What? Like seriously, what do you actually mean. This paragraph-sentence(?!) is pretty much unintelligible.
Anyways, onto the debunking! I’d like to point out that the only solutions alarmists push is wind and solar when developing countries can actually access the rivers for hydro unlike the US. Instead, the US should be switching to Nuclear power which emits 0 CO2(!!!) with power generation while providing base-load power that neither Wind nor Solar can do. As well, the reactors, if built like France, are 100% safe and all we’d have to “worry” about is the spent fuel, however, Molten Salt Reactors, once commercialized, can use this material in the reaction and use most of it up leaving very little radioactive material to safely store. This means within 25–50 years we could bring US Co2 emissions down to only car emissions. This is a HUGE reduction. As well, since we could then feasibly switch to electric cars that currently still produce nearly as much CO2 as a gas vehicle due to getting most of their electricity from coal or NG, it would mean that we could be emitting very little CO2. That’s your dream isn’t it?Yet you people fight tooth and nail against this when there is the simplest, most economical solution on the planet and yet you still advocate against!
Pretty much I think alarmists (possibly like you) hate humans. Alarmists wish we’d never came into being and changed nature to our whim and so we must be quickly eradicated. This is what the switch to solar and wind only would do. Billions will die because we can no longer produce even a tiny fraction of the food we did with our current technologies. Nature will reclaim everything as it always does without the large populations holding it back and people will essentially live much like we did in the middle ages where only the richest have plenty of food and the rest of us subsist on very little.