"Science be damned!" Let's have Oil rule our lives!

[Hafar1014]

then prove that it is nonsense. You NEVER are able to prove any of your statements.

You are like this meme

View attachment 1217880

I dont have to prove something isnt going to happen. You have to prove it will and you can do that based on invalid hypothetical studies paid for by green energy supporters.
Go back 20 years an tell me how many prodictions came true? Zero

 

[MarathonMike]

How much should we "invest" in green energy to reduce temperatures in 2100?

How will we know if we spent enough?

The "SCIENCE" can create all the charts it wants. As long as China and India continue belching 80 percent of the world's pollution into the air and the oceans, it is futile for the rest of the world to bankrupt itself to try and move the needle.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The "SCIENCE" can create all the charts it wants. As long as China and India continue belching 80 percent of the world's pollution into the air and the oceans, it is futile for the rest of the world to bankrupt itself to try and move the needle.

LoL the left's science is men can become women, babies are a clump of cells, globull warming is going to kill mankind, etc etc

Foolish

 

[Luckyone]

As opposed to dying because they can't produce enough energy? Absolutely.

well then, be prepared for humanity dying (all humans) within the next 100 years

 

[Luckyone]

I dont have to prove something isnt going to happen. You have to prove it will and you can do that based on invalid hypothetical studies paid for by green energy supporters.
Go back 20 years an tell me how many prodictions came true? Zero

of course that would be your answer. Bottom line is that you CAN'T prove any of your points.

As such and since you cannot DEBATE issues, there is absolutely no reason to continue conversations with you. Talking to someone that does nothing but spew smelly hot air and never shows the value of absorbing it, is pure stupidity.

I have tried with you HAFAR, much more than with many others but in the end, you are of the same ilk. Non-producer of data, statistics, and facts that provide knowledge of value. You offer zilch.

All you offer is smelly hot air that sickens and never has any benefit in being around that.

If and when you start actually debating, I may come back and communicate. As of now, it is bye-bye.

 

[SweetTea]

well then, be prepared for humanity dying (all humans) within the next 100 years

Wrong. Purely speculative. Ridiculous hyperbole. When will you figure out there's a lot of money to be made from pushing this stuff?

 

[MarathonMike]

well then, be prepared for humanity dying (all humans) within the next 100 years

Oh well, shit happens.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

well then, be prepared for humanity dying (all humans) within the next 100 years

LOL wont happen retard. And the science doesnt say that at all. The warmer science claims the temp will go up 1 C hardly able to make everything a desert dumb ass. You should actually read what you are claiming something says before looking foolish and stupid

as for the near-term claims, NOT A SINGLE ONE HAS BEEN RIGHT. every single prediction made by your side has been wrong so far, every single one. The science has not been right yet. And this has been what 35 years worth of bullshit from your supposed consensus.

Science does not operate on consensus. It works on trial and error, and advances based on experimentation. Name a single experiment that has proven ANY of the claims made about manmade Global warming.

 

[Luckyone]

Wrong. Purely speculative. Ridiculous hyperbole. When will you figure out there's a lot of money to be made from pushing this stuff?

You are entitled to your opinion. In my case, I happen to believe in science for many reasons (my present health for example, that without science, I probably would have died many years ago). They offer studies done that have a high probability of being correct (even if not all are correct),

I always prefer to be on the study and probability side than on the longshot opinion side.

Hey, you have the right to believe whatever you want to believe. I too, have the same right.

End of story

 

[Stryder50]

Trump set to gut US climate change policy and environmental regulations: White House official​

WASHINGTON February 10, 2026 (AP) — The Trump administration is expected this week to revoke a scientific finding that long has been the central basis for U.S. action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change, according to a White House official.

The Environmental Protection Agency will issue a final rule rescinding a 2009 government declaration known as the endangerment finding. That Obama-era policy determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.

Here is the percentage of scientists that say that climate change is caused by humans

Between 97% and 99.9% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming. Multiple studies confirm this overwhelming consensus, with research analyzing scientific literature indicating that more than 99% of peer-reviewed papers support human-caused climate change.

The Causes of Climate Change​

Over the last century, burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This increase happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2.

Who benefits from cutting these regulations:

• Key beneficiaries of removing carbon emission regulations include:
  • Fossil Fuel Industry: Oil, gas, and coal companies benefit from lower compliance expenditures, such as the elimination of reporting requirements (e.g., the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program) and reduced costs for upgrading equipment to meet emissions standards.
  • Manufacturing Sector: Industries with high energy consumption, such as steel and cement manufacturers, may face lower operating costs, allowing them to compete more effectively with foreign, higher-carbon products.
  • Transportation and Automobile Industry: Automakers, particularly those focusing on internal combustion engines, may see lower manufacturing costs and fewer fines, while the trucking industry expects reduced logistical costs, according to the American Trucking Association.
  • Small Businesses: Supporters argue that removing "burdensome" regulations will save small businesses billions in compliance costs.
  • Consumers (Short-Term): Proponents argue that reducing energy regulations will lead to cheaper, more reliable, and more affordable energy for heating and transportation.
  
  While there are some short-term economic benefits to Americans and American companies by taking down these regulations, such as tangible cost reductions, the removal of these regulations is heavily criticized by environmental and health advocates. As such, this is more about short-term political goals of Trump than it is about helping the future of our world.
• View attachment 1217533
• View attachment 1217535

Petroleum is the prime resource for about 90+% of synthetic products, in addition to use as a fuel and lubricants.
What equal and economical replacements do you propose ?

 

[SweetTea]

You are entitled to your opinion. In my case, I happen to believe in science for many reasons (my present health for example, that without science, I probably would have died many years ago). They offer studies done that have a high probability of being correct (even if not all are correct),

I always prefer to be on the study and probability side than on the longshot opinion side.

Hey, you have the right to believe whatever you want to believe. I too, have the same right.

End of story

Yes we are all intolered to our own opinion. This is exactly why many poor countries will not risk death by going all in to the green idea. Like I said, we are spoiled here. If you didn't know where your next meal was coming from you wouldn't be nearly as worried about CO2 levels 100 years from now.

 

[Billiejeens]

In my case, I have given the information that 11,000 scientists have stated. That is their opinion off of their studies. It is not my opinion, given that I have no tools to study the climate, one way or the other.

Given that you say there is no evidence, there must be some proof you can show where the opinions of those thousands of scientists has been disproven. Why do you not show us that information so we too can realize what is real and what is not!

You evidently know something those scientists do now know. Show us

The climate change "scientists" are paid propagandists.

No one is going to pay to have the scientists say - yeah everything is fine.

 

[Luckyone]

LOL wont happen retard. And the science doesnt say that at all. The warmer science claims the temp will go up 1 C hardly able to make everything a desert dumb ass. You should actually read what you are claiming something says before looking foolish and stupid

as for the near-term claims, NOT A SINGLE ONE HAS BEEN RIGHT. every single prediction made by your side has been wrong so far, every single one. The science has not been right yet. And this has been what 35 years worth of bullshit from your supposed consensus.

Science does not operate on consensus. It works on trial and error, and advances based on experimentation. Name a single experiment that has proven ANY of the claims made about manmade Global warming.

Thanks for the personal insulting debasement (retard), which coming from someone like you (who is worse) is a compliment.

Having said that, I am happy to prove you wrong in your statement saying "NOT A SINGLE ONE HAS BEEN RIGHT"

Yes, many key scientific climate change predictions made over the past several decades have proven to be accurate. Studies indicate that older climate models, including those from the 1970s to the 2000s, correctly predicted the rise in global surface temperatures, increased atmospheric CO2cap, C cap sub 2 concentrations and accelerating sea-level rise.

• Global Temperature Rise: Projections of rising global temperatures due to increased greenhouse gas concentrations have matched observed data, with studies showing 1990 IPCC projections closely matched actual warming.
• Sea-Level Rise: Predictions regarding accelerating sea-level rise have proven to be largely accurate.
• Ocean Acidification: Scientific predictions that ocean absorption of excess
  CO2cap C cap O sub 2
  would lead to increased ocean acidity have been verified by observation.
• Arctic Ice Melt: The rapid reduction in Arctic sea ice has often tracked on the faster end of model projections.
• Accuracy of Models: A 2019 review found that most climate models published since 1970 have been accurate in their projections of warming, especially when accounting for the actual emissions that occurred.

 

[Luckyone]

Yes we are all intolered to our own opinion. This is exactly why many poor countries will not risk death by going all in to the green idea. Like I said, we are spoiled here. If you didn't know where your next meal was coming from you wouldn't be nearly as worried about CO2 levels 100 years from now.

The bottom line is that if the scientific predictions do occur, the needs of those that you talk about, won't matter, will it? Everyone will be dead.

 

[SweetTea]

The bottom line is that if the scientific predictions do occur, the needs of those that you talk about, won't matter, will it? Everyone will be dead.

No, they're descendants would be dead. If it doesn't come true, they would be dead.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

So the opinion of 11,000 scientists means nothing. YOU know better, right?

Please post the list of “97% of scientists agree” so we can all laugh at it again.

 

[Luckyone]

No, they're descendants would be dead. If it doesn't come true, they would be dead.

So keeping the human race alive is not as important as keeping these people alive now?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Thanks for the personal insulting debasement (retard), which coming from someone like you (who is worse) is a compliment.

Having said that, I am happy to prove you wrong in your statement saying "NOT A SINGLE ONE HAS BEEN RIGHT"

Yes, many key scientific climate change predictions made over the past several decades have proven to be accurate. Studies indicate that older climate models, including those from the 1970s to the 2000s, correctly predicted the rise in global surface temperatures, increased atmospheric CO2cap, C cap sub 2 concentrations and accelerating sea-level rise.

• Global Temperature Rise: Projections of rising global temperatures due to increased greenhouse gas concentrations have matched observed data, with studies showing 1990 IPCC projections closely matched actual warming.
• Sea-Level Rise: Predictions regarding accelerating sea-level rise have proven to be largely accurate.
• Ocean Acidification: Scientific predictions that ocean absorption of excess
  CO2cap C cap O sub 2
  would lead to increased ocean acidity have been verified by observation.
• Arctic Ice Melt: The rapid reduction in Arctic sea ice has often tracked on the faster end of model projections.
• Accuracy of Models: A 2019 review found that most climate models published since 1970 have been accurate in their projections of warming, especially when accounting for the actual emissions that occurred.

LOL all of those are fake news Sea ice is not declining, and temperatures are right where they were predicted to be in 1900. and the models have been all wrong, they made ridicules claims like no more winter Florida under water and 2 degrees rise in temps. the sea has not risen like claimed anywhere.

 

[Kruska]

....................,
You can pretend the trees are killing the planet and should be replaced with solar panels if you want to be a complete loon.

Indeed the one who stated the above, is a lost case even for psychiatric and neurosurgical treatment.

I never stated such garbage - YOU did!

 

[Bitterhook]

Indeed the one who stated the above, is a lost case even for psychiatric and neurosurgical treatment.

I never stated such garbage - YOU did!

I know you didn't say it, but it is where your arguments led to.
That's what I mean about your inability to connect the dots.