I look forward to any plaintiffs presenting scientific evidence to show that drilling holes in the ocean floors to suck out oil changes the climate worldwide, but drilling holes in the ocean floors to instal wind turbines has no effect on the climate worldwide..
This argument is really stupid. Climate change isn’t about drilling holes, it’s about burning oil and releasing pollution. Comparing oil drilling to wind turbines just because both touch the ocean floor makes no sense.
Hi Ahnaf, thanks for contributing to the discussion.
I’m intrigued that your understanding of climate change centres on the pollution caused by burning oil.
So in which countries has the climate changed since the world’s 8 billion people began relying on burning fossil fuels for their survival?
But it appears you don’t understand my point.
The climate activists would have us believe that an oil rig’s legs either floating, stuck to the ocean floor or drilled into the ocean floor changes the world’s climate.
But the same climate activists would have us believe that the legs of wind turbines drilled into the ocean floor has no effect on the world’s climate. Note - the legs of wind turbines must be secured to the ocean floor or else the wind catching blades would snap off in wind gusts - it ain’t rocket science.
Thus the legs of one structure changes the world’s climate but the legs of the other structure has no affect on the world’s climate.
Ted, your argument is still incorrect. Climate activists are not claiming that the physical legs of oil rigs change the climate. The oil rigs affect the climate because they enable the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, which release carbon dioxide and methane. On the other hand, wind turbines also have structures secured to the ocean floor, but they do not extract fossil fuels or emit greenhouse gases. This really should not need explaining. Also, your comparison of the legs makes no sense. That is like saying a single metal pole drilled into the ocean would cause climate change. The issue is emissions, not the physical presence of metal.
Climate change isn’t about burning oil in one place, since greenhouse gases spread through the atmosphere and affect the entire planet, not individual countries.
Your argument is so wrong it’s difficult to take the rest of your claims seriously.
Ahnaf, I only used ‘the legs’ as a comparison to what the activists will accept and what they won’t.
Your “ Oil rigs affect the climate because they enable the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, which release carbon dioxide and methane.” is hilarious.
Oil rigs extracting oil cannot affect the climate.
How do oil rigs enable the burning of fossil fuels? All they do is capture the oil and gases.
If the issue for you is emissions then find a forum where those individuals or industries doing the emissions is discussed.
This really should not need explaining.
And as for your “ Also, climate change isn’t about burning oil in one place, since greenhouse gases spread through the atmosphere and affect the entire planet, not individual countries.” suggests that the whole planet’s climate has changed, yet you still haven’t come up with a single country where it has changed.
Plus your blurb isn’t consistent with the Google/AI definition of Climate Change - a change in global or regional climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards.
I’ve travelled a fair bit over the last 15 years to various countries and not one of them has had their climate changed.
Where did you get your information from?
YouTube or AI maybe?
I looked up on YouTube “What materials are required to manufacture a wind turbine?”
In one video the presenter says raw materials like steel and fiberglass.
So funny..neither is a raw material.
The AI robot can be funny too. It often contradicts itself with the chatGPT robot but at least with the latter, a user can educate it.
I’m quite enjoying your posts. I’m in my early 80’s, am well educated and well travelled. I spend much of my time reading and learning new facts. I’m hoping you’ll have some for me soon, but in the meantime keep up the funnies.
This is a lot of confidence for someone repeatedly missing the basic point. "oIl RiGs ExTrAcTiNg oIl CaNnOt AfFeCt tHe cLiMaTe" is like saying that drug dealers have nothing to do with drug addiction because they only "supplied the drugs." Do oil rigs drill oil just for fun and then dump it back? No, they are extracted so that they can be used. Extraction is the starting point in a chain that leads directly to emissions and climate change. Pretending those steps are unrelated doesn’t make them disappear.
Also, it’s cool that you “travelled a fair bit over the last 15 years to various countries,” but visiting places is nowhere near enough to judge whether their climate has changed. What you experienced was weather, not climate. Climate is measured over decades using data, not your personal travel memories. This is something most school kids already understand. Also, climate change affects the whole planet, but it doesn’t show up the same way everywhere. And since you really want me to name a country, Bangladesh is a clear example, where long term data shows rising temperatures, stronger floods, and sea levels slowly rising. I don’t think that’s something you would notice on one of your trips!
By the way, your Youtube/AI tangent about turbine materials is irrelevant to this discussion.
I appreciate that you are enjoying my posts. Since you spend so much time reading and learning, I am sure it won’t take long to catch up on how climate science actually works, or you can keep denying it and pretend that’s the same thing. ;)
Setting the meme typography aside — arguments usually stand or fall on analysis, not formatting.
Extraction and end use are linked but distinct stages in a supply chain.
Oil rigs don’t combust fuel; emissions arise from downstream consumption across transport, agriculture, manufacturing, heating, and electricity systems.
Collapsing that entire chain into one step might be rhetorically convenient, but it’s analytically imprecise.
The drug dealer analogy is similarly strained. It equates an illegal vice product, harmful even when used as intended, with energy resources that underpin modern infrastructure. That comparison simplifies a complex industrial system to the point where it stops being explanatory.
If the position is that extraction carries measurable responsibility for downstream emissions, then the serious way to present that claim is quantitatively:
What proportion of responsibility sits upstream versus downstream — and what methodology was used to derive it?
Absent that, the argument relies more on meme styling and analogy than on structured analysis — which makes it difficult to interpret it as a rigorously developed position.
Your ‘theory’ about Bangladesh is hilarious.
80% of the country is on a floodplain.
The country is in the tropics and most of the land is close to sea level..um that means it rains a lot and the land is almost permanently saturated.
What I experienced on my travels was weather and climate.
Sure, on a daily basis we have weather but staying with the locals (who’ve lived where they live, for decades, all say their climate is unchanged.
Since you make out you know so much about climate science, do tell me where you studied it or failing that, how you think the climate works.
"dRilLing HoLeS in 0CeAn Fl0Ors to iNstAl wInD tURbInEs". Hey Ted, sorry for dumping the cold water on you, but I don't think we plant wind turbines on ocean floors. They're wind turbines. There is no wind at the bottom of the ocean.
You have got to be on the top 10 list of smartest internet users.
Hi Alex, I don’t see any cold water poured on my post.
Let’s have another look at my points.
The climate activists would have us believe that an oil rig’s legs either floating, stuck to the ocean floor or drilled into the ocean floor changes the world’s climate.
But the same climate activists would have us believe that the legs of wind turbines drilled into the ocean floor has no effect on the world’s climate. Note - the legs of wind turbines must be secured to the ocean floor or else the wind catching blades would snap off in wind gusts - it ain’t rocket science.
Thus the legs of one structure changes the world’s climate but the legs of the other structure has no affect on the world’s climate.
Hey Ted, last time I checked, wind turbines can be planted on land too. Wind turbines have much lower area consumption at the ground level, so you can plant them in quite a lot of places. Then you have to realize that taking up space doesn’t cause climate change, the burning of oil does. Come on, Ted.
Hi Alex, you’re correct, wind turbines can be and are planted on land, as are oil rigs. I think you’re quite wrong on the area consumption though. Have a look on YouTube to see what’s required to ‘plant’ just one turbine. Then you need to consider the trenches required to connect just one turbine to an electricity substation and the trenches required to connect the substation to the national grid.
Before I move on to the subject of ‘burning of oil’ please tell me something Alex. I ask this question to many people and often I get different answers, so how would you define ‘climate change’ ?
Use the google definition: a change in global or regional climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards and attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels.
Hmmm ok, well if that’s your definition also, we can say that planting wind turbines does cause climate change because massive amounts of co2 are released into the atmosphere in the manufacture of cement, steel reinforcement rods and all components of a wind turbine and transporting everything to the site whereas an oil rig (that’s been used many times before) only produces co2 from the transportation of the rig.
They also lie, distort, and make corrupt deals to pay off politicians, ensuring their product keeps destroying the planet and they keep the billions rolling in. I guess you're just fine with that.
Answer this - How is taking oil from beneath the ocean floor and storing fuels in tanks destroying Planet Earth?
Of course the $billions will keep rolling in as the majority of Planet Earth’s 8.3 billion humans depend on fossil fuels to stay alive, to keep warm in winter and cool in summer, to make electricity to power industry and grow food, for shipping goods between countries.
Not to mention the hundreds of millions that need to travel daily in buses, trains, cars, etc (all of which are powered with fossil fuels) to get to work and school.
And not to mention the millions worldwide who like to take an annual vacation using buses, ships, trains, cars, motorcycles etc (all of which are powered with fossil fuels).
Unless you live in a cave and wear a coat made out of a black bear’s hide, never venturing far from your cave to get food you kill to get, you and the majority of Earth’s inhabitants will need roughly 100 million tonnes of fossil fuels daily.
I take my hat off to you if you and your family have chosen to leave a house and all your clothes made using fossil fuels and decided to live in a cave for the rest of your lives. I don’t think I’d have the skills to make a knife or a spear or a fishing line out of material found in the woods to catch and kill enough game to feed a family every day.
But that’s what you expect all Earth’s 8.3 billion people to do.
I understood the concept of greenhouse gases when I was about 10. Exxon understood it in the late 19th century, and then suppressed it of course. Not sure why you don't.
Seems you don't even understand the concept of renewable energy. Bizarre comments.
You're right about the last bit. Installing wind turbines DOES affect the climate worldwilde, namely, since wind is >99% less carbon-intensive than burning oil, every kWh we produce with a turbine prevents 6 grams of Co2 from otherwise being released.
Hi Shirley, thanks for contributing to the discussion but I think you’ve not understood my post.
I’m not comparing an operating wind turbine to burning fossil fuels.
The climate activists would have us believe that an oil rig’s legs either floating, stuck to the ocean floor or drilled into the ocean floor changes the world’s climate.
But the same climate activists would have us believe that the legs of wind turbines drilled into the ocean floor has no effect on the world’s climate. Note - the legs of wind turbines must be secured to the ocean floor or else the wind catching blades would snap off in wind gusts - it ain’t rocket science.
Thus the legs of one structure changes the world’s climate but the legs of the other structure has no affect on the world’s climate.
It actually would make a lot of sense for climate activists to say that insofar as oil rigs pose a significantly greater threat to both the climate and the surrounding ecosystem.
Hi Shirley, how does an oil rig pose a greater threat to the surrounding ecosystem than say a 20 turbine wind farm? The wind farm requires much more land to be stripped and the turbines with their monstrous blades kill hundreds of birds each year.
All an oil rig does is suck crude oil out of the ground and pipe it to a storage facility.
Please explain how a 20 turbine wind farm and an oil rig in say an area of Spain changes the climate of Spain.
I look forward to any plaintiffs presenting scientific evidence to show that drilling holes in the ocean floors to suck out oil changes the climate worldwide, but drilling holes in the ocean floors to instal wind turbines has no effect on the climate worldwide..
This argument is really stupid. Climate change isn’t about drilling holes, it’s about burning oil and releasing pollution. Comparing oil drilling to wind turbines just because both touch the ocean floor makes no sense.
Hi Ahnaf, thanks for contributing to the discussion.
I’m intrigued that your understanding of climate change centres on the pollution caused by burning oil.
So in which countries has the climate changed since the world’s 8 billion people began relying on burning fossil fuels for their survival?
But it appears you don’t understand my point.
The climate activists would have us believe that an oil rig’s legs either floating, stuck to the ocean floor or drilled into the ocean floor changes the world’s climate.
But the same climate activists would have us believe that the legs of wind turbines drilled into the ocean floor has no effect on the world’s climate. Note - the legs of wind turbines must be secured to the ocean floor or else the wind catching blades would snap off in wind gusts - it ain’t rocket science.
Thus the legs of one structure changes the world’s climate but the legs of the other structure has no affect on the world’s climate.
Ted, your argument is still incorrect. Climate activists are not claiming that the physical legs of oil rigs change the climate. The oil rigs affect the climate because they enable the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, which release carbon dioxide and methane. On the other hand, wind turbines also have structures secured to the ocean floor, but they do not extract fossil fuels or emit greenhouse gases. This really should not need explaining. Also, your comparison of the legs makes no sense. That is like saying a single metal pole drilled into the ocean would cause climate change. The issue is emissions, not the physical presence of metal.
Climate change isn’t about burning oil in one place, since greenhouse gases spread through the atmosphere and affect the entire planet, not individual countries.
Your argument is so wrong it’s difficult to take the rest of your claims seriously.
Ahnaf, I only used ‘the legs’ as a comparison to what the activists will accept and what they won’t.
Your “ Oil rigs affect the climate because they enable the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, which release carbon dioxide and methane.” is hilarious.
Oil rigs extracting oil cannot affect the climate.
How do oil rigs enable the burning of fossil fuels? All they do is capture the oil and gases.
If the issue for you is emissions then find a forum where those individuals or industries doing the emissions is discussed.
This really should not need explaining.
And as for your “ Also, climate change isn’t about burning oil in one place, since greenhouse gases spread through the atmosphere and affect the entire planet, not individual countries.” suggests that the whole planet’s climate has changed, yet you still haven’t come up with a single country where it has changed.
Plus your blurb isn’t consistent with the Google/AI definition of Climate Change - a change in global or regional climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards.
I’ve travelled a fair bit over the last 15 years to various countries and not one of them has had their climate changed.
Where did you get your information from?
YouTube or AI maybe?
I looked up on YouTube “What materials are required to manufacture a wind turbine?”
In one video the presenter says raw materials like steel and fiberglass.
So funny..neither is a raw material.
The AI robot can be funny too. It often contradicts itself with the chatGPT robot but at least with the latter, a user can educate it.
I’m quite enjoying your posts. I’m in my early 80’s, am well educated and well travelled. I spend much of my time reading and learning new facts. I’m hoping you’ll have some for me soon, but in the meantime keep up the funnies.
This is a lot of confidence for someone repeatedly missing the basic point. "oIl RiGs ExTrAcTiNg oIl CaNnOt AfFeCt tHe cLiMaTe" is like saying that drug dealers have nothing to do with drug addiction because they only "supplied the drugs." Do oil rigs drill oil just for fun and then dump it back? No, they are extracted so that they can be used. Extraction is the starting point in a chain that leads directly to emissions and climate change. Pretending those steps are unrelated doesn’t make them disappear.
Also, it’s cool that you “travelled a fair bit over the last 15 years to various countries,” but visiting places is nowhere near enough to judge whether their climate has changed. What you experienced was weather, not climate. Climate is measured over decades using data, not your personal travel memories. This is something most school kids already understand. Also, climate change affects the whole planet, but it doesn’t show up the same way everywhere. And since you really want me to name a country, Bangladesh is a clear example, where long term data shows rising temperatures, stronger floods, and sea levels slowly rising. I don’t think that’s something you would notice on one of your trips!
By the way, your Youtube/AI tangent about turbine materials is irrelevant to this discussion.
I appreciate that you are enjoying my posts. Since you spend so much time reading and learning, I am sure it won’t take long to catch up on how climate science actually works, or you can keep denying it and pretend that’s the same thing. ;)
Setting the meme typography aside — arguments usually stand or fall on analysis, not formatting.
Extraction and end use are linked but distinct stages in a supply chain.
Oil rigs don’t combust fuel; emissions arise from downstream consumption across transport, agriculture, manufacturing, heating, and electricity systems.
Collapsing that entire chain into one step might be rhetorically convenient, but it’s analytically imprecise.
The drug dealer analogy is similarly strained. It equates an illegal vice product, harmful even when used as intended, with energy resources that underpin modern infrastructure. That comparison simplifies a complex industrial system to the point where it stops being explanatory.
If the position is that extraction carries measurable responsibility for downstream emissions, then the serious way to present that claim is quantitatively:
What proportion of responsibility sits upstream versus downstream — and what methodology was used to derive it?
Absent that, the argument relies more on meme styling and analogy than on structured analysis — which makes it difficult to interpret it as a rigorously developed position.
Your ‘theory’ about Bangladesh is hilarious.
80% of the country is on a floodplain.
The country is in the tropics and most of the land is close to sea level..um that means it rains a lot and the land is almost permanently saturated.
What I experienced on my travels was weather and climate.
Sure, on a daily basis we have weather but staying with the locals (who’ve lived where they live, for decades, all say their climate is unchanged.
Since you make out you know so much about climate science, do tell me where you studied it or failing that, how you think the climate works.
"dRilLing HoLeS in 0CeAn Fl0Ors to iNstAl wInD tURbInEs". Hey Ted, sorry for dumping the cold water on you, but I don't think we plant wind turbines on ocean floors. They're wind turbines. There is no wind at the bottom of the ocean.
You have got to be on the top 10 list of smartest internet users.
Hi Alex, I don’t see any cold water poured on my post.
Let’s have another look at my points.
The climate activists would have us believe that an oil rig’s legs either floating, stuck to the ocean floor or drilled into the ocean floor changes the world’s climate.
But the same climate activists would have us believe that the legs of wind turbines drilled into the ocean floor has no effect on the world’s climate. Note - the legs of wind turbines must be secured to the ocean floor or else the wind catching blades would snap off in wind gusts - it ain’t rocket science.
Thus the legs of one structure changes the world’s climate but the legs of the other structure has no affect on the world’s climate.
Can you explain what I’m missing?
Hey Ted, last time I checked, wind turbines can be planted on land too. Wind turbines have much lower area consumption at the ground level, so you can plant them in quite a lot of places. Then you have to realize that taking up space doesn’t cause climate change, the burning of oil does. Come on, Ted.
Hi Alex, you’re correct, wind turbines can be and are planted on land, as are oil rigs. I think you’re quite wrong on the area consumption though. Have a look on YouTube to see what’s required to ‘plant’ just one turbine. Then you need to consider the trenches required to connect just one turbine to an electricity substation and the trenches required to connect the substation to the national grid.
Before I move on to the subject of ‘burning of oil’ please tell me something Alex. I ask this question to many people and often I get different answers, so how would you define ‘climate change’ ?
Use the google definition: a change in global or regional climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards and attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels.
Hmmm ok, well if that’s your definition also, we can say that planting wind turbines does cause climate change because massive amounts of co2 are released into the atmosphere in the manufacture of cement, steel reinforcement rods and all components of a wind turbine and transporting everything to the site whereas an oil rig (that’s been used many times before) only produces co2 from the transportation of the rig.
It's the burning of the oil thus releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere which causes the problem, not holes in the seabed. Hope this helps..
Well then, oil companies and petrol retailers cannot be held responsible as neither do any burning.
Oil companies merely suck oil from beneath the ocean floor and the retailers merely store the fuels in tanks.
They also lie, distort, and make corrupt deals to pay off politicians, ensuring their product keeps destroying the planet and they keep the billions rolling in. I guess you're just fine with that.
Answer this - How is taking oil from beneath the ocean floor and storing fuels in tanks destroying Planet Earth?
Of course the $billions will keep rolling in as the majority of Planet Earth’s 8.3 billion humans depend on fossil fuels to stay alive, to keep warm in winter and cool in summer, to make electricity to power industry and grow food, for shipping goods between countries.
Not to mention the hundreds of millions that need to travel daily in buses, trains, cars, etc (all of which are powered with fossil fuels) to get to work and school.
And not to mention the millions worldwide who like to take an annual vacation using buses, ships, trains, cars, motorcycles etc (all of which are powered with fossil fuels).
Unless you live in a cave and wear a coat made out of a black bear’s hide, never venturing far from your cave to get food you kill to get, you and the majority of Earth’s inhabitants will need roughly 100 million tonnes of fossil fuels daily.
I take my hat off to you if you and your family have chosen to leave a house and all your clothes made using fossil fuels and decided to live in a cave for the rest of your lives. I don’t think I’d have the skills to make a knife or a spear or a fishing line out of material found in the woods to catch and kill enough game to feed a family every day.
But that’s what you expect all Earth’s 8.3 billion people to do.
I understood the concept of greenhouse gases when I was about 10. Exxon understood it in the late 19th century, and then suppressed it of course. Not sure why you don't.
Seems you don't even understand the concept of renewable energy. Bizarre comments.
Understanding a simplified idea at age 10 isn’t the same as understanding a complex physical system.
If it were, climate science would have been finished decades ago.
Most people are taught a cartoon version of the greenhouse effect as children.
That doesn’t address how the climate system behaves once you include convection, clouds, oceans, mountains, land masses and feedbacks.
I have pretty good knowledge of the physics involved in Earth’s very complex Climate System.
Please post the link to the story that states Exxon understood the simplified concept of greenhouse gases in the late 19th century.
Oh I understand how occasionally available wind and the sun’s rays can be used as components in the manufacture of electricity.
The concept of renewable energy is a new one on me as like most informed people energy that’s been used cannot be renewed.
Perhaps you’re thinking of a perpetual motion system.
You're right about the last bit. Installing wind turbines DOES affect the climate worldwilde, namely, since wind is >99% less carbon-intensive than burning oil, every kWh we produce with a turbine prevents 6 grams of Co2 from otherwise being released.
Hi Shirley, thanks for contributing to the discussion but I think you’ve not understood my post.
I’m not comparing an operating wind turbine to burning fossil fuels.
The climate activists would have us believe that an oil rig’s legs either floating, stuck to the ocean floor or drilled into the ocean floor changes the world’s climate.
But the same climate activists would have us believe that the legs of wind turbines drilled into the ocean floor has no effect on the world’s climate. Note - the legs of wind turbines must be secured to the ocean floor or else the wind catching blades would snap off in wind gusts - it ain’t rocket science.
Thus the legs of one structure changes the world’s climate but the legs of the other structure has no affect on the world’s climate.
It actually would make a lot of sense for climate activists to say that insofar as oil rigs pose a significantly greater threat to both the climate and the surrounding ecosystem.
Hi Shirley, how does an oil rig pose a greater threat to the surrounding ecosystem than say a 20 turbine wind farm? The wind farm requires much more land to be stripped and the turbines with their monstrous blades kill hundreds of birds each year.
All an oil rig does is suck crude oil out of the ground and pipe it to a storage facility.
Please explain how a 20 turbine wind farm and an oil rig in say an area of Spain changes the climate of Spain.