[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

You left out the core of my question... "modeled" trajectory. Models that all come up with the same answer. If you have a plan that stabilizes the climate for 100 years, why can't that model project a plan for 1,000 years, or a billion, or five billion. If you are so sure of the capability and accuracy of the climate model(s), why is it just a few decades or a few millennium? Does the science just fall apart?

There are climate drivers that operate on very different t time scales. For example, the configuration of the continents affects the climate, but I think we both agree that they won't move much over the next couple of thousand years but could over the next 5 billion.

Near term, it GHGs to a significant extent. And we can have an affect on those.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by RM7

The climate never remaining static has nothing to do with the rate of increase observed since the industrial revolution and the correlation to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Saying that "it's changed in the past" is a red herring basically admitting that one does not understand any of the theories and science behind this. If one doesn't even know what it's about...

"that it changed in the past" is evidence we aren't the only factor.

We could change our contribution to the result and still have catastrophic warming due to "natural" climate change.

We could not change our contribution to the result and still enter a new ice age.

Fact is we aren't the only variable, and the scientific record shows this.

The historical record shows there were times when C02/methane was much higher than our current worst case, and yet the planet still survived, and later spawned us fools.

Should we temper our influence? Yes. Is that the answer to the climate problem? We don't know because our reducing C02/methane doesn't do much to the other factors.

History shows climate change is inevitable. We want to slow down our contribution and not accelerate it, but we aren't going to stop it, and I don't even know that we should try to stop it in the long term, that would literally be unnatural.

[CarsAndGuitars]

[ga9213]

Originally Posted by CarsAndGuitars

Imagine being the sort of person who couldn't understand George Carlin's comedy roots in sarcasm, and watching this clip without seeing the part they cut out where he brings it all together at the end.

"Save the planet is bullshit. The planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE"

He's bringing mockery to the environmentalists while making the argument that the planet will correct with an extinction level event.

That's...exactly what the climate scientists worry about. Yup, the planet's going to correct...it's going to be fine. We won't survive it.

[CarsAndGuitars]

Originally Posted by ga9213

Imagine being the sort of person who couldn't understand George Carlin's comedy roots in sarcasm, and watching this clip without seeing the part they cut out where he brings it all together at the end.

"Save the planet is bullshit. The planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE"

He's bringing mockery to the environmentalists while making the argument that the planet will correct with an extinction level event.

That's...exactly what the climate scientists worry about. Yup, the planet's going to correct...it's going to be fine. We won't survive it.

Meaning... the planet is going to do what it is going to do, regardless of what we do "good" or "bad" for the planet. He laughed at human arrogance

[ga9213]

Originally Posted by CarsAndGuitars

Meaning... the planet is going to do what it is going to do, regardless of what we do "good" or "bad" for the planet. He laughed at human arrogance

He's also a comedian. So...if your takeaway from that is that the comedian is right and the scientists are wrong with respect to the argument that we could take steps to try and avoid those extinction level changes we're currently heading for.

Well..Good luck to ya.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

"that it changed in the past" is evidence we aren't the only factor.

We could change our contribution to the result and still have catastrophic warming due to "natural" climate change.

We could not change our contribution to the result and still enter a new ice age.

Fact is we aren't the only variable, and the scientific record shows this.

The historical record shows there were times when C02/methane was much higher than our current worst case, and yet the planet still survived, and later spawned us fools.

Should we temper our influence? Yes. Is that the answer to the climate problem? We don't know because our reducing C02/methane doesn't do much to the other factors.

History shows climate change is inevitable. We want to slow down our contribution and not accelerate it, but we aren't going to stop it, and I don't even know that we should try to stop it in the long term, that would literally be unnatural.

This is exactly what I mean. The fact that it has changed in the past or concentrations have been higher demonstrated a total lack of understanding of what the current theories and data are.

[CarsAndGuitars]

Originally Posted by ga9213

He's also a comedian. So...if your takeaway from that is that the comedian is right and the scientists are wrong with respect to the argument that we could take steps to try and avoid those extinction level changes we're currently heading for.

Well..Good luck to ya.

My takeaway is the funny but rational and very intelligent man (RIP) makes more sense than the alarmists, regardless of their respective career choices.

A volcano here and there and John Kerry's plane make the rest of our activity far less relevant, though not inconsequential.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by CarsAndGuitars

Meaning... the planet is going to do what it is going to do, regardless of what we do "good" or "bad" for the planet. He laughed at human arrogance

From the perspective of what is best for the planet, a global extinction event is a best case scenario.

Originally Posted by RM7

This is exactly what I mean. The fact that it has changed in the past or concentrations have been higher demonstrated a total lack of understanding of what the current theories and data are.

What does a correct understanding of the theories and data look or sound like?

[ga9213]

Originally Posted by CarsAndGuitars

My takeaway is the funny but rational and very intelligent man (RIP) makes more sense than the alarmists, regardless of their respective career choices.

A volcano here and there and John Kerry's plane make the rest of our activity far less relevant, though not inconsequential.

oh ok. So a doctor that tells you you've got stage 4 cancer is just an alarmist and can be disregarded.

Definitely a logical position to take. You guys really are smart.

[CarsAndGuitars]

Originally Posted by ga9213

oh ok. So a doctor that tells you you've got stage 4 cancer is just an alarmist and can be disregarded.

Definitely a logical position to take. You guys really are smart.

Um no that is not at all what I said. I would sooner consider what an intelligent, well educated person has to say on any given subject, than someone spewing out theories based on bullshit government models and statistics that have no foundation in provable reality.

According to your counterparts in the 1970s we should have already exhausted the petroleum supply and be dead, but modern environmental "scientific theory" has given us another few years or so.

Think of how smart the average person is, and then realize half the people are more stupid. - George Carlin

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by CarsAndGuitars

Um no that is not at all what I said. I would sooner consider what an intelligent, well educated person has to say on any given subject, than someone spewing out theories based on bullshit government models and statistics that have no foundation in provable reality.

According to your counterparts in the 1970s we should have already exhausted the petroleum supply and be dead.

Think of how smart the average person is, and then realize half the people are more stupid. - George Carlin

The models, physics based, have proven pretty good. Even some of the earliest of models, dating back to the 30s, have been surprisingly good. And what do you mean by government models? The models come from researchers from lots of public and private sector institutions.

[DocL]

I still have zero interest in getting an EV. However my father is taking delivery of his i4 this weekend end I'm going to give it a test drive. I'm going to be very open minded about it as I've never even driven a true hybrid. The POS 2017 NSX I had was closest thing to a battery driven vehicle I've owned.

[CarsAndGuitars]

Originally Posted by H2O_Doc

The models, physics based, have proven pretty good. Even some of the earliest of models, dating back to the 30s, have been surprisingly good. And what do you mean by government models? The models come from researchers from lots of public and private sector institutions.

sponsored by / funded from where?

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by CarsAndGuitars

sponsored by / funded from where?

Same general sorts of folks that research pediatric cancer and stuff like that. I know and work with many of them. Good, honest people.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by CarsAndGuitars

sponsored by / funded from where?

The chemtrails.

[c1pher]

I’m kind of surprised we don’t have nuclear powered cars now.

[kyriian]

Originally Posted by c1pher

I’m kind of surprised we don’t have nuclear powered cars now.

We had concepts of them...in the middle of the nuclear age no less
1958 Ford Nucleon
https://www.thedrive.com/news/41103/...red-production

[G30M]

Originally Posted by ga9213

oh ok. So a doctor that tells you you've got stage 4 cancer is just an alarmist and can be disregarded.

Definitely a logical position to take. You guys really are smart.

i do think the scientists do not have it all correct. but even if they were 100% wrong, stopping polluting the planet and stopping dumping plastic in the oceans is still the right thing to do.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by G80M4

i do think the scientists do not have it all correct. but even if they were 100% wrong, stopping polluting the planet and stopping dumping plastic in the oceans is still the right thing to do.

agreed, but ripping up a rain forest to extract materials to make a greener car isn't doing the right thing.

Doing the right thing is making greener cars smartly and sustainably, and not overloading a grid that hasn't found balance with renewables just yet.

[Murf the Surf]

So I found this interesting, I just bought a 2020 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel because we are just retired and wanted to pull a trailer south for the winter (don't judge). The Ford F150 Lightning was introduced and I thought it was pretty cool but I wasn't ready to jump into something that untested in the real world.....WEEELLLLL. I'm glad I didn't.

https://www.motorious.com/articles/f...Fx0PYnDvloFMxM

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Nope. I fully understand the purported science and the theory quite well. The "rate of change" rethoric is a recent argument to oppose the growing questions of "where is the claimte change?" It's the newest form of the "Sky is falling you just can't see it". The rate of change is so drastic that there is only 12 years left before we meet the point of no return and the climate will sprial out of control with no way of stopping it! (that was October 2018). WE MUST ACT NOW!!! Queue up the AOC vids.

Please, save the instult BS for someone else. Lol.

I fly out the locations where this is accelerating in the arctic, often with scientists, seeing the effects first hand.