California to ban selling new gas-powered cars by 2035

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

A cost-benefit analysis?! What are the possible benefits that might come from risking climate catastrophe?

You've made the first and biggest mistake right off the batt; assuming a conclusion that isn't in evidence.

Humanity has been benefiting mightily from warming that began 20,000 years ago. The questions that need to be answered in this order are:

1. At what level of warming are the benefits outweighed by the negative outcomes (breakeven)?

2. Is it feasible to hold global temperature to the level that maximally benefits humanity?

3. What CO2 concentration would maintain that ideal global temperature, and what would the global emissions need to be to maintain that?

4. How do we get global buy-in to achieve these targets?

It's possible, and maybe even probable that the answer to #2 is no.

Originally Posted by freebeard

That's your prescription? What is this 'the world' of which you speak?

It's meant to show how unlikely that would be. There's no more effective strategy I can think of that involves exertion of government force. If there isn't buy-in from the largest populations, then a unilateral effort is worse than meaningless because it disadvantages that group for zero benefit.

My broader point is that any effort that isn't tax-based is ignorance at best, political corruption at worst (and probably both).

Anyhow, more likely is that we'll organically solve these problems through normal innovation from capitalistic motivation and declining population growth.

...now back on topic, what is your favorite IPA and Scotch?

[freebeard]

Say what?

I can't follow quite a bit of your commentary.

"I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you"

Small risk: big reward [is greater than] Big risk:small reward

'Winter is coming' is intentionally cryptic, as the Climate Consensus thread was locked on 2020-05-01 after three consecutive posts by everyones favorite myope, aerohead, who has now focussed his attention on JulianEdgar.

[redpoint5]

It's aerohead's internet day too, so the timing couldn't be worse/better.

Guess I'll have to focus on battery/ultracap topics today.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

I'd love to hear some supporting reasons for this comment.

I'll try to summarize my position so that replies might head in my intended direction:
A. Cars and cheap (to the consumers) energy have been great for humanity in ways, and horrible in ways.
B. Human well-being and ultimately the habitability of the planet are at risk, and much of this risk is due to the burning of fossil fuels.
C. The consequences of taking that risk are so severe that there is no good argument to continue taking (fueling) that risk.

Therefore, from C alone:

D. We need a major shift away from burning fossil fuels.

We should have taken this seriously when Carter was president. If we would've started then, then we wouldn't have to make changes so quickly, now.

A and D are incontrovertible truths. B and C are debatable.

The US isn't the largest consumer of fossil fuels, so Carter can't couldn't have been THE solution.

I'd start with deconstructing Alex Epstein's moral case(s) for fossil fuels.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

Do tell.

I can't speak to something not in evidence, other than to say it isn't in evidence.

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

Please post a comment that simply and clearly states your position.

I don't have a position because the variables are so infinitely complex that only myopic conclusions can be drawn.

1. Warming has been underway for 20,000 years and humanity has prospered mightily from it.
2. Warming continues and human flourishing continues.
3. Some level of warming becomes a net negative to humanity, and that level has yet to be established.
4. It's unclear if human effort can meaningfully slow or stop the rising outdoor temperature. We talk in terms of delaying warming. For instance, banning all fossil fuel vehicles in the US immediately would delay warming by x number of months. Is that trade-off worth it?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

I'll take your position to be that you think it's worth risking the consequences (part C in my earlier comment).

You can take my position to mean I don't know with enough confidence because GW is a political topic, and anybody looking to simply do research that doesn't support an agenda is unfunded.

The threat is not existential (not in evidence), either. Adapting to wide ranging climates is among the things humanity is best at. We live in the Arctic, to the rainforests, to the hottest deserts, to no climate at all (space). Some of us live below sea level (Netherlands).

Rapid climate change is alarming, but it seems to coincide with rapid changes in technology.

[jakobnev]

...now back on topic, what is your favorite IPA and Scotch?

I got these in February, they are both brilliant, although, the one on the left isn't scotch, it's japtsch.

[oil pan 4]

Right now all the gasoline that gets saved by using electric vehicles gets exported to other countries.
But I say definitely keep buying electric.

I like it when the anti fossil fuels people think we can just stop using fossil fuels, like it will just be some minor inconvenience. Ah the child like innocence.
They have no idea that ammonia from fossil fuels, mainly natural gas, some times coal and diesel powered farm equipment keeps at least half the world's population fed.
Ignorance really is bliss.

Oh and I can say the Japanese definitely mastered making whiskey and burbon.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

I'd love to hear some supporting reasons for this comment.

One thing leads to another?

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

B. Human well-being and ultimately the habitability of the planet are at risk, and much of this risk is due to the burning of fossil fuels.

Looking at risk overall, fossil fuels pale before the recurrent micro-nova.

Originally Posted by JSH

freebeard likes conspiracy theories and communicating in riddles and code. Maybe they make sense if you follow QAnon. (Maybe freebeard is Q?)

Maybe that's why I'm always so tired? It's like Fight Club?

I was being entertained by conspiracy theory before Internet came along.

Robt Anton Wilson — Cosmic Trigger
Timothy Leary — Game of Life, Psychocybernetics
Giorgio de Santillana, Hertha von Dechend — Hamlet's Mill

My alltime favorite is the connections between Dr. Mary S. Sherman and Judith Vary Baker:

https://www.amazon.com/Dr-Marys-Monk.../dp/0977795306

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=lee+and+me

Quotes - DoctorMarysMonkey.com
Quotes
Dr. Mary's Monkey is a book that will change . one's view of many subjects: polio vaccine, Mary Sherman's death, bio-medical research, and the Kennedy assassination. It's quite a read, and paired with Lee & Me by Judyth Vary Baker will show you . a new view of American history. September 25, 2014. Anita T. Monroe . Clemson, SC . Love it! I love ...

I've met Judith Vary Baker. I even have a piece of signed artwork by her.

But more recently is more about the inertia holding back the future. Plasma Universe will prevail over Dark Matter. Future will prove the past [this month ]. But apparently dentistry will remain in the dark ages. Twenty years ago I was talking to dentist about growing new teeth in adulthood. Now I don't even try.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I like it when the anti fossil fuels people think we can just stop using fossil fuels, like it will just be some minor inconvenience.

...as if modern society exists independent of it, not a consequence of leveraging it. All we have to do is stop putting it in vehicles and problem solved

All transportation is 30% of consumption.