2 readers online now  |  69 million page views

I bet the Stanford Professor is against fossil fuels on ideological grounds

Reader comment on item: The End of Carbon Fuels?

Submitted by Anon (United States), Jun 22, 2018 at 10:58

Solar and wind are only efficient at killing birds and producing expensive electricity. They will not replace all other methods - including nuclear - in about a decade. Nuclear energy is very efficient but the global-warm-mongers despise it. Anyway in the 30's, the main item on the agenda will be the Muslims' extraordinary population-growth in Europe (this is exponential growth, meaning that it requires ever-less time for the entire population to double). God knows how many will be added to the Muslim population in a given year by natural growth alone. This and the continued rise of the anti-Islamization parties will dominate everyone's agenda.

Nobody will bother talking about so-called climate change. Mass deportations would be widely discussed and perhaps implemented. It's difficult to tell just how chaotic and violent things might get in the 30's. Ironically, in claiming that those acting against the Islamization of their countries (and against their becoming minorities in their own historical lands) are racists/fascistc, the pressure created in Europe accumulates, making true racism/fascism more likely.

Of course. if fuel would be less commonly used in the 30's, and its price would be much lower, then the middle-east could grow even more violent, as Dr. Pipes suggests, but I'm not sure that anyone in Europe will care much about that. Let's say that as anti-Islamism grows, the left will find few care to complain about how Israel defends itself. I wished we lived in less interesting times.

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Submit a comment on this item

Reader comments (9) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
Carbon [59 words]AlbertE.Jan 6, 2019 18:23247005
"Renewables" are energy laundering [210 words]Ike KieferJul 25, 2018 21:25243877
2Governance of the seas and energy sufficiency fuel "First Israel victory, then peace" suggestion [170 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
Orestis SchinasJul 3, 2018 18:31243589
A pipe dream [51 words]Bob TankelJun 24, 2018 22:25243435
I bet the Stanford Professor is against fossil fuels on ideological grounds [242 words]AnonJun 22, 2018 10:58243389
Long term [122 words]Iddo WernickJun 20, 2018 13:52243363
the end of gas [2 words]Hessel MeilechJun 20, 2018 08:36243362
Great article! [17 words]Michael RachkovskyJun 19, 2018 23:44243348
Alternative scenario [89 words]Cary HillebrandJun 19, 2018 20:02243342

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to I bet the Stanford Professor is against fossil fuels on ideological grounds by Anon

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List
eXTReMe Tracker

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2020 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)