would he support revenue neutral carbon tax
says biologists know no more about climate than he does. biologists know more aboyt phsyics and chemistry.
aim to say climate change is not so bad. that countering it would hurt the economy
that we can set up nuclear power stations instead. why not for iran?
lukewarm climate change. uncharacteristic
”carbon emissions can make the world warmer.” can?
surreptitious – put in doubt.
”varies place to place. ” but sea will rise.
”create new taxes without cutting taxes.” the man suggested revenue neutral.
begins with many questions. on effects
data unreliable. big study in Britain data falsified. did not name it. falsified in which direction?
big oil paid for studies to favour it.
”a solution to the problem that does not involce killing of millions of human beings.”
who suggested that?
denial is apt it is a scientific fact.
there are solutions. carbon reduction.
cars, planes house, AC.
”gradual rise of sea level is going to kill millions of people” left idea
dishonorable to suggest anyone said that.
climate change can kill through hunger,
cities move. fertile land.
climate change is probably happening? irrefutable that it is happening.
methodology may be flawed. different impact in different lands
take a gun into woods if bear might be there
take a tank into the woods. misleading comparison
we know climate change is happening. beyond argument.
data may be inaccurate. datate is forever changing to wait
we have an avalanche of data. we capture so mant statistics.
no single datum sums it up.
climate scientists been compoling data for years.
cost. think of that.
”cost of energy passed on to consumer leaving people in poverty”
but he does not care about penury
guilt trip people about trying to save the planet.
use less energy. insulation, public transport.
could be subsidies. coal is subsidised.
overreaction he says.
but other positive benefits.
”lower standard of living” but it will improve quality of life
population movement os a solution. he opposes that. but there will be less land as population grows.
sneaky in overlooking overcrowding.
”free market will curb this on its own”
”hard left position is take over anything” choice is not trinary. he said there were three positions
pull the wolol over peoples eyes by talking aboyt the left
look at left govts in india, china, N Korea
people beguiled by self belief
no applause lines to make his admirers ululate with glee
”lower global stanrd of living” to cope with climate change
what is standard of living? air quality. noise pollution. green space. traffic jams.
he does not care aboyt standard of living of most people
blind faith that free market will sort it out in 100 years
by that time problem will be much worse.
free market will chase $.
he calls marxit utopia. true
but he has his capitalist utopia.
leftists need a cause. he has his causes zionims. puritanism.
scorns leftists thinking they are moral and virtuous.
”drag your parents and kill them in the gulag” left wing attitude. oversimplifies.
overlooks US detention camp Guantanamo.
sloganizing about MAGA. reliable way to get cheers
family buzz word.
gulls them by talking about miraloity
presents opposing argumentation as intrinsically laughable.
do not dignify with answer.
unwethy of discussion.
logical arguments are difficult to construct.
even more challenging . time consuming to explicate.