Climate change and the fossil fuel industry

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Look at this matter in this way: fossil fuel industry has contributed to global warming phenomenon since its inception. It is an alarming development and needs attention.

Originally posted by Surtur
Also people seem to get confused over how science works. Let us say I believe a certain thing, and 1,000 other scientists do as well. Consensus doesn't equate to reality. 1,000 people could think one thing, 1 guy could think the other, and that lone guy could be the one who is correct.

But then how could there be so much damn controversy over man made climate change if we have 100% irrefutable evidence? I assume there isn't a single respectable scientist who has come out against the idea of man made climate change? Surely all the detractors must be saying weird things like "it's a Chinese hoax". It would be disappointing to learn there's legit arguments against man made climate change, because the liberal media sure doesn't reflect that.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I agree, the world is also flat.

No see we proved it wasn't. Has man made climate change been 100% proven, with irrefutable evidence and zero respectable scientists challenging it?

It's either a yes or no.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
So man made climate change is real now or...?

I agree, the world is also flat.

Meh. Its all a conspiracy being instigated by those Aryan Super Races from the Center of the Earth.

Get with the program people.

Originally posted by Surtur
No see we proved it wasn't. Has man made climate change been 100% proven, with irrefutable evidence and zero respectable scientists challenging it?

It's either a yes or no.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Others believe otherwise, that one person could be right. 🙂

Lol yeah I didn't think you'd come back with anything of substance. To which damn, you sure you don't work for the CIA?

Originally posted by Surtur

But then how could there be so much damn controversy over man made climate change if we have 100% irrefutable evidence?

Probably because embracing the idea would threaten a trillion dollar industry.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
So man made climate change is real now or...?

Climate change is a manifestation of fluctuations in radiation levels of our planet from time-to-time, a natural phenomenon at most and an important driver of evolution in life-forms. However, external factors can contribute to it such as an asteroid hitting Earth, significant volcanic activity, changes in sun and/or man-made fossil fuel industry.

However, the extent of impact of fossil fuel industry on climate change is absolutely debatable. I am not dismissing this side-effect of fossil fuel industry (it is obvious), I am just pointing out some ground realities of our world, modern societal construct and its perks for all of us.

This debate is intended to make environmentalists understand the importance of fossil fuel industry for mankind at large; you environmentalists owe your comfortable lifestyles to this industrial development just like all of us.

Now, a balanced approach to the problem at hand is that we all put pressure on industries to go green. This shift is expensive and time-consuming, but possible and being considered (shale revolution is an example). Don't support policymakers who want to kill domestic fossil fuel industry or force it offshore. This won't end well for you, your country and the world at large. Be pragmatic and realistic about issues at hand and how to address them.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol yeah I didn't think you'd come back with anything of substance. To which damn, you sure you don't work for the CIA?

And if you think that there is a group of credible scientists out there who can demonstrate humans aren't contributing to climate change to a serious degree then present the discourse, don't ask me to prove a negative.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Truth is somewhat in the middle.

Climate change is a manifestation of fluctuations in radiation levels of our planet from time-to-time, a natural phenomenon at most and an important driver of evolution in life-forms. However, external factors can contribute to it such as an asteroid hitting Earth, significant volcanic activity, changes in sun and/or man-made fossil fuel industry.

However, the extent of impact of fossil fuel industry on climate change is absolutely debatable. I am not dismissing this side-effect of fossil fuel industry (it is obvious), I am just pointing out some ground realities of our world, modern societal construct and its perks for all of us.

Whereas by the same logic you've applied here resident orangutang and future POTUS Donald Trump, is planning to revive dead and dying coal industries, cut funding to critical climate research and environmental protection agencies, and pull America out of a global climate deal to cut down on CO2 emissions. Or in other words its an incredibly dangerous and destructive point of view.

This debate is intended to make environmentalists understand the importance of fossil fuel industry for mankind at large; you environmentalists owe your comfortable lifestyles to this industrial development just like all of us.

Now, a balanced approach to the problem at hand is that we all put pressure on industries to go green. This shift is expensive and time-consuming, but possible and being considered (shale revolution is an example). Don't support policymakers who want to kill domestic fossil fuel industry or force it offshore. This won't end well for you, your country and the world at large. Be pragmatic and realistic about issues at hand and how to address them.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Uhuh, but can you actually prove that climate change, at its current rate, is remotely inevitable?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Is it? Multiple reports on peer-reviewed climate change research reveal that 97% of scientists are in agreement that 1. global warming is real and 2. it is primarily man-made. And furthermore, many are reporting that the Earth's temperature is imminently approaching a critical levels. That, for me, is more than enough cause to dispense with the "debate" and take serious and immediate action.

I would still reiterate that "Earth's temperature is imminently approaching critical levels" is a subjective claim. Global warming is a long-term trend (consensus among climatologists, 2014) and natural developments are likely to slow it down (the cause-effect factor). It is still early to predict the course of future events on the basis of existing data, further research is needed.

Now, what should be the serious and immediate action in your opinion?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Whereas by the same logic you've applied here resident orangutang and future POTUS Donald Trump, is planning to revive dead and dying coal industries, cut funding to critical climate research and environmental protection agencies, and pull America out of a global climate deal to cut down on CO2 emissions. Or in other words its an incredibly dangerous and destructive point of view.

If emissions of greenhouse gases were stopped, would the climate return to the conditions of 200 years ago?

No. Even if emissions of greenhouse gases were to suddenly stop, Earth's surface temperature would not cool and return to the level in the pre-industrial era for thousands of years.

Taken from Climate Change: Evidence and Causes (2014) [https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18730/climate-change-evidence-and-causes]

Eco-friendly movement is not going to make much difference in the long-term, my friend. Shocking, right?

I don't get these premature jabs at Trump administration. This team comprises of entrepreneurs with considerable industrial insight and corporate experience, and it will stimulate American economy which is (and should be) the most pressing concern right now. We can also be confident about the fact that a large number of issues will be brought to their attention (including climatic concerns) when they are running the affairs.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Are rather ironic claim given your dependency on the current state of the environment for well, everything. Don't you think your "comfortable lifestyle" will too find itself upset when faced with global food and water shortages, flooding coastlines and destructive weather events? And understand that the economic impact of climate change is predicted to be equally devastating.

Trust me! You need a flourishing economy and lot of money to cope with emerging trends and crises periods in the future. An economic collapse is not going to help you. So fix the economy alongside encouraging eco-friendly practices.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
A reasonable approach take but downplaying the dangers of climate change is not the way to go about achieving it.

Eco-friendly industrial practices will, at the least, lower pollution levels for the greater good of all. This is sufficient reason for me to encourage the shift but in pragmatic fashion.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Is this even a question? Climate change is inevitable. We are not going to make much difference even with eco-friendly industrial practices. See below.

OK! Let us assume that the current phase of global warming is predominately man-made.

Nonetheless, "Earth's temperature is imminently approaching critical levels" is a subjective claim. Global warming is a long-term trend (consensus among climatologists, 2014) and natural developments are likely to slow it down (the cause-effect logic). It is still early to predict the course of future events on the basis of existing data, further research is needed.

And yes, you'll find plenty of models that predict critical impacts on our planet should the global temperature continue to rise, models based on peer-reviewed research, not opinions. Here's a fun one:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/global-icons-at-risk-from-sea-level-rise-pictures-19633

This isn't the time to be taking a wait and see approach. And the idea that we lack sufficient data to make predictions about the future is fiction. Not that any lack of clarity in that regard is cause for relaxing climate change policy, rather the opposite, you don't confront the unknown with a blase faire attitude. But I'm sure taking a dip in downtown New York will be great fun, yeah, no cause for concern.

Now, what should be the serious and immediate action in your opinion?

FYI:

[B]If emissions of greenhouse gases were stopped, would the climate return
to the conditions of 200 years ago?

No. Even if emissions of greenhouse gases were to suddenly stop, Earth's surface temperature would not cool and return to the level in the pre-industrial era for thousands of years.

Taken from Climate Change: Evidence and Causes (2014) [https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18730/climate-change-evidence-and-causes]

Eco-friendly movement is not going to make much difference in the long-term, my friend. Shocking, right?[/b]

And funnily enough, that same source concludes that "most of recent [climate] change is almost certainly due to emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activities" and recommends action, not complacency.

I don't get these premature jabs at Trump administration. This team comprises of entrepreneurs with considerable industrial insight and corporate experience, and it will stimulate American economy which is (and should be) the most pressing concern right now. We can also be confident about the fact that a large number of issues will be brought to their attention (including climatic concerns) when they are running the affairs.

Because when the future President of the one the largest CO2 emitters on the planet has has said climate change is a Chinese hoax, that's cause for concern.

See above.

Trust me! You need a flourishing economy and lot of money to fight the inevitable. Economic collapse is not going to help you. So fix the economy alongside encouraging eco-friendly practices.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
To a stupid question? Why would I? Can you prove that the moon landings were 100% real?

Nice dodge.

And if you think that there is a group of credible scientists out there who can demonstrate humans aren't contributing to climate change to a serious degree then present the discourse, don't ask me to prove a negative.

Never said I think that, I merely wondered if there is 100% irrefutable evidence.

You have dodged it with stupid shit about the earth being flat and the moon landings.

Which honestly tells me you don't have the evidence I'm asking for.

I mean seriously, do you give a shit at all about climate change? That's a serious question, because if you do give a shit about it, wouldn't you be eager to show irrefutable evidence to those who ask? As opposed to bringing up the earth being flat and moon landings. If you provide irrefutable evidence and the person doesn't want to accept it that is one thing, but if you're unwilling to even provide it at all..that just undermines your goals of climate change being taken seriously.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
Probably because embracing the idea would threaten a trillion dollar industry.

Beniboy seems unwilling so I guess I'll ask you: no credible scientists feel man made climate change isn't a thing?

If there is 100% irrefutable evidence out there and it's being ignored, yeah I'd agree money is a factor.

I must admit I'd also be incredibly disturbed if credible scientists out there do not aspire to the idea of man made climate change, because it's been shoved down our throats like it is irrefutable, so it better actually *be* irrefutable. I personally have always thought climate change was a thing, but I never actually looked at the specific evidence. The way people talk I expect that it's only the wacko scientists who think man made climate change isn't real, correct?

Otherwise, like I said, I'd be disturbed.

Originally posted by Surtur
Nice dodge.

Never said I think that, I merely wondered if there is 100% irrefutable evidence.

You have dodged it with stupid shit about the earth being flat and the moon landings.

Which honestly tells me you don't have the evidence I'm asking for.

I mean seriously, do you give a shit at all about climate change? That's a serious question, because if you do give a shit about it, wouldn't you be eager to show irrefutable evidence to those who ask? As opposed to bringing up the earth being flat and moon landings. If you provide irrefutable evidence and the person doesn't want to accept it that is one thing, but if you're unwilling to even provide it at all..that just undermines your goals of climate change being taken seriously.

On the other hand is the case for man-made climate change incredibly strong? Strong enough to result in a 97% consensus among climate researchers? Yes. Is this evidence widely available for you to peruse on something called the interwebz? Also yes.

P.S. No, I am never eager to engage with imbeciles, but repeatedly find myself having to do so regardless. 🙂

To those in the thread asking, "What about China? Even if the U.S. changes, they're number one in terms of CO2 and other emissions!"

China is investing far more heavily in clean energy like solar and wind becoming a major part of their infrastructure than the U.S. China went so far as to stop the majority of non-Olympic related traffic during the games there, so to say that they'll go as far as they have to in certain circumstances is pretty clear. That anecdote aside, their commitment to change is far more apparent than ours, which is sad considering that they're still very much a country based around a lot of bureaucracy and other foolishness, yet they're getting it done.

Fracking and all of these other petroleum led initiatives aren't improving the environment and inherently pose risks to the short term and long term outlook when it comes to the environment. No, we don't need to kill off the oil industry, but we need to focus resource wherever possible to limiting it as much as possible. That certainly rings true as well for coal.

Iceland: 100% of power needs supplied by renewable forms of energy.

Lesotho: 100% of power needs supplied by renewable forms of energy.

Albania: Site of how many years of destruction via a protracted war? 85% renewable energy.

Paraguay: 90% of its own power and 19% of Brazil's supplied through clean energy sources in the country.

Bhutan: Exports 75% of the clean power that it makes to India.

Let's not act like the US reliance on fossil fuels is because clean energy sources don't exist. The fossil fuel industry has lobbied against attempts to change our infrastructure in ways that would allow for larger sources of clean and renewable energy, period. If you want to ignore that, you're just a shill for big oil.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I'm trying to point out to you that there is no such thing as 100% irrefutable evidence, even the laws of physics don't possess that, therefore your questions is yes, just about as stupid as asking the same for the moon landings or Earth being round. No, of course no such evidence does not exist, and it means the square root of jack shit. Try and like be intelligent lol.

On the other hand is the case for man-made climate change incredibly strong? Strong enough to result in a 97% consensus among climate researchers? Yes. Is this evidence widely available for you to peruse on something called the interwebz? Also yes.

P.S. No, I am never eager to engage with imbeciles, but repeatedly find myself having to do so regardless. 🙂

But you have also avoided answering whether or not any credible scientists do not believe in climate change.

Also some of your reasoning is just another dodge. Nothing such as irrefutable evidence? So you are saying we don't have irrefutable evidence the earth isn't flat? Really? To claim we don't have irrefutable evidence of the moon landings is one thing, but to say we don't even have irrefutable evidence the earth isn't flat is just utterly insane.

Try not being so smugly moronic next time you decide to insult someone's intellect.

That question has already been addressed dear, like I said it's not up to me to prove a negative.

And obviously somethings are far more certain the others, but the point is 100% irrefutable proof of anything is a) impossible b) not needed to be sure of something. Again try to be more smart.

Regardless I addressed that question too, and the answer is no. So do you have anything more to say?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
That question has already been addressed dear, like I said its not up to me to prove a negative.

You've dodged it, yes.

And obviously somethings are far more difficult to refute than others, but the point is 100% irrefutable proof of anything is a) impossible b) not needed to be sure of something. Again try to be more smart.

So you feel it is impossible to 100% prove the Earth isn't flat? That's quite interesting.

I've noticed a funny trend that the people here who insult the intelligence of others the most tend to be the least intelligent members. Why do you feel that is? Is it a way to make up for their own intellectual short comings?

Originally posted by Ascendancy
To those in the thread asking, "What about China? Even if the U.S. changes, they're number one in terms of CO2 and other emissions!"

China is investing far more heavily in clean energy like solar and wind becoming a major part of their infrastructure than the U.S. China went so far as to stop the majority of non-Olympic related traffic during the games there, so to say that they'll go as far as they have to in certain circumstances is pretty clear. That anecdote aside, their commitment to change is far more apparent than ours, which is sad considering that they're still very much a country based around a lot of bureaucracy and other foolishness, yet they're getting it done.

Fracking and all of these other petroleum led initiatives aren't improving the environment and inherently pose risks to the short term and long term outlook when it comes to the environment. No, we don't need to kill off the oil industry, but we need to focus resource wherever possible to limiting it as much as possible. That certainly rings true as well for coal.

Iceland: 100% of power needs supplied by renewable forms of energy.

Lesotho: 100% of power needs supplied by renewable forms of energy.

Albania: Site of how many years of destruction via a protracted war? 85% renewable energy.

Paraguay: 90% of its own power and 19% of Brazil's supplied through clean energy sources in the country.

Bhutan: Exports 75% of the clean power that it makes to India.

Let's not act like the US reliance on fossil fuels is because clean energy sources don't exist. The fossil fuel industry has lobbied against attempts to change our infrastructure in ways that would allow for larger sources of clean and renewable energy, period. If you want to ignore that, you're just a shill for big oil.

Originally posted by Surtur
You've dodged it, yes.

So you feel it is impossible to 100% prove the Earth isn't flat? That's quite interesting.

I've noticed a funny trend that the people here who insult the intelligence of others the most tend to be the least intelligent members. Why do you feel that is? Is it a way to make up for their own intellectual short comings?