| I don't mean to be rude, in the slightest, but your suspicions are based on nothing but your own opinion (unless you're a climate scientist) and I'm going to defer to subject matter experts. I'm not a scientist, but I listen to them [1] [2] [3]. Your submission history indicates a hint of climate denier [4] and your comment here [5] about carbon capture being in use at scale and successful is an outright falsehood (direct air capture is very expensive and in its infancy, and the cost of sequestering is not included in the cost of fuel consumed), so here we are. I am doing my best to argue in good faith. > Also ask yourself: if fossil fuels are used to produce medicine and fertiliser with zero emissions, why would we want to stop producing them? When you can prove this can be done, certainly, I'll agree with you. But there must be evidence, and it must be provided. Hope and misdirection is not a strategy. [1] https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-clima... ("Do scientists agree on climate change?
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here [next citation].") [2] https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ [3] http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations... ("The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.") [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36307850 [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39047555 |
[4] isn’t climate denial, it was an attempt to get some criticism of an interesting heterodox theory, and I found it! [5] CCS is being used at large scale on many projects. Maybe we have different definitions of “at scale” and “successful”
I don’t need to prove it can be done: we already produce these with emissions and we already have CCS to avoid these emissions, there is nothing technological stopping this except economics.
The consensus is that climate change is real and I agree wholeheartedly. What I disagree with is exaggerations of the negative outcomes and rejections of technological solutions based on politics rather than science. In this aspect you will find many conflicting opinions.
Also please answer my question about 2C. Asking this is what led me to realising how much of climate policy is based on convenient politics and not science.