class (of course). Humanities is a different breed. If you people had different experiences then that's great but I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one with similar complaints. The anthropology and sociology professors explained that the Soviet Union was a disaster but they said that it wasn't done properly in Russia and that western industrialized economies were better places to experiment. Feudalism to Capitalism to Socialism to dictatorship of the proletariat to Communism is their prefered method. Jumping from feudalism to dictatorship is how they view the Russian mistake.

There was also complaints from prior students because others made the same accusations of them and the anthropology teacher felt a little muzzled ("I would love to talk about Marx but I'm not supposed to") and then she would continue to anyways. It would be hard to get us to read Anthropology papers without some radical opinions. I don't see how she can avoid it completely. In Sociology (I mean there wouldn't be a Sociology class without Marx) I knew what to expect but I wanted to avoid Drama class since that seemed more excruciating. Though I had to laugh when he blared Grateful Dead music at the break which irritated the students more by them not wanting to hear their "parents music" than politics. :lol: He also was funny when he made us pay for the paper to print out the syllabus, because he wanted us to know that conservatives want to remove public funding for higher education. :D Of course my father's generation had it worse and I remember an economics professor recall when he was young and had a communist professor who gave the entire class 100% because he believed in equal outcomes. :lol: I think the radicalism in University was probably worse in the sixties when Communism was actually cool and many felt it was the future. Because of internet and conservative media some of the imbalance has been addressed at least.

Of course there was a positive. My last option course was Psychology which was endlessly interesting.

I look at shit like this, and I look at how you usually construct your arguments on this topic and it's very clear that you look at the extreme right's party line first/ your wallet and then you look for science to back that up. You go at it completely backwards. It's a conformist/ party sheep mentality. Most free thinkers that have graduated middle school science would find a lot of your "science" completely laughable. But then you make a post like this and I have to wonder if you're just a character, or are there still people your age that honestly believe this paranoid stereotype crap... I'm hoping for your sake you're just an elaborate character and you've been pulling our leg this whole time.

Jeez where do I start? First I'm not a conformist (why would I be on this site)? There are conservatives that I don't agree with or ones that call themselves conservative (Conrad Black) who are anything but. Secondly why shouldn't I care about my pocket book? How can someone have freedom if they don't have a surplus of income to control their lives. Even the most basic Bible story of Joseph and the fat and lean cows covers that. Saving money for most people isn't about being rich but being able to achieve a basic retirement and hopefully some savings for the next generation to keep a large middle class. The NDP (socialist party) in Canada wants to tax inheritance and my Political Science teacher wanted it completely confiscated. This is a pretty consistent view of the far left and in some countries today statists are a dominent force.

Your sheep argument could easily be pointed at Copenhagen protestors with red flags. :shrug: One thing about this site is I've learned to be more honest and independent minded precisely because I've exposed my opinions to ridicule and I can learn from my mistakes but also see where I'm going correctly. The current conservative forums arguments on climate change end up being trainwrecks reverting to pointless arguments of evolution vs. creation and yes there is some natural fear of statism (gee after the 20th century I wonder why?), but here you get to see the major divide between left and right. It's more interesting.

This pretty much renders all of your posts useless.

I'm pretty sure you haven't found any of my posts useful so I don't know how to respond. How about talking about how the left doesn't want dictatorship and what good goals the left has and how we shouldn't be fearful of more social programs and how we can afford them? That at least would be a start. Getting ridiculed over and over again for conservative opinions at first makes people naturally ashamed because no one likes ridicule but then it eventually looks like a strategy at stopping interesting conservation. Probably the only area I've seen in argument from the left on this site that has some weight is allowing homosexuals to marry, but when it comes to economics it dies off. Maybe it's a boring topic for some people, I don't know.

Closed minded and delusional... being honest about ignorance isn't a virtue.

Yeah anyone who doesn't tow the left-wing way has a mental problem. That's pretty much the reaction I expected from you. At least you are consistent. :up:
 
Secondly why shouldn't I care about my pocket book? How can someone have freedom if they don't have a surplus of income to control their lives. Even the most basic Bible story of Joseph and the fat and lean cows covers that. Saving money for most people isn't about being rich but being able to achieve a basic retirement and hopefully some savings for the next generation to keep a large middle class. The NDP (socialist party) in Canada wants to tax inheritance and my Political Science teacher wanted it completely confiscated. This is a pretty consistent view of the far left and in some countries today statists are a dominent force.

This is why you are hard to take seriously, you just don't get it, even the most basic of reading comprehension you ignore. I didn't say caring about your own pocketbook is wrong, I said allowing that concern to dictate your approach to science is wrong. You are pocketbook first and then finding science to back up the stance that helps. This is what everyone in this forum is telling you, your approach to science is very very transparent. And it's why you fall for most of the junk you post, which is just truly bad science.
 
:lol: Who are you fooling? Kids being pushed to like Obama (even singing about him in the U.S. :huh:) is an eyebrow raiser at least.

Yes, because one isolated incident clearly proves a pattern.

I just think it's utterly ridiculous how you're linking all this to Communism and Socialism. Obama is not some big Socialist menace, and you do not have to be a socialist to think he's a much, much better president than Bush. Sharing your opinion of him with a classroom of students does not prove a Socialist conspiracy, either.

But I suppose it makes it more convenient to have a big bogeyman like "Communism!!!" or "Socialism!!!" to rally against.
 
This is why you are hard to take seriously, you just don't get it, even the most basic of reading comprehension you ignore. I didn't say caring about your own pocketbook is wrong, I said allowing that concern to dictate your approach to science is wrong. You are pocketbook first and then finding science to back up the stance that helps. This is what everyone in this forum is telling you, your approach to science is very very transparent. And it's why you fall for most of the junk you post, which is just truly bad science.

The reality is I'm looking at the claim of a consensus and I'm not seeing it, then I'm looking at the people who stand to make profits on something that has no consensus. I actually think that those scientific arguments against targeting C02 are becoming more and more credible and I dont see open-mindedness with the left at all:

YouTube - Climate denier Lord Monckton gets pwned!
So I guess those comments that the hockey stick graph bouncing around for years (like they don't mean much) is out the window now.

Yes, because one isolated incident clearly proves a pattern.

I just think it's utterly ridiculous how you're linking all this to Communism and Socialism. Obama is not some big Socialist menace, and you do not have to be a socialist to think he's a much, much better president than Bush. Sharing your opinion of him with a classroom of students does not prove a Socialist conspiracy, either.

But I suppose it makes it more convenient to have a big bogeyman like "Communism!!!" or "Socialism!!!" to rally against.

Actually there was more than one incident but that was simply what was caught on tape. The fact that in Canada my nieces are being taught this stuff without any basic context like reading, math, history is a problem. When they actually get old enough to start forming opinions on politics they shouldn't be steered one way or another. They should be taught the political spectrum and how laws get passed and the foundational knowledge so young people can actually judge for themselves.

There are worries elsewhere in government:

Big Hollywood � Blog Archive � EXPLOSIVE NEW AUDIO Reveals White House Using NEA to Push Partisan Agenda

So I don't think my concerns are completely unfounded.

Getting back to climate change you can add more using of the youth in divide and conquer tactics:

PlanetCall.org | Solution: Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri Asks Youth to Join PlanetCall.org

YouTube - ACTONCO2 "Bedtime Stories" TV advertisement, October 2009

And you can point out the ruthless use of polar bears in a gory commercial posted before to see that politicians like to use children before they have any ability to debate the issues.

Oh some of the usual suspects at Copenhagen. Do these guys get paid to protest everything? Where do they get the money to travel all over the world (spewing out C02) to protest C02?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN401-BFXOw
 
But I suppose it makes it more convenient to have a big bogeyman like "Communism!!!" or "Socialism!!!" to rally against.

Yes, there's that word again, socialism. And the same people that object to it and call it a boogeyman argument will be the same people that argue in favor of a government run health care system in this forum. Bet ya.
--Indy500

There's one.
 
I actually think that those scientific arguments against targeting C02 are becoming more and more credible and I dont see open-mindedness with the left at all:

Really? So that video you posted of the old man with his aquariums, you honestly think that's credible legit science?
 
I'm pretty sure you haven't found any of my posts useful so I don't know how to respond. How about talking about how the left doesn't want dictatorship and what good goals the left has and how we shouldn't be fearful of more social programs and how we can afford them? That at least would be a start. Getting ridiculed over and over again for conservative opinions at first makes people naturally ashamed because no one likes ridicule but then it eventually looks like a strategy at stopping interesting conservation. Probably the only area I've seen in argument from the left on this site that has some weight is allowing homosexuals to marry, but when it comes to economics it dies off. Maybe it's a boring topic for some people, I don't know.

...What? I have no idea what this talk about dictatorships is. But I laugh at the thought that it's me trying to stop interesting conversation.

Arguments with weight? I like to consider myself the most studied person on this site when it comes to the death penalty. I've actually done a tremendous amount of research on the subject.
 
Really? So that video you posted of the old man with his aquariums, you honestly think that's credible legit science?

That was a cheap video about C02 and its benefits but there are others who agree and they are scientists as well. They make more sense than the EPA calling greenhouse gases dangerous. They target C02 but by saying greenhouse gases they would have to include water vapour if they want to be scientific. Your response article simply said there was uncertainty which is hardly a doom and gloom mass extinction argument that is being bandied around. I posted a peer-reviewed (who cares?) ocean acidification abstract that showed that ocean acidification damage is also uncertain.

...What? I have no idea what this talk about dictatorships is. But I laugh at the thought that it's me trying to stop interesting conversation.

Arguments with weight? I like to consider myself the most studied person on this site when it comes to the death penalty. I've actually done a tremendous amount of research on the subject.

That's great but when it comes to economics and politics and especially this subject the main argument is appeal to authority which these emails have challenged.

Or there's this argument:

Copenhagen climate summit: Tony Blair calls on world leaders to ‘get moving’ - Telegraph

“It is said that the science around climate change is not as certain as its proponents allege. It doesn’t need to be. What is beyond debate, however, is that there is a huge amount of scientific support for the view that the climate is changing and as a result of human activity,” he said.

“Therefore, even purely as a matter of precaution, given the seriousness of the consequences if such a view is correct, and the time it will take for action to take effect, we should act. Not to do so would be grossly irresponsible.”

I think it makes more sense to wait the time we need to create better technologies and let the economies grow (especially in the 3rd world) and then naturally replace oil than to damage economies slightly while still increasing C02 and letting global governance a foot in the door.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom