30 replies to this topic

[Steve Scheifler]

https://environmenta...e-climate-scare

[Ron Alan]

A flip flopper...Amen! Thanks Steve!

I always wonder if things become clearer with age or do we just just get more stubborn(in general)?

[FTodaro]

Just another opinion, no better than the other ones.

[Steve Scheifler]

Just another opinion, no better than the other ones.

Not really. Unlike the vast overwhelming majority of people with an opinion on the subject (probably 99.99999%) he has dedicated his life to the subject, both hands-on and studying the science presented by others. One might at least give his “opinion” a bit more weight than the likes of AOC. Perhaps you should read the book. He not only looks at the entirety of the studies misquoted by others but discusses them with the authors who themselves are unhappy with mischaracterizations of the science. And to be clear, he does not dispute the existence of climate change or that man is contributing to it, or that it presents certain problems. I’m just a couple hours into it, but the message is that we, and planet earth, are not on the precipice of some irreversible collapse of the ecosystem which requires drastic action and huge sacrifice (like the green new deal). He’s pointing out that some of the proposed solutions are ultimately worse than the problems, and backs that up with studies and conclusions from the same organizations being misinterpreted or exaggerated by others. He also debunks some of the most common claims about the impact on the number and severity of natural disasters, taking an approach that has always been entirely obvious to me and surely many others, factoring in population growth and land use. Again, not denying the science or that man is causing some change, but showing how both the magnitude and consequences have been blown entirely out of proportion in recent years by the hysteria of a relative few in turn affecting the masses. His message appears pretty clear from early in the book, that the underlying science is largely good but is being used and abused for various reasons, and if we are on the verge of disaster it’s in the form of overreaction and radical “solutions” rather than inaction or a disregard for the planet. He also tipped his hand early that he sees the ultimate solution for energy, at least given what science knows today, as nuclear. He touches lightly on the true ecological costs of alternatives and “renewables”, I hope he goes into more detail on those later but the amount of land use required seems his big issue.

So true “climate change deniers” might let confirmation bias twist his words to support their position, but an honest reading will find that he’s merely trying to restore sanity to a topic that has spun completely out of control. If one cares to look, a great deal has actually been accomplished in the past 50 years to dramatically decrease emissions of power plants, automobiles and other forms of pollution while also cleaning up from prior sins. The author gets that and believes that guided by good science we can minimize the damage we do and find solutions for adapting to things like gradual warming, without the kinds of radical action promoted by ill informed activists. I hope his message has an impact.

[38bfast]

there is scientist on both sides of the issue that disagree. This is yet another case to divide the people on a partisan basis.

 

If the climate is changing, we would be much better off adapting to the change than trying to change its trends. It's naive to think we would ever change what China and India is going to do (the two major contributors). China would love nothing better than watch the US turn itself upside down trying to change the environment. 

[Steve Scheifler]

Part of his point, I think, is that what the public gets is generally not about what real scientists actually agree or disagree about much less an honest debate of those differences and plausible action to take. What we get, unless searching for much more, is mostly hype and misinformation from people without the credentials to preach on the subject let alone drive policy. To be clear, he is NOT denying much of the underlying SCIENCE, he is arguing against ill conceived “solutions” in response to erroneous conclusions from that science by unqualified “activists”.

[38bfast]

We are always being played. 

[dhrmx5]

there is scientist on both sides of the issue that disagree. This is yet another case to divide the people on a partisan basis.

 

If the climate is changing, we would be much better off adapting to the change than trying to change its trends. It's naive to think we would ever change what China and India is going to do (the two major contributors). China would love nothing better than watch the US turn itself upside down trying to change the environment. 

 

 

This has always been my position on the Kyoto and Paris accords and why they were bad for the USA. A hundred years ago when the USA when through it's Industrial Revolution and raised the citizens quality of life it was for tens of millions alive at the time. China and India want the same lack of controls for raising the quality of life for several BILLION people. For the rest of the world to have to pay the costs is pure BS...

[LarryKing]

How does this relate to racing Mazdas?

[38bfast]

We outsourced all our environmentally dirty manufacturing to other countries because there is no cost associated in keeping it clean like in the US. We cleaned our sand box but moved it all over to a much dirtier sand box. Hence making the problem worse. 

[Steve Scheifler]

How does this relate to racing Mazdas?

For me it’s relevant because I like many others reflect on my choice of activities and lifestyle to determine whether I’m living up to whatever societal and environmental standards I imagine myself having. I am also acutely aware that we as racers are just one viral activist away from being truly in the crosshairs. There are hints of it from time to time but it could abruptly get much more serious and a better understanding of the big picture seems important. And, I’ve already been quite critical and outspoken about fact-twisting and hype in other eco-posts on this site, perhaps I’m hoping that some who didn’t appreciate my comments will read the book and gain a better understanding.

[LarryKing]

And I've had my political opinions censored on this site. Not bitching about it, the site owner is free to run it as he wishes, just stating fact.

 

Since you've opened the gate what politically charged issue should we address next?

 

Wait a minute, now I get it, this is an advertisement for a book. Maybe this should be in the classifieds.

[Steve Scheifler]

And I've had my political opinions censored on this site. Not bitching about it, the site owner is free to run it as he wishes, just stating fact.

Since you've opened the gate what politically charged issue should we address next?

I’m thinking the pandemic dominates at the moment but figured a small break from that is in order. The book’s author and publisher probably gave a lot of thought about the wisdom of releasing the book at times like these. I hope it isn’t lost in the chaos.

[Ron Alan]

Censorship here only comes in the form of personal attacks or lewdness that I've seen?

Never seen a personal opinion that was respectful ever be removed?

 

Not much racing to talk about these days...although looking forward to the the Indy races this weekend!

 

Pandemic and the other newsmaker is getting old.

[LarryKing]

 

 

although looking forward to the the Indy races this weekend!

Don't forget the F1 season opener.

[LarryKing]

 

 

Never seen a personal opinion that was respectful ever be removed?

I have. (again, the site owner's right)

[Jim Drago]

I have. (again, the site owner's right)

   

[Sphinx]

I'm sorry, this guy is a self-proclaimed expert.  Not exactly a peer reviewed science guy.  Also, a huge difference between calling himself an environmentalist (whatever the hell that is) v. a scientist.

 

Failing to take action on climate change has to be the dumbest experiment in human history.  There's no do-over.  There is Mars though.....

[Ron Alan]

I have. (again, the site owner's right)

You? Name change issues?    Jim and I have not seen eye to eye on many occasions...never has he sensored me...though I'm sure he wanted to I have a lot of respect for him keeping the torch alive after Daniels moved on...this community is keeping SM alive...and a resource that is solid! Zero issues with what he gets out of it on a business level...if anything! For me personally I have never been on facebook...so this small human interaction is about all I  get these days. Sensor away Jim...Denny is good with it!

 

I'm sorry, this guy is a self-proclaimed expert.  Not exactly a peer reviewed science guy.  Also, a huge difference between calling himself an environmentalist (whatever the hell that is) v. a scientist.

 

Failing to take action on climate change has to be the dumbest experiment in human history.  There's no do-over.  There is Mars though.....

 

Lawyers are experts...self proclaimed for sure...but dont know jack about cars     

[Tom Sager]

https://environmenta...e-climate-scare

Thanks Steve.  Will read and comment later.