Climate Change, page-932

(Person posts prolifically warning about climate change on a fossil fuel stock discussion forum. Then proceeds to get miffed when people come to the not-unreasonable view that he/she is negatively disposed to fossil fuels.)

I'm sure I'm not alone when I say I'm not quite sure what it is you are trying to say, then.
Because, by the same token, I don't believe anyone is saying that we need to use fossil fuels forever, either, if that's the opinion you are trying to counter.

Initially - way back when - my comments were mere corrections to Hagas incorrect assertions regarding Climate Change science. Lots of mistruths, misinterpretations, myths, and some outright lies.

I have stated numerous times, I'd gather a dozen I imagine by now, that a transition to a supply that is less reliant on fossil fuels is required. I dont think I have ever given a date when I think this should be done, but certainly not in the next 20 years or so. I have also stated this transition needs to ensure there is a reliable base load (among other criteria).

This thread itself was, again, initially about the actual data, the science, the chemistry, the statistics.
I am not suggesting people are claiming we must use fossil fuels for ever. What I do continually address though, are the numerous inconsistent, incorrect, assertions that a small group of posters continually get wrong.

When you get down to the nitty gritty, the physical science of CO2 and its ability to trap heat was established back in the late 1890's, and reconfirmed may times in the 20th century. Human CO2 emissions have also been established - there is no doubt humans are emitting CO2. Much more than in recent history. (last million years or so) To deny these facts is ludicrous.


Any points you disagree with?