I appreciate the insightful discussion.

I believe the main point argument has run its course and I share the same beliefs as you. My reasoning is: if half the world was on fire hundreds of millions of years ago, and also covered in a sheet of ice many times, it’s hard to think that a single species taking sludge out of the ground and burning it would have any effect.

I’d like to steer the conversation towards the motive behind advocating for climate action. This was briefly mentioned by you and I recently formed my own belief on it.

My belief is that I don’t need a final conclusion proving or disproving mankind’s effect on the climate. There are plenty of reasons to pursue the “solutions” to climate change. Such as: eliminating unaesthetic piles of trash floating in the ocean and harnessing energy that will outlast humans (renewables). I agree that any man purposefully skewing research to further his business is undoubtedly evil. But there’s is good in this world as well. Whether climate change is man’s fault or not, our “solutions” will be beneficial to us either way.

Have you driven a Tesla? It’s fucking insane. It feels like a cloud but handles like a saw blade. I’m a gear head myself, and it pains me to admit electric beats combustion. It’s also worth noting that the oil wells will one day run dry, with no efficient lab alternative. This is not the case for renewables. You and I know renewable technology is still primitive, but the wind will always blow as the sun shines. I see no harm in companies profiting from the fruits of their products. I see harm in false information leading to a sense of impending doom.