I've been reading it and finding it very interesting, informative and well researched... until I ran into a couple of hiccups.
It's funny how an author's throwaway comments on other topics outside the purview of what they're writing about can affect your opinion of their writing.
For me, when he mentions that "we know so much about viruses" and how every molecule of CO2 we release from fossil fuel is polution; these statements really affect his credibility.
Though his opinions on these two topics specifically don't greatly affect what he's mainly writing about, I find upon reading those parts I can no longer take him as seriously as before when reading his specific insights into the history of electricity, which are fascinating.
What would you describe the exhaust gas produced from burning fossil fuels if not “pollution”?
Never heard of the guy or book but the first statement is pretty dumb but maybe he means from the perspective of how little we knew about them 40 years ago, in the early 80s (and when I say “we” I mean published science not the shit they knew from their biowarfare research).
The second comment I don’t see much issue with. Coal/oil/petroleum/whatever is sequestered in its current form, when we burn it, the exhaust is “pollution”, is it not?
CO2 is a gas, just that, like oxygen, nitrogen etc. it's one of the contituent gases of the earth's atmosphere. Humans exhale it. It's classification as "polution" is a political move, not a scientific one.
The CO2 released from the combustion of these fuels came orginally from the atmosphere before it was "locked" into the deposits that make up the "fossil fuel" (according to the dominant theory at least. There is also an abiotic theory of how these fuels are formed).
There was far more CO2 in the atmosphere in the ancient past. In fact there has never been less CO2 in the earh's atmosphere than in recent centuries. Indeed even some plants that evolved in an atmosphere richer in CO2 have gone extinct in recent centuries because of how little CO2 there has been in the atmosphere.
To think of it plainly only as pollution is the kind of plualistic thinking favored by extremeists, since it fits nicely with an agenda of humans "being a cancer on the earth".. that must be controlled with a "Great Reset" etc.
Well, I don’t disagree with any of the nuance you’ve introduced, but I still don’t think that changes the fact that us burning fossil fuels results in pollution. Since I don’t know the quote you’re referring to I can’t say if this guy acknowledged any of the nuance you bring up, if not, and he is buying into the nihilistic globalist stance on pollution, he sounds like a schmuck lol
Yay, you're all grown up.
Wot m8?