Has buying a Tesla changed your mind about Climate Change?

[DFibRL8R]

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....

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

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

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

Woolly Mammoth Clones Closer Than Ever, Thanks to Genome Sequencing

 

[Odebek]

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

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

 

[DFibRL8R]

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

Thanks for clarifying

 

[nwdiver]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[AudubonB]

This is a pretty good entry point for the following:

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

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

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

 

[dandelot]

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

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

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

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

 

[Chopr147]

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

 

[nwdiver]

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

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

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

 

[PtG62901]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Chopr147]

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

 

[adiggs]

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

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

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

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


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

 

[nwdiver]

And the left making it their religion

Religion by definition cannot be falsified.

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

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

 

[beeeerock]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Alketi]

@adiggs nailed it.

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

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

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

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

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

There are two ways to change the world:

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

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

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

 

[nwdiver]

@adiggs nailed it.

There are two ways to change the world:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[tigerade]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sillydriver]

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

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

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

Woolly Mammoth Clones Closer Than Ever, Thanks to Genome Sequencing

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

 

[PtG62901]

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

 

[heysteveh]

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

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

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

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

 

[nwdiver]

Understanding the Global Warming Debate,

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

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

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