California to ban selling new gas-powered cars by 2035

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

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.

I take it you don't know how to do the math to calculate how much heat man generates versus how much heat the sun applies to the earth.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I take it you don't know how to do the math to calculate how much heat man generates versus how much heat the sun applies to the earth.

Why do you think that matters?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

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

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

Let's just keep it simple.

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

I'll simplify my position by analogy you might sympathize with. Imagine there are mountains of scientific evidence (studies) showing human activity including fossil fuel burning does not meaningfully alter global climate, and those many studies are funded by OPEC, BP, Shell, and Exon. Should we draw conclusions on what action (or inaction) should take place based on this "scientific" consensus?

As I've stated multiple times now, humanity has greatly benefited from warming as evidenced by every measure of wellness. Where are the studies showing ways in which humanity will benefit from more warming? Name 2 such ways off the top of your head. I can name 4 dozen ways we will be harmed by warming off the top of my head, and there's a political reason for that. When science is approached such that the conclusion is assumed, what good is the science?

It's setting earth as the center of the universe and developing the science to support that conclusion.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'll simplify my position by analogy you might sympathize with. Imagine there are mountains of scientific evidence (studies) showing human activity including fossil fuel burning does not meaningfully alter global climate, and those many studies are funded by OPEC, BP, Shell, and Exon. Should we draw conclusions on what action (or inaction) should take place based on this "scientific" consensus?

As I've stated multiple times now, humanity has greatly benefited from warming as evidenced by every measure of wellness. Where are the studies showing ways in which humanity will benefit from more warming? When science is approached such that the conclusion is assumed, what good is the science?

You didn't simplify your position.

I crossed out the extra stuff instead of leaving it out. There are two points remaining.

humanity has greatly benefited from warming as evidenced by every measure of wellness.

What's good at some points in time and conditions is always good at any other time and conditions?

When science is approached such that the conclusion is assumed, what good is the science?

Do we have a way to test the hypothesis at full scale?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

What's good at some points in time and conditions is always good at any other time and conditions?

Do we have a way to test the hypothesis at full scale?

I'm not following the first question. My reference to time was a span, not a point in time.

The 2nd hypothesis can be tested by seeking research grants. One proposal could be to study the positive effects of warming, and another could be to study the negative effects of warming. We could then compare which ones more often get funded. Differences in funding would indicate a likely bias.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

Why do you think that matters?

Have you read the Climate Consensus at all? What do you surmise the answer would be? Are we there yet?

Rather than badgering redpoint5, try informing yourself. If Suspicious 0bservers [https://www.youtube.com/user/Suspicious0bservers] is too out-there, go directly to NASA: https://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/ and https://www.helioviewer.org/. And just to have fun, https://www.windy.com/

You could spend months learning the stuff on you own, or 3 1/2 hours following this playlist https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...mAJbadWEpcH6B1

Instead of asking forum members to start from square one with you, [again]... The last science news story in today's space weather report:

attheu.utah.edu: Atmospheric dust levels are rising in the Great Plains

The trend of rising dust parallels expansion of cropland and seasonal crop cycles, suggesting that farming practices are exposing more soil to wind erosion. And if the Great Plains becomes drier, a possibility under climate change scenarios, then all the pieces are in place for a repeat of the Dust Bowl that devastated the Midwest in the 1930s.

“We can’t make changes to the earth surface without some kind of consequence just as we can’t burn fossil fuels without consequences,” says Andy Lambert, lead author of the study and a recent U graduate. “So while the agriculture industry is absolutely important, we need to think more carefully about where and how we plant.”

The story changes every day.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'm not following the first question. My reference to time was a span, not a point in time.

Warming is always good?

The 2nd hypothesis can be tested by seeking research grants. One proposal could be to study the positive effects of warming, and another could be to study the negative effects of warming. We could then compare which ones more often get funded. Differences in funding would indicate a likely bias.

I think you're wanting to make it about politics.

[oil pan 4]

It would appear that warmer is better.
You only need to look back as far as "1,800 and froze to death, a year with out a summer".
If there was ever any question as to if cooler is better.
Go back a little further and it was the midevil cool period for crop failure, famine, pestilence, "the black death", depopulation, ect.
The midevil cool period was probably easy compared to the last iceage.
When it warmed up after the last ice age humanity moved out of caves and formed civilization, cities, ect.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Instead of asking forum members to start from square one with you, [again]...

I'm not asking anyone to go back to square one. I've made a very simple and very strong case. The main part is item C. I don't need to inform myself nor debate endlessly. And I haven't badgered anyone.

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.
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.

[freebeard]

Warming is always good?

Over any long timeframe, warming is the exception not the rule.

I've made a very simple and very strong case.

No you haven't.

C. The consequences of [B]
Therefore from C alone: D.

But we look at C. alone:

"C. The consequences of taking that risk are so severe that there is no good argument to continue taking (fueling) that risk."

Fueling the risk is not a unitary choice. There are myriad opportunities, each with their own opportunity costs.

When an option is chosen from alternatives, the opportunity cost is the "cost" incurred by not enjoying the benefit associated with the best alternative choice. The New Oxford American Dictionary defines it as "the loss of potential gain from other alternatives when one alternative is chosen." In simple opportunity cost is the benefit not received as a result of not selecting the next best option.

Top down political fiat, such as the Greed New Deal, fails. A bottom up approach raises all boats, if you will.

The ultimate replacement for fossil fuel, inexhaustable and inexorable, is Moon Power.