Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

One party says they're going to do nothing and will do... nothing.

The other party says it's critical that we do something, and fast, and will do... next to nothing.

This is my view as well, obviously.  The thing is, option 2 does mean spending a lot of money, comparatively, and pretty much wastefully nearly as I can discern.  Tax credits for wealthy folks and companies, etc.  It's wealthier folks buying EVs today, not poorer folks, and getting the $7500.  

The CORE issue, for me, is that if anyone looks hard at the data, which is readily available, it becomes depressingly clear that "we" cannot do much of anything to hinder climate change IF the models are roughly correct.

I do fear the models COULD be off in the bad direction.  I know they are off.

I opened up the condo this morning, it's 63°F, "football weather", and the local "team" is playing in Ireland.

Atlantic Niña on the verge of developing. Here's why we should pay attention. | NOAA Climate.gov
Atlantic Niña on the verge of developing. Here's why we should pay attention. | NOAA Climate.gov

The two unpredictable things, I think, are dust and this weird cooling trend in the ocean, which is unexplained (do far), no one seems even to  have an hypothesis.

I think our climate is far more complex than anyone can effectively model.

The circulation process begins as warm water near the surface moves toward the poles (such as the Gulf Stream in the North Atlantic), where it cools and forms sea ice. As this ice forms, salt is left behind in the ocean water. Due to the large amount of salt in the water, it becomes denser, sinks down, and is carried southwards in the depths below. Eventually, the water gets pulled back up towards the surface and warms up in a process called upwelling, completing the cycle.

The entire circulation cycle of the AMOC, and the global conveyor belt, is quite slow. It takes an estimated 1,000 years for a parcel (any given cubic meter) of water to complete its journey along the belt. Even though the whole process is slow on its own, there is some evidence that the AMOC is slowing down further. NOAA funds research to better understand this potential slowing, as well as to investigate the AMOC’s role in coastal sea level changes and its relationship to extreme events.

If climate change is in part due to our actions, it's worth noting, I think.  I tried to read various and sundry about the models, it's not easy for me.  They have to be based on past observations of things like "global T" (which is difficult to measure).  The very simple calculation of how much that should increase with CO2 levels doesn't  give one much of a factor, it's a tenth of a degree or so as I recall, but then they add "forcing factors" to "fit" the past history.  Then they modify as needed with new data, it's always adjusting for more recent inputs, it has to be that way.

OK, fine, but that isn't really the best way to model a thing.  There is no other way with climate. If a model is off a bit with new data, "they" adjust some forcing factor to correct it, so the models are "always right".  Whether they are predictive or not is a clear concern.

Forcing factors include things like the impact of cloud cover, changes in albedo due to ice melting, ocean factors, stuff in the stratosphere, you name it.  This is why we have 4-5-6-7 more or less accepted models, when there should be only one, ideally.

I am NOT a "denier", in the simplest sense, I'm just very dubious about these models.  Things well could be WORSE.

And then we get back to my core point that 'we", humanity", aren't doing anything like near enough to temper this thing.  And we can't.