FOURTH NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT

[NoTies]

The there's this.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I disagree with giving tax credits for Tesla, why? Cause they are the toys of the rich, and I disagree with the tax payers subsidizing rich toys.

The rich are always the early adopters - they had motorcars to play with at least a decade before the Model T. The technology does trickle down. In this case, Teslas are a prime force for battery development

So I agree with most of you guys, yet I disagree with the way most of you think it should be done.

we're up for new ideas. Whatcha got?

[Buc210]

So it seems that some pigs are more equal than other pigs. Ain't gonna give up their SUVs or 10,000 sft homes, eh? Special.

[ontherocks83]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Climate change is a more comprehensive term than global warming, and, hence, more scientifically inclusive and accurate.

Global warming refers to the upward temperature trend across the entire Earth since the early 20th century, and most notably since the late 1970s, due to the increase in fossil fuel emissions since the industrial revolution.

Climate change refers to a broad range of global phenomena created predominantly by burning fossil fuels, which add heat-trapping gases to Earth’s atmosphere. These other phenomena include the increased temperature trends described by global warming, but also encompass changes such as sea level rise; ice mass loss in Greenland, Antarctica, the Arctic and mountain glaciers worldwide; changes in precipitation patterns, and extreme weather events, et al.

Sorry but substituting climate change for global warming is wanting your cake and eating it too. You can't blame every hot and cold anomaly on global warming, but you can on "climate change."

By the way I'm still waiting for the ocean to swallow up coastal cities, you know with the rise and all that has been predicted forever. No honestly I really am, being that the certain affiliations most city dwellers have that are opposite to mine I wouldn't cry over a new coast line.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by Woodland Hills

Actually that is only an issue and is only omitted by the Fox News type climate deniers. The fact based scientific community has been in agreement for years as to responsibility, you just wouldn’t know it if you get your opinions assigned by the Three Dolts on a Divan.

Science doesn't care what you think.

That you mention any specific media enterprise is silly. Equally frivolous is the blind assumption anthropogenic warming has been quantified or quantitatively differentiated from natural climate change. Ill venture a good guess here as you imply you don't understand the distinction that I'd be wasting my time trying to explain it.

[Tillsbury]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

However I disagree with giving tax credits for Tesla, why? Cause they are the toys of the rich, and I disagree with the tax payers subsidizing rich toys.

I see your point, but the idea of tax incentives for these kinds of vehicles is to encourage the development of the technology. There are a number of other manufacturers working on this, and of course the expensive technology is only available on their higher-end models. With sufficient encouragement (tax benefits) and volume will come the cheaper vehicles for everyone else. This was always Tesla’s plan anyway: the Roadster would prove the technology and provide seed funding for the luxury model S, and the volume of those would pay for the lower-cost model 3, and once that’s going at high volume every other manufacturer is going to have to get serious about the idea.

Giving tax credits is a simple way of speeding up this process.

[chris95040]

Originally Posted by ontherocks83

Sorry but substituting climate change for global warming is wanting your cake and eating it too. You can't blame every hot and cold anomaly on global warming, but you can on "climate change."



By the way I'm still waiting for the ocean to swallow up coastal cities, you know with the rise and all that has been predicted forever. No honestly I really am, being that the certain affiliations most city dwellers have that are opposite to mine I wouldn't cry over a new coast line.

First of all, science is always correcting and refining itself, so to think you caught them with their pants down because a theory changes is to fundamentally misunderstand science.

Second, more overall heat in the system means more energy. Perhaps that means more storms, more localized extremes, etc. I dunno. I’m not a climate scientist or a meteorologist or anything like that. I just put my (hopefully not misplaced) trust in that branch of science the same way I would for a cancer (oncology) or while I drive over a bridge (newtonian physics).

Why one particular branch of science is considered garbage by this crowd is beyond me, but I dunno why they tend to hate people born outside the US either. I think, like with racism, our efforts would be better spent not trying to change that mob’s mind, but pushing it into the dark corners of society where their mentality slowly dies off from type 2 diabetes.

[AiniA]

Originally Posted by chris95040

The idea that if we found out MMGW was insignificant then all the scientists involved would be out of work is so breathtakingly absurd its difficult to know where to begin.

First of all, many of the people drawing conclusions in support of caution with carbon are in adjacent sciences like biology or geology or meteorology and would simply move on to another topic if we closed the case on MMGW.

Furthermore, I’ve never met a single highly educated person devoting their life to science who wouldnt be utterly overjoyed to learn MMGW was insignificant. The idea that the whole scientific community is hell bent on derailing our economy just to keep their mediocre university position is tin foil hat crazy.

Thats why you only hear it from folks like cranky refrigerator salesmen.

It would seem to me that if a credible research scientist found convincing data that MMGW wasn't happening they would get an incredible amount of funding for their next project. This just hasn't happened.

[chris95040]

Originally Posted by AiniA

It would seem to me that if a credible research scientist found convincing data that MMGW wasn't happening they would get an incredible amount of funding for their next project. This just hasn't happened.

Correct. One of like a million holes you can poke in their bizarre conspiracy theory. But observations like this simply do not matter to that crowd, the conversation is pointless.

[Buc210]

So some pigs are more equal than other pigs and don't feel that they need to give up their SUVs or 10,000 sqft homes, eh? Put these turds closest to the wildfires & hurricanes. If they're sailors.....put 'em aboard ship in one!

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Teslas are a prime force for battery development

No, Tesla is not, their battery is nothing more or less than thousands of Panasonic 18650 Li-Po cells. Now years later, the new battery, is a larger 18650 cell, cause I’m sure it cost less money to use less, but bigger cells.

What will happen is the “real” car companies will begin producing electric automobiles and out perform Tesla, unless of course the snob appeal or whatever it’s called keeps them alive.
I speak of whatever it is that keeps the I devices on top, Yeti stainless steel cups and other designer name brand things.

My plan? Not sure I’m no economics expert, but am smart enough to realize that this is what this is, an economics issue.
But I’d start with reviving the CAFE standards, and make it so that SUV’s and full size pickup trucks count.
But then I’m stupid enough to think that a flat tax rate, with zero exemptions would work too.

[Schrewsburyduo]

The level of arguing by all the anti science trolls on this thread is just sickening. There's consensus, really. Get used to it. it's not just the US govt. It's the whole world... IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The larger question for all of us here on this forum, is how will it impact what we like doing - being on the water. Since the anti action people are torpedoing any real solutions... What will this mean in the next decade or three for us? Will weather patterns slowly start being more unpredictable -(like this past summer), will the Bermuda high be less predictably in control of Atlantic weather? Will the British Admiralty charts be less of a dependable means to plan passages? This is what worries me on this forum, rather than all the petty arguing over the report...

[NoTies]

It appears from the "caibre" of the people arguing against climate change, its causes and its effects that one of the biggest problems is an exceptionalist and nationalist attitude. I have a God given right to drive my absurdly over powered gas guzzling truck, just like my God given right to own unlimited numbers of semi automatic rifles. I wonder if there are any scientist who are willing to undertake research into the correlation between gun ownership and climate change denial.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Tillsbury

I see your point, but the idea of tax incentives for these kinds of vehicles is to encourage the development of the technology. There are a number of other manufacturers working on this, and of course the expensive technology is only available on their higher-end models. With sufficient encouragement (tax benefits) and volume will come the cheaper vehicles for everyone else. This was always Tesla’s plan anyway: the Roadster would prove the technology and provide seed funding for the luxury model S, and the volume of those would pay for the lower-cost model 3, and once that’s going at high volume every other manufacturer is going to have to get serious about the idea.



Giving tax credits is a simple way of speeding up this process.

Work it backwards, instead of tax credits to get it going, have it rely on simple economics. So long as you live on tax credits, you will have slick willies lining up to capitalize on it.
I had friend in my home town try to talk me into buying a golf cart, he and many of his buddies were. See it’s an electric vehicle, and when you applied the tax credits, the golf cart was free.
Of course you didn’t drive the golf cart anywhere, you drove your F-150, just got a free golf cart.
If it’s cheaper to operate let people buy it and save money, don’t try to jump start anything with tax credits, all you do is make the business dependent on those credits.
Tesla’s is about to expire, want to bet that a special Tesla law will be passed, extending tax credits for Tesla? I mean it’s just getting going good, don’t jerk the rug out from under them now, right?

[chris95040]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Work it backwards, instead of tax credits to get it going, have it rely on simple economics.

Simple economics don’t work when the true cost is indirect, tragedy of the commons and all that. Pretty basic stuff to the college educated crowd, frankly.