4 ms·
I'm hardly a "pro-fossil fuel troll" as you seem to imply, though I do think it's odd that you'd resort to framing someone with opposing views as "losing [an]
by curiousgeorgio 10y ago
I'm hardly a "pro-fossil fuel troll" as you seem to imply, though I do think it's odd that you'd resort to framing someone with opposing views as "losing [an] argument" when scientifically speaking, facts should speak for themselves - no arguments needed. The facts relating to AGW are far from clear. Anyone telling you otherwise is either funded by powerful political agendas, or too ignorant to recognize the manipulation happening in the media.
There are very legitimate reasons to support the use of fossil fuels and to consider the cost - in human lives - of trying to reduce the use of fossil fuels. To ignore that side of the debate is simply irresponsible. They certainly aren't free from negative consequences, but the negative consequences of eliminating fossil fuel use are far greater.
Lastly, pointing out additional flaws in the AGW narrative is not an indication of "losing an argument" or subsequently deciding to fight another. I raised this particular point to help illustrate the fact that even if you do happen to subscribe to the idea of AGW, if you follow that idea to its logical conclusion, you're still no better off in terms of actually fixing anything. It's just one more clue that the whole AGW ideology serves a hidden political purpose. In my experience, ideological flaws tend to travel in pairs - or in this case, herds.
I bet it feels like you're doing the world a favor by perpetuating the flawed idea that climate change and fossil fuels are the most important problems of our time, but unless you're actually willing to give up everything that fossil fuels do for us (FYI, that includes pretty much all the conveniences of modern civilized living), then that's a pretty hypocritical position to take. Worst of all, the anti-fossil-fuel agenda ends up hurting the people who stand to gain the most from industrial progress - especially those in developing countries.
- nikdaheratik 10y agoI think this argument is very shallow at best. You seem to be claiming that the choice is either "use all fossil fuels forever" or "give up all fossil fuels immediately". You also seem to be ignoring the fact that replacing any fossil fuel tech you name with an equivalent one that doesn't produce CO2 is the very definition of "advancing the tech". The argument for clean energy is basically that we need to be doing as much as we can to advance energy technology as quickly as possible no matter how it affects legacy industry, like fossil fuels. The human costs from ditching these legacy fuels are real, but rate very low compared to the cost to future humanity. There really is no argument about what we should be doing, but rather how quickly we can and how much effort is needed.