Відео

From my understanding the O2 sensor doesn't directly contact the anti-theft module, but it's still a chance you're taking !??

Poor wiring or connections, including those related to the O2 sensor, can potentially affect multiple systems, including: *Related Systems* 1. Powertrain Control Module (PCM) 2. Engine Control Module (ECM) 3. Transmission Control Module (TCM) 4. Anti-Theft System 5. Fuel Injection System *Potential Issues* 1. Fault codes 2. Engine performance problems 3. Transmission issues 4. Stalling or rough idling 5. Decreased fuel efficiency *Why?* 1. Shared electrical circuits 2. Interconnected systems 3. Common ground points 4. Wiring harnesses *Precautions* 1. Consult repair manuals 2. Use proper tools and procedures 3. Disconnect battery before starting work 4. Double-check connections and wiring The PCM module, being the primary computer controlling engine and transmission functions, can be particularly sensitive to electrical issues.

no, O2 sensors have a plug & receiver type connector. The PCM will likely run rough on change out because the PCM is a PID controller that has self correcting gain. As your old sensors aged their signal changes and the PCM corrects for that. Once you get a new sensor the PCM has a step change in signal and it takes a few minutes to recalibrate. sensor 1 is upstream, sensor 2 is downstream.

@@michaelmappin4425 I recommend cocomelon.

@@Man_in_the_moon_oahu there are 4 sensors total. 2 per bank (upstream, downstream). Upstream and downstream sensors are different. Make sure to order Denso sensors. The ECM gets cranky with any other brand.

I believe bank 1 is the passenger side. Sensor 2 is the one on top of the cat.

Did you find it working on mine now

need this one I'm thinking it's the one by the oil pan>??? My pipe near it is glowing red! burning rich.

@@MysterSer333 it’s the one right up front easiest one to get to

@@user-ql4bc8tx5p my bad bro I must haven’t noticed your comment. It’s the closest one up front easiest one to get to.

@@spencerhayward4803 i have a p2273, no power, and pipe is burning hot right next to this sensor. I’m being told I need to replace the cats. So confused but found the location now thanks

Unfortunately it did not. My knocksensor on that bank was bad and I think fuel leaked by before I fixed it damaging the cat.

Depends on which subaru. Mine is being difficult my wifes yes

I did get to it by climbing over the top of the engine and building a daisy chain of fittings. including swivels. Unfortunately i broke the honeycomb on bank 1 sensor 1 and ended up junking the vehicle because of an electrical issue.

@@stevenburnett133 what was the electrical issue?

Used to I was northshore my wife is southshore.

I can't speak to that model as I don't own it. However you can trace the exhaust lines back to the manifold. You should be able to find the cats that way. Then it's just a matter of locating the sensors before and after.

Your correct. This was minor compared to the bathroom project I'm working on.

Ultimately rad risk is really quite low. In fact chronic low dose exposure seems to produce a hormesis effect IE positive health improvements. I'll try to put up a video soon discussing this.

Sorry to break this into two comment but I can't flip back and forth between your comments and my response on a phone so I couldn't see most of it. I also agree with your point on over diagnosis. Behavior is a spectrum and we need to treat behaviors that are more than 2 standard deviations above the norm if it causes problems in their lives, however it seems everyone and their brother has a mental illness strongly suggesting that either we are overdiagnosing or modern civilization is not conducive to the human psyche.

O2 sensors always come in pairs pre and post cat. The pre cat sensor feeds back post combustion O2 levels to modify fuel inputs. The post cat sensor measures cat performance based on the change in o2 levels from the pre cat

Ya it's a nightmare I did a ton of research because sistering would eat up a ton of the space for the joists. Truly nightmare fuel.

Fair comment I was gonna do a video on how to make some spare side cash doing some tech work. I even tried to improve the camera by taping it to a vacuum but that failed.

The house has had numerous renovations between 1899 and today. Currently I'm working on the bathroom and that was clearly redone at least 2X one install had leaded pipes and galvanized steel the other was a switch to copper and PVC in '98 based on the manufacturing date of the ply wood we pulled down. We even discovered a window that they covered up which has since been replaced. I put the acoustic tiles for the ceiling around the 90's behind them is plaster and lathe. Took it all down and put up drywall ceilings.

Happy to make prudes cry

it made me laugh and feel like i was talking with your average home owner. it was great. also, it wasn't excessive. if he said it every line or two, then ya it woulda been ass.

People swear, get over it

There were both white and black slaves and there was discrimination all around. You want to split hairs that's on you. The reality is events 160 years ago don't have any impact on people alive today. Indeed the same corollary applies to your reference to the "black struggle". The civil rights movement ended racially biased laws in 1965, even if we allow for 5 years to have full impact the folks who actually experienced (adults ~20 years) this are in their 70's. If 70-year-old came up to you and said their entire life arc was based on events from their childhood would you believe them? We make dozens or even hundreds of significant life altering decisions throughout a year. Life is a constant process of reevaluating where we are and where we want to go. Some of our decisions are bad some of our circumstances are terrible, its how you deal with those that lead to success long term. In fact your point that many black people have been and will be more successful than I am or will be are a testament to those points. Just because the opportunities are equal, which they have been for 50 years, does not mean the outcomes will be. Your outcomes in a fair and just society are based on a mixture of your traits and choices. This means fundamentally if there are differences in between groups there will be differences in outcomes. The existence of variation in outcomes is not proof or evidence of a "struggle" for one group vs. another. While I certainly could go out and read up on the "Black Struggle" thats a bit of a futile effort. I could similarly read up on flat earth theory or creationism, proponents of any world view by definition promote that world view. As such just because some folks believe there is a black struggle does not mean that it exists. As such the key to look for is data. Some of the key points folks like yourself bring up deal with the justice system and different outcomes, fair enough a record is certainly going to fuck up your career. However, if the system is fair then differences in outcome can be had between groups if the choices are different between these groups. Per the FBI they are there are disproportionate murder, rape and robbery statistics. Could the FBI be biased, absolutely but the data matches the National Crime Victims Survey (NCVS). All of this information is publicly available and I have read it. What about incarceration terms? Yep there is a difference there as well. However if you control for record, severity, community ties, income and location the differences disappear. The only possible evidence supporting the notion of a struggle is interracial rape cases, there does appear to be a sentencing difference but its both rare and also not a good place to rest your case. Even shootings when controls are put in place for violent crime rates the difference is a slightly higher rate of white people getting killed by cops than black people ~25%. What about income and the wage gap? Folks who promote this idea share bad methodology/misrepresentation with feminists. There is an earnings gap. White people on average earn more than black people. However when you control for job, experience, hours worked, and region these differences disappear. Why did I write all this? Because I have looked into the "black struggle". Not the activist letter head but the actual data and research. Hell I used to believe it. While I do not know what it's like to be black, the reverse is true, black people don't know what it's like to be white. Thats why we analyze data and share experiences. The data does not validate your claim, and as a white person living in poverty stricken areas what I hear about the " system" matches my experience. I'm an eagle scout literally, i have had extensive background checks in some form for over a decade and I had to deal with cops, alot. I literally have a record for minor with transportation from when I was a designated driver. So based on the data and what I hear from shared experiences I have concluded that there is no struggle only a perception of one.

@@stevenburnett133 There's no worse blind than the one who refuses to see. If you are truly Christian as I heard you are, you would be more concerned on true than on self justification. Slavery wasn't about you, neither me. However, the oppression Blacks face today is fixible if we only pay attention and look at the facts without feeling offended.

@@gmanon1181 i am not a christian I'm an atheist. If you want to argue we need to listen to the facts we're in agreement. Problem is the facts don't support your narrative. If they did I would happily join you in trying to solve a problem.

His camera work is as bad as the plastering!

yes, the unnecessary movement is the sign of someone not used to recording for instructional purposes.

It works fairly, I actuallu left the porcelain tile,in an acid/water bath for over a year becore finishing the recovery and they were undamaged. This will also clear hard water and rust stains.

😅

Plaster is king!

Only if it is not plastered correctly, or plastered by an American.

@@ouncy LOOOL

It's terrible!!! My ceiling is taller and walls look flush and the room is insulated. Huge improvement from where it was.

Plaster is much better!

Ya we have 2. My wife is big into personal farming stuff. So chickens square foot gardening etc. Our house is a project and the yard even more so. I'll be putting up another bee video on sunday showing techniques to save queenless hives.

Yes in general asbestos is great as long as you don't disturb it and it remains intact.

i couldn’t agree more. Thank you.

Methamphetamine is a hell of a drug man lol

@@jakeshaw6827 wys! i take a Rx stimulant so i get those big ideas sometimes lol...we have plaster walls but I feel my family and have issues other than the wall texture to worry with right now...not going to be a project in our home in the near future!

@@jakeshaw6827 no drugs thats my baseline.

Broken Wrd camera angles are for art majors.

This is a great response with a bunch of good points First on investment. I am not talking short vs. long term investment I am talking about rate of return. The average rate of return in the stock market is 10% per year. Because the costs of mitigating climate change are born now while the averted costs are decades or even centuries into the future, we should consider this from an investment perspective and the math doesn't support the investment. Those future costs must be absolutely massive in comparison to the current costs and they aren't. For instance, per the stern review the projected impact by 2100 will be about 1.2% of GDP assuming the average worst case scenario, in order to avert that cost it is suggested we spend between 1% and 3.5% of yearly GDP starting now and continuing into the future. Assuming the 10% ROR simply investing that money in the market would provide significantly more revenue per year than the costs of aversion. Those estimates were based on models using the RCP 8.5 scenario which has largely been falsified in tested models. It is your burden of proof to show that investing in climate change is actually worthwhile which to date I have not seen an economic estimate that shows a sufficiently high ROR even using the worst case scenario modelling which again has been invalidated. You may say I am stuck at consensus but I swear this may be the first response that was not consensus driven. It is the default go-to argument for advocates and scientists and ultimately if it wasn't being used extensively as a communication tool I wouldn't even be bothered with it. I don't think you get evidence from consensus I just don't think you can demonstrate the theory accurately and use consensus as a means of conveying the opinion of a niche field dominated by a political monoculture. Sadly I am not surprised that environmental scientists are convinced that industrialism is leading to planetary doom and gloom but they just can't seem to make a valid prediction. Tends to be a trend in the field. There was no statistically significant rise in temperature means we cannot be sure there was a rise in temperature and there isn't much more to say there. That's even using the absolutely absurd methods which just ignore the standard deviation from the SAT measurements. To say the heat was there but in a different place is farcical. Heat doesn't magically transport itself to the bottom of the ocean without changing the thermal gradient all the way down. Furthermore when SAT failed they started looking in other places until the heat was found. This is confirmation bias to its core. Some areas we have literally no base rate prior to the pause and as such we cannot say with any real certainty that the heat has been found. As for looking at the natural variation. You are using the term in a literal sense rather than a statistical one. Natural variation is uncontrolled variables. The effect could be from hundreds or thousands of small sources that you are unaware of and thus there is no way to truly rule it out. In most cases, a large data set of independent groups and controls can be used but that's not available we don't have other mock earth in solar orbit from which to run controls. To say that the current rate is unnatural you have no legitimate baseline to determine that. Our sampling geographically and numerically is poorly representative now and it gets worse the further back in time you go. Ultimately the station siting, data quality control, and quantity of stations is insufficient to make that claim with 95% certainty. I did a video where I downloaded the 2015 data set screened out stations that didn't output 2 measurements per day and then did a hypothesis test on the remaining 4508 stations. The SD is about 14 degrees, given that we would need a shift of .4 degrees to detect a shift outside of yearly natural variation, which hasn't occurred since the 1980's. In the 1980's we only had about 600 stations and would need to see a full degree of temperature change for detection. That's before we begin to discuss station distribution which is pretty much crap outside of the US. When you factor in the yearly natural variation, station siting, station distribution, The latitudinal shift in station distribution and data set QA/QC there is no way to say with 95% certainty that a temperature change has occurred at all. just QCing the data resulted in a.4 degC shift of the mean. If you wanted to default to proxy studies you run into a problem related to data resolution there are few if any proxy data sets that are coincident with our station data. Most proxies are multidecadal to multicentury resolution. Marcott et al showed a significant decline from the T=-8000- t=-4000 range his data was not valid over our temperature record but there ultimately the observed response from our temperature data set would be indistinguishable from a step change in a first order system beginning a few hundred years ago. The initial rise in temperature from 1910-1940 was not likely due to human activity but it is of equivalent magnitude to the 20 or so year rise from 1980-2000. that 20 year span is the only span for which climate models concurred well with the data beyond a general trend since then and prior to that point, the theory as encoded in the models diverges from the data. So as I said you need to show proof of concept which is 1) a valid prediction determined ahead of time on all fronts with all dat sets you wish to consider as validating evidence. If it takes 30 years to invalidate a model it takes at least that long to consider it valid. 2) a valid measurement system dataset. 3) a known magnitude of impact from CO2, the 1.5-4.5C estimate of ECS is absolute shit All of these need to be done in specific accurate terms. then you need to overcome the economics issue 1) beat the market 10% rate of return with an actual dollar value. 2) base projected future impacts off of the validated prediction 3) account for actual costs of action including externalities such as baseload capability, equal environmental permitting, no subsidies tax benefits or special incentives or regulatory incentives. If you cannot meet these goals, then it is unethical to advance the hypothesis in a political environment. It does not deserve political consideration, and certainly not implementation by force. it is extremely unethical to advance the hypothesis politically with no caveats or statements related to uncertainty. an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy if that authority cannot provide a pragmatic demonstration of their ability beyond opinion.

First, I would like to thank you for the thorough reply. I was tired and in a hurry while writing my comment, and thus had little time to actually type up my thoughts well. I will give it to you that we can't give an accurate rate of return. Something may happen geologically or astronomically that reverses or slows this rise we are seeing before things get to where we think they will, and thus it is, indeed, speculation (as future predictions of near anything is to varying amounts). That said, the economic impact if nothing is changed, given the evidence we have, will stem from multiple factors. Increased floods cause more damage, and I mean just just from frequency but from a rising sea level causing storm surges to be higher. Altered precipitation patterns, sunlight duration, temperature fluctuations, and storm tracks impact all plants, but crops could see a heavy impact as their growth periods change, disease spreads, competition with other plants, etc. change. Fisheries will see impacts as the ocean gets more acidic, as it will alter the breeding grounds of fish as well as their competition and predators. There is also the economic impact of increased diseases, as a changed climate allows disease to adapt and spread to new locations. I commented on the stuck on consensus because in my experience, it is not used much. Granted I am more used to talking with professors, doctors, etc. in the field. I have noticed the consensus is thrown around as a means to an end in the more general (and sometimes in scientific areas) public. It is things like that that make me tell them we appreciate the support, but they need to study up to actually help us. An example of that would be Al Gore's talks. While it is nice to have a speaker, he sometimes gets things wrong, and we are forced to do damage control. I completely agree that evidence does not come from consensus, which is how some have tried to use the argument. The problem is that the consensus was obtained independently through data and research. People ended up at the same result, and thus there was consensus. The consensus came from the data instead of the validity of the data coming from the consensus. Many people just use the consensus as proof, which I agree is wrong. What I meant with the heat being there but in a different place was that we knew from our data we should be heating up more than we were seeing. Even using the aberrant el nino of 1997-98 as a base line showed warming in current years, but it was slower than expected. A main reason it seemed slower was that we were looking in the wrong place for the heat (along with issues with a satellite). The heat had been sequestered in the oceans, and thus the atmosphere warmed more slowly. The energy was still in the earth's system, but it was in a different location. This heating up of the oceans has issues in itself, actually. While natural variation is large on a small time scale, the climate of a region is less impacted by small or limited in duration changes. Comparing the current climate to past climates shows an unnatural rise when you also take into account current conditions of the sun and earth. In times of similar conditions, to the best of our knowledge, the earth did not see a rise this rapid. I will admit that historic data does have its issues (exact accuracy over exact time scales for example), but we work with what we have. The increase in the early 1900's does coincide with CO2 emissions, but not very strongly. The rate was less than we see today, but was still substantial. There are multiple theories on the exact cause, but I am not an expert on that time period, and thus will not comment on that which I am not sure of. In a twist of fate, however, the increase of aerosols may have helped cool the atmosphere and slow potential warming we would have seen. A large issue with trying to get very precise predictions is the variables. We know many of them and how they interact, but we are also continually learning and adapting our knowledge. A big reason we consider the current change unnatural is not only its correlation with CO2 but also things we predicted would occur have happened, such as temperature changes and their locations in the atmosphere indicating it is due to man. Some examples would be a warming lower atmosphere and a cooling upper atmosphere as less energy is able to escape., a decrease in temperature variation between the day and night, and alterations in IR radiation budgets. I will admit it is could be hard to accept investing in something so heavily without exact measurements, but data is strong enough to warrant investigation and action. Renewables are already becoming more used and effective than fossil fuels, and thus a shift to them is becoming less and less expensive, especially if they had the subsidies the fossil fuel industries have. Granted there is the huge issue of 2nd and 3rd world countries, many of which would need help switching to renewables instead of fossil fuels. The logistics of that are painful to think of. There is an issue, I think, in the scientific field. We issue our evidence and say what needs to be done, but then it falls to everybody else to figure out how to make it happen from a logistics point of view. Sometimes it is difficult to quantify the cost/benefit until after it is done, and sometimes not for years later. In this, I fully understand your thoughts.It comes down to how solidly we feel we understand the situation, and the current evidence we have is enough to accept that changes need to be made. The extent of change, however, does vary. Currently, it is not feasible to just scrap fossil fuels and go entirely renewable, but a gradual shift would help the climate and allow the world to adapt economically and technologically. That is the big reason there are dates set to reduce by certain amounts. The issue is that our data suggests that the longer we take, the larger in impact; thus the shorter timescale. I should also add that the doom and gloom end of days predictions should be taken with a grain of salt in many cases. Worst case scenarios are rarely scenarios we think are most likely to happen. Also, appeals to authority are a tricky subject, aren't they? Sometimes valid and sometimes not. Many people on both sides tend to just through out names instead of actual evidence. I would proofread this for grammar and spelling, but it is quite early, and I am quite tired. Please forgive any issues on that front. I would like to thank you for actually have a civil discussion, as so many discussions so quickly devolve into ad hominem attacks instead of actual data and evidence.

Proofreading is for liberal arts majors. But seriously I will never pick apart anyone's stuff for grammar and semantics as it is literally the lowest tier of debate. I write technical documents for the government I deal with semantics and grammar nazis all day and certainly don't want to waste my time doing it when I am home. As for adhominems I agree. There are climate scientists and sceptics both who deserve a solid kick in the nuts for ad hominem or semantic attacks. It doesn't help the discussion or debate and if people actually truly cared they would try to have civil discourse. That being said. You present all kinds of impacts that I agree will happen and I agree will impact the economy but you provide no timeline and no cost. Therefore I cannot properly analyse whether or not we should invest or for that matter what we should invest, to avert those costs. Furthermore you are ignoring the standard replacement rates for infrastructure typically 20-30 years. These impacts aren't just going to open up one day on an unprepared populace, we will naturally be engineering and designing for the hazards at hand with each infrastructure upgrade just as part of the natural technology life cycle. You need to prove that mitigation has a better ROR than adaptation and you can't. As for the consensus thing I have only gotten ahold of actual climate scientists a few times in my debates. They usually open with consensus then after a civil discourse there is usually a decent period of nerding out. Unfortunately what the layperson sees is you arguing consensus, that does nothing more than entrench political views. Those who already believe are happy to do so without putting in the effort to learn anything and those on the other side see scientists actively avoiding or ducking questions and criticism. As for it being a means to an end, if you are intelectually lazy in your communication to the public why should I believe you are not intellectually lazy in your scientific work (I also have examples of this occurring). The point is it is counterproductive to the debate and the fact that it is pushed at all, and the climate science community isn't beating on the doors of say CNN to say hey use this instead gives the perception to folks like myself that you don't have a valid argument. Let's talk about this heat thing because I have heard that talking point and it is frankly nonsensical. The areas where heat was "found" weren't baselined over the period of time where surface air temperature was king. The predictions were for surface air temperature and only came to be about the heat balance when that failed to manifest. Changing your definition of what "counts" as validation after your original definition fails reeks of confirmation bias. That doesn't even deal with the fact that the heat seems to have "magically' shown up in a completely new area without a thermal gradient leading to it. This is completely antithetical to the laws of heat transfer. It's great to say it's "in earth's systems" but that wasn't what was predicted nor was it what was in the modeling efforts. As for natural variation, thats nice to say except NASA has press releases that contradict that stance. www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally. Even if the "warmest year on record" wasn't a key talking point, you can't just dismiss natural variation without a very strong, long and robust data set, which admittedly you don't have. The poor quality of the data set would be acceptable if the hypothesis was relatively new, but advocacy has been going on for about 40 years now and the issues with the data set were known then. If your data set isn't sufficiently robust to statistically differentiate temperatures at the resolution you're interested in the answer is to build out the equipment for the dataset. I did a cost analysis based solely on the components in consumer form. If we spent 1 year of the "climate change" related budget items in the US alone, we would have an automated appropriately sited station set that is 10x larger than the size needed to detect NASA's .13C variation. The fact that your field is more interested in theory than actual hypothesis testing is disconcerting at the least. In reality, it shows a trend of confirmation bias getting in the way of actual scientific inquiry. As for the historical period, I appreciate there are many hypotheses to explain it. Unfortunately, the problem with working solely on a historical basis, or for that matter a singular planetary basis is you can't test or retest your hypothesis under controlled conditions. So you have to make precise predictions. I understand the issue with precise predictions, I understand you are working with what you have. It's not an excuse. The problem isn't what predictions came true in general it's about what specific predictions are shown to be false. I accept, based on IR absorbance curves of CO2, and an understanding of Beer-Lambert that humankind has likely had an impact but I also accept that water vapor has between 20-200x the concentration and has about the same absorbance over the same region (except for the spike) thus the actual impact from mankind will be very very small. Again this seems like an issue of confirmation bias If you can't demonstrate under controlled conditions, and you can't make precise predictions then you have absolutely no way to show proof of concept. Things could be operating differently than you expect, the problem is you haven't shown an ability to know what you should expect. As such climate scientists should do their damnedest to ensure climate change related action is kept out of political discourse. Otherwise people like me are going to say; you can't show proof of concept and you can't show economics. You said it was applicable but it's clearly not WTF is wrong with your field. Where is this certainty stemming from and are there other errors and obfuscations. I agree that the data warrants further investigation, I disagree that it warrants action. If you want to raise peoples cost of living and start impacting thair actual incomes you better have a damn good reason. You don't. you can't predict it, you can't detect it, you don't know the magnitude, you don't know the costs, you don't know the time period. These are essential questions to take action and you cannot answer them. The problem you have is you cannot say "what has to be done". You can only say it's worth examining further. While renewables seem to have gotten better I do not put my faith in the currently projected numbers. predominantly because subsidies and regulatory requirements on other sources grossly distorting the field. Arguing that we should go green because the greenies have gotten everything else banned is only valid if you accept the banning of everything else. Again your advocacy on this issue only feeds into those who agree with you and does nothing for those that disagree. renewable energy only works right now because it makes up a small portion of the grid. If you had to account for the baseload issue the cost of most renewables would triple pricing them out of economic viability entirely. For instance while you say there are fossil fuel subsidies and that's true it is not true for the US or other developed nations. The only possible tax break for US fossil fuels is capital depreciation which is available to all industries though fossil fuels get it over a much longer period than say solar. Solar power as an example recieves a 30% federal tax credit and a special 5 year MACRS. Office furniture depreciates over 7 years and most power plants over 15-20. That means after 5 years the public has paid for about 65% of the cost of a solar panel before we consider state subsidies. The tax subsidies for fossil fuels in foreign nationsa are because their people are so poor they burn animal dung for heat and are dying because of it. Their government is trying to save live and they can't afford renewables at sticker. I appreciate that you understand what the logistics looks like externally. But what you do not understand is the evidence that you see as significant looks extremely flimsy. It is predicated on more unjustified assumptions than I can count on 1 hand and the base arguments of economics and proof of concept that I made in my video you admit you cannot meet. I and other sceptics like me are forced to ask what do you have that is convincing? The routine short answer is nothing. How are we supposed to design to a criteria that you cannot justify? As for the doom and gloom end of days stuff that I should take with a grain of salt read your paragraph on impacts ;). and we havent even begun to discuss ocean acidification.

Sorry for the wait, but I have been busy and did not want to shortchange you in a reply. I will have time in the next day or so to give this reply I can stand behind. To that end, it seems we are not so different in skepticism, but the evidence I have seen has fulfilled the burden of proof that the gains will be more than the losses from my view, while you still remain skeptical. I will admit that I tend to be more bias toward the environment, and thus my view may be slightly jaded. I try to remain objective, but I am not above admitting a possible bias. The economic issue is something I have grappled with and still have issues with, but I feel it will have a net gain. The biggest issue isn't even with the economics of developed nations, as they can absorb costs with relative ease. The biggest issue is the 3rd world nations and expecting them to be able to use our renewable technology. It would be expensive and during a phase in which they could instead of use relatively cheap fuels the same way we did. This would require a global effort to bring these places up to par, and the logistics of that from an economic standpoint, much less a cultural standpoint, are a bit difficult to properly comprehend. I guess I am trying to say that I totally agree that the economics of this need to be fully fleshed out and that the cost-benefit needs to be more properly understood, but I feel that we do need to gradually shift to make the impact as small as possible while also trying to mitigate any change as much as possible. As to where that happy medium is, I honestly can't tell you. I worry we might end up at a triage point if we don't try to change things soon.

Well that's progress. I am perfectly okay with waiting. Like you said and I can concur, the discussion is far too often no more than mud slinging. Thus a good one is worth all the stupid shit to have. The economics issue is huge and again the problem isn't if the gains are worth the investment, it's if the gains beat out alternative investment strategies. The biggest issue is the "effects of climate change" are so far into the future that we can make a lot of money by not spending it. So you need to demonstrate that those costs on a yearly basis are significantly higher than the average market ROR over the entire period. compounding that issue is the definite possibility that market ROR could have been higher without environmental regs. From an engineering standpoint, compliance costs a fortune. Remember that you aren't handing your results to engineers, or to other scientists, but you are advocating for reform to bureaucrats who don't even have the semblance of the mathematical or scientific basis to begin to approach risk analysis and thus they default to zero. It's great in theory but zero risk costs a fortune. Even if you could demonstrate the proper approach to mitigation that was cost effective tack on bureacratic nonsense and double ot triple the costs. In my work, the taxpayer was charged over 150k to move a safe from the second floor to the first floor of a building because of a zero risk attitude. No I'm not joking that was a real task my company had. You're an enviro scientist studying the enviro you're biased I guarantee it. One of the worst parts of environmental science is unlike other fields it attracts people who actually emotionally care about the subject. Psychology and the social fields have the same issue. Unfortunately, confirmation bias is our own worst nightmare if we don't see what we expect or want to see we keep looking until we do. If I was to engage in epistemological philosophy on this issue that would be the core. how do you know you looked hard enough and how do you know you aren't looking in new places because you were wrong. While undeveloped nations certainly have a huge issue the key point we will butt heads on is the idea of absorbing the cost. we do not decide what we do based on whether or not we can afford it. We buy things based on the cost vs. the benefit. The idea of feeling better about a purchase is great if you're footing the bill, not when others are. Because this is an issue of public funds and public costs of living it's not about what makes you feel more comfortable it's about the cost/benefits as compared with alternatives and if you view it in that light your concern with the third world will be less of an issue. If climate change will truly impact them negatively it will truly be worth their investment all on their own. If you think our bureacracy is bad take the underhanded sleaze of most dictatorships costs will be markedly higher there. like I said in this video the core argument is always economics. but that is fed by proof of concept. If you don't have that capability and you demand to debate outside that framework, people go looking for errors. When they intentionally look for errors they find them. Michael Mann and other climate change superstars are a virtually endless supply of "peer reviewed" papers that can be eviscerated in a few hours. When I find papers such as www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/BAMSmarTrenberth.pdf and I read through them and get to gems like page 10 " Hence, we can often dismiss outliers. Thus, while the spread of the various values provides some measure of agreement, it generally greatly overestimates the uncertainty we can assign to our best estimates. Therefore, we have a lot more confidence in the values we have assigned than indicated by the spread within the tables. TOA values are known within about ±3% or better, except that the net is (or was) 0.85 ± 0.15 W m−2 (Hansen et al. 2005)," When you overrule the measurement values with a modeling value then use that to validate the model you're going to be in a real bad spot with people like me( especially when I find out the instrumentation calibration capabilities). It tends to generate a mixture of disgust and ill will. We write up our findings and why we take umbrage at yours and a bunch of people who don't understand how to ask appropriate questions start yelling hoax because thats not an inept descriptor. Where I see confirmation bias others see intentional obfuscation. While there is some legitimacy in your concerns. It is incredibly far in the future of a variation that is significantly less than the daily range, with multiple infrastructure lifecycles, and competing investment opportunities. That's all before the fact that all attempts to demonstrate applicability have run too high too fast. I am open to the idea that something may need to be done, But not actively intervening on CO2 is not the same thing as doing nothing given the backdrop of human society.

I love potholer54. Arguments about the scientific consensus are both inaccurate and meaningless which was the point of the video.

No. Potholer54's point is that there is a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change not because a few thousand climatologists sat in a room and took a vote but due to the huge weight of evidence and sheer volume of scientific papers on the subject and that no serious scientist has been able to show any serious flaws with the theory. Which is why every scientific institution in the world supports the theory, why it's been getting taught in schools for decades etc. I'm looking forward to hearing about your scepticism on the subject.

And if you weren't trying to talk past me you would realise that was the point I made. The consensus as it is portrayed is nothing more than a very vague and general statement on something. It is an irrelevant point specifically because what all scientists agree on, myself included, is that human activity probably has some effect on climate. What the majority of scientists, myself included also agree on is that we cannot specify or quantify the magnitude of our impact. The problem with the consensus argument is it has no direct or indirect applicability to policy. As I said using arguments from authority or consensus does not explicitly engage criticism, it implicitly validates an inability to deal with the criticism. Stay tuned I have more coming.

As do I. She is my intellectual and technical equal though a bit rusty in some areas. A good source for rich debate.