Kirby007 has a potential as a right wing politician that fights for Big Oil and Mining Companies and tries to water down climate change policies and pushes the line companies can be trusted to self regulate and do what is best for the environment. Kirby007 you would get my vote.

The general scientific consensus is that Climate Change is being influenced by Humans.

Now unless you have more experience, better qualifications and a better understanding of climate than the majority of the scientific community... We can probably agree that your position is the incorrect one.

Here is some information to get you up to speed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/scientists-agree-global-warming-happening-humans-primary-cause
https://www.science.org.au/learning/general-audience/science-booklets-0/science-climate-change
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-10-25/climate-change-sceptics-converted/9053406

And it's enough of an issue where countries from all around the world are getting together to solve the problem.
https://unfccc.int/process/the-kyoto-protocol
http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/government/international

False. There are tons of alternatives to oil.
Hydrogen is one such technology where we can use the energy produced by wind, hydro, geothermal, nuclear and solar to split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms.
https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2014/07/hydrogen-energy-storage-a-new-solution-to-the-renewable-energy-intermittency-problem.html
https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/how-do-hydrogen-fuel-cells-work

We don't know if that is the case actually. We haven't built technologies en-masse that can capture greenhouse gases from the Earths Atmosphere and use them for energy or store them in a non-impactful way.

Our current line of thinking is to capture it where it's being generated, like at a Coal Powerplant.

Quality of life for allot of people will not improve, rather the opposite. - Especially as their inhabited islands sink due to rising sea levels.
https://www.rd.com/advice/travel/islands-will-disappear-80-years/
https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/pacific-island-nations-urge-world-leaders-to-act-as-islands-expected-to-sink/news-story/9416ac1726d1f8d02a1ae435924e364f

Things like Bushfires will become more common and more severe. (Because I need more work to do?)
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/impacts/global-warming-and-wildfire.html
http://theconversation.com/how-climate-change-is-increasing-the-risk-of-wildfires-99056

Cyclones/Hurricanes/Tornado's will also increase in occurrence and severity.
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
https://phys.org/news/2018-09-scientists-world-intense-hurricanes.html
https://www.c2es.org/content/tornadoes-and-climate-change/

I think the issue people have is that... Because the wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine, that Solar and Wind generation isn't viable... When there has been great strides in allowing things like Solar to generate electricity 24/7.

I.E. Solar Thermal using Molten Salt to generate energy at night.
https://www.solarreserve.com/en/technology/molten-salt-energy-storage

https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/News/molten-salt-boost-solar-power-generation

Or using Wind Electricity to make Hydrogen to generate power when the wind isn't blowing.
http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/technologies/hydrogen-energy-storage

Using giant batteries to store excess green energy for times of demand/low production.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-27/tesla-battery-cost-revealed-two-years-after-blackout/10310680

Using green energy to drive pumps to store water in dams.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity

Actually think he is being serious.

Conservative vs Progressive, Left vs Right content isn't the issue.
What we should be backing is Scientific Consensus, not conspiracy theories or ideas that are "gaining traction".

You have obviously confused climate and weather.
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/climate_vs_weather.html

Which is a common trap for climate skeptics to fall into.

Climate change doesn't mean you will not have a ton of snowfall.

Many electric vehicles actually use Nickel-Metal Hydride cells. So Lithium isn't a requirement for electric vehicles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel%E2%80%93metal_hydride_battery#Electric_vehicles

Even then you have a ton of variants of Lithium based cells which by extension have different power characteristics and thus use differing amounts of lithium.
Like Lithium Ion Manganese, Lithium Sulfur, Lithium Cobalt and so on.

My Electric Motorcycle uses the Manganese variant... And my Electric Bicycle uses the Lithium Ion Phosphate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_ion_manganese_oxide_battery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_iron_phosphate_battery

The big increases in energy in the battery sphere though won't be chemistries per-sey. It will actually be in building nano-structures.

Nickel-Zinc could be a good replacement for Nickel-Metal Hydride cells anyway, they have a higher nominal voltage too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel-zinc_battery

Climate change science is open for debate. Alarmists have been making climate change prophets of doom for centuries it is nothing new. I for one was not convinced by Al Gore and his false claims of making out carbon dioxide levels have surged over the last 40 years. The Alarmists claimed the growing hole in the Ozone layer will cause global temperatures to sky rocket and trigger natural disasters did not come true. What about Ice caps, North and South Pole were expected to melt and force global flooding and submerge cities around the world. None of the Alarmists claims have ever came true. Recent global meetings have lead to no significant action on climate change because the global leaders and their teams of experts could not fully agree on climate change. Climate change sceptics/deniers will continue to question the sky is falling claims of the Climate Change believers.

I can't exactly read German but if it's electric power, then that seems feasible but the figures look somewhat dire when we measure total energy consumption instead ... (heating, transportation, other industrial/agricultural utilities, etc)

Basically, even after a concerted effort from Germany to transition to renewable energy they've only been able to raise the share of renewable's by a meager ~3% over the past 7 years from 2010 and their citizens are paying the price for it ... 

Germany's model is hardly the decisive one to emulate ... 

The difference between us... Is I can and have actually provided evidence.

Climate change is not open for debate, it's happening, the evidence is undeniable, thankfully climate-change skeptics like yourself are a minority and in decline and thus aren't really adding anything important to the overall discussion.

As for the Ozone Layer... You might be a little to young to remember, but the world got together and banned CFC's that was destroying the Ozone.
It was dubbed the "Montreal Protocol".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

And I am happy to report it was damn successful, now the world is getting together to do the same thing with greenhouse gases.

Nickel-Metal Hydride had 3% of the total market share of batteries in 2005 so you can conclude how well they fared later on. Nearly all of the modern electric vehicles like the Tesla 3 now uses lithium ion batteries because they're just straight up superior. Lithium based batteries are far lighter and are capable of delivering more mileage capacity making it more energy efficient for acceleration ... (don't have to spend as much energy while driving since the battery is lighter)

@Bold Let's hope so because lithium ion technology has been the incumbent for nearly 3 decades ... (we're running out of lithium to mine very quickly)

The problem with Nickel-Zinc is that they don't last for very many charge cycles. Who's going to buy a battery that can only last 30 full charges compared to a lithium ion battery where it'll last for 1000+ full charges before degradation ? It's a massive inconvenience having to replace your your battery more frequently. Now if Nickel-Zinc lasted for at least 500-1000 charge cycles then we could very well easily have a low cost winner but until then lithium cells are especially recommended ... 

It's down to 95% because the newer techs are starting to get financially viable in some sectors. Vanadium Flow Batteries for instance are taking over the high power batteries (those which are counted in Megawatts of energy retention) due to their extreme retention capacities (25 years without significant loss of power) and efficiency, and because they keep working for very long times. They store what we produce too much and release it when we don't produce enough power in the time it takes to power up or down some power plant.

Aluminium-ion Batteries are slowly coming into use in household batteries for solar panels or similar home power generation because they are 5-7 times denser than Lithium-ion batteries, meaning much smaller boxes to be installed than with other solutions. This power density is also the reason why much research  about them is going on in the automotive industry, as it could allow travel ranges much closer to a gas driven car - if not even surpass it. The reason it doesn't yet is because Al-ion batteries still loose their charge too fast. Imagine leaving your car for a couple weeks for a holiday trip and when you come back the battery is dead... Once that's solved they will certainly push the lithium batteries out of cars in no time.

Potassium-ion and Potassium-air batteries are meant to become the prime replacements of Lithium batteries. Potassium is cheaper to acquire and produce, can be recharged much more often, can be recharged faster, have better power retention and have an over 95% round trip efficiency (meaning the power you need to fully charge a battery and how much of that power can be used again; bu comparison Lithium batteries only reach 60% because they need overcharging)

What keeps Lithium in place is mostly just that the whole industry is fully geared to it now. But once Lithium starts getting rarer and the price shoots up, the cheaper alternatives will quickly push it out of the market.

Just fyi about his link is that over 35% of power generation is now from renewable sources, and Germany is also exporting an ever increasing of power. I have another source here, more up to date and in english for you. It also gives you the detail of every power source: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/publications/studies/Stromerzeugung_2017_e.pdf

Heating is mostly done by natural gas in Germany and german car manufacturers were notoriously against the car electrification, bringing that whole mix down.

But since they announced a couple weeks ago that they changed their minds and will go all in in electric cars, that will already create a nice bump upwards.

Main problem stays with the heating, as electric heaters are considered unsafe and thus very frowned upon. And I don't think that will change anytime soon. Still, I expect them to hit over 25% by 2030

Germany is exporting over 50TWh, so why is the power in the  neighboring countries not nearly as high? Because the high price boils down to just pure greed from the suppliers, gouging the customers. Sure, they have to pay a fixed amount per KWh to anybody who has solar cells and puts their power into the grid, but that shouldn't rise the price anything near the 30% like they did. They use it basically to compensate for their loss of the atomic power plants in the short term in Germany. Case of point: Luxembourg gets almost all it's power from Germany, but they only pay half as much per kWh.

I never once claimed that Lithium wasn't superior, so that's a bit of a red herring right there. All comes down to price/performance/weight.

Nickel-Zinc is improving as well... Especially when building the Zinc structure so that there is less Zinc Oxide forming.
Structure is going to be the main frontier of battery technology going forward rather than chemistries.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05/a-zinc-battery-that-could-compete-with-your-favorite-rechargeables/
http://www.innovationtoronto.com/2017/04/nickel-zinc-ni-zn-batteries-provides-an-energy-content-and-rechargeability-that-rival-lithium-ion-batteries/

The advantage Nickel-Metal Hydride has over Lithium is that you don't need expensive, heavy, complicated fire prevention mechanisms either, same goes for Nickel-Zinc... But as Lithium hasn't stopped improving, it's generally an all-round superior alternative anyway, minus the fire potential hazard.

As for cycle issues... You need to remember, these packs are made of often hundreds/thousands of 18650 cells, so you often will not be able to get 1000~ cycles out of a hybrids entire pack because you will have some cells with shorter lifetimes than that. Quality cells can likely even go past those amounts of cycles too.

I tend to get about a year out of my packs with a daily cycle, regardless if it's Manganese or Phosphate.

True enough, with all energy (inlcuding heat and transportation) it is a longer way to go. I linked this statistics to show it is not all dire and a big part of energy is already possible with renewables - even in an industrialized country like germany.