I announce to you, in the interest of total fairness, to both of us, my immediate plan is to follow your pattern of being slow to watch videos
I was not slow to watch your first video and you presented your second video before satisfying the deal you made for me watching the first.
and to constantly remark that your sources are politicians, economists, social do gooders and perhaps worse than that.
Remark all you want. That's kind of the purpose of the whole exercise.
The gist of what your politicians say will be hammered hard for them being politicians.
If you can find the names of any politicians among the authors or reviewers of The Physical Science Basis, I will be very surprised.
Patrick Moore cured himself of what I call the bullcrap by Democrats.
Patrick Moore turned out not to be a good match with anyone else who was interested in saving the whales.
When he found his organization turned hard left he left the group. Imagine had Stalin took it over. He hated leaving it but it really became a terrible organization.
I don't think Stalin was terribly concerned about the fate of the whales. Greenpeace was never a terrible organization.
When talking of Fossil Fuels, the reason they are so popular is simple. Energy density. Also they are widely available.
They are not as available as the wind and the sun.
While it might be true that a substite for such fuels won't be worth making, we know that in WW2 to survive the Germans made fuels themselves.
They made synthetic fuels from coal.
So it is still possible as you see with Alcohol for man to create enough fuel to keep our present ICE vehicles.
The Germans did not make fuel from alcohol. And both coal and alcohol produce CO2 when you burn them. The better idea is to convert engines to burn hydrogen.
So why keep them? Energy density. I said it again.
Why get rid of them? GHGs. I said it again.
Simply put, they carry a plentiful supply of safe to use fuel so you can drive long distances and when adding to the fuel supply it is already known by consumers and takes little time to refuel.
A solid state battery with 745 miles of range and ten minute recharge time beats any of those in every way. A hydrogen powered ICE or fuel cell could be refueled in seconds.
A well written book called the Deep Hot Biosphere should inspire thinking that so called fossil fuels are ending in our more immediate future.
How deep an oil well do you think can be drilled?
The book explains a different way it forms than we hear in the media or by our politicians.
There was a second article in 2017 marking the 25th anniversary of Gold's first article. Here's the abstract. Emphasis mine.
Abstract
Twenty-five years ago this month, Thomas Gold published a seminal manuscript suggesting the presence of a “deep, hot biosphere” in the Earth’s crust. Since this publication, a considerable amount of attention has been given to the study of deep biospheres, their role in geochemical cycles, and their potential to inform on the origin of life and its potential outside of Earth.
Overwhelming evidence now supports the presence of a deep biosphere ubiquitously distributed on Earth in both terrestrial and marine settings. Furthermore, it has become apparent that much of this life is dependent on lithogenically sourced high-energy compounds to sustain productivity. A vast diversity of uncultivated microorganisms has been detected in subsurface environments, and we show that H2, CH4, and CO feature prominently in many of their predicted metabolisms. Despite 25 years of intense study, key questions remain on life in the deep subsurface, including whether it is endemic and the extent of its involvement in the anaerobic formation and degradation of hydrocarbons. Emergent data from cultivation and next-generation sequencing approaches continue to provide promising new hints to answer these questions. As Gold suggested, and as has become increasingly evident, to better understand the subsurface is critical to further understanding the Earth, life, the evolution of life, and the potential for life elsewhere. To this end, we suggest the need to develop a robust network of interdisciplinary scientists and accessible field sites for long-term monitoring of the Earth’s subsurface in the form of a deep subsurface microbiome initiative.
But, of course, this work was done by mainstream scientists so it can't be trusted. Look how often they're wrong. Mainstream scientists thought the Earth was flat. And they're undoubtedly getting paid off by the anti-petroleum left wing democrats. Right?
A good bit of our troubles these days are pure crap from politicians.
AGW is a good bit of trouble which did not come from politicians.
