🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 14:04:50 UTC No. 16620727
I’d like to discuss something with you. I understand the highly skeptical nature of this board, so I’ll start humbly by saying I’m not a genius or even a degree holder. I have however done my research (to the full extent of my capability)
The subject is the use of fossil fuels and climate change.
I didn’t believe in humans potential role in climate change, or any “fossil fuels are bad mkay” arguments, until a monkey level retard thought occurred to me: if we keep taking our fossil fuels from the ground, how is the earth not shrinking? Even in small amounts it seems like we pull it out of the ground and then burn it into the atmosphere, what about the lost mass?
Turns out the mass gets replaced when we extract oil.
>replaced with what?
Water from the ocean.
This is why sea levels are not rising at any alarming rate despite the climate freaks screeching about it nonstop.
The glaciers are really melting, and the excess water is being absorbed to replace the volume of oil we extract (5 billion tons/year)
This could have negative impacts on earths surface temperature, as the ground becomes more porous and less insulated.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 16:26:41 UTC No. 16620907
>>16620727
some people here might try to say
>the urf urbsorbs energy from sun and turns it into stuff
but really, I think a more accurate explanation is likely to be
>it's magic, unironically
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 16:34:37 UTC No. 16620922
>>16620727
Even in climate alarmists worst prediction the temperature doesn't rise any higher than it was during the Cretaceous, and well life was just fine and dandy then. The Pompous human desire to keep nature at a status quo as though we're protecting it, when nature has never been stagnant in it's history 3 billion something year history doesn't sit right with me, and if you want o argue we need to do something then stop using plastic panels, and bird grinders as half assed solutions for energy when nuclear exists.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 17:29:01 UTC No. 16620958
>>16620922
>The Pompous human desire to keep nature at a status quo as though we're protecting it
it's not to protect nature. it's to protect ourselves.
our climate shifting to what it was during the cretaceous would in fact be very bad for currently existing humans. we can and should learn how to control earth's climate to keep it in a range that is comfortable for us and avoid sudden destructive changes.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 17:36:43 UTC No. 16620962
>>16620958
>it's not to protect nature. it's to protect ourselves.
that's not how the climate activist frame it, and it's definitely not how Euro laws are applied, considering the German government literally told people to exercise as a solution for freezing to death because their people couldn't afford heating.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 18:12:26 UTC No. 16620995
>>16620962
>that's not how the climate activist frame it, and it's definitely not how Euro laws are applied, considering the German government literally told people to exercise as a solution for freezing to death because their people couldn't afford heating.
right, i disagree with those people. i think we should be working on solar geoengineering to curb warming and also producing more nuclear energy, with wind and solar used for situations where intermittent production is fine. half the green movement is still in thrall to soviet propaganda memes about nuclear that were designed to keep europe dependent on russian oil and gas, those people are wrong and should be kept away from power.
i just also disagree with you. earth undergoing large uncontrolled climatic shifts, even ones with comparable precedent in geological time, would be very bad for humans and we shouldn't let it happen, even if it would happen naturally. we can and should do better than unoptimized nature.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 18:20:59 UTC No. 16621003
>>16620727
The water doesn't come from the ocean - oil and gas companies directly pump fresh water from our rivers, typically about 0.4 barrels of fresh water for each barrel of oil recovered. Rain water will eventually fill the remainder of any empty well.
But really, the overall volume of extracted oil is minuscule compared to the size of the oceans; google tells me about a trillion barrels have been extracted in history, which is only ~150 cubic km. An inch of ocean is 9000 cubic km
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 18:54:48 UTC No. 16621039
>>16620995
I mean it's not like I desire the earth turning into a Lethal Lava Land, I'm just saying the popular movement and laws made to fix these things aren't, while actual sustainability and un-desertification movements are left to just being small underfunded projects in Africa and the middle east, meanwhile people yap into our ears that we need to fix things for them as if they aren't capable of helping themselves.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 23:26:42 UTC No. 16621214
>>16620727
5 billion tons is literally nothing compared to the mass of the earth though.
Cosmic dust is more than enough to replace gases lost to space/year
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 23:50:59 UTC No. 16621235
>>16621214
The point wasn’t that it’s a lot, the point is that it will have an impact
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 23:58:21 UTC No. 16621240
>>16621003
fracking water really isnt fresh, it's full of sand and sudge in order to prevent leaks, and oceanic oil rigs exist lol
but I do agree