I did none of the things you listed and I do not know where you got the idea I did. Of course we'll discover new sources of materials in all likeliness, but that doesn't mean it's a good strategy to simply always assume technology/new sources will solve the issue.
Take the oil for example: yes, it's entirely possible we'll figure out a way to survive once the viable sources of oil are extracted, in fact I'd even go on to say it's likely. However one does not get to logically jump from this to "peak oil is not a concern", when the fact is we currently do not have viable solutions for it that're proven effective on a global scale. There are certainly options with which research is being made, such as artificially creating oil from other materials, different sort of biofuels etc etc.. but none of these are as of yet at the level on which they can realistically replace the current oil industry. Hopefully they will be by the time the transition has to be made, but we don't get to declare that as of yet-
The ozone hole, is an appeal to authority. An authority that regularly makes false statements as demonstrated by my links.
No, it's based on observable science and measurements. If you think only a scientific source which has done 0 errors is trustworthy, then you can off hand discredit all science, because there is no such source. Again, as far as I know the data about the current status of the ozone layer, ie. the total diminishing of it having halted and the ozone layer slowly recovering, are things widely supported by climatologists. If you have actual data saying otherwise, please provide it and we can continue the discussion. Saying "these dudes have made mistakes before therefore this is wrong", without providing any sort of factual refutation of the data itself does not invalidate scientific research.
Simple question why is the ozone still there why does it still grow in the winter and shrink in the summer ?
Because like everything else in the climate, it too varies also based on weather. This shouldn't be that hard to grasp: it's not as if the scientists are claiming all changes in the ozone layer are caused by man made activity, but that our previous activity was making the dissipation of ozone worse. Seasonal variation is to be expected, but what we need to be looking for is the averages over time. Those were falling previously and have now stabilized with the banning of the ozone depleting chemicals, and are expected to rise back to their previous levels within a couple of decades.
Any reasonable examination you have to conclude it was always there and it wasn't noticed until people started studying the polar upper atmosphere in a way that would detect it.
No, any reasonable examination would conclude that we must not look at complex systems such as the climate/atmosphere as being only affected by weather or man made activity but rather understand that as both of those can and do release chemicals which affect the ozone layer over time, both of those can therefore affect its condition, a conclusion in fact supported by measurements and laboratory experiments.
As for the population bomb, I tried to explain to you that I do not in fact, think that the population growth will lead to any sort of mass catastrophe. This is why I do not consider myself a Malthusian or neo-Malthusian. At the same time, I think it's sensible to recognize that the increase in population will unavoidably cause massive challenges especially in the oarts of the globe where it is most rapid. You can of course already find examples of this in densely populated areas: pollution, slums, etc.. these things are bound to get worse as we have more and more people concentrated on certain areas.
This should be obvious to anyone, and I do not think that alone makes one a Malthusian. My original point was that just because we haven't had mass starvation does not mean that the population growth is without its issues.
I like my science with less politics and less people screaming doom you must do this, that way so they can make money off of it.
Again, if you have data contradicting the things the report says about the ozone levels and the estimates I'll gladly look into it, but just saying "it's by the IPCC therey it must be false" is faulty logic and you know it.
So new sources of oil and oil products don't count because ?????
I didn't say the do not count. The original issue raised was peak oil, ie. the running out of natural deposits of oil. This is an undenianble fact for which we have to look for solutions. Artificially manufactured oil(s) are one of those possible answers, but not necessarily the best/only one.
The point was again that the original post was implying peak oil is not a nconcern, and I'm saying it is. Again, this does not mean I think it's an insurmountable issue, but it is something we need solutions on, as your link itself proves
Seriously you need to learn what a strawman is so you can build better ones.
I wasn't making a straw man, you just misunderstood what I was trying to argue. I
My first thought is Malthus is into his third century of being wrong, but still people think it makes them look intelligent to wring their hands and repeat what he said.
Where did I say anything about Malthus? Malthus argued we'd run out of food, and that's proved to be wrong consistently for the majority of humans. I never said or argued that reaching 10 billion people will cause large amounts of people to die, but there's no doubt it'll cause issues. Increased need for energy and the rising standard of living across the globe present new challenges environmentally and economically.
To equivocate any such argument to Malthus and just waive it off is dishonest. It's not just about food or water - although both have their challenges in certain parts of the world - it's about trying to provide a decent standard of living for 10 billion people when we cannot even properly do it for 7. I'm not saying it's impossible, not by a long shot, but it's definitely a challenge.
As someone else commented the "Ozone Hole was there before we were using CFCs" We have cut our use down to nearly nothing and it is still there.
Someone who was objective, would have to come to the conclusion that it is a natural phenomena independent of CFC use.
This is just wrong. Certainly there are natural causes contributing to ozone depletion as well, but we know for a fact these chemicals increase the depletion. This is something that can and has been prioved in a lab, which is what lead to the ban to begin with. The reason it's still there is because it takes time for the chemicals we managed to pump into the atmosphere to clear out. But the depletion itself has largely stopped, and the situation is estimated to improve over time. Quoting the appropriate section of wiki:
"A 2005 IPCC review of ozone observations and model calculations concluded that the global amount of ozone has now approximately stabilized. Although considerable variability is expected from year to year, including in polar regions where depletion is largest, the ozone layer is expected to begin to recover in coming decades due to declining ozone-depleting substance concentrations, assuming full compliance with the Montreal Protocol.
A 2005 IPCC review of ozone observations and model calculations concluded that the global amount of ozone has now approximately stabilized. Although considerable variability is expected from year to year, including in polar regions where depletion is largest, the ozone layer is expected to begin to recover in coming decades due to declining ozone-depleting substance concentrations, assuming full compliance with the Montreal Protocol."
The IPCC Report
You obviously have done little to no reading on the actual science behind ozone depletiona nd CFS if you think they have no connection.
Well why yes.
I'm well ware of the different processes and methods to manufacture oil from different sources, and those are certainly something to look into, but again, it doesn't negate the fact that natural deposits of fossil fuels are limited and we cannot ignore this. If anything it backs up my point: if we didn't need to worry about running out of oil, technologies such as this would not be investigated or needed.
The population of the world is still rising, and by any estimates will keep rising until at least 10 billion inhabitants, and the limited resources we have are not growing at an equal pace, so this is still an issue.
Ozone depletion is a genuine threat, and the ozone hole is one of the few examples of environmental dangers that was actually tackled by agreeing globally to ban the use of CFS andf other ozone depleting gases. If it wasn't for these actions, we'd be facing a lot more issues with regards to added UV radiation.
Unless you've found a endless source of oil, this too is still an issue. It makes no sense to ignore the fact that oil and other fossil fuels will inevitably run put when designing the long term fuel and energy policies around the world. Throwing one's arms up and going "Ha, see, this limited resource is not running out quite as quickly as we thought, no reason to worry about it then" is idiotic. Oil is a finite resource, and one we rely on heavily across a multitude of fields, so its scarcity is definitely something we need to plan ahead for.
So I don't get it, you listed 3 ongoing problems 1 of which has sort of been solved by adopting smarter policies in manufacturing and you expect this to prove that we shouldn't listen to science? What the fuck man?