[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Byte1

Data shows that there really is "climate change." History shows that the climate has been changing since the beginning of time as we know it. Climate will change whether mankind has anything to do with it or not.

Thank you, I agree, and personally, I know of NO ONE that disputes this comment. If there are such people, I feel sorry for them. All they have to do is walk o0ut side and see it change daily.

Can we pollute, yes. Can we have some effect in cleaning up the air we breath, yes.

I think there is general agreement on this also.

Can we raise or lower the oceans? I sincerely doubt it. I do not think that qualified scientists can legitimately state that man can raise or lower the oceans.

Okay, Can I assume that is a personal opinion? You say you "think" this; would you share what you base that opinion on?

I know for a fact that the air that I breath is cleaner now than when I was a kid. Could it be because of catalytic converters on automobiles? Could it be because we use less coal to heat our homes?

Yes, I think we agreed on this above.

Can we also agree that the change you are referring to here is a change in our behavior that caused the problems in the first place - i.e. that we caused pollution with a behavior of driving gas-powered cars that emitted toxic poisons and pollution and corrected that behavior by enforcing regulations that required the cars (and other sources) not to put out as much bad stuff?

Man has improve our environment for at least 50 years, but has he changed the climate?

And that, sir, is the question at the heart of this discussion. Sadly, by use of the common tongue term "climate change," we conflate the assertion at the top of climate change all by itself over time with the anthropogenic greenhouse effect or anthropogenic climate change. Which, hopefully, we can all agree is what we are really talking about man-made climate change.

I admit that I am not a scientist and not an expert, but I do know that our climate is NOT controlled by humans. We can't even predict the track of a storm with accuracy.

Okay, I am also not a scientist or expert in the field of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect.

Can I ask how you KNOW that? Also, I would suggest that the theory does not claim that man can control the climate, only that man can affect the climate. There is, I think you will agree, a big difference between the two.

Personally, climate control is not on the top of my priorities since I will not even see a man made change in my lifetime.

Thank you for the honest statement of fact. I believe many of the posters here agree with you. I will not debate your position; that is philosophical, moral, ethical, etc., etc., a discussion which I think is way beyond the scope of this discussion.

Let me say that in my case, I have spent my life trying to make things better for other people. That does not make me a better person than you; that is NOT virtue signaling; it is simply saying I do what makes me feel good.

I make no claim of superiority; in fact, in my experience, people who believe the way you believe are typically more successful and happier than I am.

I do have one thought that some disagree with, but I have yet to hear a convincing counter argument. Whether you believe in GOD or not, we have a substantial amount of oil under us and I see no benefit of it sitting under ground doing nothing. There must be a scientific use for it, or why would GOD have made it available?

Excellent question; I am, in fact, an atheist; I wasn't always; at one time, I actually preached for a while as a stand-in for my brother the lifelong SBC preacher.

And you bring up an interesting question that is very hard to answer.

1. There is certainly a line of reasoning that God has a plan and will take care of the planet for as long as it suits his plan. Being God, there is not really anything we can do to cause that plan to be deviated from - i.e., God will clean up our messes if it suits him.

2. We are charged, per some version of the bible, with being good stewards of the land/earth god has given us. I will omit bible references; I am sure you are familiar.

From my perspective, I guess fall into the camp that God helps those that help themselves, hence medicine, science, etc

And, while outside the scope of this discussion I will in slightly peak oil, or the theory(?) that oil is a limited resource. It is limited by the material it was created from being not of infinite origin. So, while we don't know for sure how limited it is, it seems reasonable to assume it is.

In that case, we should then consider the optimum use of this very valuable resource. Some of the other uses we make of include:

Medicine, fertilizer, pesticides, etc., Here is a reference for some. There are many other uses - other than as fuel.

Petroleum in Real Life

Oh yeah, we can use it for fuel. Ok, so you don't believe in GOD. So, what use is oil to us? It still works as a good fuel source. Does it do the earth any good sitting under ground?

Well, I sort of answered that above, and I don't believe in God. But, a more valid question, I think, is, what is the BEST use we can make of OIL? Since it is limited (I assume) even if we don't know how limited (years, decades, centuries, eons?) It would seem to me we would be better stewards if we made the best use of the oil, not the most convenient.

Electricity serves it's purpose, providing a source of energy, but it also requires a source of energy to produce it. Solar? Great for Southern states, when we have sunshine. Not so good at night or in the Northern states. Wind mills? Great when there is wind to power the wind mills. Nuclear? An amazing source of energy that is hardly tapped and still being explored for it's uses. Battery storage? We are still exploring sustainable and inexpensive means of storing power but we are not there yet. Why not all of the above and quit thinking about attaching POWER to climate change?

Hmm, complex. First, I am all in for natural gas for electricity generation short term (until we can develop better, Solar wind, hydro, etc., are progressing very rapidly and, with worldwide governmental support, will continue to advance even faster. Of course, it is incumbent on us not to replace one problem with yet another - so, in developing alternate sources of energy, we must try to prevent creating a new monster with even worse side effects.

But, there is always a but; COAL is among the dirtiest source of energy known to man. That is not really debatable, And it was only a result of expensive regulations that required scrubbing and other actions that we reduced some of the pollutions down to levels we can manage. And we still do not manage a major by-product of coal-fired energy product - coal ash is incredibly harmful to humans.

Oil; on the other hand, is of limited use in Electricity production - around 0.5% of our electricity is produced using petroleum liquids - I think.

We use petroleum products to propel vehicles, heat buildings, and produce electricity (0.5%). In the industrial sector, the petrochemical industry uses petroleum as a raw material (a feedstock) to make products such as plastics, polyurethane, solvents, and hundreds of other intermediate and end-user goods.

Here is a chart of many uses of oil - kindly provided by the fossil fuel industry (not that they have a vested interest - LOL)

72 Uses of Oil

Man can keep the world clean by picking up after himself and attempting to be clean in his environment. That may not change anything, but it will make living here better/more comfortable.

That is very true, but some of us think there is more to do. Along lines of cleaning up the environment.

If we are wrong, we are not suggesting anything to make it worse. But if we are right, we are talking about some very serious consequences. We don't KNOW; we are suggesting we err on the side of caution. It can't hurt.

Like I said, climate change and attempting to control the climate is not within my priorities and will never effect my politics.

So, you would vote for a candidate that is in favor of taking steps to curb climate change if their other policies are agreeable to you? Considering your positions stated above, I would consider that an excellent position to take.

And I thank you for posting a comment that encouraged discussion.