the thing that annoys me about the bret stephens nyt piece is that he presents de facto US policy for the last 25+ years as "contrarian"
-
-
decarbonization is going to take decades, to say like "oh no i'm actually stanning for insurmountable inertia" is just fucking weird
-
I read it as presenting as contrarian from an NYT reader, and attempting to build a bridge by recognizing de facto fallibility of science
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.