Originally Posted by Duffman

When I was getting an engineering degree in 2008 I had a required class called "Engineering Earth" where our professor talked about this a lot. According to him, when he worked in industry he was involved with a project where they found a cost-effective way to sequester CO2 in the early 90s. He said the biggest adversary to the tech was the Soviet Union/Russia because rising global temperatures meant that they could finally gain access to natural resources in Siberia and the Arctic Ocean. It would also shift the "bread-basket" region into an area more favorable for them.

Personally, I think the evidence for climate change is pretty resounding. There are just too many independent studies analyzing different aspects (satellite imagery, global CO2 ppm, global temperature readings, core samples, etc) that all reach the same conclusion. My fiance is a scientist (unrelated to atmospheric science) and I've seen what goes into getting published and peer reviewed, so the theory that all the scientists could even push an agenda is baffling to anyone who understands the process because there're just too many controls and checks and balances to ensure the entire community polices itself. I'm really not surprised that scientists denying climate change are being excommunicated. I mean, Phillip Morris had no problem finding some sell-out who'd claim cigarettes weren't bad for you well into the 2000s, but if you're gonna listen to the 1% of scientists who said cigarettes weren't bad for you it's your fault for getting cancer. With climate change every big industry leader from energy, utilities, auto, construction, agriculture, aviation (I'll admit it), etc would love a sell-out, so how do you think the community would react to them?

Things like the Green New Deal were the worst thing to ever happen to climate change action, because it was nothing but a socialist Trojan Horse that caused everyone whose not far left to circle the wagons. I think the Right needs to get on board and instead of just pretending the issue doesn't exist, find a palatable solution, like nuclear and solar. And not those stupid solar farms. Ever see how many solar panels it takes to generate 100% of a house's electric need? It's not much. They also have an ROI of about 15 years without subsidies and a useful life of 30 years. If it became standard that everyone's southern roof was a solar roof, most people got electric cars for local commuting, and we replaced existing coal with nuclear, preferably in places not prone to Earthquakes, volcanoes, and tsunamis (sorry California and Japan), that'd pretty much solve our crisis. Instead it turned into this BS politicized issue where we have to choose between becoming socialists who can never afford a big house, our own car, or red meat ever again, and the other side, which just pretends the problem doesn't exist.