pull down to refresh
If it is a stupid take you should be capable of responding to it directly and here, rather than demanding readers go to some other source for your claimed logical response...and thus denying this thread sequential reasoning and right of response.
Put your response here where it can form a logical and sequential chain of reason- or admit by default you are incapable of such sequential and good faith contest of ideas.
You don’t do anyone any favours by calling someone’s contribution ‘stupid’. You started this thread, discuss and debate.
Here you go, friends
If it is a stupid take you should be capable of responding to it directly and here, rather than demanding readers go to some other source for your claimed logical response...and thus denying this thread sequential reasoning and right of response. Put your response here where it can form a logical and sequential chain of reason- or admit by default you are incapable of such sequential and good faith contest of ideas.
Looks like you are incapable of sequential contest of ideas Here On This Thread. So that anyone following this post can decide the merits or otherwise for themselves within this thread. Do it here...or concede by default you cannot.
This is a stupid take, sir.
Happy to flush out the nuances in a stand-alone post.
For now, you're welcome to look at some of my writing on the topic https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/climate-catastrophism-and-a-sensible-environmentalism/
https://humanprogress.org/wealth-and-technology-can-overcome-natures-wrath/