Forums

Climate change: There is 3 types of people

Climate change: There is 3 types of people

1) People who change their habits
2) People who say they care
3) People who deny climate changes
Planet doesn’t see any difference between type 2 and type 3.

Lately, I have been arguing too much on Twitter and Instagram against type 3, I need an Instabrake.

Darthamerica | 2019年11月26日

@SCC it would be great if we could wave a magic wand and in 10 years have no need for fossil fuels. However that's not even going to happen in 100 years. I don't think you and many others understand the magnitude of the demand vs supply and that we don't have the ability to meet it with alternatives yet. Your suggested approach is a disaster. The way it is already happening in through normal market forces. It's to everyone's advantage to not be dependent on a finite resource. That means many billions are going into R&D for the next energy source and making them practical. If you leave that process alone, fossil fuels will fund the development of their successors. You're calling this a crisis is a self fulfilling prophecy. It will be a crisis if you cut people and nations off from that which they need to thrive. You might care to remember what usually happens when energy supplies get dorked with.

andy.connor.e | 2019年11月26日

The only sense out of anything you're saying that i can take, is that you are assuming a time frame in which fossil fuels will be phased out. I dont understand what this has to do with anything that we have been talking about, as this is just a speculation. No one has any idea how long it will take to transition. 15 years ago Tesla didnt exist, and no one back then could have seen Elon Musk coming with his companies. Its ludicrous to try and assume a time range for something as complicated a problem as this is. If we were to go into a global recession, no amount of government policy or great products could bring us out of that, nor would anyone have nearly as much resources to devote to exchanging out old technology unless it was at the end of its life. Which, rationally speaking, should be the time when you replace it. Its way more resource wasteful to not use up the life of the appliances and products that used all the energy and resources to make. Theres no line of continuity with anything you say, and it seems like you just have some other reason that is driving you to just find another new point of negativity to talk about alternative energy products, and more specifically the Tesla products.

Darthamerica | 2019年11月26日

Andy I just see reality. Tesla is just another company, a great company, but not the savior of mankind.

andy.connor.e | 2019年11月26日

I think you're putting words in peoples mouths, because no one is saying Tesla is the savior of mankind. Is something else upsetting you?

MitchP85D | 2019年11月26日

Time for a little time-scale expansion. Think of this. The age of the earth is 1/3 the age of the universe. The earth has been through a heck of a lot more than the human species. The idea that the presence of humans on this planet will result in global climate catastrophe is laughable. The fossil fuel age will only last a mere few hundred years. This is basically no more than a fart in the wind on the paleoclimate time scale.

The OP mentions what the earth sees? I'll tell you what the earth sees. Humans are nothing more than a pimple on a gnat's ass!

SCCRENDO | 2019年11月26日

@Darth. I Have already explained to you that you have a pure BS argument based on Strawmen and your only response is to regurgitate the same crap. That is not an intellectual debate. It is the behavior of a Russian troll trained to spit out bots. It is not an all or nothing. Doing nothing will irreparably damage our way of life sooner rather than later. We have have already missed an opportunity by not sticking to the Paris accords thanks to the bozo who is meant to be the leader of the free world. But there is plenty we can do provided we don’t stick our heads in the sand and listen to the Russian trolls
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50547073

Darthamerica | 2019年11月26日

@Mitch very well said! This is a critical transitional period and fossil fuels are a key reason why we will make it to the next step. A brief 200-300 year period...And this isn't even a blip compared to the variance Earth has experienced.

blue adept | 2019年11月26日

Well, this escalated quickly....

MitchP85D | 2019年11月26日

Plentiful fossil fuels at a moderate price will buy us time before technology advances enough to replace it. The last thing we need now is some idiotic energy plan that causes the price of oil to shoot up to $200 per barrel when there is no need whatsoever to do that. Poverty kills. And $200-$300 per barrel oil will kill people. Maybe that is what the Green New Dealers want.

NKYTA | 2019年11月26日

Oh boy. Could you state your fossil fuel interest more plain @Darth?

You are clearly anti Mission. I will flag forthwith.

Darthamerica | 2019年11月26日

@Mitch with the recent and coming advances in computers and manufacturing technologies I think we are going to see some exciting things in the near future. Ironically a lot of it will come as spin offs from military technologies. Maintaining the balance and not getting involved in catastrophic great power wars is key. Plentiful oil and gas ensures that as China, India and Africa grows, they will be less compelled to secure their energy needs through violence. Imagine China or India stunting their own growth because a bunch of Cali hippies in a cult think we only have ten years, it's always ten years, until it's too late. Not gonna happen! Meanwhile a random tree branch hits a powerline, starts a California wildfire and a decade's worth of CO2 savings is released in two weeks.

RedShift | 2019年11月26日

Darth and Mitch, sitting in a tree...

MitchP85D | 2019年11月27日

And RedShift can't refute a single thing we say. So, like the typical silly liberal that he is, he gets emotional on us because that is all he has.

RedShift | 2019年11月27日

Yes, I will not refute, Mitch. I only come to mock.

Refuting involves a logical exchange. I cannot do that with you, or Darth. I have tried, many times, with both of you worthies, and come to the conclusion that ‘doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is foolish’. As Einstein once put it.

Continue your spooning.

SCCRENDO | 2019年11月27日

You guys are living in an alternate universe. Perhaps the same as Trumo. The facts run counter to your rhetoric. So why not just make some up and hope there are enough stupid people to believe you. You guys are likely SOL on these fora. But show up to a Trump rally, a white supremacist rally, a flat earther convention,the White House or Fox and Friends and you will likely find many fans.

andy.connor.e | 2019年11月28日

People like @Mitch and @Darth require data to support what they are saying. Otherwise its an endless discussion of opinion. Maybe @Darth doesnt like being told to provide data for everything, but i probably wouldnt demand that out of him so much if he did not have such an opinionated perspective. Neither of these two people have their own perspectives, and when you start getting into the details, they dont understand the science because they always post someone elses opinion. Leave it up to posting a link to some other scientist that explains it rather than yourself being able to extract the data and formulate your own argument based on data and information that you understand yourself. It basically becomes an argument of you vs the scientist of choice. Since its not their own statement, @Darth and @Mitch are never wrong. Its an argument about what someone else said, and then the conversation tangents off that and you start arguing about the authenticity of the scientist themselves.

Its too bad that @Darth and @Mitch cannot understand the information well enough for themselves to actually be able to read, comprehend, and be able to regurgitate the data back to people whom they are having a discussion with. Because its very easy to just google search climate scientists, find a link to a study they did, paste it and make a claim like: "Global warming is a myth!" with the link, where you're basically put in a place where its up to you to interpret the study, opinion and claim yourself and its not actually the work and interpretation of @Darth or @Mitch.

Thats what i mean by its always someone elses argument. You two are terrible to have a discussion with.

Darthamerica | 2019年11月28日

Andy the Earth isn't dangerously warming. And you can't stop what warming is happening because you can't control the climate like you can the HVAC in your car. You're getting sucked in by marketing and crooked politicians who only want your money and freedom of choice taken away. Taken to deal with a temporary 200-300 year carbon blip that will go away before any legislation or regulations have any effect. Leave things alone and competition and market forces will solve your so called BS "crisis" for you. It's going to be funny after Trump wins in 2020, does his term and we still aren't part of three Paris accords. What will your politicians and slicksters day then? "Yeah we know we said we only have 10 more years 10 years ago but...". At what point do you realize it's BS?

andy.connor.e | 2019年11月28日

Everything you have said on this thread so far is BS. Not sure why i would listen to anything you say.

Darthamerica | 2019年11月28日

Andy if it's BS, you would be able to refute it. You can't. That's because AGW is an unproven man made conspiracy theory. Nobody knows how much our emissions matter because this is a chaotic system that can't be modeled accurately. And even if they did, no one has a way to stop it. And worse case it gets a degree or two hotter... So what? You know what people are going to do? They'll do what they have been doing and move to a location where they like it better. No one takes this BS seriously. That's why people keep buying SUVs, trucks and big cars. No one but a few fanatics cares.

SCCRENDO | 2019年11月28日

It’s ok to quote scientists. Darth only quotes his own uninformed opinions. Mitch on the other hand quotes washed out scientists or non scientists and pretends they know what they are talking about.

Darthamerica | 2019年11月28日

@SCC is it my opinion that a Model S makes at least 90K kg of CO2 if it drives 1M km?

jimglas | 2019年11月28日

Darth is a fossil fuel troll
He just comes here to post his crap
He ignores any facts that are presented
Just flag and move on

SCCRENDO | 2019年11月28日

Your opinion is worthless. Support it with data

Darthamerica | 2019年11月28日

@SCC the data is in front of your face. See above... It's easier if you pull your head out of your rear. Again, LOOK at the emissions from the EV. Or you can keep burying your head in the sand and pretending like EVs are an answer for concerns about CO2. You can't have and will not have a modern society without CO2 so get use to it!

SCCRENDO | 2019年11月28日

Make it simple for me. Show me the facts.

Darthamerica | 2019年11月28日

Simple: EVs require energy. Energy to make, energy to operate. That energy is overwhelmingly derived from fossil fuels. The larger the EV, the more energy and thusly more emissions. You're still contribution to CO2 emissions. But but but California uses a lot of alternatives? Yes but this is a global issue, California is a tiny number. But but but solar power? Yeah but solar is not very widespread and it's not able to meet global demand and is always backed up by fossil fuels because it is weak and intermittent. Well but but but wind power? See above. So you cannot escape CO2 emissions if you want a modern society.

Mark K | 2019年11月28日

Not so, collecting sunlight doesn’t add CO2.

Give it a rest Darth, it’s thanksgiving eve.

Darthamerica | 2019年11月28日

A fraction of a percent of EVs are charged that way. And building solar panel does what? Creates CO2! And did you know that the million km Tesla needed a battery swap? That was 13K additional kg of guess what? C-O-2!!! The equivalent of diving an efficient ICEV/Hybrid like a Prius over 400K km. So spare the virtue signaling, you're not any more emissions free than a tail pipe.

MitchP85D | 2019年11月28日

Anybody up for a challenge on my Arctic Temperature Data thread?

Mark K | 2019年11月28日

Building a gasoline car produces CO2,
building oil drilling equipment produces CO2,
refining oil into gasoline uses a huge amount of electricity, which produces CO2,
and consuming hydrocarbon fuel continuously produces prodigious CO2.

... About 5 tons of CO2 emitted per year for each SUV in the US.

Once set up, Solar ends all CO2.

Gasoline, however, is the gift the keeps on giving.

Oil industry narrative always leaves off the majority of the nasty collateral damage.

Darthamerica | 2019年11月28日

Mark solar is weak, solar is intermittent, has a group dependency and can't be mass produced in enough quantity to meet demand. You guys really don't understand how this works do you?

Darthamerica | 2019年11月28日

Did you miss when Tesla said solar on the Cybertruck might give it 15 miles of range...PER DAY? In 2021+!

SCCRENDO | 2019年11月28日

Darth. You have the logic of a rock. Please supply numbers supported by data and we will take a look. My 2 year old grandson would not even buy your logic.

BumblebeEV | 2019年11月28日

“The OP mentions what the earth sees? I'll tell you what the earth sees. Humans are nothing more than a pimple on a gnat's ass!”

Of course if Elon Musk can terraform Mars by making a series of nuclear explosions at the poles to start creating a magnetic field, you might look like a pimple on a gnat’s ass. However, fortunately for humanity, not every mammal share the same limited brain capabilities as you.

andy.connor.e | 2019年11月28日

"Andy if it's BS, you would be able to refute it. You can't."

The last 2 pages of comments disagree with your statement. You know, you're a person like everyone else. I dont understand why this is how you spend your time and energy, when you could be putting it towards something to better yourself. Like doing actual research and actually understanding the topics you argue so much on.

SCCRENDO | 2019年11月28日

@Andy. Don’t you get it. He’s not interested in facts. He’s a Russian troll

Darthamerica | 2019年11月28日

Andy, if I'm wrong, simply explain why. That's what I do to you and others. You all make blanket statements suggesting that EVs are cleaning up the environmental and that since they can charge via solar, there are no emissions. Ok... I retort with the actual 13K kg of CO2 it takes to make an 85kWh battery, the 90g CO2 per km a Model S causes, the fact that most EVs aren't charged via solar, most cannot be charged via solar, and you get indignant! What are you even arguing about? What I wrote isn't a secret. You can type into Google, "how much CO2 per km for Model S". Guess what you'll find and from who? You don't want facts Andy. You want to be propagandized. You say research yet you do none. Try having an honest discussion with a real person of science and you may learn something. Like for instance how much energy the world uses and how solar isn't available in enough capacity to supply it yet. And by yet I mean it would take decades to develop and deploy the panels required to fullfil your wild fantasy.

Darthamerica | 2019年11月28日

Andy another thing about Tesla in particular. First and foremost it's a public company. No matter what "The Mission" is, it has to remain profitable as a fiduciary obligation to shareholders. It does that by taking loans on possible futures. Things like FSD and Zero Emissions which are aspirational goals.

SamO | 2019年11月28日

Wrong again, Derp. FSD and ZERO EMISSIONS are a part of the mission. They won't start selling diesel cars just to make an extra $0.02. Let's save that for your mom.

Darthamerica | 2019年11月29日

Yes a mission that's always almost there, by next year or "soon" but never actually accomplished or fundamentally any different from other firms. For example, do competitors want more efficient cars? Yup. Are they developing their own autonomous features? Yup. The primary difference is the way it's marketed. And you gobble it up like turkey! You guys are a case study. Tesla is a great company with great products. But it is not going to "save" the Earth from the fake climate crisis anymore than Big Brother would stop Emmanuel Goldstein. Do learn marketing someday so that you understand what's going on.

andy.connor.e | 2019年11月29日

@SCC "@Andy. Don’t you get it. He’s not interested in facts. He’s a Russian troll"

Actually i do get it. On the previous comments page i actually pointed out how @Darth admitted himself that hes a troll. I dont care from where, but he did it himself.

SamO | 2019年11月29日

I’m only interested in first principles. Keep your Rolex and effete dandy-cars.

SCCRENDO | 2019年11月29日

@darth. As I posted on another thread. Gasoline is not getting cleaner. But electricity is already cleaner and can clean up far more. These are facts. As compared to your obsession with talking through your anus
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/electricity.php

SCCRENDO | 2019年11月29日

@darth. As I posted on another thread. Gasoline is not getting cleaner. But electricity is already cleaner and can clean up far more. These are facts. As compared to your obsession with talking through your anus
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/electricity.php

blue adept | 2019年11月29日

@Varricks

The take-a-way from my previous reply is 1), proof that our (Humanity's) actions were actually able to affect the world's environment was finally made undeniably clear to us when we were forced to realize that our use of R-12 refrigerant was destroying our atmosphere, and 2), corporations have been allowed to grow far too powerful and their single-minded pursuit of the dollar, by whatever means, is as unethical as it is immoral as it is ultimately counterintuitive given that it is ruinous to all of humanity for the sole sake of but a few selfish people.

Moving on...

>>> "Maybe our use of burned hydrocarbons has an effect..."

They, in fact, have quite an "effect".

Let's start with the 'effect burned hydrocarbons have' on the environment and, by extension (since we have to live in the environment), us...

MIT’s Laboratory for Aviation and the Environment came out with some sobering new data on air pollution’s impact on Americans’ health (which, as it turns out, correlates directly with similar findings uncovered by the EPA).

When the group tracked ground-level emissions from sources such as industrial smokestacks, vehicle tailpipes, marine and rail operations, as well as commercial and residential heating throughout the United States, they found that the air pollution generated by those combined emissions causes about 200,000 early deaths each year with emissions from road transportation and/or tailpipe emissions being the most significant contributor at 53,000 premature deaths followed closely by power generation emissions at 52,000 premature deaths.

That's the air we all breath regardless of where you're at.

In addition to the contamination of our atmosphere the acidification of our surface water sources, mainly the lakes and reservoirs from where our municipalities draw the supply for our usage, is one of the major environmental impacts of transport over long distance of air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide from power plants, other forms of heavy industry such as steel plants, and motor vehicles, with the poisoning being even more severe in the US and parts of Europe and that's not even touching upon the variety of chemicals in the form of fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, along with the runoff from commercial and industrial operations' waste, seepage from improperly maintained waste systems, even improperly administered water treatment chemicals, all being flushed into our streams, rivers, ponds, lakes and oceans.

http://water.epa.gov/drink/info/well/health.cfm

http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-d...

>>> "...but I'm still suspicious that it isn't as much as we're being brainwashed to believe, particularly considering who's doing the washing and their motives."

Then, by all means, allow me to help clear up some of your 'suspicions' by asking just who's doing this "brainwashing" you speak of?

Could it be the children of the world who're only interested in having a life and futures of their own for them and their children?

https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/juliana-v-us

https://insideclimatenews.org/tags/childrens-climate-lawsuit

And what, pray tell, could their "motives" possibly be?

Clean air for us and our and them and their offspring all to breath? Fresh water for us and our and them and their offspring all to drink? Clean oceans and waterways for us and our and them and their offspring all to enjoy and gather food from to eat?

How about sustaining the plant and animal populations so that future generations can be enriched by the enjoyment of them? Sustaining 'life' as we know it? Providing a future for our offspring and their children's children?

Whatever intentions could they possibly have for wanting to clean up the atmosphere and the environment? Whatever could their "motives" be?

Maybe they just want to...live?!

Angelo A | 2019年12月1日

I've added solar to my house, I'm buying the CT (wish I already had it) and agree that there are better ways we can power our lives that would reduce waste and cost.

That being said, my level of denying climate change simply comes from the over the top, we're killing the planet and we'll all be dead in 12 years extremists that are getting all the attention.

Our planet has gone through many heating and cooling cycles (ice age anyone) that had nothing to do with humans and it will happen again and again.

We could get a lot more people moving toward renewable energy sources if we quit letting the extremists speak on our behalf. Paint the picture of the advantages and cost saving of EV's and Solar power and that's how we make change.

rxlawdude | 2019年12月1日

"We could get a lot more people moving toward renewable energy sources if we quit letting the extremists speak on our behalf. "

Trouble is, the denier side is laden with extremists, and unlimited dino decomposition money.

SCCRENDO | 2019年12月1日

The extremists are far more factually correct than any denier. So perhaps you should listen to them.

andy.connor.e | 2019年12月1日

Its important to listen to all sides and always fact check. You might learn something, and could possibly teach someone something they didnt know. Despite the way people present their information, its possible the person you're talking to does know something you dont.

rxlawdude | 2019年12月1日

"Despite the way people present their information, it's possible the person you're talking to does know something you don't."

Advising @Darth on listening to anyone but his echo chamber is like pissing in the ocean. It may feel good, but does nothing. :-)

Pages