The promoters of social fantasies related to global warming and renewable energy contradict themselves showing corrupt intent. They refer to renewable energy as zero carbon or low carbon and say it is replacing carbon based energy because of its great value, so much so that electric vehicles are part of the solution to removing carbon dioxide from the air.

They also say that the Paris climate agreement on global warming along with EPA rules are essential to remove carbon dioxide from the air.

Why are rules needed, if renewable energy is superior? Is it necessary to force something good onto society? Why is renewable energy the unstoppable wave of the future if it needs to be forced onto society?

Those are contradictions. If there is a price to pay and force is needed to remove carbon dioxide from the air, then the so-called low carbon renewables are not self-evident advantages.

There isn't some other mechanism for removing carbon dioxide from the air than so-called renewables, which primarily means solar and wind. Hydro electric is said to be renewable, but expanding it is usually not an option.

Adding it up says, whatever force is needed to remove carbon dioxide from the air is the force needed to increase renewables. Whatever the self-evident value of renewables is is the self-evident disappearance of carbon dioxide from the air.

Why is force needed for one, while there is great value in the other, when they are both the same things? It shows contradictory motives in the promoters of the claims.
 

Home Page	Science Errors	Sociology of Corruption