Thank you for the informative post addressing the topic of this discussion - Climate Change.

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. Can we pollute, yes. Can we have some effect in cleaning up the air we breath, yes. 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. 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? Man has improve our environment for at least 50 years, but has he changed the climate? 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.
Personally, climate control is not on the top of my priorities since I will not even see a man made change in my lifetime. 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? 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? You might counter argue that we also have rocks and stones on the ground and under it, and what good is it sitting there? We built homes and weapons from it, right? But, I won't go off in that direction. 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? 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.
Like I said, climate change and attempting to control the climate is not within my priorities and will never effect my politics.

Sorry, I just have to wonder about how folks get riled up and defensive when someone does not agree with them. The go-to is to accuse one of "insulting, exaggerating and name calling." :1rotfl:

I've noticed that! Excellent observation.

No mention or referral to any poster's political claims was mentioned. I was just stating my opinion. My comments were simply my observations. What others say is their opinion.

From what I have heard, read and experienced, scientists have often been wrong. Their theories have been lucrative toward their future employment. It's great that they have records of temperature, rainfall and tide change history, but have they ever really been able to find a correlation between those factors and man contributed climate change? Nope, only theory. It's easy to record history, but very difficult to predict accurately the future. I believe methane has been in existence on Earth long before mankind, and without CO2 can we have plant growth? Without plant growth can we have oxygen? Kind of like arguing ecology, right? Man is at the top of the ecological food chain, or am I mistaken? However, without man the world will still survive, right? But, what's the point? Without man, the world will still have Climate Change. You might say that Climate Change is just part of Evolution.

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.

I think there is general agreement on this also.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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


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.

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

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.

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.

I don't believe in arguing a topic in circles. Either oil is a good fuel source or it isn't. For someone to say, well maybe/MAYBE we are supposed to use it for something else, is just circling the discussion. That's kind of like we shouldn't have used horses for transportation or for pulling wagons and plows before we had a combustion engine. And we shouldn't use a combustion engine because there might be something better to use that we just haven't thought of yet. Oil is a great commodity, an excellent form of power until someone comes up with something superior. Right now, EV autos are not superior, only different and have different means of producing the power required. Changing from fossil fuel to electric is not going to effect climate changing.

The whole term Climate Change is bogus. Man has no control over it, unless perhaps we had a nuclear war where fallout caused a nuclear winter. But, that too would eventually go back to normal. Let's be honest and just call it "Pollution Control" or something more truthful. If we control pollution, we can give longevity to the living and breathing. TO believe that we are like gods where we can control the climate or the rotation of the Earth, is being pretty arrogant. Yes, we CAN control pollution and that can be healthy and create a longer lifespan for living creatures. We are not going to raise or lower the oceans. We are not going to change the rotation of the Earth. We are not going to change the weather by using electricity versus fossil fuel. We can limit our infringement on the quality of our atmosphere.
Global Warming and Climate Change is a given. Man made Global Warming and Climate Change is just a gimmick. If one wishes to run amok shouting and protesting a "pollution" problem, go for it.

Some years back I heard a presentation regarding a healthy environment; the main thrust of the "argument" being that North America could sustainably support no more than eleven million hunter-gatherers. Anything more might harm the environment. Though I enjoyed listening to the presentation, it was really no more than an intellectual exercise. North America is never, short of nuclear war, going to be populated by no more than eleven million hunter-gatherers.

This climate-change debate is much the same. Despite whichever side of the debate one might find oneself on, the debate itself in many cases comes down to empty words. Intellectual exercises. Economic forces will decide the course of things, just as they always do.

Remember a little history:
In the 60's, we were all told oil reserves will be depleted in 10 years
In the 70's: an ice age is coming within 10 years
in the 80's: acid rain will destroy all crops in 10 years
in the 90's: the ozone layer will be destroyed in 10 years
in the 2000's: the ice caps will be gone in 10 years. (actually I've seen papers from 80 years ago with the same prediction)
How many of those predictions have come true? How many politicians benefitted from these false predictions? How much did the governments make in additional revenue from increasing our taxes to combat these propagandas?
Now there is a new 1 out there which again, people are saying we are doomed in 10 years unless we bankrupt the government by all of these new green deal tax initiatives. Doesn't it sound a little weird its always a 10 year prediction?
Also, there are 1000's of objects that use oil, not just the few that was stated here. Fiberglass/resins/paint/compressors/airplanes/hydraulic gear/lube for robot moving parts/tires/asphalt and 1000's more. When will we have wind generated 747's? when will cruise ships be operated by windmills/sails?
All of this nonsense and we have energy reserves in this country that will last us over 100 years

I replied to all this in your previous post; I guess you didn't want to discuss it after all.

I never said oil was bad fuel; I said it was dirty and cleaner alternatives were coming.

You asked what else could we do with it instead of leaving it in the ground, and I answered that even by providing Petro industry listings and another site showing how much more valuable oil is for other uses - and you ignored it.

And you said God provided it, and I suggested he also provided alternatives and instructed us to be good earth stewards.

Do you see my answering your post with my position politely as running amok? Really?

So much for discussions.

You are so right; let's make it illegal to be wrong. I also suggest any device created after the 1500s should be banned.

I apologize. I assumed that even though you did ask a question, you really were not interested in answers or discussions. If you are, then accept my apology and ask a question and I will discuss it.

Sarcasm for those impaired:

Lemmings do not commit suicide. However, this particular myth is based on some actual lemming behaviors. Lemmings have large population booms every three or four years. When the concentration of lemmings becomes too high in one area, a large group will set out in search of a new home. Lemmings can swim, so if they reach a water obstacle, such as a river or lake, they may try to cross it. Inevitably, a few individuals drown. But it’s hardly suicide.


So why is the myth of mass lemming suicide so widely believed? For one, it provides an irresistible metaphor for human behavior. Someone who blindly follows a crowd—maybe even toward catastrophe—is called a lemming. Over the past century, the myth has been invoked to express modern anxieties about how individuality could be submerged and destroyed by mass phenomena, such as political movements or consumer culture.

But the biggest reason the myth endures? Deliberate fraud. For the 1958 Disney nature film White Wilderness, filmmakers eager for dramatic footage staged a lemming death plunge, pushing dozens of lemmings off a cliff while cameras were rolling. The images—shocking at the time for what they seemed to show about the cruelty of nature and shocking now for what they actually show about the cruelty of humans—convinced several generations of moviegoers that these little rodents do, in fact, possess a bizarre instinct to destroy themselves.

How many times do I have to say this: DON'T CONFUSE THE TRUE BELIEVERS WITH THE FACTS. Not only that, but your position that disagrees with them is viewed as "insulting"

I didn’t find it insulting at all. I found it sad.

And yes everything posted was a fact, so? How does any of that apply to the current discussion.