On 2/4/2020 5:34 PM, dpb wrote:
On 2/3/2020 7:46 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 7:46:17 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 2/3/2020 4:52 PM, trader_4 wrote:
...

The issue isn't people agreeing, it;s that an extremely high percentage
of climate scientists that study it and have the facts and science
agree that it's anthropogenic.Â*Â*Â* I prefer to listen to them, instead
of Frank, Rush, Hannity, Trump, you, etc.

About now is the time someone here usually points to some climate
scientist who's long dead or some scientist in a field other than
climate science, who say otherwise, as if they counter the other 97%.

I always come back to the question of how many of these are being funded
by sources that would dry up if the answer were any different than the
one they are producing.Â* One can convince oneself of any lack of bias
pretty easily when its ones livelihood and career at stake.

And how much funding has the oil, coal, nat gas industries done and
are still doing?Â* Can funding affect science to some extent, sure.
But worldwide?Â* And virtually all the scientists?Â* Are they lying that
CO2 has increased 33% in just the last 100 years, while previous
naturally driven cycles took tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands
of years?Â* The science looks increasingly sound to me.Â* I was very
skeptical twenty years ago, but even then I said we should take
reasonable
steps to reduce CO2 emissions.Â* Most of that has been a good thing,
95% eff furnaces, higher MPG vehicles, better insulated buildings,
CFL, LEDs, etc.Â* And ten years ago I thought we should do more.
At this point, I think we should be doing even more.Â* But sadly we
have a president who bailed out of the Paris accord and wants to
burn more coal.
...

I have little doubt the measurements are accurate; I have much less
faith in the projections made by the models over millennia have captured
all the processes to be anything other than just what they are--computer
models.

In particular, and I ask as I really haven't even tried to see if it has
been addressed at all, could/would their models have been able to
predict the entrance into and out of the last ice age?Â* If not, they're
missing something pretty doggone significant that is far bigger than man
and fossil fuels.

All the little technological niceties are nice and have value, but
destroying a whole segment of the economy over it just seems, in my
mind, pointless as I simply think it really wouldn't make any
discernible difference anyways.


I recently posted numbers on the amount of fuel we burn and it is
incredible. Burning fuel adds heat. I'm not qualified to say how much
but the scientists seem to think it is quite a bit.

I don't think we have to destroy a segment of society and return to
living in caves. I do think we can easily reduce the amount of fuel we
use and help future generations. It won't happen overnight, just as it
took us a long time to get here it will take a long time to reduce
consumption.

A century ago there were larger families and the average house size was
1000q sq.ft. Now is it about 2500. We are heating and cooling much
more. Do we really need that much space? A couple my age retired and
moved to a new house. Two people, mid 60s and the bought a 7000 sw. ft.
house. No way would I want that to take care of. Takes a lot of fuel
for no good reason.

Do we need huge SUVs to haul a bag of groceries? EVs may help in the
future be we are not there yet. Probably won't be for another 20 years.

Wind and solar help, but we can easily reduce emissions with small
lifestyle changes. Sensibility. I know I did dumb things in my life
because it seemed a good idea at the time but now realize I could have
done more with less. And still be happy.