BudBundy
Registered User
- May 16, 2005
- 5,989
- 8,103
Well, to be fair then, I have yet to hear scientists explain why the Earth has been both far hotter and far colder than it is today with absolutely zero industrial emissions from humans involved. I am absolutely certain that we are having an effect on the climate, but I have yet to see a credible figure on how much of climate change is perfectly natural and how much is man. Very few scientists are willing to discuss whether or not the money spent on fighting climate change would not be better spent elsewhere. Like on mosquito netting and new classes of antibiotics. Perhaps more importantly, I have yet to hear a good explanation as to why we should be ashamed of our emissions and heavily penalized when we live in one of the most sparsely populated, and coldest countries on Earth, but also have literally millions of square kilometres of boreal forest and millions of acres of farmland making us one of the largest exporters of food there is.Fun story (parable?)... but every time I see a version of it on Facebook I wonder how does the use of petroleum feed stocks for petrochemical applications contrast/rebut Greta Thunberg's message of listening to scientists about climate change? It's precisely because of waning fuel demands that major crude oil refineries are shifting towards petrochemical functionality.
Why the future of oil is in chemicals, not fuels
I do however see that any public figure or scientist who asks these somewhat reasonable and logical questions is punished severely and is labeled a denier. I see there is a huge amount of funding available for climate change studies which behooves researchers to become highly “invested” in perpetuating it. I want to have clean air. I want to drink from our rivers and lakes and not be nervous. But I also want to have a healthy economy and live a comfortable life. There has to be a middle ground, and too many of the green army have no time for nuance or compromise.