EV Thoughts Thread: cause the old farts did their usual thing

[565565]

That pretty much sums up the big picture. Hopefully the next species will have Blackwings, they’re too much fun to miss out.

Maybe 66 Million years ago, the same thought crossed someone's mind.

""The CT5-V Blackwing is a tyrannosaurus, an apex predator the likes of which the world may never know again." —K.C. Colwel"

2022 Cadillac CT5-V Blackwing at Lightning Lap 2022

The apex predator is still a contender for quickest four-door. Maybe next time.

www.caranddriver.com

 

[Roadhawk]

Carlin was the absolute best. He is greatly missed.

 

[rubberduck]

Carlin was the absolute best. He is greatly missed.

Chris Rock ain't too bad either.

 

[Roadhawk]

Chris Rock ain't too bad either.

Agreed...but Carlin was really special....one of a kind....supremely talented, funny and always relevant.

 

[rubberduck]

Agreed...but Carlin was really special....one of a kind....supremely talented, funny and always relevant.

Yes he was. I was a big fan of Richard Pryor and Robin Williams when they were alive. So many greats with very different styles. Dave Chappelle is very relevant and absolutely hilarious.

 

[Roadhawk]

Love Chappelle and Pryor and Williams too. Tragic WRT Williams...Pryor too in many ways. Got to respect Chappelle's honesty, steel kahunas and insight (much like Carlin).

 

[albertw]

If you get nothing else from this post, try to take to heart that correlation is not the same as causation. Here is a famous example from medicine: Observational studies identify correlation. In medicine, they are followed up with randomized controlled trials because those studies show causation. It is entirely possible the two show different results - ie the correlation suggested a treatment improves health, but actually cause higher mortality when cause and effect are studied.

I'm surprised that no one pointed out the problem with this argument. We do not have multiple earths to use for a randomized, controlled trail. Asserting that one is necessary before we do anything about greenhouse gas emissions is the same as claiming that we should never do anything about it, regardless of how much other evidence is amassed.

Which brings to mind an old joke. If you were out flying aerobatics (my main hobby) and the wings broke, would you bail out or go down with the ship because parachutes have never been subjected to a randomized controlled trial?

My personal opinion on the current state of climate research is that we are at the broken airplane stage.

 

[Jim2000]

I'm surprised that no one pointed out the problem with this argument. We do not have multiple earths to use for a randomized, controlled trail. Asserting that one is necessary before we do anything about greenhouse gas emissions is the same as claiming that we should never do anything about it, regardless of how much other evidence is amassed.

If you want to do something about emissions, then vote for people who will put pressure on China and India to curtail their emissions. We currently don't have that in the current administration.

 

[rubberduck]

If you want to do something about emissions, then vote for people who will put pressure on China and India to curtail their emissions. We currently don't have that in the current administration.

Instead the UN is asking us for trillions to pay to undeveloped and underdeveloped countries in compensation for our contribution to emissions. Does that sound fishy to you?

 

[Jim2000]

Instead the UN is asking us for trillions to pay to undeveloped and underdeveloped countries in compensation for our contribution to emissions. Does that sound fishy to you?

Of course it is fishy. The UN agenda is against us and our way of life.

 

[99sport]

I'm surprised that no one pointed out the problem with this argument. We do not have multiple earths to use for a randomized, controlled trail. Asserting that one is necessary before we do anything about greenhouse gas emissions is the same as claiming that we should never do anything about it, regardless of how much other evidence is amassed.

Which brings to mind an old joke. If you were out flying aerobatics (my main hobby) and the wings broke, would you bail out or go down with the ship because parachutes have never been subjected to a randomized controlled trial?

My personal opinion on the current state of climate research is that we are at the broken airplane stage.

I never made any claims about what "we should" or should not do. I was trying to point out that if you have some skepticism, that does not make you a wacco. Rather than telling me "the facts are clear" this is human caused, as another poster did, a more convincing argument is as follows: if climate change is due to human sources, and we do nothing, the consequences are likely to be severe. But if the opposite is true, and this is due to natural events and we reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions we will have not done any harm.

But you made my point, we don't have two planets and we cant do a randomized controlled trail - the cause of any change will not be clear for centuries.

However I disagree that we are at the broken airplane stage. I could write pages with charts of past climate over millions of years or that introducing aerosols in the upper atmosphere could be a simple solution to cool the planet and that carbon capture might also be a solution, but it won't change your mind or anyone else's - just like I'm not likely to convince you that you worship the wrong God or your religious faith is wrong. The current climate debate is a debate on religion - that burning fossil fuels is a sin and the only path to salvation is to replace fossil fuels with electricity (although it's not clear to me where that electricity is supposed to come from). And religion is based on faith - something you believe in your core irrespective of logic or rational arguments.

 

[Jim2000]

I never made any claims about what "we should" or should not do. I was trying to point out that if you have some skepticism, that does not make you a wacco. Rather than telling me "the facts are clear" this is human caused, as another poster did, a more convincing argument is as follows: if climate change is due to human sources, and we do nothing, the consequences are likely to be severe. But if the opposite is true, and this is due to natural events and we reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions we will have not done any harm.

But you made my point, we don't have two planets and we cant do a randomized controlled trail - the cause of any change will not be clear for centuries.

However I disagree that we are at the broken airplane stage. I could write pages with charts of past climate over millions of years or that introducing aerosols in the upper atmosphere could be a simple solution to cool the planet and that carbon capture might also be a solution, but it won't change your mind or anyone else's - just like I'm not likely to convince you that you worship the wrong God or your religious faith is wrong. The current climate debate is a debate on religion - that burning fossil fuels is a sin and the only path to salvation is to replace fossil fuels with electricity (although it's not clear to me where that electricity is supposed to come from). And religion is based on faith - something you believe in your core irrespective of logic or rational arguments

I agree that having a different opinion does not make you a wacco. We need to be much more accepting of people who disagree with us. There are multiple opinions on this forum about how to solve various problems with our cars. We should not demonize others who disagree with our viewpoint. In regards to global warming or climate change, people need to look at the opposite viewpoints. Isn't that what science is all about?

 

[rubberduck]

I agree that having a different opinion does not make you a wacco. We need to be much more accepting of people who disagree with us. There are multiple opinions on this forum about how to solve various problems with our cars. We should not demonize others who disagree with our viewpoint. In regards to global warming or climate change, people need to look at the opposite viewpoints. Isn't that what science is all about?

And even if one is 100% convinced that humans need to take some action to “cool” the planet what are the alternative methods. With our luck at climate prediction modeling we will create an ice age before we’re done.

 

[Roadhawk]

The current climate debate is a debate on religion - that burning fossil fuels is a sin and the only path to salvation is to replace fossil fuels with electricity (although it's not clear to me where that electricity is supposed to come from). And religion is based on faith - something you believe in your core irrespective of logic or rational arguments.

While indeed one may categorize climate beliefs etc as having a religious component for some/many (on all sides)...this isn't entirely true.as most of us are swayed by and base our beliefs on logical and rational arguments made by folks whom we acknowledge to have better expertise. This doesn't necessarily mean our minds are closed but we choose to believe the facts and better arguments as we know/understand them and as they conform to some of what we can see with out own eyes.

Of course we aren't the experts....and can only judge based on presentations we are aware of and without necessarily access to or even understanding all the pertinent facts. Do even the "experts"? Well, while I acknowledge the possibility of biases in some - for the most part, unless something really plausible to the contrary is presented, on some level we need to accept their expertise and the results of their scientific understanding (also realizing that its not the do all and end all...but just the best we can do at the moment).

Can this belief be termed religious. Certainly in a sense. Just as we can't be expected to really understand much of the details of the underlying science and technology of any/most things in general (even the most educated folks can't really know all)...at some level one has to accept "on faith" that these folks mostly have it right (as best they can understanding that knowledge isn't absolute and its always growing and changing with acquired data etc). But if one understands and accepts what science is and the limitations of science...well what else have you got? Better "faith" in the science then "faith" in some contrarian unless perhaps they can bring some plausible alternative to the table.

So yeah - maybe they're wrong...but as others here have said what if they're not....all costs must be weighed and rational decisions made. I don;t disagree that some have perhaps lost their rationality in this "debate" and aren't always seeing things clearly (on all sides).

 

[Roadhawk]

I agree that having a different opinion does not make you a wacco. We need to be much more accepting of people who disagree with us. There are multiple opinions on this forum about how to solve various problems with our cars. We should not demonize others who disagree with our viewpoint. In regards to global warming or climate change, people need to look at the opposite viewpoints. Isn't that what science is all about?

I agree (no demonization and everyone's views should be respected even if disagreed with) .

And while we should demand and expect scientists to consider all plausible alternate explanations for things and to honestly incorporate new facts and data as they arise this doesn't mean that all alternative explanations or such need to be treated equally. If the research is clearly suggesting underlying cause and effect...well unless more plausible explanations arise or data is presented...well...again what to do? As far as I can tell most science wrt climate is following this even if perhaps there are examples of folks with minority opinions not being widely heard.

Based on what i can see the planet does seem to be (rapidly) warming and the case for human cause has been made. But what do i really know?

 

[Roadhawk]

Aside from their many other limitations - the one beef I have with EVs (and folks thinking EVs are the answer etc) is that our current means of producing electricity are still too "dirty" and we need to more rapidly implement alternative clean production.

Anyway fossil fuels won't last forever, regardless, so it seems to make sense to move away from them to at least forestall their eventual depletion. None of this will happen overnight...and we'll be using fossil fuels for stuff for a long time no matter what we do.

 

[Jim2000]

And even if one is 100% convinced that humans need to take some action to “cool” the planet what are the alternative methods. With our luck at climate prediction modeling we will create an ice age before we’re done.

I remember when a certain political group in the 70s and 80s was screaming that we were headed for an ice age. They also were vehement about all fossil fuels would run out by the year 2000.

 

[Jim2000]

While indeed one may categorize climate beliefs etc as having a religious component for some/many (on all sides)...this isn't entirely true.as most of us are swayed by and base our beliefs on logical and rational arguments made by folks whom we acknowledge to have better expertise. This doesn't necessarily mean our minds are closed but we choose to believe the facts and better arguments as we know/understand them and as they conform to some of what we can see with out own eyes.

Of course we aren't the experts....and can only judge based on presentations we are aware of and without necessarily access to or even understanding all the pertinent facts. Do even the "experts"? Well, while I acknowledge the possibility of biases in some - for the most part, unless something really plausible to the contrary is presented, on some level we need to accept their expertise and the results of their scientific understanding (also realizing that its not the do all and end all...but just the best we can do at the moment).

Can this belief be termed religious. Certainly in a sense. Just as we can't be expected to really understand much of the details of the underlying science and technology of any/most things in general (even the most educated folks can't really know all)...at some level one has to accept "on faith" that these folks mostly have it right (as best they can understanding that knowledge isn't absolute and its always growing and changing with acquired data etc). But if one understands and accepts what science is and the limitations of science...well what else have you got? Better "faith" in the science then "faith" in some contrarian unless perhaps they can bring some plausible alternative to the table.

So yeah - maybe they're wrong...but as others here have said what if they're not....all costs must be weighed and rational decisions made. I don;t disagree that some have perhaps lost their rationality in this "debate" and aren't always seeing things clearly (on all sides).

I don't believe anything that has a political component to it such as man made climate change. Take the politics out of it and allow scientific research to run studies without a political bias and we would all be better off.

 

[Jim2000]

I agree (no demonization and everyone's views should be respected even if disagreed with) .

And while we should demand and expect scientists to consider all plausible alternate explanations for things and to honestly incorporate new facts and data as they arise this doesn't mean that all alternative explanations or such need to be treated equally. If the research is clearly suggesting underlying cause and effect...well unless more plausible explanations arise or data is presented...well...again what to do? As far as I can tell most science wrt climate is following this even if perhaps there are examples of folks with minority opinions not being widely heard.

Based on what i can see the planet does seem to be (rapidly) warming and the case for human cause has been made. But what do i really know?

The temperature of the earth has increased 1 degree F over the last 100 years. This is not rapid warming. This was in a document produced by the White House Initiative on Global Climate Change during the Clinton presidency. The question is are we becoming warmer more rapidly in the last 20 years? Has the slope of the graph changed? There are many reports on the increased solar output having a greater effect on our temperature than the amount of carbon dioxide produced by man. There is no question that man's release of carbon dioxide has increased over the last 50 years, but is that the main contributing factor to Climate Change? I am not convinced that it is. I still believe that our climate is extremely complicated and it is very difficult to prove that one variable such as man's increase in carbon dioxide is the main culprit. If I believed otherwise, I would be driving a Prius.

 

[rubberduck]

I remember when a certain political group in the 70s and 80s was screaming that we were headed for an ice age. They also were vehement about all fossil fuels would run out by the year 2000.

I remember those predictions about fossil fuels running out, that was all agenda driven. Based on actual data of what we have discovered recently we’re good for at least 200 years. By that time there is an excellent chance that nuclear fusion will be practical. But to develop these new energy technologies we need lots of cheap reliable energy and fossil fuels is all we have for that.