Just gonna be that guy on this thread who is not convinced anthropogenic climate change is a thing, or that if it is a thing that it is more significant than natural variations of climate. The economic and political consequences of the proposed solutions to this alleged crisis (enrich these corporations and these nations at the expense of these corporations and these nations) are too glaringly one sided to suggest empirical impartiality.
It also continues to astound me that proponents of the “climate crisis” narrative never make any mention whatsoever of the fact that the most valuable energy company/car company in the world makes solar panels, batteries, and electric cars. Instead climate crisis actors demonize Tesla for not being unionized (eg, Tesla excluded from the White House American Electric Car Summit) and are lining up at the piggie trough for exclusive Biden bucks that will fund infrastructure investments that will help Ford and GM catch up to Tesla.
To wit: our best bet to speed the transition to sustainable energy is to get out of the way of the capitalists who have already solved this problem with superior transportation and energy products.
>Just gonna be that guy on this thread who is not convinced anthropogenic climate change is
Are you amused how some idiots are convinced Earth is flat where is so easy to prove is a sphere or some round shape?
Similarly it trivial to show that if you put CO2 from the ground in the atmosphere stuff happens, so if you have the brain to do some math, if you believe that coal burning releases CO2 in the atmosphere and if you trust the physics laws then you should be convinced that climate change exists exactly the same as you could be convinced that the planet os round and it rotates, but you need to be 14+ years intellectually AND not a conspiractionist that don't belive in physics laws.
I have a degree in physics. There are more significant periods of climate change in recorded history that predate the Industrial Revolution. Just because we put more carbon in the air doesn’t mean that subsequent “changes in climate” are caused by that additional carbon.
> Just gonna be that guy on this thread who is not convinced anthropogenic climate change is a thing, or that if it is a thing that it is more significant than natural variations of climate.
Facts are true whether you believe them or not. Sure, there are wide error bars on some of the margins, and the feedback loops in the climate system are difficult to tease out. But if you look at a graph like this, https://www.co2levels.org/ , and are still attempting to argue that you're not "convinced" that doubling the primary greenhouse gas in our atmosphere isn't going to have huge effects, well, can't do much for you there.
There are more significant changes of climate in recorded history that predate the Industrial Revolution. If I learned anything in the many science classes I took to get my physics degree, any prediction based on a single controlling variable is usually wrong.
Just going to be the guy that says that not only is human caused climate change a massive threat to humanity's economic future, but also that even if it were not, it would be far cheaper to switch to carbon-free tech than continue on our current path. Carbon free electricity is cheaper than fossil fuel, and as we electrify things like home heating and transport, we typically see efficiency increases of 200%-600%, meaning we need far less primary power to begin with.
Any objection to the scientific basis of anthropogenic climate change is based on political ideology and false propaganda. We need to stop having allegiances to politicians and bad news sources, and maintain allegiance to truth and the unbiased pursuit of it. Far too many in our country are tools of fossil fuel interests. So while I agree that some environmentalists are tools of weird political ideologies, they are staying closer to the truth than those who oppose climate change. Unless most of your wealth is tied up directly in fossil fuel assets that you can't sell, you are also shortchanging your own economic future by not embracing newer and better technology.
The humanity that lives in Siberia is very much looking forward to the climate change you fear so don’t act like you speak for the entire world. Rising oceans might make Central Africa look more like North America. My original point is that this problem (if real) has already been solved by Tesla, and that the progressives who still think it is a problem are suddenly more concerned with supporting the unionized competitors of Tesla than acknowledging the supremacy of solar + batteries + EV transport.
I admire your comments. Of course everyone jumps on you, ignoring the valuable summary of actions that truly need discussion, and of what one person has accomplished, to move us forward with a real answer to our dependence on fossil fuels.
It also continues to astound me that proponents of the “climate crisis” narrative never make any mention whatsoever of the fact that the most valuable energy company/car company in the world makes solar panels, batteries, and electric cars. Instead climate crisis actors demonize Tesla for not being unionized (eg, Tesla excluded from the White House American Electric Car Summit) and are lining up at the piggie trough for exclusive Biden bucks that will fund infrastructure investments that will help Ford and GM catch up to Tesla.
To wit: our best bet to speed the transition to sustainable energy is to get out of the way of the capitalists who have already solved this problem with superior transportation and energy products.