California to ban selling new gas-powered cars by 2035

[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.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

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.

What don't you know with enough confidence?

(I will reply to more, later.)

[JSH]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

What don't you know with enough confidence?

(I will reply to more, later.)

I wouldn't bother.

I doubt there is anything you can say that wasn't said in the 875 pages of the thread: "The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists"

Some people don't believe the climate is changing or that the changes are man made. Zero minds will be changed "discussing" the topic on an internet forum.

[redpoint5]

To clarify, I don't fit within either of the mentioned categories of though JSH mentioned. Likely I don't fit into any category one would like to see me pigeonholed into.

The position that there is not evidence to suggest what should be done, and that politics prevents us from seeking evidence in good faith does not fit neatly into the climate change denier/climate change catastrophist dichotomies.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by JSH

I wouldn't bother.

I doubt there is anything you can say that wasn't said in the 875 pages of the thread: "The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists"

Some people don't believe the climate is changing or that the changes are man made. Zero minds will be changed "discussing" the topic on an internet forum.

I don't know if it's the same thread, but I saw a climate change debate thread here several years ago. The main participants were getting into details about measurement and stuff ...

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

... there is not evidence to suggest what should be done ...

What does that mean? Not enough evidence of the problems? Not enough evidence of the solutions?

[freebeard]

The Climate Consensus thread would've run longer if people weren't so invested in 'taking a side'. It's been an amazingly long time since April!

Some people don't believe the climate is changing or that the changes are man made. Zero minds will be changed "discussing" the topic on an internet forum.

My position was always that from every degree of warming that infrastructure is hardened against, a degree of cooling should be accommodated as well. Since the the only thing we know going forward is that things will change.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by freebeard

...

My position was always that from every degree of warming that infrastructure is hardened against, a degree of cooling should be accommodated as well. Since the the only thing we know going forward is that things will change.

How about we stop (as much as we can) "adding fuel to the fire"? Meaning, we've added and continue adding energy (trapped heat) to the ecosystem.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

What does that mean? Not enough evidence of the problems? Not enough evidence of the solutions?

Well, you cut out the 2nd half of the sentence which answers this question.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Well, you cut out the 2nd half of the sentence which answers this question.

Let's just keep it simple.

there is not evidence

There is not [enough?] evidence [of what?]