35 ms·
This is where the guy loses me: "then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats" and "increase ene
by eagsalazar2 13y ago
This is where the guy loses me: "then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats" and "increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good"
As if he gives a crap about poor people. People freeze not because of energy policies but because we have poor social welfare and exploitive foreign policy that itself is motivated by self serving right wingers who are exactly the people denying global warming. Pretending to care about the poor to make this point is frankly disgusting.
- baddox 13y agoYou lost me. Where does the author make the claims that you appear to be disputing?
- siriam 13y agoDoes your ctrl+f not work? Both of those quotes were in the sixth paragraph.
- baddox 13y agoThe quotes don't make the claims that were being disputed.
- huxley 13y agoHere are the two paragraphs in question: "And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats. I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like “most warming since the 1950s is human caused” or '97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming', neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good."
- MaysonL 13y agoHow about cheap and prosperity-inducing energy policies? Like weatherproofing, energy efficiency appliance standards, energy efficiency building codes, fuel efficiency auto standards, etc., etc.?
- pringles885 13y agoLink to people freezing to death? I could name you far more deaths in crime-ridden Detroit, which has been run by left wingers for 50 years.