Has buying a Tesla changed your mind about Climate Change?

[ohmman]

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:

One issue with that piece is that it's written by a well known climate change "skeptic" who has a bit of bias in his writing.

The idea that someone has trouble with climate models seems, in my experience, to correlate with people who don't know how models in general work. The famous George E.P. Box quote applies here: "All models are wrong, but some are useful." That quote should make one more comfortable with inaccuracies in climate models. If it doesn't, they can have their opinion about the models, but they probably shouldn't express it publicly.

 

[malcolm]

I think that it's easier to think in terms of more immediate Local Air Quality improvements rather than longer term changes in global temperatures.

In a few years time a convoy of Teslas will be capable of achieving a small but measurable reduction in street-level pollutants.

But that's for the future. What steps can we take today?

Well in both the spirit of "every little helps" and recognizing the greater impact of methane, I'd like to encourage you all to Just Stop Farting.

Come on America, do it for the sake of your own families; for your neighbours; your co-workers.

Do not Make but Be the wind of change.

Just say woah. Dude, please. I'm breathing here.

"I'm putting the brakes on breaking bad."

"I am the one who stops"

 

[Skotty]

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.

I see what you are saying, but I think eventually the evidence will win. The question is, when? It may not be until the world is 20 degrees hotter, ice doesn't exist anymore, and all the major cities are under the ocean, but the evidence will eventually win. The marvel of modern science is that it allows us to see problems coming earlier and earlier through our diverse varieties of research and our increasingly advanced finely tuned instruments. We can use that to our advantage and take action early...or not.

 

[heysteveh]

One issue with that piece is that it's written by a well known climate change "skeptic" who has a bit of bias in his writing.

The idea that someone has trouble with climate models seems, in my experience, to correlate with people who don't know how models in general work. The famous George E.P. Box quote applies here: "All models are wrong, but some are useful." That quote should make one more comfortable with inaccuracies in climate models. If it doesn't, they can have their opinion about the models, but they probably shouldn't express it publicly.

I'm sure the author IS biased. My point is simply that here is an example of a lucid, intelligent position from someone who opposes climate change. He may be right or wrong but anyone who debates him should extend him the courtesy of respecting him and his right to hold an opposing viewpoint. Many in this thread (and in our society at large) have become so convinced of their viewpoint, that they begin viewing those who differ as uninformed, uneducated, idiots.

On a lighter note, here is a comical 8 second clip from the movie "My Cousin Vinny" showing how to extend that common courtesy in a civilized debate:

 

[PtG62901]

I'm sure the author IS biased. My point is simply that here is an example of a lucid, intelligent position from someone who opposes climate change. He may be right or wrong but anyone who debates him should extend him the courtesy of respecting him and his right to hold an opposing viewpoint. Many in this thread (and in our society at large) have become so convinced of their viewpoint, that they begin viewing those who differ as uninformed, uneducated, idiots.

On a lighter note, here is a comical 8 second clip from the movie "My Cousin Vinny" showing how to extend that common courtesy in a civilized debate:

My father the math professor used to do a proof, where he proved that 1 = 2. It is easy, you start with an equation that you don't understand and do a bunch of operations to it, that you do understand, and you get a very reasonable and wrong answer. That is all you are proposing here.

 

[ohmman]

My point is simply that here is an example of a lucid, intelligent position from someone who opposes climate change. He may be right or wrong but anyone who debates him should extend him the courtesy of respecting him and his right to hold an opposing viewpoint. Many in this thread (and in our society at large) have become so convinced of their viewpoint, that they begin viewing those who differ as uninformed, uneducated, idiots.

I can agree with this to some extent. I think the Jacob Burak piece (linked above) about valuing humility is pertinent. It's always important to allow oneself some chance of being wrong. Especially if we are occasionally wrong, which we all are. That said, for some people the evidence is as clear as the evidence for gravity. If someone came to them saying that gravity is really just the iron in our blood being pulled down like a magnet, they might react similarly.

The other important aspect of the disagreement is that the climate is a shared resource, and opposing viewpoints can be considered directly harmful to the holders of those views. The arguments have been framed as economic tragedy vs. worldwide climatic tragedy. When an argument feels like it has a direct impact on the participants, things have a tendency to get much more heated.

I tend to follow evidence since we have very little else to go upon. Ignoring evidence because it's occasionally misleading is a path to being wrong more often than not. Generally, my goal in life is to be less wrong.

 

[heysteveh]

My father the math professor used to do a proof, where he proved that 1 = 2. It is easy, you start with an equation that you don't understand and do a bunch of operations to it, that you do understand, and you get a very reasonable and wrong answer. That is all you are proposing here.

My thinking was more along the lines of this link that you posted earlier in this thread: Overvaluing confidence, we’ve forgotten the power of humility | Aeon Ideas
A great piece!

 

[mikes_fsd]

I've switched to electric for geopolitical reasons... Many of the worlds nut-jobs rely heavily on the revenue from oil.

Plus Tesla's are just sexy!

 

[malcolm]

Plus Tesla's are just sexy!

Can't argue with that. Excellent gateway drug which need not necessarily involve a particular environmental stance.

It can just be a good and acceptable thing to support American innovation and industry.

A pity when sometimes, one man's innovation and industry is another's military-industrial complex.

But, you know, at least it's "our" military-industrial complex.

ETA. In some respects, this thread is a bit of a red herring since even if you Think Global you are always going to Act Local i.e. any fractional reductions in chemical or noise pollution will always benefit your immediate surroundings; your family; your neighborhood.

So I don't have a problem if some people want to put American air quality above climate change. It's all good.

 

[PtG62901]

My thinking was more along the lines of this link that you posted earlier in this thread: Overvaluing confidence, we’ve forgotten the power of humility | Aeon Ideas
A great piece!

Daniel Pink is the man. Read his book "Drive." It is fantastic.

 

[nwdiver]

He may be right or wrong but anyone who debates him should extend him the courtesy of respecting him and his right to hold an opposing viewpoint.

You're conflating having respect for a different point of view with respect for being wrong. Christiane Amanpour had a great quote about journalistic integrity; Honesty not Neutrality. If you show respect for a position that is simply wrong then you're creating a false equivalency between fiction and fact. A recent example of how disastrous this can be is the recent Brexit vote... most of the promises made by the pro-brexit side were simply not true but they were never truly challenged (until after the fact) out of 'respect' for their viewpoint.

You can't have a legitimate difference of opinion if you start with a difference of FACT.

 

[neroden]

I'm sure the author IS biased. My point is simply that here is an example of a lucid, intelligent position from someone who opposes climate change.

Um, no. Al Gore is someone who opposes climate change -- someone who is implacably hostile to climate change and is trying to stop it! Bill McKibben is someone else who opposes climate change and is trying to stop it!

That link, on the other hand, is to someone who is pretending that climate change isn't happening. That's not an intelligent position. At this point, given the overwhelming evidence from physics, chemistry, meteorology, biology, and geology, that's a dumb position. A lot like pretending gravity doesn't exist.

I oppose gravity. We should fight against it, the way Musk fights against gravity with the rockets at SpaceX. That doesn't mean I don't recognize that it's happening.

He may be right or wrong but anyone who debates him should extend him the courtesy of respecting him and his right to hold an opposing viewpoint.

I respect his right to hold a stupid, ignorant, uniformed viewpoint. Everyone has the right to be an uninformed, uneducated idiot. I think it's part of the First Amendment. Obviously, I don't respect him at all.

Many in this thread (and in our society at large) have become so convinced of their viewpoint, that they begin viewing those who differ as uninformed, uneducated, idiots.

No, we view climate change deniers, evolution deniers, and gravity deniers who write articles in national newspapers and magazines as uninformed, uneducated idiots because that's more polite than calling them paid shills who are lying for money.

The following points are really, *really* easy to prove:
-- ocean acidification is happening
-- it is caused by humans burning fossil fuels putting CO2 in the air, which then gets in the water as carbonic acid
-- when ocean acidification goes too far, crucial types of plankton can't form their shells
-- last time this happened to a severe degree, it caused the biggest mass extinction in history (the P-Tr) largely due to the collapse of the ocean food chain

I don't even bother to discuss global warming per se any more because the evidence for ocean acidicification is so overwhelming. To ignore this, deniers have to deny very basic chemistry as well as geology.

I suppose I should be more sympathetic to ordinary people who weren't trained as scientists (I was trained as a scientist) because they are more easily bamboolzed by the oil&coal company propaganda. They *don't* know basic chemistry. They *don't* know geology. Anyone who knows the slightest bit about any of these subjects, however, gets frustrated when ignoramuses deny reality.

 

[willcasp]

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."

The big issue I have with this article is that it is written in 2012. We have learned a LOT about climate science since 2012. The guys/gals that write the machine learning models we use now were still optimizing search engines and writing video games. Much of this technology is now driving the machine learning algorithms that are vastly improving weather models, doing analysis on weather data, heck, even making our cars drive themselves. Machine learning and the applications of it are accelerating.

The famous graph from NASA showing volcanic CO2 vs man made is dated 2013.

If you have not looked up information published in the last twelve months, I would encourage you to do so. We know a lot more now than we did even four years ago.

 

[Bangor Bob]

We discovered in the 1800's what happens to the mean-free path of visible-spectrum photons in CO2.

The rest is just derivation.

 

[nwdiver]

The big issue I have with this article is that it is written in 2012. We have learned a LOT about climate science since 2012.

The famous graph from NASA showing volcanic CO2 vs man made is dated 2013.

It's not clear which side of the issue you really come down on... but climate science isn't a rapidly changing field aside from the horrifying observations that dire predictions appear to be coming true more and more often. Has the ratio of volcanic to anthropogenic emissions changes in the last 3 years?

In 1896 Svante Arrhenius published the first paper describing the effects of global warming... we know a bit more about other forcing agents but not much else has changed... turns out that thermodynamics is pretty straight forward.

From a scientific perspective the fact that AGW has stood the test of time virtually unchanged is it's highest honor. Scientists have been attempting to disprove it for ~120 years yet it still stands.

 

[thx1139]

No, but I was already believing the scientists about climate change. I have been sitting hear trying to figure out how the people the opening post said were running away with cash because of climate change were doing it. Still dont know how they are, while at the same time it is pretty easy to see how the people who lead the denial movement do.

Now I have said to deniers for a very long time. You have 2 bets.

1. Bet that climate change isnt real. Then dont do anything to really change.
2. Bet that climate change is real. Then push for real drastic change.

The key is what if you are wrong.

1. We are totally screwed.
2. We all live in a better, cleaner world. Cars are better, air is better, middle east nut jobs have less money and less power over the rest of the world.

 

[willcasp]

It's not clear which side of the issue you really come down on... but climate science isn't a rapidly changing field aside from the horrifying observations that dire predictions appear to be coming true more and more often. Has the ratio of volcanic to anthropogenic emissions changes in the last 3 years?

In 1896 Svante Arrhenius published the first paper describing the effects of global warming... we know a bit more about other forcing agents but not much else has changed... turns out that thermodynamics is pretty straight forward.

From a scientific perspective the fact that AGW has stood the test of time virtually unchanged is it's highest honor. Scientists have been attempting to disprove it for ~120 years yet it still stands.

I am driven by the data. The data says that humans (burning fossil fuels and deforrestation) are THE driving factor in the acceleration of climate change.
The data that convincingly supports this is relatively recent.
I never developed a religion around this.
I do not think it is fair to say that AGW has stood the test of time virtually unchanged. I do believe that the data exists to support the statement that you made, but only if you cherry pick it.

Arrhenius paper tells you what you would see in the lab, and then speculates.
We can pull more recent papers (60's, 70's) that made convincing arguments that the same behavior would bring on the next ice age.

The components that make up the problem can be easily tested in loosely controlled environments in a middle school or high school lab.
The possibility that this is a problem is obvious to anyone with basic scientific training.

The statements by the skeptic in Forbes in 2012 were reasonable, for the 1990's. Bill Gates even went on record on more than one occasion stating that the trend looks like things are warming, but he wasn't clear if it was a top priority based on impact.

Looking at the data that we have now, which is largely from our newfound capabilities of wading through large pools of unrelated data quickly, we can answer many of the well thought out skeptics questions in a convincing way. I catagorize well thought out skepticism as different from flat out denial.
We have data driven answers to the following:
Impact of solar radiation on earths climate. The answer is yes, and it is not the main driver.
Impact of annual and isolated geological events on the earths climate. Again, the answer is yes it does, but it is not the main driver.
Impact of humans burning fossil fuels on earths climate. The data says it is the most significant factor, by an order of magnitude. The acceleration of this using improved modeling is bad.

The one question I have is what is the earth's capacity to deal with this? Ancillary trends on this don't look good (ocean acidifcation being a biggie). It is a safe assumption that it will be too late by the time we find out.

I am good with these statements based on the data:
The earth is getting hotter, and humans burning fossil fuels are the cause.
This trend is accelerating.
Fossil fuel burning needs to stop if there is any hope of recovery.

 

[nwdiver]

Arrhenius paper tells you what you would see in the lab, and then speculates.
We can pull more recent papers (60's, 70's) that made convincing arguments that the same behavior would bring on the next ice age.

Looks like we're both on the same side in this

Those papers you referenced from the 60s and 70s were in regard to SO2 which has the opposite effect of CO2.

The basic principle (climate sensitivity) has remained about the same for over a century. We've just learned a lot more in regards to the consequences of increasing the average temperature of the Earth by ~2C. Arrhenius got the physics and the math right but he didn't believe humans were capable of adding sufficient CO2 to the atmosphere and he believe that the overall effect would be positive.

But... those specifics that are slowly coming into sharper focus are the shakiest grow to take a stand on... adding massive amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere is a bit like smoking... it's essentially a risk factor for terrible things.

The key points to impress on deniers is
1) the physics is sound
2) No... no one really know how bad it could be... and that should make you very uncomfortable about adding to the risk
3) Fossil fuels are finite anyway to hows about we accelerate kicking the fools fuel addiction and forgo that risk?

 

[SageBrush]

Leo Dicap, Pelosi, Obama etc...... All seem to be getting wealthy by passing laws for CC and IMHO are not trustworthy people.

This thought never occurred to me until recently: Oil/gas industry is intentionally muddling the waters, or oil fields because it has a huge impact on their profits

realclimate.org published a discussion recently regarding the influence of politics on layperson understanding of science. Chopr147 is describing what they would call "motivated thinking."

I find the entire notion extremely depressing.

 

[PtG62901]

I was just watching the Model 3 launch speech by Elon Musk. He spends the first several minutes talking about why Tesla exists, which is to fight global warming. If you were wondering where he stood, that speech spells it out clearly.