it's starting to happen, is this the future for the Stinger? Volvo S60

[Helo58]

Competition spurs innovation - ain't that great?

All hail capitalism!

 

[westcoastGT]

personally ,I would just love driving past the gas stations with a One finger salute ......................I've had electric yard tools for years and have never missed filling them up with gas and changing oil !

 

[Doel]

There are more than a few of "us".

Fossil fuels account for a puny percentage of total co2 in the atmosphere. The "trouble" is that co2 doesn't dissipate quickly like water vapor; thus it accumulates over time. Big, freaking, deal! The last I heard before this flap, we were threatened with the end of this ice age dovetailing with the arrival the next ice age. Now we are told that warming "too fast" is threatening life on the planet: we are told that evolution needs more time to let life adapt to the rapid warming.

Bullshyster. Nobody KNOWS any such thing; it is a theory, even a hypothesis; there is absolutely no proof that the planet is in trouble because we are warming rapidly (which I doubt anyway, but my doubt won't change a thing). While some species are stressed and hit hard by warming (loss of ice), others are thriving and appearing in larger numbers than ever seen before (e.g. humpback whales around the Antarctic). In short, "... we don't know what is going on." (Full quote by a penguin biologist studying her speciality in the midst of diminishing sea ice and glaciers, in the Nat Geo: "We should be bothered, that we don't know what is going on.")

Yet "They" tell us endlessly that we need to curb/eliminate our fossil fuel "dependency". We have civil rights-violating protests in London because the Gov't isn't doing its job of ending carbon subsidies and adding on carbon taxes: meanwhile in Paris we have angry mobs breaking things and fighting with the police because the Gov't announced a carbon tax. Gov'ts can't win! I hope to hell NOT. They should take this latest contrast home and think long and hard upon the ramifications.

Any "fixes" for climate change are nothing but humans making power/money grabs in the guise of "doing something" because the "sky is falling". Nothing more or less than that. And therefore, harmful to our collective world economy. The world needs more fossil fuel development, not less, not cutting back: the developing nations need to be developed to the same level of material prosperity and individual freedom enjoyed by most of the West.

Capitalism is the engine; growth for the foreseeable future is the special ingredient.

And nations meeting to work out a representative world Gov't patterned on the US model will get everyone lined up and cooperating. Paradise is within our reach! (Oh, and while working out the World representative democracy, we need to agree to get rid of our nuke stockpiles: if we don't do that above all else, we are cooked in the near, not distant, future.)

you're lack of knowledge on this subject is astounding, where are you getting your information from? Definitely not any type of scientific source. You need to be careful listening to heavily biased media, they will fill your head with lies. Let's start with your first paragraph.

There is something called the carbon cycle, the planet naturally emits carbon dioxide, some of that breaks down, some of it is fixed by plants, overall the concentration stays the same year after year in a balanced system. The system is currently unbalanced due to human activity, fossil fuels account for 76% of total human emissions which all goes to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The earth can't "digest" the extra carbon dioxide being emitted so 100% of it is going into the atmosphere, increasing the concentration.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Fossil Fuels and Cement Reach Highest Point in Human History | World Resources Institute

We've been taking direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentrations and they have been skyrocketing. There is a direct correlation between human CO2 emissions and the increase in concentrations. It's a basic mass balance equation, there are no other explanations with any type of correlation (if someone mentions something like volcanoes being responsible, they have no clue how to calculate emissions)
Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

The "big freaking deal" is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The more there is, the more thermal energy is trapped in our atmosphere. This is super basic atmospheric science, this isn't "theory", you can not increase greenhouse gas concentrations without increasing temperatures, period. Since you seem to lack any knowledge on the greenhouse effect, here's the most basic website I could find to explain it to you.
NASA Climate Kids :: What is the greenhouse effect?

There was NEVER a scientific consensus of a coming ice age. Yes, back in the 60s and 70s there were some scientists that thought this might happen, but the overwhelming number of climate papers, even back then, predicted global warming. It wasn't even close.
What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

No proof the earth is in trouble? Have you lost your mind? We have empirical evidence that temperatures have been increasing for decades. We also have evidence we're in the middle of an human caused extinction event, we have a very good idea on how bad it is. Open your eyes to the real science, not the Fox News bull crap. The fact alone that we're seeing some species in places they've never been is an indicator that the climate is rapidly changing. There are more deer ticks in southern Canada than has ever been seen, in areas they've never been, I've seen it with my own eyes, is that a good thing? HECK NO!
Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines


You are really really confused about global economics when it comes to fossil fuels. The people that are doing the research on climate change aren't making any sort of "power grab" they aren't getting rich doing their research, you do realize these guys are just middle class folks right? They literally control nothing in the world and they aren't trying to get rich off it. You know who is getting rich? The fossil fuel companies, their owners, and executives. There's only one side in this discussion getting rich and it sure as heck isn't the climate change folks.

You really should read the links above, or don't, maybe you simply don't care what the truth is because you don't care what happens to this planet. It's a free country after all so you aren't required to give a crap. If you do care, base your opinion on the truth and the research. Don't be a sheep of the fossil fuel companies, they're literally getting rich because they've fooled people like you.

 

[MerlintheMad]

(if someone mentions something like volcanoes being responsible, they have no clue how to calculate emissions)

I didn't. Human contribution to total co2 emissions are still small, yet bigger than volcanoes over time.

Since you seem to lack any knowledge on the greenhouse effect, here's the most basic website I could find to explain it to you.

Thanks. I am not seeing anything in your text that says anything new. I get it. co2 increasing warms the atmosphere.

There was NEVER a scientific consensus of a coming ice age. Yes, back in the 60s and 70s there were some scientists that thought this might happen, but the overwhelming number of climate papers, even back then, predicted global warming. It wasn't even close.

You can always blame the Medía, then. Scientists are not good at promoting. Everything from blurbs on the evening Neewz, front page headlines, less prominent but even more numerous sensationalized pieces everywhere, novels, and then finally movies taking their cue. Oh, NOW we see movies picking up on global warming (e.g. Interstellar) as the next apocalypse, not expanding glaciers. People (like you here) are always pointing out the real "consensus" among "real scientists" "back then": global warming it was: and yet we the people never heard a word about it; not even scientific caveats about what was being popularized in the Medía. Why was that? What made "the next coming ice age" more sensational than "global warming" causing the next great "die off", including most of ourselves? This is called reworking history.

Open your eyes to the real science, not the Fox News bull crap.

I don't listen to Faux or any other Medía mainstream engine. I listen to everything; including (especially) the sources for global climate change (used to be "warming", then got coined to that, then back lately to "warming" again) that are politicized, like the IPCC: look at who is saying "we must do something" and that something is to take from the Haves and redistribute to the have nots. As if this is going to impede co2! It doesn't answer a damned thing.

There are more deer ticks in southern Canada than has ever been seen, in areas they've never been, I've seen it with my own eyes, is that a good thing? HECK NO!

You're falling for the most common blunder: using anecdotal "evidence" as proof of something.

You are really really confused about global economics when it comes to fossil fuels. The people that are doing the research on climate change aren't making any sort of "power grab" they aren't getting rich doing their research, you do realize these guys are just middle class folks right?

I don't buy into the "great conspiracy of scientists" assertion. But scientists are mostly beholden to greater powers. And those gov't powers and the big money behind them put pressure on scientists to support a power grab. It happens all the time. Look at Nazi Germany: that wasn't science being employed, it was politics and racism, and the scientists who bucked that got into deadly peril. Scientists are just human. Groupthink is very, very human. If enough of us believe that the sky is falling, science will go along, looking for evidence that shows the sky is falling. Science, being human, is mostly reactionary (despite the vaunted standards of the "scientific method"): if this were otherwise, we'd have fewer examples of scientific pronouncements that are laughably dead wrong.

You know who is getting rich? The fossil fuel companies, their owners, and executives. There's only one side in this discussion getting rich and it sure as heck isn't the climate change folks.

Both sides stand to gain by victory. If the "consensus" wins, they keep their jobs, rise in the approval rating handed down by gov't subsidies to their respective universities, etc. If The Big Carbon Megahuge Corporation wins, then of course they retain their status quo and profits continue; the scientists are discredited and have a smaller voice going forward. This is a war between gov't controlled science seeking to seize more control of energy (private enterprise), and capitalism. The trouble is that capitalism isn't always in possession of what it should be. Resources are actually a public asset and should not belong to private enterprise businesses. ALL (sic) energy sources and material resources should be in the possession of the people just like our national forest and other public lands: via our representative governments. I don't know what the answer is: it certainly isn't a demand to stop subsidizing big carbon and start taxing it. That isn't "doing something" productive; it is counterproductive. It is harmful to the economy, to growing material prosperity and security. The money just goes into the wrong hands. And the common folk pay more probably for less.

The whole issue of "global warming" is a macguffin. Not that co2 increases above the natural sinks are not happening: but that this poses a proven or even likely catastrophic future to the planet as a whole: and this huge assertion is being seen as an opportunity by power mongers to seize control of gov'ts everywhere.

But we won't be listening to each other, I suspect: since you believe in the mass Medía portrayal of the evils of carbon; and I do not. I'm sure the Earth will survive handily, and we will remain on the top of the pyramid of life on this planet, because we are the most adaptable of species.

 

[SEA Stinger]

Joel Pett: The cartoon seen 'round the world

 

[MerlintheMad]

Joel Pett: The cartoon seen 'round the world

I didn't say "hoax". I said groupthink, which is always powered by self interest. Carbon "clingers" are groupthink people too. All humans are. You just have better groupthink and inferior groupthink. I happen to believe that doubters are more rational people: they want things to stay the same as much as possible; they are not looking for the apocalypse just because technically advanced humans dominate the planet; and they don't trust governments to solve anything by seizing control of private enterprise through taxation in the name of "we must do something now".

"What if we create a better world and some radical asshat blows us to kingdom come with his nuke stockpile?"

 

[GRStinger]

you're lack of knowledge on this subject is astounding, where are you getting your information from? Definitely not any type of scientific source. You need to be careful listening to heavily biased media, they will fill your head with lies. Let's start with your first paragraph.

There is something called the carbon cycle, the planet naturally emits carbon dioxide, some of that breaks down, some of it is fixed by plants, overall the concentration stays the same year after year in a balanced system. The system is currently unbalanced due to human activity, fossil fuels account for 76% of total human emissions which all goes to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The earth can't "digest" the extra carbon dioxide being emitted so 100% of it is going into the atmosphere, increasing the concentration.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Fossil Fuels and Cement Reach Highest Point in Human History | World Resources Institute

We've been taking direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentrations and they have been skyrocketing. There is a direct correlation between human CO2 emissions and the increase in concentrations. It's a basic mass balance equation, there are no other explanations with any type of correlation (if someone mentions something like volcanoes being responsible, they have no clue how to calculate emissions)
Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

The "big freaking deal" is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The more there is, the more thermal energy is trapped in our atmosphere. This is super basic atmospheric science, this isn't "theory", you can not increase greenhouse gas concentrations without increasing temperatures, period. Since you seem to lack any knowledge on the greenhouse effect, here's the most basic website I could find to explain it to you.
NASA Climate Kids :: What is the greenhouse effect?

There was NEVER a scientific consensus of a coming ice age. Yes, back in the 60s and 70s there were some scientists that thought this might happen, but the overwhelming number of climate papers, even back then, predicted global warming. It wasn't even close.
What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

No proof the earth is in trouble? Have you lost your mind? We have empirical evidence that temperatures have been increasing for decades. We also have evidence we're in the middle of an human caused extinction event, we have a very good idea on how bad it is. Open your eyes to the real science, not the Fox News bull crap. The fact alone that we're seeing some species in places they've never been is an indicator that the climate is rapidly changing. There are more deer ticks in southern Canada than has ever been seen, in areas they've never been, I've seen it with my own eyes, is that a good thing? HECK NO!
Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines


You are really really confused about global economics when it comes to fossil fuels. The people that are doing the research on climate change aren't making any sort of "power grab" they aren't getting rich doing their research, you do realize these guys are just middle class folks right? They literally control nothing in the world and they aren't trying to get rich off it. You know who is getting rich? The fossil fuel companies, their owners, and executives. There's only one side in this discussion getting rich and it sure as heck isn't the climate change folks.

You really should read the links above, or don't, maybe you simply don't care what the truth is because you don't care what happens to this planet. It's a free country after all so you aren't required to give a crap. If you do care, base your opinion on the truth and the research. Don't be a sheep of the fossil fuel companies, they're literally getting rich because they've fooled people like you.

Your post smacks of that I’m-smarter-than-you virtue signaling that many of us have grown so tired of. I’ve read plenty of the analysis on the topic over the last two decades. There are legion of scientists and learned men/woman who are skeptics on the AGW subject (yes, you’d call them “deniers”). We can play dueling links ad nauseum.

First, the same cadre of statists and politicians who never met a tax they didn’t like, and who want to regulate and control virtually every aspect of human activity are the same ones who are scaring the be-Jesus out of the population and are trying to tax us for the weather. (It’s brilliant, actually. You, by simply going about your life are “destroying the planet”. Feel guilty? But repent. You can be saved! You can "make a difference". Write a check.) Call me skeptical. Second, who says that the climate during our time on the planet is “normal”, and that we can somehow control it? The earth is 4.5 billion years old – try to get your brain around that. There’s been a climate for 3 billion, give-or-take. Humans have been here 200,000. Just 12,000 years ago – a few minutes in geologic time - a mile-thick glacier covered most of N America. The planet warmed rapidly and significantly – somehow without human CO2 emissions. Humans adapted. The warming brought us things like agriculture… and civilization. Then science and technology brought us the means to refine fossil fuel… and the Kia Stinger GT! No, I don’t feel guilty and I’m not losing any sleep. The sky is not falling.

 

[MerlintheMad]

@GRStinger Preach it, brother.

Self interest will rule. Capitalism will win. It will conquer the world and bring paradise. I am not being facetious. Material prosperity and equality (I am not talking equality of wealth) will drive the most powerful upgrade of human existence ever seen. And while The Megahuge Corporation is moving into Africa and finishing the "conquest" of Asia, our governments will be compelled by the accompanying grassroots movement of an Internet coordinated demand for equal representation, fair taxation through the same, and a single World Gov't of the people, by the people, and for the people, a la the US Model. It works: or said another way, capitalism and representative democracy are the worst forms of economic politics, except for all the others.

Self interest will also "save the planet" by finding our way free of MAD; and when we can agree on the necessaries to accomplish that, we can unite in all lesser matters: including removing those plastic islands from our oceans, curbing human population, preserving wilderness and making room for more of it, and saving our precious wildlife along with it, etc. Amen.

 

[Doel]

While it is true that the earth's climate has changed in the past and will change in the future, on it's own, that doesn't diminish the consequences of us changing it right now. That's like saying "oh yeah, these category 5 hurricanes happen every year, don't worry about the one heading toward you right now". A disaster is a disaster, the climate rapidly changing is a global disaster. Rapid climate change has been the reason for several mass extinctions in the past, we do agree that mass extinction is a bad thing right? If we could do something to stop it, shouldn't we? Our current climate shift is happening at a much faster rate than the last ice age and subsequent thaw, it's the rate of change that makes this so much worse than the last one.

I get it, you don't believe in climate change, not because of any scientific data, but you just don't. Let's just say for arguments sake that the earth is going through a rapid climate shift and it is due to us (insert whatever forcing factor you want), that if we don't do anything about it there will be a massive die off of plants and animals, throwing the human population into chaos with billions of people dying due to famine. Atmospheric scientists would be the first ones to see start of this change right? How would you want them to convey to us that this is about to happen, or is already happening? What kind of action would you want the world's governments to take? Or is there nothing scientists and the government can do to convince you, and the world is just doomed in this scenario?

 

[Waynerm002]

Until people are being affected by it personally, the mind set is "it is not my problem". A lot of people expect the news or their public officials to provide them with accurate information. Most of those talking heads could care less and if the solution is to buy expensive equipment to filter their air, they will do that for themselves. While some capitalist entrepreneur will certainly provide a solution that the masses will buy into so they can keep going in hopes the government and corporations will come up with a permanent solution.

I've seen smog in California year ago and during my trips to China. Hong Kong didn't have any years ago but the weather pattern has moved the pollution west from Shenzhen to HK, I noticed the change when I passed through there last year and the year before. Do we need to wait until we all are wearing masks and can't see the sun, everywhere, to acknowledge we have a problem? I think for some that will be what it takes or when a family member succumbs to the effects of these issues before folks taking notice. We are all apart of the problem, it is going to take a concerted effort to change it.

 

[Helo58]

While it is true that the earth's climate has changed in the past and will change in the future, on it's own, that doesn't diminish the consequences of us changing it right now. That's like saying "oh yeah, these category 5 hurricanes happen every year, don't worry about the one heading toward you right now". A disaster is a disaster, the climate rapidly changing is a global disaster. Rapid climate change has been the reason for several mass extinctions in the past, we do agree that mass extinction is a bad thing right? If we could do something to stop it, shouldn't we? Our current climate shift is happening at a much faster rate than the last ice age and subsequent thaw, it's the rate of change that makes this so much worse than the last one.

I get it, you don't believe in climate change, not because of any scientific data, but you just don't. Let's just say for arguments sake that the earth is going through a rapid climate shift and it is due to us (insert whatever forcing factor you want), that if we don't do anything about it there will be a massive die off of plants and animals, throwing the human population into chaos with billions of people dying due to famine. Atmospheric scientists would be the first ones to see start of this change right? How would you want them to convey to us that this is about to happen, or is already happening? What kind of action would you want the world's governments to take? Or is there nothing scientists and the government can do to convince you, and the world is just doomed in this scenario?

I think what everyone is saying is pick your battles. Until you get the China, India, and 3rd world on board, you aren't going to make a dent in the causes you attribute climate change to. Why destroy the economies of the western world when we aren't even the primary/chief offenders? Any changes the US alone would make would amount to a fraction of a degree (within normal variability) in global temps. Hardly worth freaking out over.

The world is more likely to suffer death by famine due to overpopulation, unsustainable population densities, and a lack of clean water long before "the climate" ever affects us. I think the people "above" that you have been discussing things with are probably older or more experienced in ways. They have heard prediction after prediction be made that simply hasn't materialized. They have heard of data being manipulated for a political cause or studies designed with experimenter bias built in to the methodology to prove certain specific points that belie the situation as a whole. Most "deniers" as you call them are just willing to "wait and see" at this point, right or wrong. They aren't as alarmed as you because they have repeatedly heard the cry of "wolf" too many times without ever seeing a wolf.

 

[Doel]

I think what everyone is saying is pick your battles. Until you get the China, India, and 3rd world on board, you aren't going to make a dent in the causes you attribute climate change to. Why destroy the economies of the western world when we aren't even the primary/chief offenders? Any changes the US alone would make would amount to a fraction of a degree (within normal variability) in global temps. Hardly worth freaking out over.

The world is more likely to suffer death by famine due to overpopulation, unsustainable population densities, and a lack of clean water long before "the climate" ever affects us. I think the people "above" that you have been discussing things with are probably older or more experienced in ways. They have heard prediction after prediction be made that simply hasn't materialized. They have heard of data being manipulated for a political cause or studies designed with experimenter bias built in to the methodology to prove certain specific points that belie the situation as a whole. Most "deniers" as you call them are just willing to "wait and see" at this point, right or wrong. They aren't as alarmed as you because they have repeatedly heard the cry of "wolf" too many times without ever seeing a wolf.

The US has the second most carbon emissions of any country, US alone make up 14% of total CO2 emissions (that's twice as much as India), that's substantial. China and India signed the Paris Agreement, so they are on board (but not enough IMO). How is reducing CO2 emissions destroying the world's economy? Has the sustainable energy sector destroyed the economy? Have more efficient and low emissions vehicles destroyed the economy? If anything, I would say "going green" has created more industries, created more jobs, and is actually helping the economy. I'm an engineer, when I was in the field I did over a year at a coal fired power plant that we retrofitted for natural gas. The company as a whole spent over a billion dollars retrofitting old dirty coal fired steam plants. Power bills barely changed, a couple million tons of CO2 stopped being pumped into the atmosphere on an annual basis, and guess what, people like me benefited by getting good paying, steady work. Win win.

There is no evidence, zero, that data is being manipulated to lead to false conclusions. Science is based on facts and evidence, conjecture doesn't have a place. Bringing politics into this makes no sense, this has nothing to do with politics. You know why politics even got involved? Because big donors from gas and oil lined the pockets of the GOP and they turned it into a political, partisan issue. They know fossil fuels are warming the planet, they know it's an issue, but they care more about their bank accounts than everyone else.

I'll ask again, if the climate is rapidly changing and the world is on the precipice of global disaster, what would it take for you to believe the scientists who's research indicates this is happening? What would you expect the governments to do to stop it? What are you willing to sacrifice personally to insure future generations have a sustainable planet to live on like we have?

 

[MerlintheMad]

Rapid climate change has been the reason for several mass extinctions in the past, we do agree that mass extinction is a bad thing right?

I don't believe that the rapidity of climate change "because of us" is comparable to the instantaneous climate change of say a massive meteor striking the earth. The "mass extinction" assertion is only that and cannot be shown to be any kind of certainty. Too many counter theories of the outcome exist to form any consensus.

If we could do something to stop it, shouldn't we?

Not unless we KNOW what we are doing. And not if the "solution" is going to produce worse conditions for us NOW; which any proposed solutions will, especially for developing nations relying on carbon to power their launch into the industrial age. No so called solutions address this: they only take from the "haves" and supposedly "prepare the developing nations for the impacts of climate change", without specifying what that means in real world terms. It is a power/money grab, to level the nations by bringing down the rich while raising the poor (supposedly): which does address the severe challenge of inequality the world faces, but does NOTHING to halt much less reverse the impact of carbon on climate change.

Our current climate shift is happening at a much faster rate than the last ice age and subsequent thaw, it's the rate of change that makes this so much worse than the last one.

Worse? The last climate change was bad because it went from an interglacial into the current ice age! Thawing is good, freezing is bad. Warm is better than cold. Life thrives in warmth; it fairly teems! 99% plus of all species of life that have ever existed on Earth are EXTINCT. Extinction is a fact of nature, of evolution. Sometimes it happens very quickly. But a "great die off" does not end life, it changes it. We are not the cause of this, we are a part of it, a tiny percentage of it. If Earth warms up because of us, and the current ice age ends centuries before it would have without humans using carbon, how is that a disaster at all? Many species appear to be booming back; others are struggling. Life is a struggle with death. It takes endless forms. Human ingredient: one of countless ways that the planet can go. We are not stupid, but we are self centered/interested. We all want the same things. So let's talk about how we can all enjoy them. US, at the top of the heap (market-wise), can stop being so wasteful, so indulgent: we can keep everything we love about our lifestyle and cut our wasteful ways to zero: it can be done. Limited resources can be expanded intelligently by pulling more out of the earth in ways that don't destroy wilderness or pollute. Our cars burn cleanly now; our factories too; we need to make sure the developing nations do likewise as the inequality is ended.

I get it, you don't believe in climate change, not because of any scientific data, but you just don't.

If you really read what I say and mean and get this far, and still believe this, I don't know what more I can say.

What kind of action would you want the world's governments to take? Or is there nothing scientists and the government can do to convince you, and the world is just doomed in this scenario?

I am convinced that climate change happens: we are part of the natural probability and outcome; Nature will always find a way (as long as we don't destroy Her with a massive nuclear exchange; that is literally the only possible apocalypse that humans can cause to the planet). We have plenty of time to work out our difficulties: Nature isn't going to die off "massively" or otherwise. Any scientists saying this are in the grip of groupthink caused by self interest (gov't subsidies, job security, reputation, fear of not being with the consensus/groupthink). So I do not trust scientists from countries that have histories of gov't predation; they are legion; they control the dominant voting power of the UN.

We need to ditch the UN: it can form the merest beginning of organizing the first "world congress"; then it steps aside and lets the popularly/democratically elected representatives to the World Congress do their job: which is exactly the same agenda for the Nation States of Earth as the Colonies in N. America in 1776: create a representative democracy of the people, by the people and for the people. When this World Congress Number One is convened, it will address the four great problem areas threatening humanity and much of the rest of life on Earth with us: Nuclear attack tops the list (not inequality, that is not the major threat to our very existence); next up is inequality (because if this is not rectified, humans will cause massive destruction just trying to live like Americans, without the resources available to do it: and the US will not sit idly by while illegal immigration destroys our lifestyle through a lack of secure borders or a gov't that is supine, even complicit, with the disaster of uncontrolled immigration/migration); third is climate change (it will be well if we can KNOW what we are up against in the not too distant future, and take steps to cut back carbon output; there is no reason not to do it if we can; we address all forms of "pollution" in this agenda, not just carbon; and all of our use of resources, with the intent of restoring and expanding wilderness and its varied life forms, etc); finally we must pursue a policy of managing our planets energy resources: water, forests, animals, carbon in its varieties, establishment of electrical power plants and the "grid", etc. We have to put ALL energy and material resources into the hands of the Federal Government: these are the shared property of Planet Earth and should not belong (never should have) to the private property of individuals or corporations, et al. The energy grid is public property, as are highways and water rights. All such still existing pariahs outside of this truth need to be controlled by the democratically elected Congress of a United Nation States of Earth.

We have the time to do this. We can start next week, if enough people at the grassroots level, everywhere, demand it.

Look at how implementing a carbon tax went down in France recently, for a tiny example of what's in store if individual governments try to follow the dictates of popular movements (socialist to the core) that demand that governments rein in carbon moguls. This must be done by all or none. It must be done through consent, not gov't fiat and command. WE give Gov't its powers; it does not assume them. Following the ideals, the precedents, of the US model of representative democracy, a republic of Nation States will get everyone but demagogues and tyrants and fanatics on board: those form a disunited group of outcasts and will be dealt with if they insist on fighting against the united will of the people through their elected representatives.

It is messy. It's the worst form of government and economy; except for all the others.

 

[Helo58]

The US has the second most carbon emissions of any country, US alone make up 14% of total CO2 emissions (that's twice as much as India), that's substantial. China and India signed the Paris Agreement, so they are on board (but not enough IMO). How is reducing CO2 emissions destroying the world's economy? Has the sustainable energy sector destroyed the economy? Have more efficient and low emissions vehicles destroyed the economy? If anything, I would say "going green" has created more industries, created more jobs, and is actually helping the economy. I'm an engineer, when I was in the field I did over a year at a coal fired power plant that we retrofitted for natural gas. The company as a whole spent over a billion dollars retrofitting old dirty coal fired steam plants. Power bills barely changed, a couple million tons of CO2 stopped being pumped into the atmosphere on an annual basis, and guess what, people like me benefited by getting good paying, steady work. Win win.

There is no evidence, zero, that data is being manipulated to lead to false conclusions. Science is based on facts and evidence, conjecture doesn't have a place. Bringing politics into this makes no sense, this has nothing to do with politics. You know why politics even got involved? Because big donors from gas and oil lined the pockets of the GOP and they turned it into a political, partisan issue. They know fossil fuels are warming the planet, they know it's an issue, but they care more about their bank accounts than everyone else.

I'll ask again, if the climate is rapidly changing and the world is on the precipice of global disaster, what would it take for you to believe the scientists who's research indicates this is happening? What would you expect the governments to do to stop it? What are you willing to sacrifice personally to insure future generations have a sustainable planet to live on like we have?

What you failed to mention is that US decreases in CO2 emissions have been the largest of any G20 country and continue to decline. The Paris Agreement isn't worth the paper it is written on because many of the signatories themselves have not reduced their CO2 emissions but rather increased them. Greenhouse gas emissions from China, Canada, France, India, Germany, and South Korea increased, not decreased, from 2016 to 2017. China, the largest offender is expected to have massive increases in CO2 emissions through 2030. The US is not the problem.

I am not sure if you intended to put words in my mouth, so let me correct you. I didn't say the world economy, I said the western world economy. HUGE difference. The economy is hurt through the implementation of things like a carbon tax, or increasing taxes based on consumption. It hurts the western world because we this increases the cost of goods and services. Western countries have made the most serious efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. Unless all countries play by the same rules, we were right to get out of the Paris Agreement and so NO to a carbon tax.

I agree that "green" industries have spurred innovation, but at a rate that is not sustainable. Without government incentives to buy/use/create solar farms, electric cars, windmill, geothermic, etc., they would not have been as widespread as they are now. I am curious how a company who spent over a billion dollars retrofitting coal plants didn't pass the costs onto customers. A few articles I came across said rates could increase by up to 30% after a retrofit or the state picks up the tab for the retrofit. Neither of those is free. Also, a retrofit is only feasible if natural gas prices stay low. If the cost of natural gas goes up AND coal fired plants are forced out of operation, you better get used to being poorer or dark and cold. The price of energy will shoot up.

Why are so many on this forum under the impression that they are the only smart ones participating in the discussion? I fully understand science and the scientific method. I have also seen flawed studies, poorly implemented research, confusing correlation with causation, and politically motivated and funded "altruistic" deeds that only later are revealed for what they truly were. Science does have the capability of being fallible because of the humans involved in it. For the record, you do know that "Big Oil" (Shell and Exxon) has contributed some of the largest amounts of private funding into alternative/green energy right?

As for your question, I'll answer it... I had to laugh a little at it when I read it. "If the climate is rapidly changing (as opposed to what?) and the world is on the precipice of global disaster (is this going to happen tomorrow or next Thursday?)... I guess for me to believe it, there would have to be the absence of a majority of scientists disagreeing with the proposal that what you stated was actually the case. There would be no articles in Forbes such as this... Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis Until then, personnally, I won't sacrifice anything to solve a make believe problem or a problem with causes that are out of human control.

 

[Ozstung]

I think electric cars are interesting and i note that KIA are coming out with an electric NIRO in April 2019 here in the UK, and it doesn't look too different to the ICE Niro they currently sell. My only issues with electric cars are:

1) the grills look really odd when they are filled in - can't get over how EVs look from the front with no grill.

2) and most importantly to me is that they are so quiet! That Porsche in the video above looks brilliant and i'm sure is very quick, but it's so quiet and with no exhaust note that it sounds so soulless, weird and boring!

Surely car manufacturers can make a fake external exhaust note, like they do with internal cabins (like in the Stinger)? At least for sportier looking cars like the Stinger etc.

Would also save lives of pedestrians, who simply can't hear the things approaching them!

Very true on your last point apparently the hearing impaired are most scared of the super quiet electric vehicles.

 

[MerlintheMad]

Very true on your last point apparently the hearing impaired are most scared of the super quiet electric vehicles.

This afternoon I was on a bicycle ride on the Old Bingham Hwy. As the traffic light at the intersection with the Legacy Hwy changed and I was pedaling through the intersection, a garbage truck started to pass me; and then from the opposite side a Tesla passed the truck and slid in front of it, accelerating away very swiftly. All I could hear was the tire noise. It was almost eerie, as if the car wasn't really all the way "here".

 

[Liljaeger]

I'd love a Electric Stinger as the next car. They are banning diesels innercity here, and tax the crap out of anything with any emissions. The GT2 is now 1,5 k roadtax per year, on a electric car you instead get 600 back.

 

[Doel]

I don't believe that the rapidity of climate change "because of us" is comparable to the instantaneous climate change of say a massive meteor striking the earth. The "mass extinction" assertion is only that and cannot be shown to be any kind of certainty. Too many counter theories of the outcome exist to form any consensus.

There have been several mass extinctions, only one is thought to have been caused by a meteor impact. The rapid decrease in plant and animal life on the planet currently qualifies as an extinction event, it's called the Holocene extinction. We've reduced animal life on this planet by over 50% in the past 40 years, by far more than that in the last 200. On a geological time scale, that's essentially instant, it isn't any type of "Assertion" it's fact. There are no other credible counter theories.

Not unless we KNOW what we are doing. And not if the "solution" is going to produce worse conditions for us NOW; which any proposed solutions will, especially for developing nations relying on carbon to power their launch into the industrial age. No so called solutions address this: they only take from the "haves" and supposedly "prepare the developing nations for the impacts of climate change", without specifying what that means in real world terms. It is a power/money grab, to level the nations by bringing down the rich while raising the poor (supposedly): which does address the severe challenge of inequality the world faces, but does NOTHING to halt much less reverse the impact of carbon on climate change.

We do KNOW what we are doing. The solutions actually make conditions better for us, unless you hate clean air and water. You keep calling this a "money grab" what in the heck are you talking about? How is investing in green tech grabbing any money from anyone? How is the government offering subsidies to the public and companies a money grab? Heck, if anything it's the government giving money BACK to the public. I understand the plight of developing countries, but you know what happens when we keep investing money into new greener energy production? It drives down the cost of that tech which gives developing countries more options for their own energy production. You know what's even worse for developing countries than carbon restrictions? Climate change, these countries already struggled with famine, that will only get worse. Western countries are already being sued by developing countries because they're being impacted by climate change and they don't have the resources to deal with it.

Worse? The last climate change was bad because it went from an interglacial into the current ice age! Thawing is good, freezing is bad. Warm is better than cold. Life thrives in warmth; it fairly teems! 99% plus of all species of life that have ever existed on Earth are EXTINCT. Extinction is a fact of nature, of evolution. Sometimes it happens very quickly. But a "great die off" does not end life, it changes it. We are not the cause of this, we are a part of it, a tiny percentage of it. If Earth warms up because of us, and the current ice age ends centuries before it would have without humans using carbon, how is that a disaster at all? Many species appear to be booming back; others are struggling. Life is a struggle with death. It takes endless forms. Human ingredient: one of countless ways that the planet can go. We are not stupid, but we are self centered/interested. We all want the same things. So let's talk about how we can all enjoy them. US, at the top of the heap (market-wise), can stop being so wasteful, so indulgent: we can keep everything we love about our lifestyle and cut our wasteful ways to zero: it can be done. Limited resources can be expanded intelligently by pulling more out of the earth in ways that don't destroy wilderness or pollute. Our cars burn cleanly now; our factories too; we need to make sure the developing nations do likewise as the inequality is ended.

As I've already said before, just because something has happened naturally in the past doesn't mean it can't be caused by humans in the present, it also doesn't mean we should just "let it happen". If a life ending meteor heads toward earth, should we just sit on our hands and say "well it was a good run, but these things happen, life will come back, bye 99% of all live on earth" or should we try to stop it? What do you think would happen if all of earth's nuclear arsenals were all launched at once, would we not drastically effect the planet? What you're saying here is borderline insanity, you're essentially saying that it's ok for someone to go around murdering everyone they see because people are going to die anyway, so it's ok! The current Ice Age has been going on for over 2.6 million years, ended it in the span of a couple hundred is a huge problem. You don't seem to grasp the concept that the rate of change temperature change is even more important than which direction it's changing. Sure, 100,000 years from now there may be more life than now if the entire planet is warmer, but in the short term measured in generations of human's there will be catastrophe. The planet will recover, countless generations of humans will go through hell. As for the rest of your comment, I don't care to talk about politics. Science isn't political, facts don't have political sides, and the earth doesn't care what government you belong to.

 

[Doel]

What you failed to mention is that US decreases in CO2 emissions have been the largest of any G20 country and continue to decline. The Paris Agreement isn't worth the paper it is written on because many of the signatories themselves have not reduced their CO2 emissions but rather increased them. Greenhouse gas emissions from China, Canada, France, India, Germany, and South Korea increased, not decreased, from 2016 to 2017. China, the largest offender is expected to have massive increases in CO2 emissions through 2030. The US is not the problem.

How is the US not the problem? We have the highest per capita CO2 emissions of any country, including China. Our emissions have also increased in the last year. Did you know China actually decreased their emissions the last 5 or so years, until the most recent year? China is not expected to have "massive" increases, their population is starting to demand less pollution.

I am not sure if you intended to put words in my mouth, so let me correct you. I didn't say the world economy, I said the western world economy. HUGE difference. The economy is hurt through the implementation of things like a carbon tax, or increasing taxes based on consumption. It hurts the western world because we this increases the cost of goods and services. Western countries have made the most serious efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. Unless all countries play by the same rules, we were right to get out of the Paris Agreement and so NO to a carbon tax.

God forbid we pay more money for goods to insure future generations have a healthy planet to live on. What a horrible trade off! Before we started buying everything from China, goods here were more expensive. We survived then, we'll survive it again. I rather buy stuff made in the USA anyway.

I agree that "green" industries have spurred innovation, but at a rate that is not sustainable. Without government incentives to buy/use/create solar farms, electric cars, windmill, geothermic, etc., they would not have been as widespread as they are now. I am curious how a company who spent over a billion dollars retrofitting coal plants didn't pass the costs onto customers. A few articles I came across said rates could increase by up to 30% after a retrofit or the state picks up the tab for the retrofit. Neither of those is free. Also, a retrofit is only feasible if natural gas prices stay low. If the cost of natural gas goes up AND coal fired plants are forced out of operation, you better get used to being poorer or dark and cold. The price of energy will shoot up.

I much rather the government spend money subsidizing industries that create goods that improve our lives than, lets say, $200 plastic screwdrivers for the military. We're spending close to 700 billion a year in defense, please don't tell me subsidizing the solar industry is "unsustainable" when it's peanuts in comparison. I don't have access to APC's finances, I can't tell you why their rates didn't increase much. As I said above, if I have to wear an extra layer in the winter, or use more fans in summer to keep my energy costs down in order protect the planet for future generations, I'm willing to make that "tremendous" sacrifice. We are so freaking spoiled in this country.

Why are so many on this forum under the impression that they are the only smart ones participating in the discussion? I fully understand science and the scientific method. I have also seen flawed studies, poorly implemented research, confusing correlation with causation, and politically motivated and funded "altruistic" deeds that only later are revealed for what they truly were. Science does have the capability of being fallible because of the humans involved in it. For the record, you do know that "Big Oil" (Shell and Exxon) has contributed some of the largest amounts of private funding into alternative/green energy right?

You may understand the scientific method, but you have a hard time separating the "wheat from the chaff" so to speak. I know plenty of people in STEM fields that I work with that have the same problem, doesn't mean they aren't intelligent, it just means their own biases overwhelm their ability to think critically about this particular subject. Please link these peer reviewed scientific studies that are "politically motivated" that later revealed what they truly are, I would love to read them. Yes, Big Oil is contributing a lot into green energy because a smart company diversifies their portfolio, they know there will continue to be more and more pressure on the oil and gas industry. They're actively working to protect their current product while creating new ones for the probable future, that's smart business.

As for your question, I'll answer it... I had to laugh a little at it when I read it. "If the climate is rapidly changing (as opposed to what?) and the world is on the precipice of global disaster (is this going to happen tomorrow or next Thursday?)... I guess for me to believe it, there would have to be the absence of a majority of scientists disagreeing with the proposal that what you stated was actually the case. There would be no articles in Forbes such as this... Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis Until then, personnally, I won't sacrifice anything to solve a make believe problem or a problem with causes that are out of human control.

Well if the climate isn't changing the climate is in a steady state. It's a hypothetical situation, so let's say in 40 years. So this is what I was saying above, you may be an intelligent person, you may even be in a STEM profession, and you may have incredible knowledge into science and scientific method, but that doesn't matter if you can't see through your own bias and the bias of others. That article you just linked, did you even read it? Did you even read the scientific journal they cited? Did you research the author of the article to see his background? Or did you just do a quick google search, skimmed the article, saw it supported your opinion, and assumed it was 100% factual? You do see that as being a problem right? Well I did everything above and this is what I found, and it's usually what you find with virtually every single "anti climate change" article.

Let's start with the Author, James Taylor. First and foremost, he isn't a journalist, he doesn't work for Forbes, this is an opinion piece. He's the president of the "Spark of Freedom Foundation", he absolutely has no science background, he actually has a government background, and the company he runs is a senior fellow for the environment and energy policy at The Heartland Institute. So already we know we have someone writing an article who isn't a journalist, who isn't a scientist, who runs a heavily biased political organization who gets massive donations from the oil and gas companies, his opinion doesn't get any more biased than that. But he does cite a real peer reviewed scientific journal! So let's read it. The context of the article on Forbes seems to indicate that a study was done that indicated that the majority of scientists and engineers do not believe in anthropogenic climate change. What does the actual study say though?

"We reconstructed the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries"

WAIT! HOLD ON A SECOND! If this isn't raising all the red flags for you, it should. The research specifically ONLY interviewed experts in the petroleum and related industries, not only did they not interview a single scientist that actually studies atmospheric science, they explicitly only interviewed unrelated professionals in the primary industry that is fighting against climate science. What's even more astounding is that according to that research 36% say that anthropogenic climate change is real, 17% said that climate change is happening but they think we're screwed so there's nothing we can do, and 5% said they weren't sure but greenhouse gases needed to be regulated. That's 58% that acknowledge climate change is real and happening, 58% of people working in the oil and gas industry! The article on Forbes doesn't mention any of that because it was written by a pawn that is trying to manipulate you into thinking something that simply isn't true. The oil and gas companies are literally paying people to put out articles like this to keep people skeptical. Fool you once shame on them, fool you twice.... well you won't let them fool you again right? You do understand science as you said.

So now we know the article you posted is, well, a complete lie, what's the real scientific consensus on climate change? It's 97% of scientists publishing in the climate science field. So you're telling me that the only way you would accept this is something that is actually happening is that if it's 100%? That's like saying "I have this weird lump I had checked out, 97 doctors said it was cancer, 3 said it was nothing, it wasn't 100% so I guess I'll just ignore it". But that's just absurd right? Here's an article from NASA proving what I just said, along with direct quotes from several scientific societies, they have cited peer reviewed research into the scientific consensus. Don't take my word for it though, you should read through them yourself if you're skeptical in the accuracy of the article. Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

I guess for me to believe it, there would have to be the absence of a majority of scientists disagreeing with the proposal that what you stated was actually the case.

So we have come to the conclusion, through peer reviewed scientific research, that there is an absence of a majority of scientists disagreeing with anthropogenic climate change. So welcome aboard! It took some time, way too much time on my part, but I'm glad we got you here.

 

[MerlintheMad]

On a geological time scale, that's essentially instant, it isn't any type of "Assertion" it's fact. There are no other credible counter theories.

It has nothing to do with climate change. It has everything to do with humans exploding in numbers.

Western countries are already being sued by developing countries because they're being impacted by climate change and they don't have the resources to deal with it.

This ^^^ Nothing else that can be said will change the sue crazy mentality of the West: and the "developing nations" are on that bandwagon with a vengeance. Unless this stops at once, we will never get it together. The "developing nations" are cutting their own throats.

You ask how subsidies are a bad thing: nothing is free, the money has to come from somewhere, and it only comes from working people. Gov'ts make NOTHING. they only take and distribute.

The planet will recover, countless generations of humans will go through hell. As for the rest of your comment, I don't care to talk about politics. Science isn't political, facts don't have political sides, and the earth doesn't care what government you belong to.

When you assume that a denier doesn't care, the conversation is over. I can't convince you that alternate points of view are more valid than your "we must do something" POV. We canNOT do anything to stop climate change; therefore we canNOT do anything to change it in any meaningful way. That is the bottom line argument: advocacy groups are all about suing governments, point blame, reaping a coup that is in their self interest: and they have the gall to blame big carbon as evil causers. These people live here too, so such blame is not even rational. You are not being rational to point to anything I said as "borderline insanity". It is rational to the hilt: we have to address the four problem areas, and there is only one way to get that done, and that is through organizing voluntarily, not by imposing taxes through gov't fiat (France is just a peek into the near future of that approach). The only system that has ever accomplished so much over the longest period of time is the US model. Therefore, being not as bad as all the others, we go with that one. To assume that socialism (benevolent dictatorship) is the best way to make people comply is not rational: there is not a single example of a successful socialist state; they all fail. Take the model that has the longest most productive track record: that is the US. Turn the Earth into a United Nation States of Earth; redistribute wealth from the Federal level to meet the equal infrastructure of all the participating States; for the "common welfare". It works. Politics is connected to everything that Nation States do. To assume that there is only a scientific "facts" component that needs to be addressed, that "doing something" is divorced from politics, is suicidally naive.