teslamotorclub: Has buying a Tesla changed your mind about Climate Change? part 1

I ask this because I am kinda coming over to the CC side in the last few months. I do keep informed and have read more CC or GW information in the last few years than I care to admit. I have been VERY skeptical about CC and for good reason. Without getting into politics (IK, too late) I have been turned away from the CC crowd by watching crooks like Al Gore and his friends line their pockets while pushing gov't programs that enrich them. It also hurts the mission when VERY annoying people are the biggest backers. For example: I like John Travolta as an actor but when he lectures about global warming, CO2 etc....and then walks to his personal airplane which he flies right to his driveway, it is hard to take him seriously. Leo Dicap, Pelosi, Obama etc...... All seem to be getting wealthy by passing laws for CC and IMHO are not trustworthy people.
Now to the other side I used to agree with many deniers due to facts being changed when they don't support CC etc....
I can see why it is happening. You're a scientist, the stats don't match to the previous prediction and you can potentially lose millions of grants if you do not follow the money.

This thought never occurred to me until recently: Oil/gas industry is intentionally muddling the waters, or oil fields because it has a huge impact on their profits. Sure call me an ass for not seeing that. Maybe being a "glass half full" person blinded me to this fact. Or being right leaning politically.
I ordered an S for the performance of the car, the beauty of it, and yes for the zero emissions. Not to save the world but even as a GW denier, I had to agree lower CO2 can only be a good thing.
I have had solar panels on my house for 5 years now. As a money saver, also not to save the world.
I have read articles how the 97% is BS, "proof" of statistical funny business, and how predictions have not been fulfilled.
Books have been written for all of that and some are very convincing. Some of which is true.
Why am I now moving to the CC side? And why does it have to be a side? Politics should have nothing to do with it but we live in the real world, certainly not perfect.
Elon Musk is by far more intelligent than me and I trust he is not pushing CC to enrich his companies. Just call it a hunch. I believe I am a good judge of character with many years experience dealing with the public.
He seems to be so sure about it that he has risked his whole life's savings more than once to continue his quest. So, I did some more digging and came away even more confused. Just Google "climate change" and you know what I mean. At some point one needs to read between the lines and it appears to be a "thing"
I have to get past my prejudices about the spokespersons and get into the science of it. I do not believe I can deny any longer. The evidence is there. I am especially fascinated at how scientists can read C02 levels by drilling into air bubbles in the ice core . I'm sure the science of it sounds better, i'm typing here from the top of my head
I'm just spit-balling but, looking into getting my Tesla has energized me into absorbing all I can about CC and how my grand-kids need this generation to do something about it NOW!
So, I guess I can say i'm somewhat doing my part even though it is not the reason I bought a Tesla.
I will be driving a Tesla in the near future and am excited to become part of the Tesla world.
With solar powering my house, charging will be close to free!
�

Nope. Still skeptical. Bought my Tesla for the performance and technology.
�

For me, owning the Tesla did increase my awareness of energy consumption, sourcing of electricity as well as realizing that getting from point A to point B doesn't have to involve burning gas (and can still by done in style). Energy production and consumption is a very important issue and should get more attention in my opinion. The science behind climate change certainly is compelling and it seems more people (even Exxon-Mobil) are being candid about the issue and the need to address it.
�

Yes. I was surprised by Exxon-Mobil agreeing with carbon taxes and am trying to figure out their angle
Hey, I love my Yukon XL but am looking forward to "point A to point B doesn't have to involve burning gas"
And doing it in style will be awesome!
�

To the OP:

What a well written and revealing post. As people who are aware of CC sometimes villainize deniers, it is very neat to hear someone's personal story as they came to realize reality, even if it meant wading through a political swamp.

I'm happy to hear about your personal change and I hope it can be something that helps others to put politics and culture aside and instead look squarely at science.

You'll love the Tesla and thanks for sharing.
�

James Anders said: ?

Nope. Still skeptical. Bought my Tesla for the performance and technology.
Click to expand...

^^^ this ^^^
�

Not sure what it means to "change your mind about Climate Change"
Isn't the relevant question about the impact of Climate Change.

Of course there is climate change. The climate is not a constant - the 1600s was not the same as the 1700s nor the same as the 1800s.

Now, the question is, is today's climate the ideal climate for humans on earth? If so, why? If not, what changes in the climate would make it better or make it worse? IIRC, during the Renaissance Age the prosperity in part was attributed to the generally warmer climate at the time.
So would we be better off with a change to that type of climate?

BTW, how much solar power do you have on your roof in NY that you can power your car and house for free? We have both solar panels and solar heating for water (pool) and we are no where near break-even.
�

Nope.

It's really very simple, would you want to run an ICE car in an enclosed space with you in it? No? Why not?

Now just take that and multiply it by a very large number and you have the number of cars on this planet, and the planet's atmosphere (an enclosed space).

No thank you.

Whether or not humans are changing the climate of the earth you'd have to be an idiot to think reducing CO2 emissions is a bad thing.
�

I don't think buying/owning/driving a Tesla would change anyone's opinion on CC.
Awareness of the science may well make one change their minds, but owning a car certainly won't.

If someone looks into the science more BECAUSE they bought a Tesla and become more curious about energy, I suppose you could say the Tesla indirectly changed their mind.
�

Nope. The planet started warming many hundreds of thousands of years and the glaciers have been retreating ever since. My ownership of a Telsa Motor vehicle has NOTHING to do with saving the planet. I just like accelerating really quickly!
�

Drivin said: ?

Not sure what it means to "change your mind about Climate Change"
Isn't the relevant question about the impact of Climate Change.

Of course there is climate change. The climate is not a constant - the 1600s was not the same as the 1700s nor the same as the 1800s.

Now, the question is, is today's climate the ideal climate for humans on earth? If so, why? If not, what changes in the climate would make it better or make it worse? IIRC, during the Renaissance Age the prosperity in part was attributed to the generally warmer climate at the time.
So would we be better off with a change to that type of climate?

BTW, how much solar power do you have on your roof in NY that you can power your car and house for free? We have both solar panels and solar heating for water (pool) and we are no where near break-even.
Click to expand...

If I gave it some more thought maybe I would have phrased it differently.
"Has buying a Tesla made you more aware about CC."

I have a10kwh system and pay about $12 a month for electricity which is a basic service charge. In January and February when the "energy bank" has been depleted and winter weather is in full freeze mode, I may pay around $50 each month.
I am now looking into getting about a 5kwh system for a smaller upstate vacation home.
Solarcity will be coming by next week
�

The Leaf that my wife and I leased in 2012 as an experiment sold us on the potential for electric cars to, in general, offer a significantly better overall ownership experience than ICE vehicles. The Model S delivered on that potential. Yes, she's an electrical engineer and I'm one of those self-taught engineer-lite tech people who has done engineering work and, yes, that's what caused us to gravitate toward BEVs (I've also been following BEVs since the launch of the EV-1, when I was in middle school)... but we're also car people.

On the subject of AGW or climate change, I take a practical approach: I am not a climatologist and I do not have the time to go through the necessary foundation material and then go through the piles of peer reviewed studies necessary to arrive at what I would consider an informed opinion about the potential for anthropogenic or non-anthropogenic global climate change (aside from us not living in a static system, of course). What I will say, however, is that we should be working toward maximizing our usage of clean and renewable sources of energy and minimizing emission of pollutants (nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, oxocarbons, etc.). Why? Because pollution, local or otherwise, sucks and negatively impacts all of us in one way or another (this is coming from someone who has lived in both the SF Bay Area and So Cal and has minor respiratory issues). To put it crudely, there are a lot of things we don't yet fully understand, but you'd think that we'd have a handle on not sh*tting in our own pool just because it's easy and convenient in the immediate.
�

Xenius said: ?

Nope.

It's really very simple, would you want to run an ICE car in an enclosed space with you in it?
Click to expand...

Using that same silly argument, one wouldn't want to be in a room filled with 9 supermodels because of all the CO2 they give off (9 supermodels=same CO2 as burning 1 gallon of gas. I don't know how long a car would run idling on one gallon of gas, but that is probably longer than I can entertain 9 supermodels).

And never mind getting physical with several of them since that would accelerate the amount of CO2 production.
�

Short answer: Nope.

Longer answer: If my P85D was no better than average in performance and if it was a pain to recharge and if it was unreliable, I wouldn't think any different about anything other than Tesla. The fact that is is fun to drive, easy to charge and reliable changes my opinion about only one thing: Tesla. They make damn great vehicles. They have made cars a lot smarter in design and function.

The only tangential opinion it may have affected is whether I think that EVs are ready for prime time. Before owning a Tesla I would have said no. After, I say yes, in certain situations.

I also think it's pretty neat to consider that I could, with a proper capital outlay, have an exhilarating performance vehicle that is literally powered by sunshine from my roof.

As for climate change, like @Petra, I am not a climatologist and I have not studied the issue enough to have an opinion, but the idea of not "sh*tting in our own pool" resonates with me. So while I wouldn't support policies that shut down fossil fuel use or that penalize people for using fossil fuels, I definitely think it's a good idea to use technology, when financially prudent, to make the world a cleaner and healthier place.
�

Drivin said: ?

Using that same silly argument, one wouldn't want to be in a room filled with
supermodels because of all the CO2 they give off.
And never mind getting physical with several of them since that would accelerate the amount of CO2 production.
Click to expand...

�

I've been convinced for some time that our climate is changing, and reasonably convinced that humans are at least contributing to it - and I'm not getting my Tesla for a couple more weeks (but it's replacing a Volt...)

How much of an impact on us or the rest of the life on the planet these changes will have, how far they will go - those are open questions in my mind.

I've had solar panels for several years now. It wasn't the climate change that drove me to the EVs or the panels. I like the independence, reliability, and redundancy aspects. A gas or diesel car is pretty much dependant on the availability of those specific fuels where you are.

An electric car isn't - between grid power, solar panels, and various types of generators, you can charge and run one under pretty much any circumstances. You could even hook a gassifier to a gas powered generator and run it off of wood chips or grass clippings...

(I also love the driving experience - silence, instant torque, the usual things. But I didn't know that going in.)

Solar panels have already reached the point where they become an investment with payoffs not far off of Wall Street levels and well ahead of most bonds/savings accounts, and prices continue to fall. Combined with a suitable battery system, they can make power outages irrelevant (I'm still waiting for a good Lithium system at a reasonable price. I looked at the Powerwall, but since I have microinverters it isn't ideal. I'm watching to see how this "AC battery" concept works out in practice.)

But there's another whole side to this - all of the pollution from ICE cars and the oil industry aside from CO2. Here's an article full of other things to worry about that seems well written but I haven't fact checked...

Air Pollution & Water Pollution � Top 10 Toxic Fossil Fuel Ingredients
�

I'm buying a Tesla because of human induced climate change. I'm trying to do the best I can for the future of my and everyone else's kids and grandkids. My 17 year old 4-banger Mazda is getting long in the tooth and last year I started looking at hybrids. I've wanted a Tesla ever since the Roadster, but could never afford one. The Model 3 will finally allow me to own a fully electric car.

I have an MS in Geophysics and got halfway done toward a PhD, and I still have many friends in the earth sciences. So I trust the research backing up our role in climate change.

It really bothers me that there's a perception that climate and other scientists "do it for the money." Most of the science is done by professors and their graduate students. The professors don't live off the grant money. They're salaried. The grant money goes to pay for the costs of research which include equipment, lab costs, experiment costs, grad student stipends, etc.

I can tell you that few in academia do it for the money. The hours are long and the pay is relatively low, especially if you're not tenured. If they want money, they go into the private sector. But scientists love what they do. They like solving puzzles. It can be just as exciting if results don't match previous predictions because now there are new problems to solve and knowledge to be gained.

They're not perfect. They can be susceptible to dogmatic thinking. But in the long run, the truth wins out.

I wish there were more open-minded people like you, chopr. Enjoy your exploration. It can be fascinating and scary, but as long as we have people willing to recognize the problem, we can the figure out how to fix it
�

What about the oil companies paying climate change deniers?
Leading climate change denier was paid by energy companies

Another Climate Change Denier on Big Coal's Payroll

Exxon Exposed for Spending Millions on Climate Change Denial

Oil Lobby Paid Washington Post and Atlantic to Host Climate-Change Deniers at RNC

etc. etc.

Sure, there is money to be made by scientists, if they're willing to deny that there's climate change.
�

Elon Musk and his friends became far richer off climate change policies than Al Gore and his friends.

If you're going to shape your thoughts based on whether other people make money off it or not, there won't be a lot of things left for you to take a stand on.
�

Climate what? Never heard of it.

Technology and performance. The polar bears are on their own.....
�

I suggest reading this 5 part series

Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago (Internal memos from the company in here)

And then read even more facts here:

CO2's Role in Global Warming Has Been on the Oil Industry's Radar Since the 1960s

-Atmospheric CO2 will double in 100 years if fossil fuels grow at 1.4%/ a2.

-3oC global average temperature rise and 10oC at poles if CO2 doubles.

-Major shifts in rainfall/agriculture

-Polar ice may melt"
Click to expand...

and then lots of interesting facts dating back to the 40s/50s here:

Smoke & Fumes

In 1957
In its quest for ever more accurate "clocks" to measure the age of ancient (and potentially oil-bearing) sediments, the oil industry was quick to exploit the highly precise "carbon clock" created by radiocarbon dating with carbon-14. This paper, published by the Humble Oil Production Research Division (now ExxonMobil), catalogs a list of carbon dating samples. All living organisms have a certain percentage of radioactive carbon that decays over time, and measuring the ratio of radioactive to stable carbon is used to date fossils, soil samples, and more. Because fossil fuels are made from ancient organic material, it contains a very small amount of radioactive carbon. Burning fossil fuels "dilutes" the radioactive carbon in the atmosphere, and measuring that dilution is one way to measure how much of atmospheric carbon dioxide is from fossil sources. The "dilution" of carbon-14 naturally occuring in the atmosphere by depleted carbon-12 from fossil fuels�termed the "Suess effect" for its discoverer Hans Suess�made it possible, for the first time, to measure with precision the contribution of fossil fuels to atmospheric CO2.
Click to expand...

But this thread should be moved here, because there has been a thread on this for years already:

Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
�

182RG said: ?

Climate what? Never heard of it.

Technology and performance. The polar bears are on their own.....
Click to expand...

I never understood why climate change people are so pro-polar bear or pro-seals when they talk about the benefits.

The average grey seal eats about 50 pounds of food a day! If we had enough just climate change to wipe them out, that is a lot more seafood for everyone else! And don't even get me started on supporting killer whales. Geez, the have the name "killer" in their description.
�

ggies07 said: ?

I suggest reading this 5 part series

And then read even more facts here:

and then lots of interesting facts dating back to the 40s/50s he
Click to expand...

And where is the research that proves that we are at the optimal climate today and that any change is necessarily bad?
�

ggies07 said: ?

But this thread should be moved here, because there has been a thread on this for years already:

Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
Click to expand...

Nope, everyone on this thread would get roasted..... I've been there. Have to be very careful what you say on that thread... IMHO

Why did I buy a TESLA ? Performance, style, unique driving experience, cheap on fuel AND no pollution ( ak stinky exhaust that kills )
�

This is the core problem, there isn't anything to change your mind on, this isn't an opinion based situation. I still can't wrap my head around this idea that it's okay to be skeptical of climate change. Climate change\global warming is real, it's absolutely caused by humans burning fossil fuels, and it's absolutely not open for debate, discussion, doubt, gut feelings, who do you trust, etc... This isn't debated science, it's no longer allowable to have an opinion on it, this is fact.

Those of you who can sit there and openly admit your skeptical on this need a serious reality check. What exactly do you need to see, feel, experience, etc... before you'll stop questioning there is a problem and start questioning how best to address it?

It's absolutely absurd that we're still having this conversation in 2016, absolutely absurd. I keep using the word absolutely to emphasize the reality that this is no longer a question in the scientific community. The only remaining question, if you will, is how the increase in greenhouse gasses will affect the climate in the short and long term. If you want to be skeptical about anything, it should be the short and long term impacts. To be skeptical about the idea of climate change, or that humans aren't directly responsible for it, is absolutely absurd.

Jeff
�

Drivin said: ?

And where is the research that proves that we are at the optimal climate today and that any change is necessarily bad?
Click to expand...

The Science

Since the beginning of human civilization, our atmosphere contained about 275 ppm of carbon dioxide. That is the planet �on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.�
Click to expand...

And did you just skirt around the issue? I suggest you go read the internal memos from Exxon on this subject. It's not coming from some hippie, it's straight from the horses mouth.
�

James Anders said: ?

Nope. Still skeptical. Bought my Tesla for the performance and technology
Click to expand...

^^^same for me too^^^
I have flown electric model helicopters/planes/jets for many years, we use lipos for our powerful electric motors. Same charging techniques for li-ion as lipos, anyway quiet performance and cool tech makes the car very compelling!
Love it and it's really addictive
�

Drivin said: ?

And where is the research that proves that we are at the optimal climate today and that any change is necessarily bad?
Click to expand...

The primary issue is rate of change. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising faster than at any time in earth's history. Organisms will have a lot of trouble adapting to their rapidly changing environment.
�

jeffro01 said: ?

To be skeptical about the idea of climate change, or that humans aren't directly responsible for it, is absolutely absurd.
Click to expand...

Not skeptical. I believe the facts and the science. I just don't care about CC. Not one iota. To me, it's a math problem for a future generation.
�

I think humans are probably contributing to climate change, but have not delved into the research myself. What I can't understand is why there isn't more of a push to get off of oil to reduce global demand for a product that is funding terrorists and totalitarian governments? Yes I realize we are producing most / all of our own oil now in the U.S (or at least we were before the price crash) but we are nonetheless contributing massively to the demand of a fungible product that funds terrorism. It would seem we would want to reduce that demand. Sorry to go off topic...
�

I haven't yet been able to figure out why people are "skeptical" about climate change. The data is clear that the climate is changing. I'm afraid that the reason people doubt it is because of who talked about it, not the facts themselves. (Sad.) I guess the most egregious thing I have heard so far is the claim that scientists are manufacturing these conclusions to "get those grants." I can tell you, as staff at a major university, faking research results is one of the few ways you can get fired from a tenured position.

Still, the question is really whether climate change is human-caused. We can see the close correlation between CO2 and warming trends. We know that correlation is not causation; but it could be. Climatologists (who specialize in this) say that this correlation is based on causation. I have enough training in science to believe them.

So did I get a Tesla for combating climate change? Heck, no! It was the first time I found a car better than a Mercedes.
�

This is a very interesting post. If you listen closely to Elon, he is very careful to avoid the Climate Change debate. He just calls it the dumbest experiment that man has ever tried. The reason is exactly evident in this thread. For every for argument there is a a counter. That is why Elon's solution is so clever. He understands that in the end it is all about our pocket book (deny it if you want to but I have seen it in everything from Made in USA vs Made in China to almost everything we buy). So he has designed the best car ever, period. The fact that it is zero emissions is great but as we can see from the thread it's not the only reason everyone is buying them.

The reality is that we will run out of fossil fuels and if we wait until it gets scarce, economically it will be very costly.

Once Elon gets the cost of the batteries to $100 KWh ICE cars will make little sense.

Finally whether you believe in GW or CC or not, this a path off fossil fuels we can all agree on. Cheaper, better, faster, cooler and functional solutions to sustainable energy.
�

jeffro01 said: ?

Climate change\global warming is real, it's absolutely caused by humans burning fossil fuels, and it's absolutely not open for debate, discussion, doubt, gut feelings, who do you trust, etc... This isn't debated science, it's no longer allowable to have an opinion on it, this is fact.
Click to expand...

Jeff, while I don't disagree that the majority of the research I have read indicates that we're in a period of accelerated climatic change and that there's strong evidence to support an anthropogenic component to said change, I have to call you out on this statement as it undermines the very foundations of science and does a disservice to those trying to promote scientific understanding among the general populace--soften the language or nobody will listen or really think about what you have to say... also, the dogmatic absolutist approach just gives more ammunition to the Ken Hams of the world who wish to confuse people by conflating science with religion. Besides, why press the issue by pounding on people with polarizing absolutes? You can accomplish the same goal by rallying people behind ending the problems associated with localized combustion-related pollution (people are generally agreeable on this matter, at least). "Pollution bad! Make you sick!" "Ugh! Let's stop Pollution!" *bam* Oxocarbon emissions drop by extension.

A gross oversimplification, yes, but it gets the point across... no?
�

I bought the Tesla because I was impressed with the performance, and liked it better than other cars in its class.
I have since become more of a student climate science and social policy.
I have seen enough data to believe that things are going in the wrong direction. I think moving consumers to more fuel efficient transport is a good thing. I also think that encouraging the purchase of more Tesla's is a good thing. It makes the case for folks with means to pitch in and create a market that will build more infrastructure to support electric cars. I am also convinced that we will see the tipping point at the end of this year / beginning of next with the new Bolt. That range, at that price point will make a compelling argument against ICE cars for the typical consumer. Power infrastructure will make it more practical. Reading studies on the impact of running busses on electric in dense population areas on local environments convinces me that acting on a local level is a good thing, and effective.
�

jeffro01 said: ?

I still can't wrap my head around this idea that it's okay to be skeptical of climate change. Climate change\global warming is real, it's absolutely caused by humans burning fossil fuels, and it's absolutely not open for debate, discussion, doubt, gut feelings, who do you trust, etc... This isn't debated science, it's no longer allowable to have an opinion on it, this is fact.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the world that's quite as settled as you describe, and I don't know of a single scientist that will support a viewpoint of "you're no longer allowed to have an opinion on something - just accept it as fact".

But hey, if you want that, can we then also then shut down discussion by the anti-vac, holistic medicine, anti-GMO, nuclear-alarmist croud? Because those guys bug me as much as the anti-climate-change guys.

Or maybe we just allow people to say any stupid thing they want and learn to live with it.
�

Chopr147 said: ?

I ask this because I am kinda coming over to the CC side in the last few months. !
Click to expand...

Even if you are unconvinced that global warming is all or mostly caused by burning fossil fuels, no sensible person can deny that there must be some contribution, so reducing your carbon footprint while driving a wonderful car makes sense. And even a total denier must realize that driving electric is slowing the depletion of non-renewable petroleum resources.
�

I agree that the naming of the issue "climate change" is unfortunate. The real issues are rising sea levels, and excess CO2 in the oceans and atmosphere. I think the evidence that the rise of CO2 levels is caused by man is indisputable, and that there is overwhelming evidence that the elevated CO2 will have significant long term detrimental effects to life on the planet.

Unfortunately, there is currently no technology to scrub this out of the atmosphere and oceans, our only hope is to dramatically reduce our carbon output and invest in nano technology or biological CO2 scrubbers. I am buying a Tesla to reduce my personal impact on CO2 levels.

Frankly, I don't care if Musk/Gore/Obama/Clinton or Trump/Limbaugh/Ryan/Exxon make money off of clean energy technology, just trying to make sure we don't turn over an ecological disaster to our children that will ruin the world economy and their quality of life.
�

I won't get into the exchange of slurs, but calling people "deniers" is not a good way to encourage open debate.
�

Drivin said: ?

Using that same silly argument, one wouldn't want to be in a room filled with 9 supermodels because of all the CO2 they give off (9 supermodels=same CO2 as burning 1 gallon of gas. I don't know how long a car would run idling on one gallon of gas, but that is probably longer than I can entertain 9 supermodels).

And never mind getting physical with several of them since that would accelerate the amount of CO2 production.
Click to expand...

Your claims are nothing short of comical. The average human exhales about 2.3 lbs of CO2 in an ENTIRE day. Per AAA, a car on idle burns about a gallon of gas every hour. A gallon of gas releases over 20lbs of CO2. So in the time your idling car released 20 lbs of CO2, your 9 pretty little supermodels only exhaled 0.8625 lbs of CO2. When's the last time you heard of anyone dying in the little scenario you described above? It just doesn't happen. And yet how many people commit suicide every year by turning on their cars in their garages.

Next time, please think before making such a silly arguement.
�

MTL_HABS1909 said: ?

Your claims are nothing short of comical. The average human exhales about 2.3 lbs of CO2 in an ENTIRE day. Per AAA, a car on idle burns about a gallon of gas every hour. A gallon of gas releases over 20lbs of CO2. So in the time your idling car released 20 lbs of CO2, your 9 pretty little supermodels only exhaled 0.8625 lbs of CO2. When's the last time you heard of anyone dying in the little scenario you described above? It just doesn't happen. And yet how many people commit suicide every year by turning on their cars in their garages.

Next time, please think before making such a silly arguement.
Click to expand...

Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?

TL : DR

By breathing out, we are simply returning to the air the same CO2 that was there to begin with.
�

Drivin said: ?

Using that same silly argument, one wouldn't want to be in a room filled with 9 supermodels because of all the CO2 they give off (9 supermodels=same CO2 as burning 1 gallon of gas. I don't know how long a car would run idling on one gallon of gas, but that is probably longer than I can entertain 9 supermodels).
Click to expand...

MTL_HABS1909 said: ?

Your claims are nothing short of comical. The average human exhales about 2.3 lbs of CO2 in an ENTIRE day. Per AAA, a car on idle burns about a gallon of gas every hour. A gallon of gas releases over 20lbs of CO2. So in the time your idling car released 20 lbs of CO2, your 9 pretty little supermodels only exhaled 0.8625 lbs of CO2. When's the last time you heard of anyone dying in the little scenario you described above? It just doesn't happen. And yet how many people commit suicide every year by turning on their cars in their garages.
Click to expand...

MTL_HABS1909 said: ?

Next time, please think before making such a silly arguement.
Click to expand...

Um..... people die from carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning: CDC - Carbon Monoxide Poisoning - Frequently Asked Questions not carbon dioxide (CO2)...
�

RedP85+ said: ?

This is a very interesting post. If you listen closely to Elon, he is very careful to avoid the Climate Change debate. He just calls it the dumbest experiment that man has ever tried. The reason is exactly evident in this thread. For every for argument there is a a counter. That is why Elon's solution is so clever. He understands that in the end it is all about our pocket book (deny it if you want to but I have seen it in everything from Made in USA vs Made in China to almost everything we buy). So he has designed the best car ever, period. The fact that it is zero emissions is great but as we can see from the thread it's not the only reason everyone is buying them.
Click to expand...

I don't get any ambiguity from Elon about climate change. He has come out in favor of carbon tax a number of times. He has defined carbon as a negative externality. In his talk at the COP21 climate summit (yes, he spoke at a climate change summit), he said the following, and a lot more:

Elon Musk said:

It's really quite simple. We're taking billions of tons of carbon that's been buried for hundreds of millions of years and is not part of the carbon cycle, taking from deep underground and adding it to the carbon cycle.

The result is that a steady increase in the carbon in the atmosphere and in the oceans, which doesn't look like much if you look at it on this chart, but when looked at in the context of history, it actually looks like this. So the [06:00] carbon parts per million has really been bouncing around the 300 level for around 10 million years. Then the last few hundred years, it went into a vertical climb. This is the essence of the problem. This is very unusual and a very, very extreme threat as you can see from this rate of growth.

Then this is accompanied by a temperature increase as one would expect. This temperate increase, people talk about 2 degrees or 3 degrees, it's important to appreciate just how sensitive the climate actually is to temperate. It's important to look at it in terms of absolute temperature, not in degrees Celsius relative to zero. We need to say what is the temperature change relative to absolute zero?
Click to expand...

�

No only are we adding to the carbon cycle but we are destroying the Amazon Rain Forest that removes 300 million tonnes of CO2 / year.

Last of the Amazon

In the time it takes to read this article, an area of Brazil's rain forest larger than 200 football fields will have been destroyed. The market forces of globalization are invading the Amazon, hastening the demise of the forest and thwarting its most committed stewards. In the past three decades, hundreds of people have died in land wars; countless others endure fear and uncertainty, their lives threatened by those who profit from the theft of timber and land....
During the past 40 years, close to 20 percent of the Amazon rain forest has been cut down�more than in all the previous 450 years since European colonization began.
Amazon Rain Forest, Deforestation, Forest Conservation - National Geographic Magazine
Click to expand...

The amount of carbon that the Amazon rainforest is absorbing from the atmosphere and storing each year has fallen by around a third in the last decade, says a new 30-year study by almost 100 researchers.

This decline in the Amazon carbon sink amounts to one billion tonnes of carbon dioxide � equivalent to over twice the UK�s annual emissions, the researchers say.
Amazon rainforest is taking up a third less carbon than a decade ago - Carbon Brief
Click to expand...

I still believe pollution is more of threat to our health and existence.
�

What it comes down to is simple chemistry......burning fossil fuels releases C02 because combustion is reverse photosynthesis!

We are adding more in the atmosphere than the planet can handle and like it's been said, Elon agrees and has stated such at the climate change summit.
�

one volcano eruption emits more co2 in a few minutes than all the co2 emitted by fossil fuel usage.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-
�

Odebek said: ?

Um..... people die from carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning: CDC - Carbon Monoxide Poisoning - Frequently Asked Questions not carbon dioxide (CO2)...
Click to expand...

Wrong. Certainly CO is very dangerous even at low concentrations but CO2 is a toxic gas at higher concentrations, as well as an asphyxiant gas (due to reduction in oxygen). Irritation of the eyes, nose and throat occurs at higher concentrations. If the CO2 levels are high enough in a confined space, you'll see the Hazmat team in level A HAZMAT suits. The concentration thresholds for health effects are outlined below.

Health effects of respiratory exposure to carbon dioxide
(Baxter, 2000; Faivre-Pierret and Le Guern, 1983 and refs therein; NIOSH, 1981).

Exposure limits (% in air), Health Effects

2-3 Unnoticed at rest, but on exertion there may be marked shortness of breath
3 Breathing becomes noticeably deeper and more frequent at rest
3-5 Breathing rhythm accelerates. Repeated exposure provokes headaches
5 Breathing becomes extremely laboured, headaches, sweating and bounding pulse
7.5 Rapid breathing, increased heart rate, headaches, sweating, dizziness, shortness of breath, muscular weakness, loss of mental abilities, drowsiness, and ringing in the ears
8-15 Headache, vertigo, vomiting, loss of consciousness and possibly death if the patient is not immediately given oxygen
10 Respiratory distress develops rapidly with loss of consciousness in 10-15 minutes
15 Lethal concentration, exposure to levels above this are intolerable
25+ Convulsions occur and rapid loss of consciousness ensues after a few breaths. Death will occur if level is maintained.
�

Got my Tesla for the fun of owning one and the technology. CC is a gov funded religion and I believe in separation of church and state. Want my tax dollars back. Still would love to see a renewable energy world.
�

335eye said: ?

Got my Tesla for the fun of owning one and the technology. CC is a gov funded religion and I believe in separation of church and state. Want my tax dollars back. Still would love to see a renewable energy world.
Click to expand...

it's just a cause for those who need a cause, a few years ago it was the global cooling scare, when that didn't pan out it became the global warming scare. treaties were signed excepting china which is one of the biggest polluters on the planet. while there is cause for concern, as chicken little said so eloquently "the sky is falling", not.
�

kort677 said: ?

one volcano eruption emits more co2 in a few minutes than all the co2 emitted by fossil fuel usage.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-
Click to expand...

Thoroughly debunked:

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC)) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.
Click to expand...

This was from a very quick google search, and is actually a very interesting article that I'd never read before. I think that the US Geological Survey can be considered to be authoritative, whereas "CFACT.org" maybe not so much. Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
�

To quote Neil deGrasse Tyson, �The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.�
�

182RG said: ?

Not skeptical. I believe the facts and the science. I just don't care about CC. Not one iota. To me, it's a math problem for a future generation.
Click to expand...

My view is a less extreme version of this. Having studied physics I see no doubt that more greenhouse gas equals higher temperatures (without greenhouse gases the world would be an ice cube). But once you admit agreement with the science you are expected to buy into the view that 1) the net effects are horrible and must be prevented at all costs, so that 2) we should harm our economy and economic position in the world, subject ourselves to new forms of taxation (carbon) and allow government regulatory intrusion to reduce our personal freedom, all despite the fact that nations like China and India are to be allowed to ramp up their coal burning.

Well I don't believe the effects of rising temperatures are disasterous: humankind is very adaptable, as is the biosphere. I see no reason to try to halt the rise in temperature below the environmentalists' arbitrary limit of 2 degrees C. Advanced countries have naturally been on a path to reduce the energy intensity of their economies, and I expect this will continue on its own. The government intervention I would favor is 1) support of R&D to further reduce energy intensity and 2) a crash program to build nuclear power plants.

With this said I have done my bit. I put most of my mileage on an electric car (which I bought for its performance) and have changed almost all my lights to LEDs (to avoid changing burnt out bulbs). Solar cells are next, when the cost justifies it.
�

Cardforlife said: ?

To quote Neil deGrasse Tyson, �The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.�
Click to expand...

there is science and then there is junk science
�

sillydriver said: ?

Solar cells are next, when the cost justifies it.
Click to expand...

@sillydriver, I see you are in Middleburg, VA.
Although the State of Virginia does not have any solar tax breaks, did you know about the personal property tax benefit for Loudoun County? You can deduct the value of your solar system (installation cost) from your annual property tax on your home. Nice benefit, mine comes out to about $500 per year reduction.
�

DFibRL8R said: ?

@sillydriver, I see you are in Middleburg, VA.
Although the State of Virginia does not have any solar tax breaks, did you know about the personal property tax benefit for Loudoun County? You can deduct the value of your solar system (installation cost) from your annual property tax on your home. Nice benefit, mine comes out to about $500 per year reduction.
Click to expand...

Thanks for letting me know. But although I say I'm from Middleburg, it's the closest town, and my postal box is there, my farm is over the line in Fauquier county. Separately, I discovered that Solar City doesn't do business in Virginia because it seems that Dominion Virginia Power has managed to get the state to legislate against their business model. I'm not 100% sure of the details, but I believe only the utility can sell power in its area, so Solar City can't sell power to homeowners when Solar owns the panels. Solar City does do business in neighboring Maryland. It's an unfortunate political problem for solar power.
�

sillydriver said: ?

Thanks for letting me know. But although I say I'm from Middleburg, it's the closest town, and my postal box is there, my farm is over the line in Fauquier county. Separately, I discovered that Solar City doesn't do business in Virginia because it seems that Dominion Virginia Power has managed to get the state to legislate against their business model. I'm not 100% sure of the details, but I believe only the utility can sell power in its area, so Solar City can't sell power to homeowners when Solar owns the panels. Solar City does do business in neighboring Maryland. It's an unfortunate political problem for solar power.
Click to expand...

Yes, Virginia's power supply relationships and regulations are interesting for sure!
�

sillydriver said: ?

Well I don't believe the effects of rising temperatures are disasterous: humankind is very adaptable, as is the biosphere.
Click to expand...

We don't live in isolation on this planet. Our stable civilized existence depends upon a reliable, abundant, broad and deep food and natural resources chain which depends upon a wide array of insect, plant, and non-human animal life.

At least in the earlier stages of the new CO2-driven climate change, the biggest effect may come from the speed of the change rather than the absolute temperatures. We are pumping carbon from long-term slowly built up storage underground into the atmosphere and will be causing rates of climate change 10x faster than anything living on the planet now has experienced or evolved to handle. Clusters of highly interdependent life forms are going to have widely different abilities to adapt to the changes and thus food chains are likely to be seriously disrupted.

We can't just deal with it by running the A/C more often or packing up and moving closer to Canada.
�

kort677 said: ?

there is science and then there is junk science
Click to expand...

If your intending to insinuate that man made climate change is "junk science" then I ask you, just what in the hell do you need to accept the reality that's going on all around you? Perhaps when Florida is mostly underwater? Or you will still sit there with your head in the sand?

I know it's not popular in the scientific community to draw a line in the sand so to speak. However, on this issue, with the overwhelming amount of research and information that we have available to us, there is no room for "I'm just not sure" or "it's a conspiracy" or whatever tin foil hat ideology you want to subscribe to...

Like I said before, the conversation about whether or not it's happening should be over with. The ONLY conversation we should be having about it now is how to address it and potentially reverse the damage we've caused. When we've sufficiently destroyed key natural habitats, such as coral reefs, that play a critical role in the food chain is that when we'll go "gee, I wish we would have known"???... Well, we do know so what's your excuse now?

Jeff
�

Has it changed my mind regarding man-made climate change being significant enough to dominate the natural climate changes that have been happening for millions of years? No.
�

Evidence for climate change is there, whether or not you choose to believe it is up to you.

This is a good video that debunks many of the arguments against climate science:

With that said, I am a future Tesla owner (Model 3 reservation). But owning your car should have no bearing on whether or not you believe in climate change, evolution, the moon landings, 9/11, etc. Look squarely at the evidence with objectivity and intellectual honesty. You will be doing yourself a favor.
�

tigerade said: ?

With that said, I am a future Tesla owner (Model 3 reservation). But owning your car should have no bearing on whether or not you believe in climate change, evolution, the moon landings, 9/11, etc. Look squarely at the evidence with objectivity and intellectual honesty. You will be doing yourself a favor.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with this premise at all.

Jeff
�

Jeff N said: ?

We don't live in isolation on this planet. Our stable civilized existence depends upon a reliable, broad and deep food and natural resources chain which depends upon a wide array of insect, plant, and non-human animal life.

At least in the earlier stages of the new CO2-driven climate change, the biggest effect may come from the speed of the change rather than the absolute temperatures. We are pumping carbon from long-term slowly built up storage underground into the atmosphere and will be causing rates of climate change 10x faster than anything living on the planet now has experienced or evolved to handle. Clusters of highly interdependent life forms are going to have widely different abilities to adapt to the changes and thus food chains are likely to be seriously disrupted.

We can't just deal with it by running the A/C more often or packing up and moving closer to Canada.
Click to expand...

Here is where my views sharply diverge from the received view of environmentalists. There is our food chain and there are other food chains in the global ecosystem. Our stable civilized existence depends on the food chain we depend on, which is already highly artificial and engineered. I think we depend on natural foodchains mainly to the extent we need pollinators for our crops, and that risk must be managed. Other than that we can move our wheat closer to Canada.

Then there are the other food chains - the web of life - of the global ecosystem. Environmentalists have an esthetic value to the effect that the global ecosystem is sacred and must not be interfered with. I believe this esthetic value is misguided. Over the long span of times the ecosystem has absorbed much greater shocks than we can provide, whether from asteroids, flood basaults or ice ages. It adapts every time, and a new web is formed for later environmentalists to value. If there had been sentient dinosaurs they would be appalled at the destruction of warm-adapted ecosystems that would follow their own existence. And now that we are bringing back the warm, there will be new ecosystems for future environmentalists to treasure and try to protect.

Individual animals live and die, and the more advanced ones are sentient enough to experience their lives. But a species over and above the individual organisms that compose it has no sentience and thus in my view no value over and above those individuals. Thus I could mourn the last polar bear but not polar bears as a species. Other interesting species will replace them. And the particular polar bear who is the last will live its life and then die whether or not we warm the earth. To make a fetish of webs and food chains and ecosystems is to adopt a particular esthetic or even religious view, but not one to which I subscribe.
�

Cardforlife said: ?

To quote Neil deGrasse Tyson, �The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.�
Click to expand...

When your predictive models can't even predict what happened in the last year based on looking at historical data, maybe you need to be more sciencey and not depend on those models so much.
�

sillydriver said: ?

Here is where my views sharply diverge from the received view of environmentalists. There is our food chain and there are other food chains in the global ecosystem. Our stable civilized existence depends on the food chain we depend on, which is already highly artificial and engineered. I think we depend on natural foodchains mainly to the extent we need pollinators for our crops, and that risk must be managed. Other than that we can move our wheat closer to Canada.

Then there are the other food chains - the web of life - of the global ecosystem. Environmentalists have an esthetic value to the effect that the global ecosystem is sacred and must not be interfered with. I believe this esthetic value is misguided. Over the long span of times the ecosystem has absorbed much greater shocks than we can provide, whether from asteroids, flood basaults or ice ages. It adapts every time, and a new web is formed for later environmentalists to value. If there had been sentient dinosaurs they would be appalled at the destruction of warm-adapted ecosystems that would follow their own existence. And now that we are bringing back the warm, there will be new ecosystems for future environmentalists to treasure and try to protect.

Individual animals live and die, and the more advanced ones are sentient enough to experience their lives. But a species over and above the individual organisms that compose it has no sentience and thus in my view no value over and above those individuals. Thus I could mourn the last polar bear but not polar bears as a species. Other interesting species will replace them. And the particular polar bear who is the last will live its life and then die whether or not we warm the earth. To make a fetish of webs and food chains and ecosystems is to adopt a particular esthetic or even religious view, but not one to which I subscribe.
Click to expand...

That's quite an arrogant stance to take... To assert that humans aren't highly dependent on the broader ecosystem is extremely shortsighted. It's not just the pollinators that are important to the food chain, it goes way beyond that.

Jeff
�

Drivin said: ?

When your predictive models can't even predict what happened in the last year based on looking at historical data, maybe you need to be more sciencey and not depend on those models so much.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the quote? Nothing... So what's your point exactly???

Jeff
�

Drivin said: ?

When your predictive models can't even predict what happened in the last year based on looking at historical data, maybe you need to be more sciencey and not depend on those models so much.
Click to expand...

What the what? A lot of what some of you are saying in here are years of society driven opinions. I strongly suggest you dig a bit more into the research of all of this. Have you read those links I posted on Exxon? It clearly states facts and math from the '70s and what they predicated is happening now. Please watch this very informative video on modeling. All these links are in the Climate Change thread, let's not rehash the past 4 years on this board. Take the time and read through it all.

�

Here is another video that lays out the evidence for climate change. It's longer and more boring than the last video I posted. But sums up many points in 25 mins.

�

kort677 said: ?

one volcano eruption emits more co2 in a few minutes than all the co2 emitted by fossil fuel usage.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-
Click to expand...

See 119 One-Liners to Respond to Climate Science Myths | PlanetSave
number 68 for details. Click on the links there.
Volcano C02 emissions per year are about 1% of the human-generated emissions per year.

We bought our Model S when the Jaguar S-Type wore out (rising repair bills).
An exciting purchase. Electric use mostly taken care of by our solar panels.
Great that we don't emit pollutants (all the great features you all know about, not
going to recite them here).
Love the software updates.

Lately we've found the air suspension a bit queasy. Better when fully lowered, I think.
�

ggies07 said: ?

What the what? A lot of what some of you are saying in here are years of society driven opinions
Click to expand...

How have the predictive models of inconvenient truth worked out?

Take any of the current models, put in the data from the 80s onwards and watch with amusement what they "predict" for he 2010-2015 period.

Lol.
�

jeffro01 said: ?

If your intending to insinuate that man made climate change is "junk science" then I ask you, just what in the hell do you need to accept the reality that's going on all around you? Perhaps when Florida is mostly underwater? Or you will still sit there with your head in the sand?

Jeff
Click to expand...

your ad hominem verbiage does little to further your cause.
there is a lot of bad science on both sides of the issue. you should check your intolerance of differing views at the door.
�

kort677 said: ?

your ad hominem verbiage does little to further your cause.
there is a lot of bad science on both sides of the issue. you should check your intolerance of differing views at the door.
Click to expand...

That's my entire point, there should be zero tolerance for differing views around whether or not man made climate change is real. It is. Case closed, debate over, opinions need not apply.

The area that is still vastly up for debate as our understanding of future events is evolving based on the available peer reviewed scientific studies out there.

Perhaps you should check your self-imposed ignorance at the door and become part of the solution rather than part of the problem?

Jeff
�

jeffro01 said: ?

That's my entire point, there should be zero tolerance for differing views around whether or not man made climate change is real. It is. Case closed, debate over, opinions need not apply.

The area that is still vastly up for debate as our understanding of future events is evolving based on the available peer reviewed scientific studies out there.

Perhaps you should check your self-imposed ignorance at the door and become part of the solution rather than part of the problem?

Jeff
Click to expand...

my ignorance? really? feel free not to reply
�

kort677 said: ?

my ignorance? really? feel free not to reply
Click to expand...

Yes yours, and yes I'm going to reply. If you're going to take an ignorant stance on established science because you don't "believe" it or whatever excuse you want to use to justify it then you should expect to have your position labeled as ignorant.

Don't like it? Pull your head out of the sand...

Jeff
�

Drivin said: ?

When your predictive models can't even predict what happened in the last year based on looking at historical data, maybe you need to be more sciencey and not depend on those models so much.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the models predicted that 2015 would be less hotter than it actually was... therefore climate science must be wrong and we just hallucinated the hottest year on record, not to mention the biggest ever y-o-y rise.
(I just ignored @Drivin, so I can go away and calm down again.)
�

Drivin said: ?

How have the predictive models of inconvenient truth worked out?

Take any of the current models, put in the data from the 80s onwards and watch with amusement what they "predict" for he 2010-2015 period.

Lol.
Click to expand...

Please cite which models and which data sets you are talking about. In the past, I used seismic data computer modeling to figure out large scale geology. Your statement assures me that you have no idea how modeling works.
�

kort677 said: ?

there is a lot of bad science on both sides of the issue. you should check your intolerance of differing views at the door.
Click to expand...

That, too, is not true. Proportionally speaking, there is very little bad science on one side of the debate, with thousands of published and peer-reviewed results. On the other side, there is very little that has been published in any kind of peer-reviewed setting, and much of that has been incorporated into more accurate models, while there's lots of assertions about bad science on the other side.
�

Evidence is evidence. The evidence of climate change is not determined by anybody. Not Al Gore, not the Pope, not the President of the United States, not even the scientists themselves have any influence. It is simply a fact that carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases, including water vapor), let in shortwave radiation (light) and reflect long wave radiation (heat). There isn't a "why" question. Only a "how" question. We can choose to learn as much about nature as possible. Or we can choose to remain willfully ignorant of it. I choose the former, and strongly encourage you to do the same. But I know that I will not be convincing you or anyone else if you do not value evidence itself.

Here is a quote from Sam Harris (I am a big fan of his work)

�If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn�t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?�
Click to expand...

It's a rhetorical question of course and a conundrum. As we all know, it doesn't matter if you present overwhelming evidence that you should value evidence to someone who doesn't value evidence. Their mind will not change. I have tried hard to make some minds change, and have come to realize that it is pretty much a waste of time. My efforts are now focused on preventing those who don't value evidence from getting unprecedented political and cultural power. And if you can tell from our current situation, that effort is failing too. I don't actually know what to do at this point. If someone has any ideas, I'm all ears.

(By the way, this post is not aimed at anyone in particular, I am speaking to the entire group, so please take no offense)
�

Here's the deal.

Yes, we want roughly the climate we already have. We don't want it changed. What's the coldest day? Colder than you would like. Yes? Water starts to freeze too much. What's the hottest day. Hotter than you would like. Water starts to evaporate too quickly. What's the average day? About right. Yes, lets keep it as it is if possible. Plus, we like the shore lines where they are. No one wants to pick up and move an entire city.

No, we don't want to manipulate the climate as a byproduct of industrialization. We only have 1 planet with 1 atmosphere, so we need to be very defensive of it. We should not make changes to it unless it was our express intent to do so. We should actively endeavor not to change it without intent to do so. We don't have any intent to change the climate by using fossil fuels. But it's happening. This is a problem. A potentially big problem, if you believe in science and technology, which you really should if you notice that computer in front of you is the product of science and technology rather than magic. Thus, this problem needs to be solved.

Yes, we want to protect the environment. All signs point to us being largely responsible for the reduction of biodiversity on our planet. Why protect it? Because the natural biodiversity of our planet makes it fairly unique in the universe. Because God, if you believe in one, will have much greater respect for us if we protect that biodiversity. Because a planet where all that is left is chickens, cows, and people would be a very sad and uninspiring place devoid of wonder and intrigue. Because we are a vain species and like things to be pretty. Nature, at least from a distance, is very pretty. Because destruction of nature is driving the anti-technology movement that threatens to end the advancement of our species as more people begin to turn against it and see technology as evil. Politically, because I'll keep voting for all the jerks on the left who many think are destroying the USA because all the jerks on the right keep taking dumps in my yard.
�

kort677 said: ?

there is science and then there is junk science
Click to expand...

�

Some of you in here have a Joined date after this came out, so I'm not sure you guys saw it. This was talked about here for a while and is a great in-depth piece on energy, cars, and Tesla. The whole thing is masked in fabulous detail, all who are viewing this thread and have not read it, should. But maybe some in here should focus just on the energy part first.

How Tesla Will Change The World - Wait But Why
�

I think the thing here is that, yes, science provides a way to falsify theories. However, once there is a preponderance of evidence behind a theory, it takes just as much evidence to start to overturn it. Considering alternative evidence to the prevailing theory is a good thing, but until it equals the existing evidence, it doesn't mean much.

The user commenting about the models clearly hasn't done much research into the climate models. But somehow I doubt they were trying to make a real point more than get a reaction.
�

sillydriver said: ?

Environmentalists have an esthetic value to the effect that the global ecosystem is sacred and must not be interfered with. I believe this esthetic value is misguided. Over the long span of times the ecosystem has absorbed much greater shocks than we can provide, whether from asteroids, flood basaults or ice ages. It adapts every time, and a new web is formed for later environmentalists to value. If there had been sentient dinosaurs....
Click to expand...

Ok, obviously we can't all agree what parts of our planet are worth saving. And I'll give you that hyper-reaction to the loss of one particular species in the great scale of time is silly. I have to call BS on the notion that "the ecosystem has absorbed much greater shocks than we can provide".

Ever since August 6, 1945, it has been painfully obvious that we can utterly and entirely annihilate our collective selves rather quickly. Now if you think that sort of end is inevitable near-term (not the longer term cosmic end that involves the Sun incinerating everything eventually), then trivial things like CO2 levels from burning too much oil/cutting down too many trees don't matter at all. Personally, I'd like to think we can manage not to annihilate ourselves in a sudden castrophic way for many more generations making keeping the place livable a decent idea.

And thanks to science, if we collectively agree that we want to bring one of those species back, we technically can.

Woolly Mammoth Clones Closer Than Ever, Thanks to Genome Sequencing
�

DFibRL8R said: ?

Wrong. Certainly CO is very dangerous even at low concentrations but CO2 is a toxic gas at higher concentrations, as well as an asphyxiant gas (due to reduction in oxygen)
Click to expand...

500+ people die every year in the US from CO poisoning, and there are maybe a dozen cases of CO2 deaths this decade (mostly CO2 delivery drivers making mistakes while filling / replacing canisters in small confined spaces). Your not going to get high enough concentration of CO2 by running your car in the garage to kill yourself (which was the premise of the original poster), mainly because you will die from the CO first, but also it is heavier than air and will seep out from under the garage door.
�

Odebek said: ?

500+ people die every year in the US from CO poisoning, and there are maybe a dozen cases of CO2 deaths this decade (mostly CO2 delivery drivers making mistakes while filling / replacing canisters in small confined spaces). Your not going to get high enough concentration of CO2 by running your car in the garage to kill yourself (which was the premise of the original poster), mainly because you will die from the CO first, but also it is heavier than air and will seep out from under the garage door.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying
�

Chopr147 said: ?

I had to agree lower CO2 can only be a good thing.
Click to expand...

I've never understood how this statement makes any sense from the context of climate change denial... the ONLY negative effect that marginally higher CO2 levels have is the effect on the opacity of IR radiation in the earths atmosphere. If you reject this science then why would lower CO2 emissions matter at all?

Is this some weird form of cognitive dissonance where AGW deniers agree on some subconscious level that lower CO2 emissions is good but consciously dispute the reason why?

kort677 said: ?

one volcano eruption emits more co2 in a few minutes than all the co2 emitted by fossil fuel usage.
Click to expand...

Um.... no... even common sense can tell you this cannot possibly be true... globally 40B tons of CO2 is released annually...

�

This is a pretty good entry point for the following:

Just as elsewhere but in a similar situation I expounded upon use of the words "belief/believe", and others correctly have weighed in on appropriate and inappropriate use of "theory", here it is apposite to make mention of the misuse prevalent here of the word "debate".

There is no debate. There are strong feelings on two sides; there is precious little meeting of minds and almost as little inclination for those on one side to consider the arguments the other side presents.

Without the above, it is vanishingly unlikely for minds to change. That the OP has suggested it happened to him is a remarkable occurrence.
�

nwdiver said: ?

I've never understood how this statement makes any sense from the context of climate change denial... the ONLY negative effect that marginally higher CO2 levels have is the effect on the opacity of IR radiation in the earths atmosphere.
Click to expand...

I'm unsure what you mean by 'marginally', but C02 has many effects beyond its opacity to radiation.

The shells of sea animals are beginning to dissolve, for just one example.
Is there an inflection point looming?

If we (as humans) have learned anything it is that we understand only a fraction of the
dependencies in the ecosystem of the earth. An irrelevant (to C02) example being
the relatively recent realization that
introducing wolves improves the health of trees and beavers and significantly
changes the forest.
�

For me personally "lowering CO2 as a "denier" is geared more toward lowering polution. Who can be against that? Whether or not you believe it has any correlaton to rising temp.'s is another thing. A couple (no names) posters here are so sure of themselves as to block out any diverging or opposite views come across as the ignorant one, while calling all others ignorant. If I had that mentality I would still be arguing against CC! Or maybe quarreling over cigarettes causing cancer or whether or not the earth is round. And on and on. I have strong opinions on some subjects and am not as open as maybe I should be. But at 53 yrs. old I surprise myself sometimes that an old dog can sometimes learn new tricks.
�

Chopr147 said: ?

For me personally "lowering CO2 as a "denier" is geared more toward lowering polution. Who can be against that?
Click to expand...

It's actually fairly easy (especially from natural gas) to ensure that the only effluent from a power plant is CO2 and H2O... If the objective is reducing pollution then why not emphasize the pollution? I did forget about the acidification of the oceans and another effect of CO2 emissions but that's also rarely mentioned by AGW deniers as a benefit to reducing CO2 emissions.

It's disappointing that Global Warming has become so politicized... you can't have a legitimate difference of opinion when you start with a difference of FACT. Saying that volcanoes emit more CO2 than fossil fuels is factually incorrect. Saying that CO2 doesn't cause warming is factually incorrect.
�

There are a couple of points that strike me in Man Made Global Warming discussions (we all know the Earth is warming, the only question is why).

The smartest people say, "I really don't know what I'm talking about, but..." Because, no one on this thread has the first clue about this reality, it is just too complex. The smart people know they are guessing, the people without a clue start talking like their guessed up ideas are facts.

The second point to consider is there are only two groups of people left that don't believe in man made global warming, Republicans and the Flat Earth Society. There is no one else.

My father was a Math Professor. It was amusing to watch people (often students) try argue with him about math, they always knew nothing. Their arguments were so stupid. It is hard to understand how much people with a PhD's understand about their area of study, unless you are one of them. They sometimes know nothing much else, but their depth is amazing. If 98% of scientists who study global warming say, it is man made, then it is. It wouldn't be surprising if the 2% who say it isn't are funded by Exxon, who knew about man made global warming in the 1960's. Everyone can be bought.

This misdirection about that Al Gore wasn't quite right, or Time-Life published an article in 1972 that said something different, is just debating nonsense. The problem is discussing global warming if you are a salesman, small business person, doctor, lawyer or Indian chief, is that we know nothing about it. Nothing. And, after reading this thread, that is where we are. As a group, we know a lot about a lot of things, but nothing about Global Warming. Either you go with the 98% of scientists, or you go with the made up argument by oil companies and the people that benefit from their money.

It would be cheaper to fix man made global warming in the USA, then the Iraq War is going to cost. Just to get a reference, we can afford to fix it, and the benefits would be felt throughout our society in other ways too.
�

But it has become politicized. I guess it was inevitable when gov't $$$ is at stake. And the left making it their religion I believe has turned off millions from even bothering to educate themselves on the facts.
That's it, i'm done for now. Time to check "My Tesla" for any updates on delivery
�

James Anders said: ?

Nope. Still skeptical. Bought my Tesla for the performance and technology.
Click to expand...

Not to pick on @James Anders - this is, for me, an example of the brilliance of Elon and Tesla. Whether James believes or not in climate change, he's one of the people who's doing something about it - he's driving a Tesla and shifting some of his personal energy consumption from burning gas to electricity. That enables and encourages the energy shift in electric generation from burning coal / nat gas to solar / wind.

I know people that want something done about climate change, and it's the biggest problem in the world, and they drive to work by themselves in a gas engine car. Their greater circumstances in life may not support them making a change right now, but on the surface, they are contributing less to the change that I see as needed (and they say is needed), than James is contributing right now.

He's not doing it for the climate - he's doing it for the way the car drives and the technology.

To which I say - hallelujah brother, welcome aboard. It's a fun ride we're on, whatever brought you to it
�

Chopr147 said: ?

And the left making it their religion
Click to expand...

Religion by definition cannot be falsified.

Ways to falsify AGW;
- Prove CO2 doesn't block more IR than visible.
- Prove Earth doesn't cool by mostly radiating energy in the IR spectrum
- Prove the Earth receives more energy from the sun in IR vs other spectrums
- Find a negative feedback mechanism that negates the positive forcing of CO2
- Show that ~40B tons of CO2/yr is mathematically irrelevant
- Show that CO2 levels are not rising
-
-
-
-

'Physics is true... everything else is debatable' -Elon Musk
�

I find that I have to laugh at this sort of discussion. Doing anything else would make my skull explode.

I simply can't get my head around how someone will believe the team of doctors when they say he has cancer or needs a triple bypass, but are completely unable to accept the equally-educated opinion of legions of climate scientists - from all cultures, economies and political systems - when they say we need to make changes to how we produce our energy.

Ponder it from the doctor's side... he's done all the tests, checked the medical history for the last several thousands of years and come up with the diagnosis. "If you don't lose some weight, like right away, you're going to die."

But the patient says, "Nah, I'm feeling like you're wrong on this one doc... I've never been to medical school and I sure as hell can't read those test results, but I'm still going to bet it all on the 'you must be full of crap' option. I'm kinda hungry though... I think I'll get a burger and fries on the way back to the office."

All the doctor can do is sigh, because he knows he can't make an intelligent person 'smart'.
�

@adiggs nailed it.

I have a friend who's farther to the right than everyone on this board combined. He happens to play golf. Would you think he prefers gas-powered golf carts or electric golf carts?

Hands down he prefers electric golf carts, to the point he considers gas carts utter rubbish and openly curses them.

Why? Because electric carts are silent and they respond instantly when you step on the accelerator.

In contrast, gas powered carts are noisy, sluggish, sputtering, and they spew exhaust fumes.

He thinks Tesla cars are cool, and wouldn't take a Leaf or Prius if it were free and you left it on his front door with a box of Pro-V1s on top.

There are two ways to change the world:

1. Convince everyone that austerity is needed. Taxes. Tall boxy hatchbacks. Kale dinners by candlelight.

2. Build the best technology in the world that also happens to be sustainable and renewable.

Musk IS a genius for being the first (and still only) person in a position of power to not only see the 2nd path, but make it happen.
�

Alketi said: ?

@adiggs nailed it.

There are two ways to change the world:

1. Convince everyone that austerity is needed. Taxes. Tall boxy hatchbacks. Kale dinners by candlelight.

2. Build the best technology in the world that also happens to be sustainable and renewable.

Musk IS a genius for being the first (and still only) person in a position of power to not only see the 2nd path, but make it happen.
Click to expand...

That's a bit of a false dichotomy... it's gotta be a mix of both and option #1 can simply be convincing people that action and not necessarily extreme austerity is needed.

Musk sure appears to be convinced of this since he mentions Global Warming at least once whenever he speaks publicly... not to mention that he spent the first part of the M3 unveiling talking about global warming.

The cars make Tesla compelling... the mission makes them relevant.

I'll never forget this moment at 45:45... 'I really felt like there was no future...' Tesla provides much more than cars...

�

I think too many in this thread are creeping towards Tu quoque arguments.

For those unfamilar with Tu quoque arguments:
Tu quoque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just as it's possible to be a smoker and fully understand the scientific evidence that smoking increases the risk of cancer, it is possible to be a heavy user of fossil fuels and still fully understand that fossil fuel use is harmful to the environment.

There is something about human nature that makes us focus on the person making the argument, and not the logic or evidence behind the argument itself.

So, it really does take some self-training to focus on the quality of the argument, pick it apart for any logical fallacies, and examine the strength of the evidence in an objective and dispassionate manner. It is hard to do this and many people simply cannot. But, I strongly encourage this as a valuable self-help tool.

For example, if a salesman knocks on my door to sell me a product. It doesn't matter if the salesman himself loves the product, as do others. It doesn't matter how good his sales pitch is and how charasmatic his personality. Give me evidence that your product is high quality. Show me the failure rates and realiability statistics. I want hard data anytime I make a major purchase.

See? You can learn to love evidence-based reasoning. I do. It saves me a lot of stress.
�

DFibRL8R said: ?

Ok, obviously we can't all agree what parts of our planet are worth saving. And I'll give you that hyper-reaction to the loss of one particular species in the great scale of time is silly. I have to call BS on the notion that "the ecosystem has absorbed much greater shocks than we can provide".

Ever since August 6, 1945, it has been painfully obvious that we can utterly and entirely annihilate our collective selves rather quickly. Now if you think that sort of end is inevitable near-term (not the longer term cosmic end that involves the Sun incinerating everything eventually), then trivial things like CO2 levels from burning too much oil/cutting down too many trees don't matter at all. Personally, I'd like to think we can manage not to annihilate ourselves in a sudden castrophic way for many more generations making keeping the place livable a decent idea.

And thanks to science, if we collectively agree that we want to bring one of those species back, we technically can.

Woolly Mammoth Clones Closer Than Ever, Thanks to Genome Sequencing
Click to expand...

I let myself go a bit overboard in the comment you are responding to. I guess where I'll leave it for my part is that anthropogenic global warming is a fact, but what really calls for a thorough debate is just what to do about it. My view is that the best course here is a much less obvious or settled matter than most people think.
�

The author Daniel Pink just put this up on Facebook, it seemed related to this discussion. Enjoy. Overvaluing confidence, we�ve forgotten the power of humility | Aeon Ideas
�

jeffro01 said: ?

This is the core problem, there isn't anything to change your mind on, this isn't an opinion based situation. I still can't wrap my head around this idea that it's okay to be skeptical of climate change. Climate change\global warming is real, it's absolutely caused by humans burning fossil fuels, and it's absolutely not open for debate, discussion, doubt, gut feelings, who do you trust, etc... This isn't debated science, it's no longer allowable to have an opinion on it, this is fact.
Click to expand...

With all due respect this kind of thinking will take you down a slippery slope. The fact is that not everyone that disagrees with global warming is an uneducated idiot, or worse, which is where your line of reasoning is headed. The following article helped me to understand what the Global Warming debate actually is, and I think it is both well written and fair, with out stooping to mud slinging, politics, etc. I think it might help you see why some people may hold a legitimate view that differs from yours on the topic of global warming:
Understanding the Global Warming Debate,

Here is a bit of teaser quote at the end of the article:

"So this is the real problem at the heart of the climate debate � the two sides are debating different propositions! In our chart, proponents of global warming action are vigorously defending the propositions on the left side, propositions with which serious skeptics generally already agree. When skeptics raise issues about climate models, natural sources of warming, and climate feedbacks, advocates of global warming action run back to the left side of the chart and respond that the world is warming and greenhouse gas theory is correct. At best, this is a function of the laziness and scientific illiteracy of the media that allows folks to talk past one another; at worst, it is a purposeful bait-and-switch to avoid debate on the tough issues."
�

heysteveh said: ?

Understanding the Global Warming Debate,
Click to expand...

Because I love quoting geniuses.... I'm paraphrasing here 'cause I'm too lazy to dictate word for word...

'Even if the odds that it's a catastrophe are 1%... we have to transition away from fossil fuels anyway... it's the dumbest experiment ever' - Elon Musk

And my take... it's OUR atmosphere... I gave up my addiction to fools fuel... what right do you have to force me to take on an unknown risk because you're too lazy or stupid to also give up your addiction?
�

heysteveh said: ?

I think it might help you see why some people may hold a legitimate view that differs from yours on the topic of global warming:
Click to expand...

One issue with that piece is that it's written by a well known climate change "skeptic" who has a bit of bias in his writing.

The idea that someone has trouble with climate models seems, in my experience, to correlate with people who don't know how models in general work. The famous George E.P. Box quote applies here: "All models are wrong, but some are useful." That quote should make one more comfortable with inaccuracies in climate models. If it doesn't, they can have their opinion about the models, but they probably shouldn't express it publicly.
�

I think that it's easier to think in terms of more immediate Local Air Quality improvements rather than longer term changes in global temperatures.

In a few years time a convoy of Teslas will be capable of achieving a small but measurable reduction in street-level pollutants.

But that's for the future. What steps can we take today?

Well in both the spirit of "every little helps" and recognizing the greater impact of methane, I'd like to encourage you all to Just Stop Farting.

Come on America, do it for the sake of your own families; for your neighbours; your co-workers.

Do not Make but Be the wind of change.

Just say woah. Dude, please. I'm breathing here.

"I'm putting the brakes on breaking bad."

"I am the one who stops"
�

AudubonB said: ?

This is a pretty good entry point for the following:

Just as elsewhere but in a similar situation I expounded upon use of the words "belief/believe", and others correctly have weighed in on appropriate and inappropriate use of "theory", here it is apposite to make mention of the misuse prevalent here of the word "debate".

There is no debate. There are strong feelings on two sides; there is precious little meeting of minds and almost as little inclination for those on one side to consider the arguments the other side presents.

Without the above, it is vanishingly unlikely for minds to change. That the OP has suggested it happened to him is a remarkable occurrence.
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying, but I think eventually the evidence will win. The question is, when? It may not be until the world is 20 degrees hotter, ice doesn't exist anymore, and all the major cities are under the ocean, but the evidence will eventually win. The marvel of modern science is that it allows us to see problems coming earlier and earlier through our diverse varieties of research and our increasingly advanced finely tuned instruments. We can use that to our advantage and take action early...or not.
�

ohmman said: ?

One issue with that piece is that it's written by a well known climate change "skeptic" who has a bit of bias in his writing.

The idea that someone has trouble with climate models seems, in my experience, to correlate with people who don't know how models in general work. The famous George E.P. Box quote applies here: "All models are wrong, but some are useful." That quote should make one more comfortable with inaccuracies in climate models. If it doesn't, they can have their opinion about the models, but they probably shouldn't express it publicly.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the author IS biased. My point is simply that here is an example of a lucid, intelligent position from someone who opposes climate change. He may be right or wrong but anyone who debates him should extend him the courtesy of respecting him and his right to hold an opposing viewpoint. Many in this thread (and in our society at large) have become so convinced of their viewpoint, that they begin viewing those who differ as uninformed, uneducated, idiots.

On a lighter note, here is a comical 8 second clip from the movie "My Cousin Vinny" showing how to extend that common courtesy in a civilized debate:

�

heysteveh said: ?

I'm sure the author IS biased. My point is simply that here is an example of a lucid, intelligent position from someone who opposes climate change. He may be right or wrong but anyone who debates him should extend him the courtesy of respecting him and his right to hold an opposing viewpoint. Many in this thread (and in our society at large) have become so convinced of their viewpoint, that they begin viewing those who differ as uninformed, uneducated, idiots.

On a lighter note, here is a comical 8 second clip from the movie "My Cousin Vinny" showing how to extend that common courtesy in a civilized debate:

Click to expand...

My father the math professor used to do a proof, where he proved that 1 = 2. It is easy, you start with an equation that you don't understand and do a bunch of operations to it, that you do understand, and you get a very reasonable and wrong answer. That is all you are proposing here.
�

heysteveh said: ?

My point is simply that here is an example of a lucid, intelligent position from someone who opposes climate change. He may be right or wrong but anyone who debates him should extend him the courtesy of respecting him and his right to hold an opposing viewpoint. Many in this thread (and in our society at large) have become so convinced of their viewpoint, that they begin viewing those who differ as uninformed, uneducated, idiots.
Click to expand...

I can agree with this to some extent. I think the Jacob Burak piece (linked above) about valuing humility is pertinent. It's always important to allow oneself some chance of being wrong. Especially if we are occasionally wrong, which we all are. That said, for some people the evidence is as clear as the evidence for gravity. If someone came to them saying that gravity is really just the iron in our blood being pulled down like a magnet, they might react similarly.

The other important aspect of the disagreement is that the climate is a shared resource, and opposing viewpoints can be considered directly harmful to the holders of those views. The arguments have been framed as economic tragedy vs. worldwide climatic tragedy. When an argument feels like it has a direct impact on the participants, things have a tendency to get much more heated.

I tend to follow evidence since we have very little else to go upon. Ignoring evidence because it's occasionally misleading is a path to being wrong more often than not. Generally, my goal in life is to be less wrong.
�

PtG62901 said: ?

My father the math professor used to do a proof, where he proved that 1 = 2. It is easy, you start with an equation that you don't understand and do a bunch of operations to it, that you do understand, and you get a very reasonable and wrong answer. That is all you are proposing here.
Click to expand...

My thinking was more along the lines of this link that you posted earlier in this thread: Overvaluing confidence, we�ve forgotten the power of humility | Aeon Ideas
A great piece!
�

I've switched to electric for geopolitical reasons... Many of the worlds nut-jobs rely heavily on the revenue from oil.

Plus Tesla's are just sexy!
�

mspisars said: ?

Plus Tesla's are just sexy!
Click to expand...

Can't argue with that. Excellent gateway drug which need not necessarily involve a particular environmental stance.

It can just be a good and acceptable thing to support American innovation and industry.

A pity when sometimes, one man's innovation and industry is another's military-industrial complex.

But, you know, at least it's "our" military-industrial complex.

ETA. In some respects, this thread is a bit of a red herring since even if you Think Global you are always going to Act Local i.e. any fractional reductions in chemical or noise pollution will always benefit your immediate surroundings; your family; your neighborhood.

So I don't have a problem if some people want to put American air quality above climate change. It's all good.
�

heysteveh said: ?

My thinking was more along the lines of this link that you posted earlier in this thread: Overvaluing confidence, we�ve forgotten the power of humility | Aeon Ideas
A great piece!
Click to expand...

Daniel Pink is the man. Read his book "Drive." It is fantastic.
�

heysteveh said: ?

He may be right or wrong but anyone who debates him should extend him the courtesy of respecting him and his right to hold an opposing viewpoint.
Click to expand...

You're conflating having respect for a different point of view with respect for being wrong. Christiane Amanpour had a great quote about journalistic integrity; Honesty not Neutrality. If you show respect for a position that is simply wrong then you're creating a false equivalency between fiction and fact. A recent example of how disastrous this can be is the recent Brexit vote... most of the promises made by the pro-brexit side were simply not true but they were never truly challenged (until after the fact) out of 'respect' for their viewpoint.

You can't have a legitimate difference of opinion if you start with a difference of FACT.
�

heysteveh said: ?

I'm sure the author IS biased. My point is simply that here is an example of a lucid, intelligent position from someone who opposes climate change.
Click to expand...

Um, no. Al Gore is someone who opposes climate change -- someone who is implacably hostile to climate change and is trying to stop it! Bill McKibben is someone else who opposes climate change and is trying to stop it!

That link, on the other hand, is to someone who is pretending that climate change isn't happening. That's not an intelligent position. At this point, given the overwhelming evidence from physics, chemistry, meteorology, biology, and geology, that's a dumb position. A lot like pretending gravity doesn't exist.

I oppose gravity. We should fight against it, the way Musk fights against gravity with the rockets at SpaceX. That doesn't mean I don't recognize that it's happening.

He may be right or wrong but anyone who debates him should extend him the courtesy of respecting him and his right to hold an opposing viewpoint.
Click to expand...

I respect his right to hold a stupid, ignorant, uniformed viewpoint. Everyone has the right to be an uninformed, uneducated idiot. I think it's part of the First Amendment. Obviously, I don't respect him at all.

Many in this thread (and in our society at large) have become so convinced of their viewpoint, that they begin viewing those who differ as uninformed, uneducated, idiots.
Click to expand...

No, we view climate change deniers, evolution deniers, and gravity deniers who write articles in national newspapers and magazines as uninformed, uneducated idiots because that's more polite than calling them paid shills who are lying for money.

The following points are really, *really* easy to prove:
-- ocean acidification is happening
-- it is caused by humans burning fossil fuels putting CO2 in the air, which then gets in the water as carbonic acid
-- when ocean acidification goes too far, crucial types of plankton can't form their shells
-- last time this happened to a severe degree, it caused the biggest mass extinction in history (the P-Tr) largely due to the collapse of the ocean food chain

I don't even bother to discuss global warming per se any more because the evidence for ocean acidicification is so overwhelming. To ignore this, deniers have to deny very basic chemistry as well as geology.

I suppose I should be more sympathetic to ordinary people who weren't trained as scientists (I was trained as a scientist) because they are more easily bamboolzed by the oil&coal company propaganda. They *don't* know basic chemistry. They *don't* know geology. Anyone who knows the slightest bit about any of these subjects, however, gets frustrated when ignoramuses deny reality.
�

heysteveh said: ?

With all due respect this kind of thinking will take you down a slippery slope. The fact is that not everyone that disagrees with global warming is an uneducated idiot, or worse, which is where your line of reasoning is headed. The following article helped me to understand what the Global Warming debate actually is, and I think it is both well written and fair, with out stooping to mud slinging, politics, etc. I think it might help you see why some people may hold a legitimate view that differs from yours on the topic of global warming:
Understanding the Global Warming Debate,

Here is a bit of teaser quote at the end of the article:

"So this is the real problem at the heart of the climate debate � the two sides are debating different propositions! In our chart, proponents of global warming action are vigorously defending the propositions on the left side, propositions with which serious skeptics generally already agree. When skeptics raise issues about climate models, natural sources of warming, and climate feedbacks, advocates of global warming action run back to the left side of the chart and respond that the world is warming and greenhouse gas theory is correct. At best, this is a function of the laziness and scientific illiteracy of the media that allows folks to talk past one another; at worst, it is a purposeful bait-and-switch to avoid debate on the tough issues."
Click to expand...

The big issue I have with this article is that it is written in 2012. We have learned a LOT about climate science since 2012. The guys/gals that write the machine learning models we use now were still optimizing search engines and writing video games. Much of this technology is now driving the machine learning algorithms that are vastly improving weather models, doing analysis on weather data, heck, even making our cars drive themselves. Machine learning and the applications of it are accelerating.

The famous graph from NASA showing volcanic CO2 vs man made is dated 2013.

If you have not looked up information published in the last twelve months, I would encourage you to do so. We know a lot more now than we did even four years ago.
�

We discovered in the 1800's what happens to the mean-free path of visible-spectrum photons in CO2.

The rest is just derivation.
�

willcasp said: ?

The big issue I have with this article is that it is written in 2012. We have learned a LOT about climate science since 2012.

The famous graph from NASA showing volcanic CO2 vs man made is dated 2013.
Click to expand...

It's not clear which side of the issue you really come down on... but climate science isn't a rapidly changing field aside from the horrifying observations that dire predictions appear to be coming true more and more often. Has the ratio of volcanic to anthropogenic emissions changes in the last 3 years?

In 1896 Svante Arrhenius published the first paper describing the effects of global warming... we know a bit more about other forcing agents but not much else has changed... turns out that thermodynamics is pretty straight forward.

From a scientific perspective the fact that AGW has stood the test of time virtually unchanged is it's highest honor. Scientists have been attempting to disprove it for ~120 years yet it still stands.
�

No, but I was already believing the scientists about climate change. I have been sitting hear trying to figure out how the people the opening post said were running away with cash because of climate change were doing it. Still dont know how they are, while at the same time it is pretty easy to see how the people who lead the denial movement do.

Now I have said to deniers for a very long time. You have 2 bets.

1. Bet that climate change isnt real. Then dont do anything to really change.
2. Bet that climate change is real. Then push for real drastic change.

The key is what if you are wrong.

1. We are totally screwed.
2. We all live in a better, cleaner world. Cars are better, air is better, middle east nut jobs have less money and less power over the rest of the world.
�

nwdiver said: ?

It's not clear which side of the issue you really come down on... but climate science isn't a rapidly changing field aside from the horrifying observations that dire predictions appear to be coming true more and more often. Has the ratio of volcanic to anthropogenic emissions changes in the last 3 years?

In 1896 Svante Arrhenius published the first paper describing the effects of global warming... we know a bit more about other forcing agents but not much else has changed... turns out that thermodynamics is pretty straight forward.

From a scientific perspective the fact that AGW has stood the test of time virtually unchanged is it's highest honor. Scientists have been attempting to disprove it for ~120 years yet it still stands.
Click to expand...

I am driven by the data. The data says that humans (burning fossil fuels and deforrestation) are THE driving factor in the acceleration of climate change.
The data that convincingly supports this is relatively recent.
I never developed a religion around this.
I do not think it is fair to say that AGW has stood the test of time virtually unchanged. I do believe that the data exists to support the statement that you made, but only if you cherry pick it.

Arrhenius paper tells you what you would see in the lab, and then speculates.
We can pull more recent papers (60's, 70's) that made convincing arguments that the same behavior would bring on the next ice age.

The components that make up the problem can be easily tested in loosely controlled environments in a middle school or high school lab.
The possibility that this is a problem is obvious to anyone with basic scientific training.

The statements by the skeptic in Forbes in 2012 were reasonable, for the 1990's. Bill Gates even went on record on more than one occasion stating that the trend looks like things are warming, but he wasn't clear if it was a top priority based on impact.

Looking at the data that we have now, which is largely from our newfound capabilities of wading through large pools of unrelated data quickly, we can answer many of the well thought out skeptics questions in a convincing way. I catagorize well thought out skepticism as different from flat out denial.
We have data driven answers to the following:
Impact of solar radiation on earths climate. The answer is yes, and it is not the main driver.
Impact of annual and isolated geological events on the earths climate. Again, the answer is yes it does, but it is not the main driver.
Impact of humans burning fossil fuels on earths climate. The data says it is the most significant factor, by an order of magnitude. The acceleration of this using improved modeling is bad.

The one question I have is what is the earth's capacity to deal with this? Ancillary trends on this don't look good (ocean acidifcation being a biggie). It is a safe assumption that it will be too late by the time we find out.

I am good with these statements based on the data:
The earth is getting hotter, and humans burning fossil fuels are the cause.
This trend is accelerating.
Fossil fuel burning needs to stop if there is any hope of recovery.
�

willcasp said: ?

Arrhenius paper tells you what you would see in the lab, and then speculates.
We can pull more recent papers (60's, 70's) that made convincing arguments that the same behavior would bring on the next ice age.
Click to expand...

Looks like we're both on the same side in this

Those papers you referenced from the 60s and 70s were in regard to SO2 which has the opposite effect of CO2.

The basic principle (climate sensitivity) has remained about the same for over a century. We've just learned a lot more in regards to the consequences of increasing the average temperature of the Earth by ~2C. Arrhenius got the physics and the math right but he didn't believe humans were capable of adding sufficient CO2 to the atmosphere and he believe that the overall effect would be positive.

But... those specifics that are slowly coming into sharper focus are the shakiest grow to take a stand on... adding massive amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere is a bit like smoking... it's essentially a risk factor for terrible things.

The key points to impress on deniers is
1) the physics is sound
2) No... no one really know how bad it could be... and that should make you very uncomfortable about adding to the risk
3) Fossil fuels are finite anyway to hows about we accelerate kicking the fools fuel addiction and forgo that risk?
�

Chopr147 said: ?

Leo Dicap, Pelosi, Obama etc...... All seem to be getting wealthy by passing laws for CC and IMHO are not trustworthy people.

This thought never occurred to me until recently: Oil/gas industry is intentionally muddling the waters, or oil fields because it has a huge impact on their profits
Click to expand...

realclimate.org published a discussion recently regarding the influence of politics on layperson understanding of science. Chopr147 is describing what they would call "motivated thinking."

I find the entire notion extremely depressing.
�

I was just watching the Model 3 launch speech by Elon Musk. He spends the first several minutes talking about why Tesla exists, which is to fight global warming. If you were wondering where he stood, that speech spells it out clearly.
�

teslamotorclub

Thứ Sáu, 6 tháng 1, 2017

Has buying a Tesla changed your mind about Climate Change? part 1

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét