[CarsAndGuitars]

Originally Posted by Tommysalami

Decisions are (or should be) made based on risk.

Risk = probability*consequence

Accepting that neither side of this debate knows for certain whether climate change is man-made, we then evaluate the risk and act on that. And the risk is simply much greater if we don't act, in my opinion. It's a fallacy to argue that because we can't prove our assumptions, the best action is to do nothing.

There are other options within the middle-ground between doing nothing and changing the entire infrastructural landscape and energy source for billions of people in case it might help.

Why is it so many climate protagonists only seem to consider a binary all or nothing choice?

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by BMWILUVU

I thought he invented the internet. Did he discover climate change too?

He was the first to read about it on the internet once he invented the internet.

[Tommysalami]

Originally Posted by CarsAndGuitars

There are other options within the middle-ground between doing nothing and changing the entire infrastructural landscape and energy source for billions of people in case it might help.

Why is it so many climate protagonists only seem to consider a binary all or nothing choice?

You're not wrong. But I never mentioned anything extreme such as changing the entire infrastructure. You're putting words in my mouth there.

This topic is discussed with such hyperbole. Obviously there is useless spending, programs that are only politically-motivated, etc. That's a whole different thing.

First we have to get past the argument of whether anything at all should be done, vs. just YOLO'ing the planet into our children's hands. After that it becomes a more nuanced discussion on what's going to be most effective and reduce the risk of climate change for the future. And at a certain point we have to trust scientists to get that answer and I think a lot of people just want to write it all off because it's a long-term problem and we as a society are bad at solving those kinds of issues.

[CarsAndGuitars]

Originally Posted by Tommysalami

You're not wrong. But I never mentioned anything extreme such as changing the entire infrastructure. You're putting words in my mouth there.

This topic is discussed with such hyperbole. Obviously there is useless spending, programs that are only politically-motivated, etc. That's a whole different thing.

First we have to get past the argument of whether anything at all should be done, vs. just YOLO'ing the planet into our children's hands. After that it becomes a more nuanced discussion on what's going to be most effective and reduce the risk of climate change for the future. And at a certain point we have to trust scientists to get that answer and I think a lot of people just want to write it all off because it's a long-term problem and we as a society are bad at solving those kinds of issues.

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest to put words in your mouth. What I meant is that is where our leadership is trying to guide as many lemmings as they can round up, and you also acknowledged that here.

[H2O_Doc]

The physics of climate change are very well established. We know how and way certain gases cause heat to be retained. It's well enough known and for long enough that the idea that the earth should be expected to warm as atmospheric GHG concentrations increased due to our fossil fuel combustion is over 100 years old.

People talk a lot about climate models, but what we know about climate change comes from more than a model. We have multiple lines of evidence, many, many proxies, ice core data…lots of data..all of which point to the same conclusion which is consistent with basic physics and that is we have and will continue to experience warming due to anthropogenic build up of GHGs.

We know a GREAT deal about past warming as well and many of the past anomalies are well explained and supported by data. We understand why the earth moves into warm and cold periods and why ice ages happen.

It's not a mystery and it's not a scam. It's not alarmism on the part of scientists and nobody has simple correlations unsupported by causal mechanisms. Our understanding of climate is substantial and well documented. And we should use that knowledge to decide whether or not continuing to pump GHGs into the atmosphere at our current rate is fair to future generations.

Really. VERY WELL established and documented.

[paquet]

Originally Posted by CarsAndGuitars

THIS is my point. Thank you. So how do you solve a problem before you have isolated the problem?

Originally Posted by Germanauto

Agreed. But both sides will try to convince you on the severity depending on their agenda and personal/financial interests.

What bothers me is the politicization of it and corporate greenwashing. Climate change being used as an excuse by greedy lobbyists and elected officials to do stuff like ban our favorite cars!

Agree 100% with you both.
I'm often reminded of the phrase 'lunatics running the asylum'

[CarsAndGuitars]

Originally Posted by H2O_Doc

The physics of climate change are very well established. We know how and way certain gases cause heat to be retained. It's well enough known and for long enough that the idea that the earth should be expected to warm as atmospheric GHG concentrations increased due to our fossil fuel combustion is over 100 years old.

People talk a lot about climate models, but what we know about climate change comes from more than a model. We have multiple lines of evidence, many, many proxies, ice core data…lots of data..all of which point to the same conclusion which is consistent with basic physics and that is we have and will continue to experience warming due to anthropogenic build up of GHGs.

We know a GREAT deal about past warming as well and many of the past anomalies are well explained and supported by data. We understand why the earth moves into warm and cold periods and why ice ages happen.

It's not a mystery and it's not a scam. It's not alarmism on the part of scientists and nobody has simple correlations unsupported by causal mechanisms. Our understanding of climate is substantial and well documented. And we should use that knowledge to decide whether or not continuing to pump GHGs into the atmosphere at our current rate is fair to future generations.

Really. VERY WELL established and documented.

Did you at least glance at the conflicting articles in the OP, from the same source? Underwater volcano does nothing.. might cool.. might heat.. but Really. VERY WELL established and documented.

[OkieSnuffBox]

OP starts thread for "discussion" then has made 6 more posts antagonizing anyone who doesn't agree with his particular view of the situation.

7 of 29 posts (not including this one). Yep, you weren't looking to stir the pot.

Go have a Snickers.

[BMWILUVU]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

He was the first to read about it on the internet once he invented the internet.

He read about it and then he invented climate change.

[CarsAndGuitars]

Originally Posted by OkieSnuffBox

OP starts thread for "discussion" then has made 6 more posts antagonizing anyone who doesn't agree with his particular view of the situation.

7 of 29 posts (not including this one). Yep, you weren't looking to stir the pot.

Go have a Snickers.

I'm sorry where did I "antagonize" anyone? I believe it is called debating. Mainly what I am trying to point out, is we don't know what we don't know. I am sorry if I made anyone cry. I will remember to stay under the post quota being enforced by Okie, which is.. how many? I am 8 out of 30 now if you're still keeping track.

[OkieSnuffBox]

Originally Posted by CarsAndGuitars

I'm sorry where did I "antagonize" anyone? I believe it is called debating. Mainly what I am trying to point out, is we don't know what we don't know. I am sorry if I made anyone cry. I will remember to stay under the post quota being enforced by Okie, which is.. how many? I am 8 out of 30 now if you're still keeping track.

How can we debate what none of us know?

Thanks for proving my point.

[CarsAndGuitars]

Originally Posted by OkieSnuffBox

How can we debate what none of us know?

Thanks for proving my point.

Sorry, I didn't see a point in your post. All I read was whining about my post. So what is your point?

[Esteban]

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by CarsAndGuitars

Did you at least glance at the conflicting articles in the OP, from the same source? Underwater volcano does nothing.. might cool.. might heat.. but Really. VERY WELL established and documented.

Yes there are uncertainties, but none of them have effects that are of a sufficient magnitude to change the conclusions that we currently hold as sound.

Clouds were tricky for a time, for example. We have a much better handle on that now. We still can't model individual cloud formation across the globe, but we can account for their net effect.

[CarsAndGuitars]

Originally Posted by H2O_Doc

Yes there are uncertainties, but none of them have effects that are of a sufficient magnitude to change the conclusions that we currently hold as sound.

Clouds were tricky for a time, for example. We have a much better handle on that now. We still can't model individual cloud formation across the globe, but we can account for their net effect.

How about unwrapping the human brain, curing cancer, continuous discoveries of new life forms at the bottom of the ocean, newly discovered terrestrial caves and ancient cities and of course the effects of volcanos on the climate. Good thing we know how everything else affects climate.

[G35POPPEDMYCHERRY]

this thread is alive a lot longer than expected

[minn19]

The funniest part was where he said people are just jealous of him/others living in Florida.

[gtr2M3]

In Canada, we contribute 2% of worldwide pollution, we could stop everything tomorrow and it’d make essentially no change but yet we are taxed into oblivion to stop producing carbon dioxide, it’s a sham

If governments were truly trying to reduce carbon footprints for the good of the world, they’d place tariffs on products from the countries who are the worst offenders

[gtr2M3]

And in the 70’s, experts were most concerned of a coming ice age as narrated by Leonard Nimoy here;

And in the 80’s butter was going to kill you, use margarine instead… now margarine will kill you, better use butter

[gjm120]

Originally Posted by gtr2M3

In Canada, we contribute 2% of worldwide pollution, we could stop everything tomorrow and it’d make essentially no change but yet we are taxed into oblivion to stop producing carbon dioxide, it’s a sham

If governments were truly trying to reduce carbon footprints for the good of the world, they’d place tariffs on products from the countries who are the worst offenders

The US pax car fleet is something like 2 to 2.5% of worldwide GHG's. Is it worth the money to fix it? I don't know just throwing that out there.

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by gtr2M3

And in the 70's, experts were most concerned of a coming ice age as narrated by Leonard Nimoy here;

And in the 80's butter was going to kill you, use margarine instead… now margarine will kill you, better use butter

This is absolutely incorrect and a survey of peer reviewed articles on climate from the period shows it. "In Search Of" also ran Sasquatch, Loch Ness monster, and alien visitor stories.

There was a popular science piece based on some work on aerosols that discussed cooling, but the idea that climate scientists were running around worried about global cooling is demonstrably wrong.

[540iSUP]

I don't believe some folks here know how science works.

When you say, how do we fix a problem when we can't isolate it. In the medical field we run tests to try and figure out what the problem is. The patient might say or think one thing, when in actuality its another. Just like a car, a mechanic needs to run tests to figure out what the issue is, then run more tests to see if that truly is the issue. When fixing things, we might end up finding another problem that needs to be addressed. This is life.

The butter argument is a great example of how science works. We thought margarine was better for you than butter, when in reality it is far worse. This does not mean butter is good; butter is still bad for you, just not as bad a margarine. I mean, look at cigarettes or how about more recently, COVID.

I live in Socal and I see the smog everyday. When I travel to Central CA and go over the Grapevine, I can literally see the smog layer. You can't tell me that is natural. When my family goes scuba diving in Hawaii and tell me how devastated the reefs are, you can't tell me that's natural.