jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (96 posts)

A new paradigm on HubPages - A hub to hub challenge on Climate Change

  1. jackclee lm profile image78
    jackclee lmposted 12 months ago

    Recently, Doc Snow and I decided to each create a hub on the topic of "How accurate are climate change predictions."

    Here are our opposing hubs -

    http://hubpages.com/education/Climate-C … e-Are-They

    http://hubpages.com/politics/Climate-Ch … hey-Really

    We are asking people to help out and keep an open mind.
    Please read both hubs and take the poll at the end.
    You are welcome to make comments, however, our focus here is to present our ideas and let the readers decide.
    I believe this is a new paradigm on HubPages. As far as I know, this is the first time where two hubbers have jointly created hubs independently on the same topic. Their express purpose in presenting opposing view points is an attempt to sway public opinion. We have no preconceived notions as to the outcome. We are both passionate about our views and sincerely wants to help.
    On behave on Doc Snow and I, we want to thank you in advance. We have put a lot of effort into this over a period of one month.
    We will report back in some future time (perhaps one month time) on the results.
    Thanks to all for your support.

    1. jackclee lm profile image78
      jackclee lmposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      By the way, the Final Poll is located in the first hub (jackclee's) at the very bottom. Please vote only after reading both hubs. Thanks for your participation.

    2. junkseller profile image91
      junksellerposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      jackclee writes "Dr. Philip Lloyd recently admitted that global warming is within natural variability."

      This is not true. Dr. Lloyd was discussing surface temperatures, not the entire global system which includes upper atmosphere temperatures and more importantly ocean temperatures.

      jackclee rests his case about storm severity by providing a Wikipedia page that focuses only on storms in New England. Evidently the rest of the globe is irrelevant

      jackclee chastises sea level rise and as evidence provides a 1988 prediction (which is kind of like talking about the medical value of leaches in medicine) and by providing a graph which looks convincing but fails to provide sources. Who are these mysterious "experts"? What are the current sea-level rise predictions? How accurate or valuable are satellite measurements of sea-level rise?

      If this were an honest scientific debate, all of those questions would be answered. But this isn't an honest scientific debate. It is part of the very large skepticism industry specifically designed to mislead and misinform and to cause confusion and doubt in people. In short it is a LIE. I appreciate at least saying that you want an honest debate, but that isn't what is happening here and I see no reason to be civil about it. This is junk science. Looks good, but smells like turds.

      1. jackclee lm profile image78
        jackclee lmposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        How is this junk science? You can't find anything questionable about my observations. I don't work for big oil. I am not paid by any one with an agenda. I am not even a denier just a skeptic. You can't handle the fact that the climate scientist have been exaggerating the effects and now they are like the boy cried wolf.

        1. junkseller profile image91
          junksellerposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          I pointed out a couple of specific problems with your observations. This sort of thing is always the same: looks decent on the surface, but scientifically doesn't hold up even under minimal review.

          Scientists don't exaggerate. People talking about science do, generally because they lack understanding of the topic and lack fundamental understanding of scientific research. If you would like to complain about that, then please do so. It bothers me as well, but then, that was kind of the point I was trying to make in the first place.

          1. jackclee lm profile image78
            jackclee lmposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            The people I don't trust are the very scientists that make predictions that don't hold up and instead of backtrack, they try to hide it or manipulate the data. There is no reason the NOAA would refuse to give the raw data to Congress who is trying to get at the truth.

            I don't see any problem with my observations. A prediction by definition is a forecast of future events. The debate of this hub addresses the accuracy of predictions made in the past (1988) about current years (2015).

            My references to storms in the US is one part of the global warming debate. I'm citing one example. If you think globally that storms are more extreme, prove it.

            I know how some climate models work and they are full of assumptions and "tweak factors" which can affect the outcome by a large degree with small changes. That is why they are so un-reliable and so wrong in the long term. If the models were true, I would expect a normal distribution where some predictions were low and some were high. That is not what we see. The projections have all failed on the high side. That should be a red flag for anyone serious about analyzing data.

            1. junkseller profile image91
              junksellerposted 12 months ago in reply to this

              There are all sorts of accusations of fraud, manipulation of data, hiding data, etc. but as far as I know, there isn't a single proven documented case of it, and certainly there isn't any grand conspiracy to do so. The NOAA issue isn't an issue at all, as Doc Snow noted, all of the data is available. NOAA just isn't giving in to their witchhunt to which I do not blame them.

              I'm just going to ignore your comment about Congress trying to get to the truth.

              "My references to storms in the US is one part of the global warming debate. I'm citing one example. If you think globally that storms are more extreme, prove it."

              That is like going to a fishing hole, seeing a fish in the lake and concluding that nobody caught anything. Such selective cherry-picking just isn't a good faith argument.

              As for me proving it. I don't have to. I have made no such claim.

              To the topic, if you think it is an easy proof, you are wrong. It is an extremely complex aspect of climate change that is not firmly understood. Expand your single paragraph to about 10,000 and you might be part way there. From the evidence I have seen, there seems to be decent evidence that storm power has increased but not frequency, which of course varies by region of the world.

              Regarding predictions and modeling and accuracy, I'd recommend this read: http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/le … CMIP5.html

  2. Doc Snow profile image96
    Doc Snowposted 12 months ago

    Not much to add to what jack said--he has summed up the project pretty well.

    We're hoping for a good discussion, especially in light of the Conference of the Parties talks, which will attempt to reach a new climate agreement in Paris beginning November 30.  I think it's vital that a good agreement be reached, as we are far behind the curve in our response to climate change.  Jack, obviously, feels differently.

    I'd only add that you can vote in the polls on *both* Hubs, as they ask different questions.

    1. jackclee lm profile image78
      jackclee lmposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      I have started to promote our hubs on some news sites by posting the link in news stories on the up coming Paris COP21 climate change meetings.  I am hoping top get more traffic to our hubs. I usually don't do this with most of my hubs but I am hoping the recent events align with the climate summit will bring this debate front and center.

  3. jackclee lm profile image78
    jackclee lmposted 12 months ago

    I agree. This up coming Conference in Paris is perfect timing for this discussion.
    Yes, by all means vote in all polls. The final poll I added this morning to to gauge how many people are swayed if any.

  4. Doc Snow profile image96
    Doc Snowposted 12 months ago

    "There is no reason the NOAA would refuse to give the raw data to Congress who is trying to get at the truth."

    Correct.  Which is why they pointed out to Mr. Smith that the *data is already publicly available*.  And said that they stood ready to walk committee members through it.

    But no, he wants years and years of emails, too.

    1. jackclee lm profile image78
      jackclee lmposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      NOAA have lost the confidence of some of us just like the IRS and the VA where bad things happen and no one is held accountable. It is Congress's job to over sight and get to the bottom of these issues. Don't you think someting is fishy here, when there is a global pause in rising termperatures as noted by
      the lack of major storms in past 10 years and NOAA publish a paper claiming the opposite?

      1. jackclee lm profile image78
        jackclee lmposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        Here is link to story about manipulation of scientific data -
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/e … -ever.html

        1. junkseller profile image91
          junksellerposted 12 months ago in reply to this
          1. jackclee lm profile image78
            jackclee lmposted 12 months ago in reply to this
            1. Doc Snow profile image96
              Doc Snowposted 12 months ago in reply to this

              "Don't you think someting is fishy here, when there is a global pause in rising temperatures …"

              Does this look like a 'pause' to you?

              http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12768676.jpg

              1. jackclee lm profile image78
                jackclee lmposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                Very interesting data plot from NOAA.
                How do explain during these last 10 years the lack of major storms if the warming is as plotted. Can NOAA explain their own discrepancy?

                1. jackclee lm profile image78
                  jackclee lmposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                  Doc, it really comes down to who are you going to trust with data? Who has an agenda? who profits? and who gets funded with research?
                  And what you see with your own eyes...

                  1. Doc Snow profile image96
                    Doc Snowposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                    Why would you expect a straightforward link with 'major storms' and temperature, especially over a limited space (I presume you are thinking of the 'US landfalling hurricane' criterion you used earlier, though the term is ambiguous) and limited time?

                    And if you don't trust NOAA, compare their results to those of GISTEMP and HADCRUT, not to mention the Japanese Met Office.  You'll find that these sources tell the same story.

                    http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12769184.jpg

                    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/mean:1 … 1979/trend

                    Lastly, I'd note that your logic rather flies in the face of the story you began with:  if NOAA's strategy was to basely kowtow to a government that holds their pursestrings, sacrificing every shred of scientific integrity, then when would they find themselves in a fight with the Chair of the S & T committee?  Congress is the ultimate funding authority in the US system--and NASA has already suffered funding cuts because Congressional denialists don't like the fact that NASA data clearly shows that warming is a present reality.

                    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/cap … w-protest/

      2. Doc Snow profile image96
        Doc Snowposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        Just as an update on the Lamar Smith witch hunt at NOAA, here's a response from several of the nation's foremost scientific societies:

        1. jackclee lm profile image78
          jackclee lmposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          Here is Lamar Smith's Op Ed - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … e-fiction/
          I don't see any witch hunt going on.
          He is asking for explanations from NOAA.
          In light of past deceptions by Climate Scientists - Climategate...
          I would want to see the internal emails of how the scientist use the data and any discussions internally to see what if any there were doubts and debates...
          We are asked to trust them blindly and as I said in the past, our government agencies have not been the most truthful or reliable. Why would we take a chance on an important topic such as climate change. Why is the down side of more information? why is NOAA so defensive?

          1. Doc Snow profile image96
            Doc Snowposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            No, we aren't asked to 'trust them blindly.'  The data that the Committee asked for is publicly available, and that fact was noted in the initial responses to Mr. Smith.  (I say "Mr. Smith" because this is not an action of the whole Committee--so far, minority members on that Committee have not been included at all in the process.)  The researchers also stated that they would be willing to meet with the Committee and discuss the findings and process, and did in fact conduct not just one, but two such briefings (June 16, 2015, and October 15, 2015)

            https://www.documentcloud.org/documents … poena.html

            As the official letter linked goes on to demonstrate in very concrete particular detail, the briefing was thorough, and addressed the questions on the table.

            Basically, Mr. Smith didn't like the political implications of the paper, hence his repetitive demands for things he has already received and the subsequent expansion of his demands to anything else that might conceivably serve his political agenda.

  5. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 12 months ago

    I believe in Climate change , Spring  , summer  , autumn and winter !

  6. 60
    Tom Stopinskiposted 12 months ago

    .

  7. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 12 months ago

    There was a time when scientist's basic tool  was the Dis- proving of  fact and declarations , Now there are too many with an agenda in their studies .. "I believe in Climate warming so I'm going to prove it " instead of actual working from a dis-proving educational  stance .   Listened to a talk on a radio program about the gravitational pull of other planets affecting our climate , rather than the man made blame game .

    1. jackclee lm profile image78
      jackclee lmposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      Good point. I came across a book on scientific research of earth sciences published in the 1970's recently and just glancing through it, I noticed how different they were and their focus was on the actual science and deciphering the secrets of nature. That is how science should be conducted.

      1. ahorseback profile image51
        ahorsebackposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        There really seems to be a hysteria  on the left right now , from the administration on down , I mean  I.S.I.L.  and global warming , directly related , hmmmm....?

        1. jackclee lm profile image78
          jackclee lmposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          Yes, I was just about to pose the same question to Doc Snow.  Do you think Climate Change is a cause of the rise of ISIS? and do you agree with Bernie Sanders that Climate Change is a bigger threat than ISIS?

          1. ahorseback profile image51
            ahorsebackposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            No ! and No , I live in the state where Bernie Sanders  has been a political entity for decades .  He is a fool.      The shift in the outlook that terror and  climate change are related in a ruse !  For Obama , why not focus on ANYTHING but  the mess his country is really in ?      I do not believe that Obama  actually has a clue to just how fragile the  reality of todays America IS in .    Crime ,  the economy , the deficit ,  immigration ,  riots , race relations ,   eco-terrorism ,  geo- terror , colonialism of nations on the rise .

            And he's saying  the weather is the cause of terrorism . I mean think about this .

          2. Doc Snow profile image96
            Doc Snowposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            There is good reason to think that the Middle Eastern drought in the years preceding the Syrian conflict did contribute to the unrest.

            And it is a matter of record that climate modeling had for years been showing that under warming regimes, we could expect more frequent drought in that region.  Just as one example, see Sheffield et al, 2008:

            http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley … rought.pdf

            Earlier this year, a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science did formally link the drought and the conflict.  It's been criticized, and may well not be the last word on the subject, but their estimate was droughts such as the one that was observed are about 3x more likely under the observed warming than in an 'unwarmed' world.

            So, yes, I do think that there is a reasonable case to be made that climate change had a significant role in the current Syrian mess.

            That's not to say that climate change is the sole cause of the rise of IS as a quasi-state in Iraq and Syria.  Obviously, political events can't be uniquely determined by environmental factors; human choices will always be in the picture.

            But I've noticed that there is a tendency for a lot of folks to think that every historical event must be the result of one, and only one, unique cause.  But Tolstoy knew better:



            Put simply:  I think that climate change was one of many causes contributing to the rise of IS in Iraq and Syria, and that if we permit climate change to continue unchecked we will see more such instances in the future.

            1. jackclee lm profile image78
              jackclee lmposted 12 months ago in reply to this

              doc, I see your point of view and I concede there are multiple causes of many events. However, bring climate change into this argument is a diversion. The middle east have been in turmoil for over 2000 years. It is ludacrous to believe climate has any influence on radical terrorism based on religious extremism. The question one must ask is why do these politicians bring them up in the first place? Can't they argue the merit of climate change on face value?

              1. Doc Snow profile image96
                Doc Snowposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                Can't be true, jack--this whole argument is ABOUT climate change!

            2. Doc Snow profile image96
              Doc Snowposted 12 months ago in reply to this

              A long answer, and I didn't get to the second question, which was "...do you agree with Bernie Sanders that Climate Change is a bigger threat than ISIS?"

              Yes, I do.  IS is horrific, and should be fought with much greater vigor, IMHO.

              However, it is a political phenomenon, and like all such, its scope is necessarily limited in time and space.  I don't think that there is the slightest possibility that IS can overthrow any Western government, or indeed that of any reasonably developed nation.  I suspect that it has already reached its peak territorial extent in Syria and Iraq, and that it will continue to lose a slow, back-and-forth struggle until it is reduced to just another vicious terror group.  In twenty or thirty years, there is a good chance it will be dead, and even to a considerable degree forgotten.  Hundreds of thousands will have died due to the war (not just IS), and millions of lives will have been redirected, n many cases for the worse--and I don't mean 'redirected' as a euphemism to cover up the numerous cases in which lives are more or less wrecked, only an inclusive term recognizing that many refugees will also eventually make satisfactory new lives for themselves in their new homelands.

              On the other hand, climate change will keep on killing for centuries.  Guesstimating the cost so far is really difficult and uncertain because you can't know whether a particular disaster should 'count'--maybe it would have happened anyway?  So there is a lot of uncertainty.  My own guesstimate starts with events that have either been formally attributed (in a probabilistic way) to climate change--an example is the 2003 European heatwave--or which have a demonstrable link to physical processes consistent with a climate influence--examples include Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, both of which were observed to rapidly intensify over unusually warm waters.  Add up the leading half dozen or so such incidents, and you get over 100,000 premature deaths and over $100 billion US in damages.  Well over, actually.

              So that's a rough measure of what you get with 0.7 C warming or so.  With 2 C warming, it will be a lot worse, and with 5 C, we can expect it to be catastrophic.  And it will keep on being catastrophic for millennia.  So, as I see it, the human cost for climate change is vastly greater than the cost for IS.

              And there's another aspect as well.  War is bad for the environment, without question, and in multiple ways.  But the impacts are much less systematic than is the case for climate change:  large scale mechanized war may affect hundreds of square miles, and that's impressive.  But climate change affects the whole planet.  Consider, for instance, coral:  the Great Barrier Reef has seen coral cover decline by half in 27 years.  About 10% of that loss is attributed to climate change--again, that's with just 0.7 C warming.  If warming continues, efforts to address the starfish plague by cutting agricultural runoff which over-fertilizes algae will be rather beside the point.  (The crown-of-thorns starfish has done about 42% of the damage observed, with the rest attributed to tropical cyclones.)

              http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19800253

              It sounds fanciful, but we could lose essentially all of the world's coral.  According to Elizabeht Kolbert, in her Pulitzer-winning book "The Sixth Extinction", in three of the previous 'Big Five' extinctions, reef-building organisms were pretty much wiped out, and 'reef extinctions' lasting many millions of years ensued, until new reef-building organisms could evolve.

              If the coral were to go, then so would reef-living specialist species--just as we may lose species uniquely adapted to the Arctic sea ice.  But such risks wouldn't be limited to just the polar or just the tropical regions; species would be lost all around the world, as rapid adaptation to warming reshuffled ecosystems everywhere.

              Surviving humans would have to live in a world that was biologically impoverished--and in human terms, that would essentially be 'forever impoverished', as the time for biodiversity to recover would be much greater than the lifetime of the human species to date.  Chances are that by the time biodiversity could recover, we ourselves will be either extinct or very significantly changed.

              I don't think IS can remotely approach that kind of impact.

              1. jackclee lm profile image78
                jackclee lmposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                I disagree with your conclusion. The deaths due to climate and natural events are plentiful in recent years and down through history. At least in recent years, we have technologies that can warn of impending disasters such as Katrina so that less people would be affected. All you need is to go back to Galveston Tx and see the devastation a natural event can do - without human cause.
                ISIS however is our own doing. We as the world super power can stop it anytime but Obama chose not to. He has allow ISIS to grow and cause more harm around the world and it will grow like a cancer if not stopped. The beheadings and Christians and Moslems refugees are Manmade and are a bigger threat than climate change. Even if you convince me that climate change is real, we have the time and means to mitigate it's damage. In 2015, we need to wipe out ISIS, we can look at ways to mitigate climate change...

                1. Doc Snow profile image96
                  Doc Snowposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                  But Jack, although you say that 'weather disasters have always happened'--certainly true, and no more than I said myself--you haven't actually said one thing to support the contention that ISIS is a worse danger.  No comparative estimates of danger.  Nothing addressing the point about time scales.

                  I've provided some very specific reasons why I think that climate change is a much, much greater danger than IS.  Or Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao.

                  I wish you would address the question seriously, as I would like to know why some folks argue, as you do, that IS is a greater threat than climate change.  There are two main factors, I think, at play:  1) magnitude of the threat, if realized, and 2) likelihood of the threat to materialize.

                  So, in the spirit of dialogue we're trying to maintain here, let me ask some questions:

                  1)  On a 100-point scale upon which total extinction of the biosphere (say, by supermassive asteroid strike) is 100, what point value would you assign to worst case harm caused by IS?  (Note that this is purely *magnitude*--keep the probability of the risk separate for now.)

                  2)  On the same scale, what value do you think *I* would place on that case, based on everything I've written here?

                  3)  On the same scale, what value would you place worst-case climate change threat?

                  4)  On the same scale, what value do you think *I* would place on that case, based on everything I've written here?

                  5)  Referring to your answer to question 3, what probability would you assign to your worst-case climate threat being realized?

                  6) Referring similarly to the question 4 answer, what probability would you assign?

                  1. jackclee lm profile image78
                    jackclee lmposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                    Doc, I don't put both problems on the same plain but I will play your hypothetical assessment -
                    1. 5%
                    2. 3%
                    3. 40%
                    4. 90%
                    5. 25%
                    6. 95%

                    The difference is ISIS can be dealt with now by wiped out where as climate change if there is a fix will take decades...
                    The other thing to consider is we humans are ingenious when it come to dealing with problems. If and when climate change becomes a known problem that we can affect, I have confidence we will come up with some mitigating solutions.
                    I am a skeptic and some problems we have no control over and climate change is one of them (at this moment).

  8. jackclee lm profile image78
    jackclee lmposted 12 months ago

    Just as a hypothetical example: If climate scientist will tell me that recent pause in global warming is due to the effect of an inactive sun (which is the reality as reported by following)
    http://www.spaceweather.com
    and that they will go back and improve their models to account for this, then I would be more inclined to believe their other claims...
    Instead the IPCC doubles down on their predictions and claim the future effects will be worst than they originally thought? We better do something fast or else...and come up with all kinds of excuses that the heat is hiding in the ocean...or some other nonsense...

    I hope you see my point on this. I can be swayed if given a logical explanation.

    1. jackclee lm profile image78
      jackclee lmposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      List of 52 reasons given for the pause from WUWT -
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/11/l … -up-to-52/

      1. jackclee lm profile image78
        jackclee lmposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        Doc, I just thought of an analogy of where I view the current climate change issue. It's not a perfect fit but may help you understand.
        Suppose the Titanic hits an iceberg and the ship is in distress.
        There are 4 scenarios,
        1. It is real bad and all hands on deck and abandon ship is ordered.
        2. It is leaking but Captain is assessing the damage to see what to do next.
        3. It is a small leak and can wait till ship return to port for repair.
        4. No time to do anything, everyone for himself, it's in God's hand.

        Where do you see we are? (Titanic being mother earth)
        I am in stage 2. I want to see what the assessment is before acting. From where I sit, we have been talking about global warming since the late 1980's. The ship have not sunk in 30 years. I want to make sure our response is appropriate.

        1. jackclee lm profile image78
          jackclee lmposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          Doc, another thing I thought of as a parallel. Do you remember Y2K? Many experts was warning about pending disaster...
          It turned out to be a bust.
          The difference between Y2K and climate change is that Y2K had an end date. The year 2000 happened and all is well.

          1. Doc Snow profile image96
            Doc Snowposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            Jack, I'm working for the climate crisis to be a good parallel to the Y2K thing--though on a much longer time scale.

            Here's what britannica has to say about it:



            So there wasn't a disaster because people looked at what evidence said about a pending risk and made rational (albeit expensive) choices to remediate the issue.

            That's what I'm advocating for in the climate field.  I fear that your stance on climate would be analogous to someone saying, "Well, let's wait and see if anything fails on New Year's Day.  It would be expensive to fix and maybe there's not a real problem.  There's a risk that we could waste some money for nothing."

            1. jackclee lm profile image78
              jackclee lmposted 12 months ago in reply to this

              I hope you will be honest in your comparison of Y2K to Climate Change. We all lived thru 2000, and the facts are well documented.

              1. Doc Snow profile image96
                Doc Snowposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                I hope you're not suggesting that Britannica is dishonest about Y2K!

                1. jackclee lm profile image78
                  jackclee lmposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                  I worked in the computer industry for 28 years. I lived thru Y2K as many others. I don't need Britannica to tell me what happened.
                  By the way, I came across this article you might find interesting.
                  http://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/12/04/5-s … ign-91571/

                  1. jackclee lm profile image78
                    jackclee lmposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                    Doc, here is another article that explains chaos and how it leads to inaccuracies in models. It contains some math equations but don't let that scare you. The concept is sound.
                    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/05/a … er-models/

                  2. Doc Snow profile image96
                    Doc Snowposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                    So what was your experience around Y2K?  Inquiring minds want to know!

                    As to Fabius Maximus, he seems to think he has 'won.'  I think he's delusional about that, frankly.  Public awareness and concern around climate change continues to grow, national (and sub-national) policies to address it continue to proliferate around the world, and the question in Paris isn't so much whether there will be an agreement, as how much of an 'ambition gap' will be left.

                    We'll be arguing over climate policy for a long time to come--but more and more, in my opinion, it will be about policy, and not about the existence of the problem.  And that's as it should be.

                    When Fabius notices, perhaps he'll be angry…

                    ;-)

        2. Doc Snow profile image96
          Doc Snowposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          I don't think we're in any of those states.  The analogy IMO would be that the Captain has reports of very serious underwater damage and is attempting to rally work parties to address the damage and save the ship, but is encountering problems with discipline among the crew.  Some are obeying orders, some are rushing for lifeboats, but all too many are insisting that it's just a drill and they don't have to get out of their nice warm bunks!

          1. jackclee lm profile image78
            jackclee lmposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            Doc,
            What do you think we put an end to this debate after the COP21 meeting?
            I propose a summary of results taking into account all the discussions and the result of the 3 polls. As much as I enjoy this debate with you, I think we have pretty much touched on most subject matter.
            How about 12/21 as the end date? It is the start of Winter.
            Let me know if you agree. Take care and enjoy the Holidays. Season's Greetings and Merry Christmas.

            1. Doc Snow profile image96
              Doc Snowposted 12 months ago in reply to this

              Yes, we can't go on forever.

              Well, maybe we could, but that wouldn't necessarily make it a good idea.  ;-)

              Sure, 12/21 sounds fine to me.  And best Christmas and holiday wishes to you, too.

              1. jackclee lm profile image78
                jackclee lmposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                Sounds good. I'll work on a summary hub and I'm sure we will revisit this topic over the next few years. It will get resolved. I'm an optimist.

                1. Doc Snow profile image96
                  Doc Snowposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                  Me, too.  Whatever agreement comes out of Paris will give us a bit to talk about, and it won't be the end of the road, either, since there's no chance that the agreement will be adequate to the need. (Unless of course the whole thing is a big mistake, but I think the chance of that is vanishingly small--though it'd be a relief forgetting all about it and just concentrating on my music.)

                  So there will be twists and turns.

                  I don't know if I'll do a summary Hub or not--maybe just an update to the one I wrote.

                  1. jackclee lm profile image78
                    jackclee lmposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                    Doc, did you catch what John Kerry said lately?
                    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government … pointless/

  9. jackclee lm profile image78
    jackclee lmposted 11 months ago

    Very interesting. Extending the tax credit to 2020 is ok by me. I just hope people will realize the long term implication of some of these alternative energy. Ultimately, they will succeed or fail on its own merit. Subsidies can only carry them so far.

    1. jackclee lm profile image78
      jackclee lmposted 11 months ago in reply to this

      Doc, have you noticed the drop in gas and oil prices? In the NY area, we are seeing gas at $2 a gallon. This is great for consumers. Not so good for electric cars or hybrids.

      1. Doc Snow profile image96
        Doc Snowposted 11 months ago in reply to this

        Of course.  I paid $1.80.9 last night when I filled up.

        It's a global phenomenon, mostly due to the Saudis trying to drive frackers and other providers of unconventional oil out of the market.  And yes, it does suppress concern about mileage somewhat.  But it's not going to last forever, and electrics and hybrids are dinged, not demolished, thereby, as you can see from the sales figures listed here:

        http://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/

        By the way, there's a good chance that the next car we buy will be some sort of plug-in.  Could be fall 2017, possibly, or a bit later.  Though you never know with vehicles, and our current 2 are pretty darn long in the tooth--there's nothing sexier in a car, if you ask me, than being completely paid for and largely depreciated already.

        1. jackclee lm profile image78
          jackclee lmposted 11 months ago in reply to this

          My only experience is via my neice in LA and she has a tesla and they are disappointed in it after 2 years. They are afraid to go on long distance trips and the 90k price tag they will never recoup in gas savings.

          1. Doc Snow profile image96
            Doc Snowposted 11 months ago in reply to this

            Sorry they didn't like their choice.  As you may have gathered, I wouldn't be buying a $90K car even if I had the $90K on hand in cash.  ;-)

            1. jackclee lm profile image78
              jackclee lmposted 11 months ago in reply to this

              What other electric cars are economically feasible and does the job of getting from point A to point B?

              1. jackclee lm profile image78
                jackclee lmposted 11 months ago in reply to this

                Doc, this article does not bode well for electric cars-
                http://www.forbes.com/sites/brookecroth … ojections/

                1. Doc Snow profile image96
                  Doc Snowposted 11 months ago in reply to this

                  I don't agree.  The *headline* may not 'bode well,' but the story really doesn't give much reason to think that electrics are in trouble.  You and I already talked about the impact of very low gas prices.  And the fact that there are more competitors than GM expected surely isn't a bad thing for the industry or the consumer.

              2. Doc Snow profile image96
                Doc Snowposted 11 months ago in reply to this

                I think the link I posted has a pretty complete list of models, so you could check that out if you are interested in completeness.

                The venerable Prius now has a plug-in version, and continues to be at the head of the pack.  We know a number of folks who are very happy with theirs (including one couple with his 'n hers Prii).

                Of pure electrics, the Nissan Leaf is probably at the head of the pack.  Its range is limited, but it's favored by (relatively) a lot of commuters here in the Atlanta area.  Not only is it very, very cheap to operate, Leaf drivers get to use the pay-to-play lanes for free.

                Chev's Bolt and Volt have their fans and sell in considerable numbers, and BMW's offering (i3, is it?) seems to be well-regarded albeit pricey.  (Hey, it's a Bimmer.)

                We're going to need something with more range than most pure electrics, as we'll be living in the country, and as noted above, price is a big consideration for us.  But the electrics are getting there.

                1. jackclee lm profile image78
                  jackclee lmposted 11 months ago in reply to this

                  Doc, Yes, all that may be true but they are in no way close to their original projected goals - remember Obama wanted 1 million electric cars on the road by 2015. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesand … es_rpt.pdf
                  It is comparable to the failed climate projections...in my mind. I am working on the status hub will publish shortly.

                  1. Doc Snow profile image96
                    Doc Snowposted 11 months ago in reply to this

                    How is an aspiration blocked by an uncooperative Congress in any way comparable to a 'failed climate projection'?

                    And remember, I've shown pretty well that a great many projections are not 'failed.'

 
working