Has buying a Tesla changed your mind about Climate Change?

[sillydriver]

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.

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.

 

[Drivin]

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

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.

 

[jeffro01]

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.

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

 

[jeffro01]

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.

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

Jeff

 

[ggies07]

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.

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.

 

[tigerade]

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.

 

[dandelot]

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

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.

 

[Drivin]

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

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.

 

[kort677]

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

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.

 

[jeffro01]

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.

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

 

[kort677]

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

my ignorance? really? feel free not to reply

 

[jeffro01]

my ignorance? really? feel free not to reply

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

 

[ggr]

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.

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.)

 

[erthquake]

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.

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.

 

[ggr]

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

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.

 

[tigerade]

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?”

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)

 

[Skotty]

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.

 

[Cardforlife]

there is science and then there is junk science

 

[ggies07]

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

 

[ohmman]

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.