MICHAEL LYNCH: > ... But we can’t let the false threat of disappearing oil lead > the government to throw money away on harebrained renewable energy > schemes or impose unnecessary and expensive conservation measures on a > public already struggling through tough economic times.
Shane: > An oil-industry flack scoffing at global warming? What's new about that? It depends on how you read the passage. I can imagine that the emphasis is on "harebrained," as with the previously-mentioned synthetic fuel effort by Pres. Carter (also a bourgeois flack, BTW). In any event, I don't see this essay either as emphasizing this passage (since it's about the allegedly falsity of "peak oil" fears) or as "scoffing at global warming" (since the subject isn't mentioned). It's true that the author does scoff at "conservation measures," but (as noted), that's scoffing is not what the essay is about. > Michael Lynch, the former director for Asian energy and security at the Center for International Studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is an energy consultant.< aren't there a lot of "energy consultants" who _believe_ in peak oil? so should we reject their perspectives, too? -- Jim Devine / "All science would be superfluous if the form of appearance of things directly coincided with their essence." -- KM _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
