Judge orders NEVI Funding restored

[impulsoren]

I’m starting to think it is irrelevant whether humans are causing climate change. We have the tools to slow it down (I’m unsure if we could reverse or even stop it at this point, I think the consensus is it’s too late).
OK Timmy it’s not your fault, the milk carton tipped over on its own, let’s just clean it up ok? Before too many more people die?

Sponsored

 

[Ralph]

I’m starting to think it is irrelevant whether humans are causing climate change. We have the tools to slow it down (I’m unsure if we could reverse or even stop it at this point, I think the consensus is it’s too late).
OK Timmy it’s not your fault, the milk carton tipped over on its own, let’s just clean it up ok? Before too many more people die?

But if you don't think humans contribute to the increased rate of change as described by 97-98% of climate scientists, you are unlikely to believe that anything humans do can create change for the better.

 

[VandalSibs]

But if you don't think humans contribute to the increased rate of change as described by 97-98% of climate scientists, you are unlikely to believe that anything humans do can create change for the better.

Sad but true for most.

 

[mkhuffman]

“In my own words: the climate has been changing since the earth was formed. It will continue to change, just as it always has”

That is true, and I have heard that statement made before as if it were the definitive description of our current situation. However, as has been pointed out a couple times already, the problem is the current unprecedented rate of climate change.

Thanks for your response putting your perspective of this topic out there.

As I stated earlier, absolutely Earth's climate has been changing since the beginning. The issue is how FAST it's changing because of Humans and the exploitation of fossil fuels and mass consumption/growth.

Of course I don't believe everything I'm told and yes, I agree, there is always going to be bias out there....especially because of $. But your comment that Scientists who are passionate about what they do should not trusted is just silly to me. There are always going to be outliers, but I will 100 percent take the word of a professional who is passionate about what they pursue in life as a career and put in the work, a PASSIONATE Scientist will adhere to the scientific method of objective observation of data/facts. To use your approach of regurgitating AI queries....here is one.

Yes, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus (over 97-99.9%) that climate change is happening and primarily caused by human activities, a conclusion supported by major scientific bodies worldwide, with detailed evidence coming from extensive peer-reviewed studies and observations. While scientists debate specifics like the precise pace or regional effects, the core finding that human-emitted greenhouse gases are warming the planet is firmly established.

First, Mike, thanks for the kind words. Back at you, man!

Also, thanks for clearly labeling which words are AI-suggested and which words are fully your own work.

***

Second, you seem to be conflating "lobbying" with "industry-funded research."

Citizen lobbying is essential to democracy -- have you seen how many bills are considered in your state's legislature every session?

Citizen lobbying focuses on the public interest, at least as the citizen perceives it. Corporate lobbying has a profit objective and can distort the public interest severely.

Both forms of lobbying are different from industry-funded "research," which is generally used to corrupt the scientific dialogue about something where an industry feels knowledge of the full truth would reduce its profits. Climate is far from the only example. The cigarette industry's "research" agenda was even more crass, and possibly even more lethal. The alcohol industry and much of the food industry has also been guilty of misusing research to thwart the public interest. Prior examples, now much weakened, included the lead industry and the asbestos industry. Every research-based public health hero that I know of has faced industry misuse of "research" to cast doubt on their work and often to defame their character.

***

Whatever research tool you choose to use, consider asking about the magnitude, reach, and influence of "green industry" lobbying as compared to fossil-fuel lobbying. That should tell us a lot.

Very best wishes!

My understanding is that the issue isn't necessarily that climate is changing - as it doubtless has changed in the past. Rather, it's the speed at which it is changing. Which means we, other life, and systems aren't able to adapt. Also, while climate change has happened in the past, this time around we know about it and have some ability to mitigate it reducing the impact. This is no more than my garage logic and I have no studies to link to.

Thank you to everyone who has responded, because you all are very civil and reasonable.

I am going to make a few points, so you guys know when I am coming from. I don't think any minds will be changed, and I really want this to stay civil, so this might be the last post I make on this topic. (I will try hard to resist continuing the debate.)

1. The "97% of scientists" study, and subsequent similar studies, use a flawed methodology to come up with that number. They reviewed only the papers that took a position on human caused global warming, and did not included the ones that did not. If you include the ones that did not take a position, less than 50% supported human caused global warming. In the original Cook study (2013), it was only 33.6% of the papers.

2. Out of those who did agree there is human caused global warming, there is significant disagreement regarding significance, extent, and/or urgency of the impact.

3. Many scientists believe there is no need for significant policy changes or action needed to mitigate the impact of human caused global warming. But the politicians only seem to want to listen to the most alarming ones, because (I think) they are using global warming as an excuse to implement policy changes they have always wanted to make for other reasons.

4. Greenhouse gases include the following: water vapor, CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, Ozone and Fluorinated Gases. Yet for some reason everything is blamed on CO2 (at least that is the perception). Why is nobody trying to regulate water vapor, one of the largest contributors?

5. CO2 is air fertilizer for plants. Greenhouses pump it in so the plants inside grow bigger and faster. It seems to me CO2 is good for the environment, not bad. With more CO2 we get more crops, bigger trees and more Oxygen. I am all for it.

I am in agreement with the scientists who do not believe it is serious enough to increase the cost of electricity, cars, everything in the name of reducing it. I am in agreement with the greenhouse operators who use CO2 to grow bigger plants. I am pro food, pro green planet. I am anti-frozen, white planet. Reducing the chance of another mini ice age by producing some warming is what I am for. 100%.

I have noticed the NYC is not under water yet. And it has been more than 10 years without the world ending due to global warming. Seems to me the globe is doing just great!

Now hopefully the responses (which I will read and try to not respond to) remain civil. I know I really put myself out there on this one!

 

[VandalSibs]

5. CO2 is air fertilizer for plants. Greenhouses pump it in so the plants inside grow bigger and faster. It seems to me CO2 is good for the environment, not bad. With more CO2 we get more crops, bigger trees and more Oxygen. I am all for it.

Just as an example:

Too much of a 'good' thing can be a bad thing.... like how drinking too much water can literally kill you.

If there's too much CO2 in the air for trees and other life that uses it, it builds up and helps trap heat in the atmosphere. That leads to warmer conditions that can, among other things, lead to more wildfires that burn down trees. That leads to more CO2 in the atmosphere than can be used...

Rinse & repeat.

 

[BigSkies]

I’m starting to think it is irrelevant whether humans are causing climate change. We have the tools to slow it down (I’m unsure if we could reverse or even stop it at this point, I think the consensus is it’s too late).
OK Timmy it’s not your fault, the milk carton tipped over on its own, let’s just clean it up ok? Before too many more people die?

It's worth taking a little time to understand the mechanics of climate change, because it is important. The IPCC "Summary Report for Policymakers" is a good place to start.

You'll frequently hear that we're 1 degree or 1.5 degrees of warming compared to pre-industrial times. The amount of warming is a function of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, along with other greenhouse gasses like methane. CO2 is the primary culprit, so I'll focus on that.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was around 280 parts per million in pre-industrial times. The concentration today is around 426ppm, which has warmed the atmosphere by about 1.5 degrees C. We're currently adding about 40ppm per decade.

It's important to understand that there is no physical limit to warming that is relevant to human survival. The planet can continue warming past the point where the agricultural systems of the planet can no longer support the population.

Here's the processes that add and remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

The processes that adds to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere are all around us, and come mostly from burning hydrocarbons. There are plenty of other greenhouse gas sources, but it's predominantly burning hydrocarbons. So every time you turn on a gas engine or burn natural gas that adds CO2 to the atmosphere.

The process that takes CO2 out of the atmosphere operates along geological timescales. This is the process where ancient plants and animals died, with biomatter being covered by dirt, and eventually turning into oil, coal, etc. That's how the CO2 got out of the atmosphere in the first place. There will be no natural CO2 removal from the atmosphere on a timescale that is relevant to the human experience. What we add today will be there for thousands of years.

This is a long way to say that if we stopped using ALL hydrocarbons tomorrow, the atmosphere would stay roughly as it is, 1.5 degrees C hotter than pre-industrial times.

If we wait for the atmosphere to warm by 3 degrees before getting to net zero emissions, the atmosphere will stay around 3 degrees warmer.

We have the power to slow climate change by using fewer hydrocarbons. We don't have the political will to stop it, and we don't have the physical capability to reverse it.

 

[skyguyscott]

Thank you to everyone who has responded, because you all are very civil and reasonable...

I am in agreement with the scientists who do not believe it is serious enough to increase the cost of electricity, cars, everything in the name of reducing it. ...

I have noticed the NYC is not under water yet. And it has been more than 10 years without the world ending due to global warming. Seems to me the globe is doing just great!

Thanks for your post, Mike. I know it's difficult to change viewpoints past a certain point. Like the monkeys we are, sometimes we hold our fists tight around the sugar we love, even as we see death approaching to club us to oblivion, refusing to let go and escape.

I gather the root cause of your skepticism regarding climate change centers around the costs it would incur to implement mediation efforts - efforts we have no guarantee would work, and in any event, may not make a noticeable difference in our lifetimes.

Some estimates from 2022 posited it would cost the world economy about $3.5 Trillion/year to transition in an effective timeframe to a more sustainable energy economy (others dispute that, but regardless, it's significant) That was four years ago, and every year wasted increases the cost and decreases the likelihood of successfully dodging the worst of the consequences.

The bad news, however, is that it is going to cost us significantly more if we don't. I could link to a number of articles online, but it's doubtful you would find them compelling. How can staying at the status quo cost the world more than $3,500,000,000,000/year?

You mentioned New York going underwater. Hopefully, that will not happen, but if it does, it's most likely to happen a hurricane at a time, probably long after Miami has been abandoned. Now, we could try to "go green" in hopes that will save the Big Apple, but the die has already been cast. Now we are going to have to spend HUGE, to use a term from a certain former resident, to build up a resilient infrastructure to protect Long island -- you thought Boston's decades-long Big Dig was expensive, imagine the costs doing that for every costal city in the world (again, with no guarantee of success) or we could abandon and relocate, creating a future Machu Picchu or Luxor for archeologists to puzzle over, assuming our species survives.

Consider also the costs in disaster recovery as storm duration and intensity increases, along with the death tolls. How many are expected to die of starvation or malnutrition as famine follows the collapse of agricultural regions? What will the costs be in political instability as waves of migrants flee devastated homelands, sparking anger, unrest, conflict and war upon populations already reeling from their own challenges in growing food, repairing damaged infrastructure, fighting over scarce resources?

A warmer climate also will allow tropical diseases to migrate to populations with no natural immunity, even as they mutate into variants for which no vaccines exist, and at a time when immunity to antibiotics is starting to take hold. I could go on, but I'm not John the Revelater.

Right now, you're worried about the cost of your electric bill, and for those who drive ICE, the cost of a gallon of gas. From my perspective, we are already on the hook, I was hoping we could get by with an enema rather than an amputation, but at this point, I'd be happy just to survive.

 

[emoore]

Thank you to everyone who has responded, because you all are very civil and reasonable.

I am going to make a few points, so you guys know when I am coming from. I don't think any minds will be changed, and I really want this to stay civil, so this might be the last post I make on this topic. (I will try hard to resist continuing the debate.)

1. The "97% of scientists" study, and subsequent similar studies, use a flawed methodology to come up with that number. They reviewed only the papers that took a position on human caused global warming, and did not included the ones that did not. If you include the ones that did not take a position, less than 50% supported human caused global warming. In the original Cook study (2013), it was only 33.6% of the papers.

2. Out of those who did agree there is human caused global warming, there is significant disagreement regarding significance, extent, and/or urgency of the impact.

3. Many scientists believe there is no need for significant policy changes or action needed to mitigate the impact of human caused global warming. But the politicians only seem to want to listen to the most alarming ones, because (I think) they are using global warming as an excuse to implement policy changes they have always wanted to make for other reasons.

4. Greenhouse gases include the following: water vapor, CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, Ozone and Fluorinated Gases. Yet for some reason everything is blamed on CO2 (at least that is the perception). Why is nobody trying to regulate water vapor, one of the largest contributors?

5. CO2 is air fertilizer for plants. Greenhouses pump it in so the plants inside grow bigger and faster. It seems to me CO2 is good for the environment, not bad. With more CO2 we get more crops, bigger trees and more Oxygen. I am all for it.

I am in agreement with the scientists who do not believe it is serious enough to increase the cost of electricity, cars, everything in the name of reducing it. I am in agreement with the greenhouse operators who use CO2 to grow bigger plants. I am pro food, pro green planet. I am anti-frozen, white planet. Reducing the chance of another mini ice age by producing some warming is what I am for. 100%.

I have noticed the NYC is not under water yet. And it has been more than 10 years without the world ending due to global warming. Seems to me the globe is doing just great!

Now hopefully the responses (which I will read and try to not respond to) remain civil. I know I really put myself out there on this one!

Wow. So misguided that it's sad. It's not immediately obvious that climate change is happening. It's going to be our kids and their kids and their kids that will pay for our selfishness.

 

[Thedude]

Wow. So misguided that it's sad. It's not immediately obvious that climate change is happening. It's going to be our kids and their kids and their kids that will pay for our selfishness.

That’s a good point. We could solve a whole lot of climate change problems if people stop pumping out babies.

 

[emoore]

That’s a good point. We could solve a whole lot of climate change problems if people stop pumping out babies.

Well that’s technically true too.

 

[SANZC02]

Thank you to everyone who has responded, because you all are very civil and reasonable.

I am going to make a few points, so you guys know when I am coming from. I don't think any minds will be changed, and I really want this to stay civil, so this might be the last post I make on this topic. (I will try hard to resist continuing the debate.)

1. The "97% of scientists" study, and subsequent similar studies, use a flawed methodology to come up with that number. They reviewed only the papers that took a position on human caused global warming, and did not included the ones that did not. If you include the ones that did not take a position, less than 50% supported human caused global warming. In the original Cook study (2013), it was only 33.6% of the papers.

2. Out of those who did agree there is human caused global warming, there is significant disagreement regarding significance, extent, and/or urgency of the impact.

3. Many scientists believe there is no need for significant policy changes or action needed to mitigate the impact of human caused global warming. But the politicians only seem to want to listen to the most alarming ones, because (I think) they are using global warming as an excuse to implement policy changes they have always wanted to make for other reasons.

4. Greenhouse gases include the following: water vapor, CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, Ozone and Fluorinated Gases. Yet for some reason everything is blamed on CO2 (at least that is the perception). Why is nobody trying to regulate water vapor, one of the largest contributors?

5. CO2 is air fertilizer for plants. Greenhouses pump it in so the plants inside grow bigger and faster. It seems to me CO2 is good for the environment, not bad. With more CO2 we get more crops, bigger trees and more Oxygen. I am all for it.

I am in agreement with the scientists who do not believe it is serious enough to increase the cost of electricity, cars, everything in the name of reducing it. I am in agreement with the greenhouse operators who use CO2 to grow bigger plants. I am pro food, pro green planet. I am anti-frozen, white planet. Reducing the chance of another mini ice age by producing some warming is what I am for. 100%.

I have noticed the NYC is not under water yet. And it has been more than 10 years without the world ending due to global warming. Seems to me the globe is doing just great!

Now hopefully the responses (which I will read and try to not respond to) remain civil. I know I really put myself out there on this one!

I think my only input here is when they started calling it global warming was the start of the problem.

it would have been better to call it climate change. Look at how many 100 year storms we have had just since 2000. Not to mention increased number of hurricanes and huge temperature shifts with more frequent highs and lows than normal in many areas.

 

[usulio]

Thank you to everyone who has responded, because you all are very civil and reasonable.

I am going to make a few points, so you guys know when I am coming from. I don't think any minds will be changed, and I really want this to stay civil, so this might be the last post I make on this topic. (I will try hard to resist continuing the debate.)

1. The "97% of scientists" study, and subsequent similar studies, use a flawed methodology to come up with that number. They reviewed only the papers that took a position on human caused global warming, and did not included the ones that did not. If you include the ones that did not take a position, less than 50% supported human caused global warming. In the original Cook study (2013), it was only 33.6% of the papers.

2. Out of those who did agree there is human caused global warming, there is significant disagreement regarding significance, extent, and/or urgency of the impact.

3. Many scientists believe there is no need for significant policy changes or action needed to mitigate the impact of human caused global warming. But the politicians only seem to want to listen to the most alarming ones, because (I think) they are using global warming as an excuse to implement policy changes they have always wanted to make for other reasons.

4. Greenhouse gases include the following: water vapor, CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, Ozone and Fluorinated Gases. Yet for some reason everything is blamed on CO2 (at least that is the perception). Why is nobody trying to regulate water vapor, one of the largest contributors?

5. CO2 is air fertilizer for plants. Greenhouses pump it in so the plants inside grow bigger and faster. It seems to me CO2 is good for the environment, not bad. With more CO2 we get more crops, bigger trees and more Oxygen. I am all for it.

I am in agreement with the scientists who do not believe it is serious enough to increase the cost of electricity, cars, everything in the name of reducing it. I am in agreement with the greenhouse operators who use CO2 to grow bigger plants. I am pro food, pro green planet. I am anti-frozen, white planet. Reducing the chance of another mini ice age by producing some warming is what I am for. 100%.

I have noticed the NYC is not under water yet. And it has been more than 10 years without the world ending due to global warming. Seems to me the globe is doing just great!

Now hopefully the responses (which I will read and try to not respond to) remain civil. I know I really put myself out there on this one!

Thank you for posting civilly. Respectfully, whoever told you this stuff is misleading you. I'm not a climate scientist but I have talked to them and 1-3 are incorrect. Not expecting you to change your mind based on an anonymous car forum post.

 

[savethemanual]

That’s a good point. We could solve a whole lot of climate change problems if people stop pumping out babies.

Well, humans exhale CO2 and we're at 8 billion now

In all seriousness, this visualization of data is a good one. Again, we all know Earth has been through natural cycles of changing climate, but it's how fast things are changing this time around that is unprecedented.

 

[NorthVan57]

Putting climate arguments aside, I love driving behind the electric cars, and riding my bike beside them, lots of other ugly gases besides CO2 emitted from ICE vehicles, glad I live in one on the cleanest cities in the world, also our government bringing chinese EVs to Canada, and also bringing back the EV incentive soon. Greetings from Vancouver, Canada, soon to be even cleaner!

 

[SANZC02]

Putting climate arguments aside, I love driving behind the electric cars, and riding my bike beside them, lots of other ugly gases besides CO2 emitted from ICE vehicles, glad I live in one on the cleanest cities in the world, also our government bringing chinese EVs to Canada, and also bringing back the EV incentive soon. Greetings from Vancouver, Canada, soon to be even cleaner!

This is true, when I moved to the LA basin in the mid 80s there were between 225 and 300 unhealthy air quality days a year. Very unhealthy/hazardous days were between 120 and 145.

With the new emissions and moving to hybrid/EVs over the years it is so much better. From 2021-2024 the number of unhealthy days were between 87 and 133 days and only 2024 was over 100 at 133. The number of unhealthy/hazardous days were between in that time was between 1 and 9.

Over the last few years EV/hybrid/fuel cell sales in California are hovering around 25%.

Sponsored