Read the comments in the Wall Street Journal and it’s 100 times as bad.
This should have been a warning to people a decade ago that we weren’t going to do enough to solve the problem.
One group goes to one extreme trying to shame people into not flying, for example. While the other extreme undoes policy that tries to reduce emissions.
They had to shut down some nuclear reactors in 2019 in Norway because the ocean water was too warm. Nuclear requires a highly organized society to function. Nuclear is a huge risk since it's getting more probable our societies will collapse in the future. Who will maintain these nuclear power plants when people struggle to feed themselves? We need to start winding down our consumption, not replace it with nuclear power.
You have, quite expectedly, completely failed to grasp my point.
Our perspectives on this topic could not be more diametrically opposed.
Perhaps your epistemology needs a checkup? How many other things have you read that fundamentally disagree with you, yet you have incorrectly inferred they did not?
Please don't make the thread even worse by breaking the site guidelines yourself. Personal attacks, in particular, are not welcome here. Nor is flamewar perpetuation.
Read the comments in the Wall Street Journal and it’s 100 times as bad.
This should have been a warning to people a decade ago that we weren’t going to do enough to solve the problem.
One group goes to one extreme trying to shame people into not flying, for example. While the other extreme undoes policy that tries to reduce emissions.
When do we start drilling in Alaska?