Where do you get this stuff? Never mind, I don’t want to know.
1 Like
Harvard U. has announced that they will no longer invest any of their $41.9 BILLION endowment fund in the fossil fuel industry. But… hey… what do they know? They’re only… Harvard. 
I can’t zoom in on this iPhone in either graph, but those graphs appear to show a pretty small temp change with an average line drawn through the middle. That’s what I’m seeing anyway. I have read that article before, btw.
The fact that their direction is rapidly up doesn’t affect your opinion? OK…
Here are the last comments from me, and then I’ll digress and comment no further (I promise), as I’m sure we are way off topic. We all kept it pretty civil, though, so good for us 
.
The world is pretty big. The atmosphere is bigger. The expanse of time is pretty large. The temperature change thus far is pretty small. We haven’t kept records indefinitely, but we know there were far more extreme temperature swings than we are seeing now, supposedly without even the existence of man. I honestly don’t believe we (man) can draw valid conclusions on catastrophic climate change by looking at a slight temp increase over a century or so that correlates with the industrial revolution. I’ve heard it said that “correlation isn’t causation” anyway, right? Maybe I am wrong. I’m open to that idea, and I think everyone (even people who claim the science is settled) should be open to possibly being wrong too. Now you’ll probably say if I’m wrong, the consequences are dire. I’m going to say if you’re wrong, the government is going to spend us into oblivion and mandate all kind of goofiness trying to curtail something that never was an issue. At this point, I’d like to avoid that. There’s no telling how many billions have been spent on this idea already.
I’ll keep reading articles with an open mind. Unfortunately there’s…really too much info that doesn’t tell me anything other than repeated dire warnings of the future and a small temperature increase over the last century plus. I can’t see any of the tests for myself that you mentioned. If you have a link to anything, I’ll check it out. So if I’m 100% honest, at this point, I’m not convinced. Should I “lean not on my own understanding” and have faith in the theory? That sounds an awful lot like a religion. Or, I guess I could lie and say I’m a believer. I think a lot of folks just watch the hype on the news and hear “scientists all agree on this” and just…believe it without looking into it much or thinking about it.
As for the existence of God and a creator, I see evidence all around. Not “proof”, though.
1 Like
It doesn’t take the temp to change a lot to cause catastrophic consequences.
Hi, all. Bunch of flags being thrown down by some of your colleagues that the discussion has gone off topic. I know digressions are part of the appeal, but can we please weave back toward the fuel/cars/energy aspects from history of science and legitimacy of climate change? I said I’d close it down but I’d rather not use the nuclear option. Thanks.
So they claim. How they test that theory out, I’ve never seen.
I already said I’d bow out, so strike that comment from the record. I didn’t want to just delete it though. Afraid it would look like I said something more nefarious.
You got it, I’m done. You let it go further than I expected already. But we were mostly good boys and played well together lol
That maybe what YOU believe, but it’s not what scientists who study this stuff believe. They have computer models based on scientific evidence showing what could happen. There isn’t one scientist who’ll say it will happen. They base everything on the odds of what could happen based on the current knowledge and understanding we have. That’s science.
No scientist says that. Maybe some politicians do. But scientists do say the current evidence and knowledge points to this direction. The vast vast majority of scientist world wide agree on this. You’re going to ignore them and instead listen to some guy on the internet who probably never took a science class in their life? His opinion is more valuable over scientists who have dedicated their life working on this? Do you have scientific knowledge on the subject? I don’t go to my car mechanic to diagnose and treat a brain tumor. That’s basically what you’re doing.
Not a religious scholar but I do know several PhDs who are who see no conflict between their Literal reading and science. i.e. God created the world in 7 days but how long in God’s terms a “day” was? 24 hours or 24 million years?
More significant, a literal reading is that with the gift of knowledge, “Man becomes a Steward of His Creation” so what would a good steward do if he sees signs of a thunderstorm approaching?
In automotive terms, when we’re being warned of significant negative world changes due to our actions, I’d assume that any sincere believer would be actively supporting anything that could avoid these changes, electric vs gas, hydrogen, wind, solar, nuclear, fusion, whatever. .
I must have missed the injunctions, “Suffer the coal miner to level the mountain tops and pollute the streams” and “Pump more crude and create earthquakes in OK” because I’d have assumed that faith based beliefs would be in the forefront of this change.
.
Yet look at the big increase in catastrophic climate events, like previously unheard of levels of drought in the Western US and a huge number of named storms. You don’t find the increase in ferocity of tropical storms and hurricanes that move through the gulf coast into Mississippi unsettling? A few degrees increase in surface temperature is on the ocean too, and that allows the storms to pick up a lot more water. Then it’s dumped on you. In my area, we see a lot more tornadoes than we did even 5 years ago.
No kidding, I remember it very clearly. I didn’t encounter proof that the Seventies environmentalists were funded by the coal lobby until 10-15 years ago, but I suspected it long before.
Not all, of course; one large organization was mentioned in the source I don’t remember now - but guess who had all the funding? The propaganda was partly anti-nuclear, and partly openly pro-coal. They also advocated wind, solar, and fusion power - because these did not pose any threat whatever to the coal industry at the time. The latter two still don’t.
Modern coal is in fact very clean and safe compared to what it was sixty years ago (and there are some modern enemies of the coal industry still misrepresenting it based on ancient facts). The CO2 emissions, OTOH, are quite irreducible. You can’t get the power unless you burn the carbon.
The scariest thing I have ever seen is proposals to store CO2 from fossil fuels. The pressure required is enormous and a single major leak could wipe out all vertebrate life on Earth… warm, clean, safe, coal!
@cdaquila Carolyn , me thinks it is time for you to use Thor’s Hammer on this thread .
4 Likes
Yes, it’s very important to silence dissent.
I was around then, remember nothing of the sort. And you have nothing to back up the claim.
Coal is worst in CO2 generated per BTU. Can’t change that.
1 Like
Believe in Climate Change or not…I do know that the air is a lot cleaner after cleaning up much of auto pollution from the 60’s. I grew up north of Syracuse NY. I remember driving into the city on a beautiful sunny summer day and when we were close enough you could hardly see the city building because of all the car pollution. It was literally a huge cloud of smoke emanating from the cars/trucks in the city. Once in the city you could hardly see the sky. There are people who don’t think that’s a problem and want to reverse car emissions.
I don’t see a point (or any benefit) of reversing car emissions standards that are in place. I don’t know anyone who wants to do that or have any idea why someone would want to do that. Other than the occasional converter failure on a 20 year old car where an individual doesn’t want to replace the cat due to cost. Maybe you’re talking about the emissions checks that some states have and people wanting to reverse those?
That is a little different than CO2 though, which is going to be produced pretty much any time anything organic is burned, as I understand it.
I do have a neighbor that wants to remove the cats and install long tube headers on his 2002 or so 5.3 Silverado. Kind of a waste of money and effort anyway in my opinion on a vehicle with over 200k miles. He’ll wind up spending the money on the headers and get a little better performance, a check engine light, and an exhaust leak or two. Then he’ll eventually get a performance issue, won’t know anything has changed because the cel is now always on anyway, and ask me for help 
.
Think Orange person .
1 Like
Oh, TN Vols fans. I got it.
Trump and CAFE would be too political for me to think about.