ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

How Would I Address the Climate Change Problem

Updated on September 5, 2019
jackclee lm profile image

Jack is currently a volunteer at the Westchester County Archives. Before retiring, he worked at IBM for over 28 years.

Introduction

The climate change debate has been going on for over 30 years. It is high time for a new direction. As a climate skeptic, I think the UN and the IPCC has been totally politicized. They lack credibility as being an unbiased source. My proposal is simple and yet profound. Here is my idea if I was in charge at the UN.

- June 2019

What Makes Me Qualified?

I am not a climate scientists. I am a retired engineer by training. I have been interested in climate change for over 25 years. I am an observer and have been following this debate for those periods. I have read papers and attended talks on this topic. I have written articles on HubPages and debated other hubbers on climate change.

The fact that after all these years, despite all the conferences and accords, we have not found a solution by the “experts” tells me something new needs to be tried. The “experts“ have not done a good job in terms of projecting future events, or educating the masses or demonstrate their credibility or lack thereof.

The politicization of this problem by both sides has made this a toxic environment. It is hard to say who started it but the fact is we are where we are today and both sides had a hand in getting us here.

The solution has to come from outside the community. As a skeptic of the theory of AGW, I am uniquely qualified. I have no hidden agenda. I am not paid by big oil or environmental groups. I am an average citizen trying to make sense of what is happening and I want a solution that is reasonable and efficient and gets results.

That is the engineer in me speaking.

Assumptions

To begin, I make the following assumptions.

  • global warming is happening right now and has been for decades.
  • Human activities has increased steadily since the industrial revolution of the 19th century.
  • Human population is also growing at a steady rate, putting pressure on resources like food and water and energy...
  • technology and innovation is growing at exponential rate and no sign of slowing down.
  • climate change as oppose to weather is a long term phenomenon by definition.
  • Climate change is very complex and encompasses many natural cycles in addition to human induced effects.
  • The greenhouse effect is well understood but it is insufficient to explain all that is happening right now.
  • Environment protection such as the EPA is not part of the climate debate. It is a separate branch of our human endeavors. We all want clean water and clean air and the animals and plants protected from extinction.
  • Climate change is apolitical and based on science only. We should not use it for political ideology.
  • The long term survival of the human race on earth should be our collective goal.

Background...

Climate change solutions should be global and across all countries. Therefore, the United Nations is the only international organization capable of tackling this problem.

However, the IPCC and past global initiatives have failed to keep politics out and failed to consider all options when it comes to mitigation of climate change effects.

It also lacks the enforcement necessary to make any solution proposal mandatory. That has been the failure of the Paris Accord and other such agreements.

The fair treatment to combat climate change should be based on GDP. A percentage of the national GDP should be paid by all members of the UN. This way, every person on earth has a stake in the final outcome. What that amount should be is determined by a serious of studies conducted by professionals to examine all aspects of this debate.

The timeframe of this study is based on the scope as defined by the international body. We have some past precedence to draw upon. For example, the mission to land a man on the moon took 10 years. The ozone hole problem took approximately 20 years to resolve.

If we put the best and brightest minds to this problem, I am confident that a solution can be reached in 30 years. I would propose a 5 year study period followed by a 25 years period to implement the solution.

Project Management...

This problem is huge and requires extraordinary project management skills. This problem is a science project and therefore require scientists of all related disciplines to participate. This means we don’t need celebrities, politicians or activists as members or participants. The only people necessary are scientists and engineers who understand this problem and what it takes to solve it.

It is envisioned at the end of the 5 years of study that a serious of proposals would be presented with costs and results.

No solutions is off the table. Also, there may be no solutions. That is a distinct possibility. That is after studying all the contributing factors, it may be determined that the solution is too illusive or too costly that in effect, we don’t have a good solution.

It may also be possible that any effects are within the errors of natural probabilities. Again, this may mean we just have to deal with it by adapting to the changes rather than try to mitigate.

Finally, if a solution is proposed, for example, reducing CO2 emissions by some amount, then it behoves us to calculate the ROI. What is the cost/benefit analysis of such a proposal.

Once, all options are on the table, then it makes sense for the international community to put it to a vote. The majority gets to decide which is the best solution and compliance is mandatory based on GDP. This is only fair and equitable.

The optimum team size should not exceed 9 members. This is according to Scrum methodology. It is fine to have more people working on the project. Just the key decision makers should not be more than 9 members.

This is a key concept. You cannot have a hundred scientists in a room and expect to reach any conclusions. The size matters and in this case, a small number is essential. The “right” member is much more important than how many members.

Who decides? Who gets to decide which scientists are to be part of this team?

Organization

The UN has not been an effective body. It has failed us in many past conflicts by failing to act decisively. It is the nature of this international organization comprising over 100 countries where many are controlled by dictators and tyrants. The 5 member security council where a unanimous vote is required also is a road block to many actions.

I am not a fan of the UN and have written article in the past on why the UN should be disbanded. However, in this case, Climate-Change is uniquely the one problem that everyone in the world can agree on. Coming up with a solution can be debated but the problem exists and most if not all countries agree on that point. There are individuals who may be deniers of climate change. They are a small minority.

Why This is The Only Path Forward

After having tried all else, and with little to show for it and spending billions of dollars, it is time for a new direction.

What is this new direction?

Back to the fundamentals. We need to question everything including the assumptions I outlined in the start of this article.

The Three basic questions we need to answer.

1. What percent of global warming is due to human activity and what percent is due to natural causes?

2. How fast is the process moving? The rate of change per unit of time. In this case, the unit may be measured in decades, not years.

3. What, if anything we can do to change this course? at what cost in terms of dollars.

Black Box Approach

This problem is ideal by treating the earth as a black box. This is how we deal with many complex systems. We don’t need to understand the details of how something works in order to see the effects globally.

Take the automobile for example as an illustration. Most of us learn how to drive as a teenager. We don’t know what is under the hood. We don’t have to. We just need to know how to fill it up with gas, start the engine and push the peddles and shift gears. It will drive us where we need to go.

By the same token, scientists has been focusing on the details and miss the forest from the trees. Studying the various mechanisms that drive our planet is important but not necessarily lead to the solution of the overall problem. In some talks I attended on various topics, the speaker goes into excruciating details of his research and the data findings and analysis...but failed to address the basic question, “so what?” What does this research have to do with the overall problem and solution to climate change? Perhaps he or she thinks the answer is obvious. Not to me. Just because we don’t understand something does not mean we should automatically spend time and resources to study it. There are priorities. We should only spend the resources that leads some where or solve a bigger puzzle.

Back to the black box approach. We know the greenhouse effect and how CO2 plays a big role in warming the planet. The next follow up question should be, what else is affecting global warming or cooling? Because, if we simply say the greenhouse effect is the key contributing factor, and ignore all else, the results does not match the theory.

Here is the reality. CO2 concentration on earth has been rising steadily for the last 100 years. It has surpassed 400 ppm. However, during that same time period, the earth’s temperature has not risen steadily as it should if it was acting like a black box. In fact, during the 1970s, the earth was actually cooling for a period. How come? There must be some other factors of sufficient significance to cause this anomaly.

By searching for answers, perhaps we can find the better model to represent the earth as a black box. One that will include other factors such as sun spot cycles, and volcanic activities, and other planet cycles and even the precession of the earth rotation around the sun.

Summary

I have outlined a new direction. Not everything is spelled out but the basic structure is in place. It is up the UN to implement if they wish. This is not rocket science. We have put men on the moon before in less time. This climate-change is no different. If we put our collective mind to solving it, we can accomplish what we set out to do within the 30 years time frame.

Postscript - June 15, 2019

Reading some of the comments here, it is clear this is a contentious topic. Human induced global warming leading to climate change and the destruction of life on earth as we know it...

I also read the word “extreme” repeated here with charges on both sides. What is extreme? Let me try to explain it.

Extreme is by definition outside the normal spectrum. We often speak of extreme weather or temperature or rainfall as some unusual effect. A black swan effect. Something that is rare. I have been accused by Climate-Change believers as “extreme” in my position. But is that a fair accusation?

What is “extreme“ about taking a measured approach on something that is important and complex and wide ranging as AGW?

What is “extreme” about taking a few years to further study a phenomenon which has been going on for only 30 years...? Considering the effects will not be apparent for another 30 years assuming every prediction comes true?

On the other hand, what is “extreme“ is to ask us, the general public, to take the word of climate scientists who among themselves disagree on various aspects of this theory?

What is ”extreme” is to ask the people to give up their standards of living and spend tax dollars in trying to reverse a trend that is partly natural and partly man-made?

What is “extreme” is to ask a subset of the world population to turn over their hard earned assets to a corrupt international organization who has an agenda to redistribute wealth.

What is “extreme” is to ask the tax payers to subsidize wealthy people with tax incentives for renewable energy use such as electric cars and solar roofs...

What is ”extreme” is to ask the 3rd world citizens to give up cheap energy sources like coal and forests so that the rest of the world can feel good about saving the environment.

Extreme is in the eye of the beholder.

Who is more extreme?

Plot of CO2 vs. Temperature Over Last 1 Billion Years

Heat Wave Animation from 1900-2010

Predictions for Winter of 2019-2020 Season from Farmers Almanac

This content is accurate and true to the best of the author’s knowledge and is not meant to substitute for formal and individualized advice from a qualified professional.

© 2019 Jack Lee

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment
    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      3 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Solar panels and windmills are fine in remote areas, but far more expensive and far less efficient than grid power.

      If they were efficient and less costly than grid power, energy companies would have adopted them long ago.

      Do the math. A typical household 200 amp service delivers 48,000 watts. To equal that would require 480 (100) watt panels, and batteries. At about $150 per panel, That's $72,000 just for the panels and most homes don't have the square footage for more than 20-30 panels, much less 480!

      A typical life span is about 20 years, so amortized out, That's $3,600 per year spent on panels per home! That's more than the yearly cost of grid power, and that does not cover battery costs and disposal of all that hazardous waste.

      Wind is even worse!

      They clearly have not thought this through.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      3 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Another sign climate change (global warming) is delayed...

      Farmers Almanac out with new predictions for Winter 2019-2020.

      Not looking good for Climate Science models...

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      3 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Another bump on the solar energy road...

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/26/stormy-weat...

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      3 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      How about this story?

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/24/sea-level-r...

      How is this being a good citizen of the world...in light of climate change and existential threat...

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      3 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      4 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      When Al Gore was caught flying around in a notoriously dirty Gulfstream private jet, he excused himself by pointing out that he bought offsetting carbon credits from a British company. It was later revealed that Gore owned that company!

      Al Gore is making big bucks off AGW, which is why he's the leading booster of the fraud.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VV309lbB8c

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      4 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Question for AGW proponents?

      If it is so dire, why are the people delivering the message not following their own advice?...reduce their carbon footprint...conserve...

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      4 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      My goodness! Don't they realize that the sea will soon rise and flood them out? And what about all the violent new hurricanes? Someone should warn them before it's too late!

      Scott? Doc?

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      4 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Did you see this? Barack and Michelle Obama just bought a huge mansion in Martha’s Vineyard ...good for them.

      Do you think he is worried about AGW and his carbon footprint?

      He said it is an existential threat...

      Is he doing his part or just paying lip service?

      https://www.tmz.com/2019/08/22/barack-michelle-oba...

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      4 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      We set a record yesterday at 113 degrees. Is that proof of AGW? No, that's evidence that a stalled high pressure system can produce record heat.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      4 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Our true-believer friends are angry with us because we refuse to drink the Kool-Aid. No, not one of the scare-mongering predictions, including violent hurricane swarms, has come to pass, and that failure now spans almost 50 years!

      In my view, the amazing factor is not that we are skeptics, but that otherwise intelligent people still believe, despite the utter failure of their gurus to be correct about anything.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      4 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Here is article about our recent quiet hurricanes...

      https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/08...

      How is this possible? considering the claim - it is the warmest year on record of all times...something just don’t fly...

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      4 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Yes, I agree with the article. There is much to be accounted in the climate science community. Another factor is the funding of research. When I attend talks at the LDEO, almost all research was funded by the NSF with some ties to climate change.

      Apparently, if you want to get your projects funded, it must have a climate change component. This is not science but politics.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      4 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      4 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Scott, will check back in 2025 or so...we can see which crystal ball was right...thanks for the lively debate. Hope you learned something...as have I.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      4 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      And that "They are not any worst than what happens in nature on a periodic basis." IS SO not true. But since you refuse to consider the facts, you will continue in your fantasy. I am joining Doc now and let the deniers talk to themselves.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      4 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Scott, I wrote this set of predictions in 2016 for 2026...

      They are still valid.

      I will pit this against any prediction made by the climate scientists.

      https://hubpages.com/technology/My-Top-10-Predicti...

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      4 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Scott, you can repeat posting all these stats but it does not change the narrative. As a Skeptic of AGW, these changes that are happening, are not dire. They are not any worst than what happens in nature on a periodic basis.

      The Greenland ice is one great example. For the ice in Greenland to melt, it will take several thousand years, not decades or 100 years.

      That is the crux pf the problem. For you and doc, you cry wolf every-time there is an event and I think they are well within natural cause. Even if there is an element of human contribution, it is not as dire as been painted by Mann and Gore...

      This is not denial but a skeptic questioning the policies that are being proposed to stop this.

      The Green New Deal being one, but there are many including reducing our population, stop eating meat, ride bicycles, and turning off our lights on Earth day...

      To a skeptic like me- Every day is earth day.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      4 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      The 2008 CBS doomsday video predictions of a 2015 world were based on what the IPCC predicted Scott. It failed and failed utterly, so folks like you don't want to talk about that anymore. Instead, you try to sell new and other predictions.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      4 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      The DIRE is happening now Jack.

      https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/19/weather/greenland-n...

      "Greenland lost 12.5 billion tons of ice to melting on August 2, the largest single-day loss in recorded history and another stark reminder of the climate crisis."

      "NASA oceanographer Josh Willis and his team are investigating how the ice is being attacked not only by rising air temperatures but also by the warming ocean, which is eating it away from underneath."

      "There is enough ice in Greenland to raise the sea levels by 7.5 meters, that's about 25 feet, an enormous volume of ice, and that would be devastating to coastlines all around the planet," said Willis. "We should be retreating already from the coastline if we are looking at many meters [lost] in the next century or two."

      "It's very rare anywhere on the planet to see 700 meters of no temperature variation, normally we find colder waters in the upper hundred meters or so, but right in front of the glacier it's warm all the way up," said Ian Fenty, climate scientist at NASA. "These warm waters now are able to be in direct contact with the ice over its entire face, supercharging the melting."

      "Helheim has become famous in recent years as it has been retreating at a stunning rate. In 2017, the glacier lost a whopping two miles, and a year later scientists from New York University captured a miles-long ice column break off the glacier's front."

      "The melt doesn't seem to be slowing this year either. Helheim has become famous in recent years as it has been retreating at a stunning rate. In 2017, the glacier lost a whopping two miles, and a year later scientists from New York University captured a miles-long ice column break off the glacier's front. The melt doesn't seem to be slowing this year either."

      Jack, DIRE is here!!!!

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      4 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Jack, you have been shown the data before that serious climate scientists have stopped arguing about the reality of AWG. Your debunking ideas are all debunked with this

      https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=15&...

      YOU are really stuck in the past, Will. Since you keep posting False statements, "BTW, Jack, it's already 5 years down the road because none of their dire predictions have ever come to pass. " I will keep posting the truth:

      Sea Levels are rising

      Heat Waves are increasing

      Violent Weather is increasing

      Atlantic Storms are getting stronger.

      More CO2 in the air

      More moisture in the air

      More rain and flooding around the world,

      More people dying do to heat

      and the list goes on and on.

      I am hoping Will you will get tired of not telling the truth.

      What if in 5 years down the road and climate change is worse than the dire existential threat that is being foretold AND IS COMING TRUE? What if waiting that long means millions more dead??? I guess the answer is - they will be dead, oops, sorry about that, I should have gotten smart when there was time to do something about it 5 years ago.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      4 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      The late scientist John Coleman, creator of the Weather Channel, made several videos like the following debunking the IPCC's AGW scam. For that, he has been absolutely vilified by the left:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8FhmuWWcGw

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      4 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      "What if in 5 years down the road and climate change was not the dire existential threat that was sold to us? What would you say to those people? That were most affected? It seems to me “oops, sorry” just won’t cut it."

      ...

      There will be no 'sorry'. They don't care about that at all. The goal is our submission and once that is achieved, there's no leftist regrets and no turning back.

      The same thing happened with Obamacare. It too was sold as an emergency and we were told it would save us all a lot of money while providing better care. The exact opposite happened and those of us who opposed it were right all along, but the left didn't apologize and they didn't rescind the program as a mistake. They got what they wanted and to hell with the truth.

      BTW, Jack, it's already 5 years down the road because none of their dire predictions have ever come to pass. We were supposed to have become a vast desert wasteland by 2015 with $9 gasoline and $13 milk! That was based on IPCC alarmist predictions:

      http://wafflesatnoon.com/good-morning-america-2008...

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      4 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Scott, final question - a hypothetical.

      What if in 5 years down the road and climate change was not the dire existential threat that was sold to us?

      What would you say to those people? That were most affected?

      It seems to me “oops, sorry” just won’t cut it.

      I would want a world tribunal to get to the bottom of this.

      I want these scientists, and celebrities and politicians and environmental activists made accountable.

      The boy who cried wolf too many times must have consequences.

      They fly around in their private jets and expect the rest of us to give up our meat and SUV...

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      4 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Scott,

      In a way, you just made my point about believing in experts, or relying on exerts. It is a standard response when asked,,,”97% of scientists agree on climate change...”. Which has been debunked numerous times. When you take survey, depending how the question is posed, you can get any stats you want out of it. You should know that.

      The fact is most of these “scientists” are not experts in the field and they rely on others to tell them rather than spend the time to ask questions and drill down...

      So the consensus is not to be trusted and if history teaches us anything, they are often wrong.

      The climate models are incomplete because they cannot account for the real results we are experiencing.

      As an engineer, that is something we value. A theory only becomes true if the data verify the projected results. If not, there must be something else going on...

      I don’t expect you to believe in what I say.

      I call that intellectual laziness on your part.

      Just go and seek out the evidence. Ask questions of the “experts”.Find out how much they know and how much they don’t know and are just guessing...

      Also, find out who is paying them? Who is funding the research? Who are the activist? What is their hidden agenda?

      Here is another maxim - haste makes waste.

      I rather take the time to find out instead of jumping in with both feet not knowing what is on the other side.

      If this was just a simple exercise, I would not care so much.

      It is not. Real people are being hurt and affected by these green deal proposals.

      It does not affect me living in NY suburbs but affect people in rural China and India and else where where green energy policies are causing life and death situation.

      Do you care?

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      4 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      I will give you that you have a BS in Electrical Engineering and an MS in Computer Science. But with "The current 30 or so various climate models are all incomplete" what you are telling me is that yours MS trumps (no pun intended) all the Ph.Ds behind the climate models; which is even more astounding given that you have no idea how their models work at the detail level. Personally, I trust their expertise and decades of experience of yours. Sorry.

      Just so you know I am familiar with all of this, my bona fides are a BS in Computer Science, Mathematics, and Accounting with a MS in Operations research with a professional designation in Cost and Economic Analysis from AFIT. Currently, I have two cost models being used by the AF (for resource planning) and DoD (if they close any more bases). One COBRA is a cost model and the other, AFTOC, is a MIS that integrates data to help estimate the cost of running the AF.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      4 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Jack said:

      "Just as an example -

      If the warming is 30% human and 70% natural, then it is hard to justify drastic measures to affect only 30% of the outcome..."

      Scott read:

      "it is good that you have now admitted to the fact that humans cause at least 30% of AWG."

      Of course Jack said no such thing and Scott apparently misunderstands the meaning of 'if'.

      I also chuckled at Scott's statement that man is responsible for 30% of AGW, because AGW means 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' or 'man-caused' global warming.

      BTW Scott, it's AGW, not AWG.

      Man's activities obviously do affect our environment, but to what extent? We have become good stewards over the years and have developed methods that keep our water and air clean. But now, the far-left is claiming that the co2 we emit with every breath and is vital to plant life, is a pollutant and will destroy our planet!

      The fact is, and the news is being suppressed for political reasons, the planet is actually greening up from releasing that long-sequestered co2 and the greening itself is causing a natural cooling effect. Earth is taking care of herself as always and just as God designed.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      4 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Scott, not only am I an engineer, I am also an expert on computer simulations. I have a BS in Electrical Engineering from CCNY and a MS in Computer Science from NYU.

      I know how simulations work and have designed many simulations of computer VLSI processors...

      I also know the limitations of computer modeling.

      A computer model is only as good or as accurate as the scope of its domain. The current 30 or so various climate models are all incomplete. In addition, they are built on various assumptions which have limitations. Finally, they have initial parameters which is a “guess” by the designers. Any small tweaking of these parameters can have drastic results decades into to simulation. This is a sign of instability. When a small change can create a large effect, it is unstable and prone to errors and oscillations.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      4 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      It is good that you have now admitted to the fact that humans cause at least 30% of AWG. It is actually, provably, higher than that. Why? Along with tons of empirical data saying so logic does to.

      Because your cycles, which are true (not sure about the 60-year cycle though) have the planet in a cooling cycle at the moment (and has for thousands of years now), the fact that human caused global warming has REVERSED that trend shows you how devastating it is.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      4 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      The 2020 election will partly be a referendum on climate change. The American people have a clear choice. Either they believe in AGW theory or they don’t. If they do, they will have no choice but vote for the Democrats, and their Green New Deal. If they don’t, they will vote for Trump and the continuation of an economic boom and a record energy production where they see the US as a net exporter of oil and gas for the first time in our modern history.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      4 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      4 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      4 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Scott, I am not denying there is no human component to global warming. Hence, I am still a skeptic. The question for me in CAP is HOW MUCH and HOW SOON?

      Just as an example -

      If the warming is 30% human and 70% natural, then it is hard to justify drastic measures to affect only 30% of the outcome...

      Also, if it takes 100 years to materialize instead of 30 years, for example the rising oceans... that also affects our calculation of mitigation and adaptation...

      As an engineer, one must be pragmatic in dealing with this instead of emotional...

      You weigh the various options and its effect on everyone around the globe...

      Again, using just one example. It is hard to tell someone to stop burning coal when their livelihood depends on it.

      It is easy for someone at the UN or Hollywood to lecture others on what they should do or shouldn’t do when it comes to their carbon foot print. Yet, they themselves do not follow what they preach...

      You see the hypocrisy?

      Finally, when the changes are small and detectible in the noise, it is very hard to separate the cause and effect especially when there is a natural fluctuation over long period of time...

      Even you, as a non scientists, should comprehend this.

      With regard to the hockey stick theory, it was proven it is unsustainable. It was also exaggerated by selective revising raw temperature data of years ago to show it was cooler back then. This is how the hockey stick graph was manufactured.

      All you have to do is get out a ruler and place it on the chart and see where the blade of the stick goes even after 5 short years.

      It could never achieve that level of warming. It is a farce.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      4 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      BTW, 1) Why does your heat wave chart stop at 2013, six years ago and 2) why does it leave out so many recorded heat waves? For example,

      2010: 4

      2011: 3

      2012: 3

      2013: 6

      2014: 0

      2015: 6

      2016: 3 (greater than 400 ppm)

      2017: 6

      2018: 5

      2019: 7 (so far)

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      4 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Why don't you read what I write, Jack? I'll repeat it for you about your so-called 60-year cycle.

      I started going through your source but had to stop because it had so many things wrong.

      For example:

      "There's been only 0.05 degree of warming in 20 years." - He doesn't say whether that if F or C, but it doesn't make any difference because he is Wrong. In fact from 1999 to 2019 (so far), global temperature has from from 14.33 C to 14.65 C or 0.32 C - That's a FACT.

      Your source then attempts to explain how the atmosphere is heated. He does bring in the three main sources, conduction, radiation, and convection.

      His reasoning about molecules colliding with the ground or water imparts heat, which he calls "conduction" - it doesn't (except in an exceptionally small way due to friction) and it isn't. Conduction is the transfer of heat from the warmer object to the colder object that are in direct contact, such as cooler air sitting on top of a warmer earth. A physics major would know this. The other way air is heated is through radiation; as the earth (or water) releases infrared radiation, it heats anything surrounding it, including the air. This, however, is only a small part of atmospheric heating.

      He did get convection right, however, which is the distribution heat within the atmosphere (or a pot of water if that is the environment). Convection is both the rising of hot air and the falling of cool air.

      But he got radiation all wrong - I gave up when he said CO2 actually cools!

      Next -

      "Natural climate cycles (regulated by the Sun and planetary orbits - indicate 500 years of cooling starting later this century." - IT IS the 'later this century" that is FALSE.

      In FACT, it has been falling, as Doc pointed out multiple times, for the last 8,000 years, and NOT "starting later this century". To repeat something Doc said previously and which you chose to ignore is

      "The Holocene temperatures peaked around 8,000 years ago. This temperature peak was associated with the perihelion phase of the Milankovitch cycles. That was when it is estimated that the natural cycle climate forcing was at maximum, including associated climate feedbacks. Since then the forcing levels have been slowly dropping and the temperature has been following the slope of forcing in line with the changes in the Milankovitch cycle forcing combined with system feedbacks.

      RECENT SIGNIFICANT CHANGES in climate forcing DUE TO HUMAN CAUSE FACTORS have produced a NET POSITIVE forcing causing temperatures to RISE. This is a DEPARTURE from the NATURAL CYCLE." Hopefully the all caps helped in understanding.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      4 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Scott, keep in mind the 60 year cycle...

      What seems like a warming trend could turn to a cooling trend.

      What will you do then?

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      4 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Why do some of the most dedicated pro-warming sites deceptively label themselves as 'skeptics'? One of Scott's favorites does exactly and another one from far-left Berkeley Earth does the same thing:

      https://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/skeptics-guid...

      Whom do they think they're fooling...other than people like Scott?

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      4 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      So what is it you want us to do, Scott?

      Give us the details of your plan.

      The floor is yours.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      4 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      "Scott, for a bit of history. Heat waves are not new. It has been around a long time...

      Here is a reminder."

      Talk about a meaningless statement intended to deceive. Of course heat waves have been around for a long time. But the point your willfully ignore in order to keep the faith about no AWG is the frequency of heat waves have increased to unprecedented levels.

      Here is a reminder of that FACT (I updated it with the current heat wave we are having):

      # of Heat Waves by Decade ending in:

      1910: .20

      1920: .30

      1930: .30

      1940: .40

      1950: 0

      1960: .40

      1970: 0

      1980: .30

      1990: .50

      2000: .50

      2010: 1.70

      2020: 4.33 (which isn't complete yet)

      Before and after threshold is passed

      2010: 4

      2011: 3

      2012: 3

      2013: 6

      2014: 0

      2015: 6

      2016: 3 (greater than 400 ppm)

      2017: 6

      2018: 5

      2019: 7 (so far)

      On or Before 2006, no year had MORE than 2 heat waves world-wide.

      After 2006, no year had LESS than 2 heat waves world-wide.

      How does your theory of AWG explain this?

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      4 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      4 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Jack says - "For someone who does not believe in God, you are quick to believe in some “scientists” who claims to know..."

      As I have said before to you Jack, I believe in what I consider God, it is just not your version of God.

      Since all scientists are fakes to you, why do you rely on a few who propose false, debunked theories for your belief?

      I believe (not in) people who are specifically trained to analyze and draw conclusions from data. You don't, it is as simple as that.

      Also, I know my history, much better than you, it seems.

      You may be surprised to learn that the "hockey stick" is so much a theory as a description of the picture formed when plotting temperature anomalies which show the very sharp rise in global temperatures in the last 1400 years. Are you now denying that it doesn't look like a hockey stick? https://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.h...

      You do know that computer models are behind almost all advances in science don't you? I am starting to doubt you are an engineer at all since real engineers rely on computer modeling all of the time. https://www.techscience.com/cmes/

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      4 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Scott, for a bit of history. Heat waves are not new. It has been around a long time...

      Here is a reminder.

      https://www.adaptny.org/2016/07/27/hot-blast-from-...

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      4 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      It works for me every time, Will - try again

      https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-fo...

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      4 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      The Truth About Global Warming - It is killing you

      https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/16/us/alaska-salmon-ho...

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      4 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Your link goes here:

      Not Found

      The requested URL /empirical-evidence-fo... was not found on this server.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      4 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      For someone who does not believe in God, you are quick to believe in some “scientists” who claims to know...

      Remember your history.

      The world had plenty of those men who believed in their science until something else came along and replace them.

      Those were consensus of the best minds at the time.

      I put my faith in God over men.

      I also put common sense above wacky theory such as the “hockey stick”

      I also put real hard data above computer models.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      4 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      No Jack, you place your bet only in your God because "Nature" is telling us AWG is real.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      4 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Once again I must lead the horse to water. Maybe, one of these days you will drink it.

      Apparently you didn't read https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-fo... Why don't you dispute the proof it gives you, the empirical evidence it presents??? (You don't because you can't, so you ignore it and continue making false claims)

      AND now you appear to be dropping your criticism of "consensus" it seems since it is a consensus of opinion of scientists, based on the same type of evidence they have for AWG, is that the sun will be here next year (or tomorrow).

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      4 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Scott,

      I didn't say the Sun is guaranteed to be here tomorrow. I said that we have lots of empirical evidence that it will be here. You cannot say that about AGW because it has never happened, so there is no empirical evidence to point to.

      BTW, the link for your claim that there is such evidence goes nowhere, just like the rest of your arguments.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      4 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Man's puny contribution to our vast, atmospheric ocean is a mere 00.00005%, or, put another way, 99.99995% of our atmosphere is not man caused. Yet we are supposed to believe that our atmospheric balance is so delicate that we have tipped the balance and we are now doomed.

      I say doomed because the various deadlines to change our ways or die have come and gone years ago. However, there is still a glimmer of hope because those eminent scientists, Al Gore and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez have given us one more year to give up fossil fuels and move back to the farms to work the fields like most of us did 100 years ago without fossil-fueled machinery

      That's the progressive notion of 'progress'.

      BTW, since all combustion emits co2, I guess we'll have to solar heat our food or eat it raw. We'll also have to all migrate to Arizona for winters and back to the farms every spring.

      Have a nice, progressive-socialist day.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      4 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Scott, there is no guarantees. We are here on earth at the grace of God. Tomorrow, a rogue asteroid could strike the earth and wipe us out just like 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs were wiped out. There are numerous known events and a few unknown events that are controlling our climate. Even our sun, is not constant. Checkout spaceweather.com you can see all the fluctuations of our sun and the periodic solar flares...and the sunspots...

      All of these are not under human control.

      You have to decide for yourselve what is the dominant effect?

      And if there is something we can change?

      As much as you think we have total control, we don’t.

      We are a mere spec of dust in the grand scheme of things.

      That is why I am a skeptic.

      I place my bet on nature and God.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      4 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Climategate was just one reason many people are skeptics on AGW. The other reason is due to the fact they, some climate scientists/activists, overplayed their hand. They try to scare people by exaggerating the effects. As bad as some of these weather events...it is still within statistical norm of past weather events, going back a few hundred years of recorded history.

      Time is on our side. If in the next few years, these doubling down of predictions do not materialize, they will totally loose their credibility.

      My personally belief is that after all the dust settles, we will treat climate change as a long term problem, one that can be addressed but not an existential threat as some tried to sell it.

      The latest presidential debate cycle is playing out right now. You have a group of 20 democrat candidates all paying lip service to global warming and many buy in to the New Green Deal.

      They are very extreme and even some moderate Democrats do not support it.

      That should give everyone of them pause...

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      4 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      "That the sun will still be here tomorrow is based on empirical evidence, Scott." - PROVE IT. Show me empirical evidence that it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to go NOVA tonight.

      It is just a probability. The fact that the sun is here today does not PROVE it will be here tomorrow or a year from now. It is just your unreliable "consensus" opinion among scientists that it probably will be.

      Apparently you didn't read https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-fo... Why don't you dispute the prove it gives you??? (You don't because you can't, so you ignore it and continue making false claims)

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      4 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      That the sun will still be here tomorrow is based on empirical evidence, Scott.

      There is no empirical evidence that man is causing the planet to heat up. It's strictly computer-model theory and opinion/politics.

      http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/globa...

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      4 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Jack says "If CO2 is the main cause of global warming, and we know for a fact that CO2 has been steadily rising past 400ppm, then why is the earth not heating up as rapidly?" SCOTT says - It Is and Doc has presented you multiple examples of how this is FACT.

      Your claim "They fully believed their climate models and were just as surprised by the lack of correlation." has been debunked so many times it's beginning to get funny. Doc has presented this evidence many times, but you just fall back to your safe harbor of denying the veracity of every piece of scientific data out there. You only believe, it seems, the false data other climate deniers concoct. That is a shame.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      4 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      I started going through your source but had to stop because it had so many things wrong.

      For example:

      "There's been only 0.05 degree of warming in 20 years." - He doesn't say whether that if F or C, but it doesn't make any difference because he is Wrong. In fact from 1999 to 2019 (so far), global temperature has from from 14.33 C to 14.65 C or 0.32 C - That's a FACT.

      Your source then attempts to explain how the atmosphere is heated. He does bring in the three main sources, conduction, radiation, and convection.

      His reasoning about molecules colliding with the ground or water imparts heat, which he calls "conduction" - it doesn't (except in an exceptionally small way due to friction) and it isn't. Conduction is the transfer of heat from the warmer object to the colder object that are in direct contact, such as cooler air sitting on top of a warmer earth. A physics major would know this. The other way air is heated is through radiation; as the earth (or water) releases infrared radiation, it heats anything surrounding it, including the air. This, however, is only a small part of atmospheric heating.

      He did get convection right, however, which is the distribution heat within the atmosphere (or a pot of water if that is the environment). Convection is both the rising of hot air and the falling of cool air.

      But he got radiation all wrong - I gave up when he said CO2 actually cools!

      Next -

      "Natural climate cycles (regulated by the Sun and planetary orbits - indicate 500 years of cooling starting later this century." - IT IS the 'later this century" that is FALSE.

      In FACT, it has been falling, as Doc pointed out multiple times, for the last 8,000 years, and NOT "starting later this century". To repeat something Doc said previously and which you chose to ignore is

      "The Holocene temperatures peaked around 8,000 years ago. This temperature peak was associated with the perihelion phase of the Milankovitch cycles. That was when it is estimated that the natural cycle climate forcing was at maximum, including associated climate feedbacks. Since then the forcing levels have been slowly dropping and the temperature has been following the slope of forcing in line with the changes in the Milankovitch cycle forcing combined with system feedbacks.

      RECENT SIGNIFICANT CHANGES in climate forcing DUE TO HUMAN CAUSE FACTORS have produced a NET POSITIVE forcing causing temperatures to RISE. This is a DEPARTURE from the NATURAL CYCLE." Hopefully the all caps helped in understanding.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      5 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      That's a dodge, Scott. No scientist is willing to claim he can prove AGW.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      5 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Scott, since you are so big into science. Why don’t you answer the basic question. If CO2 is the main cause of global warming, and we know for a fact that CO2 has been steadily rising past 400ppm, then why is the earth not heating up as rapidly?

      That was the main issue among climate scientists which lead to the climategate email scandal. Someone released these memos, perhaps an insider whistleblower, which shows internally how some of these scientists are baffled by the lack of heating...and debating among themselves...

      “Where has the extra heat gone?”

      They fully believed their climate models and were just as surprised by the lack of correlation.

      Subsequently, they came up with the theory that the heat is trapped in the deep oceans...

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      5 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Besides Common Sense try

      https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-fo...

      I imagine Doc provide this and a ton of other sources to counter your ridiculous belief.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      5 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Then I guess you deny the hypothesis that the sun will come up in one year. That is a consensus opinion as well since it can't be so-called "Proved" either.

      In fact, I guess, WIll, you deny science in general since it is all consensus. EVERYTHING about the physical universe is a probability because of quantum mechanics and you deny anything that has a probability associated with it.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      5 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      "Yes we would Will, because it is provable and has been for quite awhile now."

      It is neither. It is only an opinion, which is why it is called a 'consensus of opinion'.

      No scientist has proved that man is causing Earth to warm up (AGW).

      But if you think one has and is willing to say so, let's see it.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      5 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Scott, just giving you some other information which you might be blinded to... you can bring a horse to water...

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      5 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Yes we would Will, because it is provable and has been for quite awhile now. You and Jack just have faith that it is not. Since you don't believe in science and facts, it can never be proved to you. That is just a reality you and I have to live with.

      Jack - your article starts out with "Physics tells us why it's not

      carbon dioxide after all." which tells me anything in it is pure BS because physics says exactly the opposite.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      5 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      AGW is a consensus of opinion, Scott. If it was a provable fact, we would not be debating it.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      5 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Scott, the 60 year climate cycle is very interesting. In the 1960s, we had heat waves. We had extreme hurricanes... remember Camille 1969...

      Then in the 1970s, scientists were predicting a global cooling. In the 1990s, climate scientists reverse course and predicted global warming...

      The changes we are talking about are small. We are seeing a change of 0.1 degrees C in a decade.

      Therefore, how can they tell the difference is due to the 60 year cycle? Or due to AGW?

      The measurement differences are in the noise.

      I hope you are comprehending my questions here.

      As an engineer, I don’t see how they can make a definitive statement one way or another just looking at a 30 year period.

      If there is a cycle of 60 years, Shannon signal theory requires a minimum period of twice the cycle. Lookup this - Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem.

      That translates to 120 years as the minimum requirements of data sample in order to surpass the noise component.

      Any predictions based on anything less would be non-effective.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      5 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      No Jack, believing in religion is a matter of faith sense nothing about religion can be proven.

      Since AWG is a scientific fact, there is no faith involved. It is you who are treating being a denier as a religion.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      5 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Checkout this 60 year climate cycle...

      http://www.earth-climate.com/

      According to this, we are headed into a cooling period until 2028.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      5 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      I am glad we have the first Amendment and the second Amendment.

      Our founders were smart enough to put these in place.

      Your believe in climate change is a form of religion.

      It is with faith that you believe what the preachers are selling, like Al Gore. Your lack of believe in God is exactly what brought about the destruction of humankind at the Tower of Babel.

      No one knows the rhyme or reason behind every event...only God knows.

      There is a difference between what God is and what organized religion say it is. Just because humans created these organizations to propagate the faith...does not make them perfect human beings.

      There lies the problem. Humans are flawed. Anything humans created, may be flawed as well. However, it does not reflect on God, the perfection. Be glad you live in this country where all religion and faith are accepted even atheists.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      5 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      You are right, Jack, I believe in science and data and facts and provable truth, not religion - at least not your type of religion that does not allow one to think for themselves. I do not have "faith" that God will provide because He as proven such a failure at that - just ask the innocents who died in El Paso or Dayton recently.

      That alone dissuades me from ever believing in a Jewish, Christian, or Islamic-style god; although there are many other good reasons as well.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      5 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      "Will - you cannot reason with people who insist on being deniers regardless of the facts."

      Translation:

      If you do not agree with us, we will call you names.

      Jack has been nothing but a gentleman throughout, but you failed to sway him, so now you attack him. Typical of you, Scott.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      5 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Scott,

      It is the arrogance of those secular progressives like yourself who believes like a religion, that climate change is something we humans can control.

      You have not learned the lessons of the past. It was at Babel when humans thought they can become as Gods by building a sky scraper towel. They were mistaken and suffer the consequences.

      Humans were put on the earth to “be fruitful and multiply...”

      God provided us with the resources and energy needed to expand and improve...not to limit our destiny.

      As much as I believe in human ingenuity and technological advances,

      I do believe in limits. Because of our human nature and the natural laws given to us by God, we cannot expand beyond those limits.

      Somehow, God will intervene in the future.

      That is my belief as a Catholic. I studied the scriptures from a scholar view point. Everything points to a second coming. The earth will under go some trials and tribulations and most of it is not our doing or creation.

      Even the mayans believe in a cyclical world and it repeats every 5000 years or so.

      The arrogance of you to believe you can control the temperature of our planet is astounding. When has anyone affected our climate even for one day either warmer or cooler by choice? It has never happened.

      You would have to build an air-conditioner so large, it would consume all our resources. That is just to illustrate the scale we are talking about.

      Astronomers speculate about a dyson sphere. It is that as civilization advances to a point where they can build a sphere around their whole planet or sun to harness its energy, it would exhibit some properties as viewed from the outside...as discovered recently.

      I am skeptical of this theory. The sheer magnitude of such undertaking would prevent it every happening. That is the engineer in me speaking. As an engineer, I always look for the practicality of any proposal. We are trained to look for the optimal solution given any project. It is not a question of can we do it but at what cost...

      I view the current climate change debate the same way.

      Given the magnitude and complexity of the problem, the solution proposed so far does very little to change things.

      It is minuscule compared to what needs to be done, if we are to take control of our destiny.

      Perhaps, that is how God intended it?

      That is the philosopher in me speaking.

      Why are we here?

      What is the purpose of life?

      Why did God put us here and provided us all these resources...?

      Just so we can not use them? That makes no sense to me.

      Alternatively, In all our history so far, things have happened either by chance or design, at the right place and right time, so that humans can advance to the next level...

      That is where we are today. We have reached the moon and beyond.

      Perhaps we are meant to explore the cosmos...as God intended...

      Why we are alone in this vast universe?

      Where are all the others life that scientists are so sure there must be?

      Given the Drake equation, there must be lots of civilizations out there...

      Yet, Fermi paradox asks where are they?

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      5 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Will - you cannot reason with people who insist on being deniers regardless of the facts. Why? Because you deny ANY fact, ANY truth, that contradicts your unsupportable belief.

      The reason Doc and I engaged Jack is because he claimed to be an engineer. So we figured that after being presented enough evidence, he would change his mind. But he is a denier and therefore no amount of evidence will do that because he will claim the evidence to be "tainted", regardless of whether it is or not or whether whatever "taint" (whatever that is) is significant or not.

      Since Jack doesn't appear to understand science, higher math, or data to any useful depth he cannot see beneath the surface. Even if he does, his deep denier position suppresses. with that understanding.

      As to the "you don't care" comment, upon reflection, you are probably right. It should have been something like "it makes you appear that you don't care". As to "you're a denier" - that is an apt description - you and he are deniers.

      BTW " It is typical of folks on the left to frame his reasoning as not as virtuous as their own " is FALSE because it is incomplete. To be correct, it should be " It is typical of folks on the left and RIGHT and the MIDDLE to frame his reasoning as not as virtuous as their own"

      Finally, "I do feel sorry for your progeny" because if your side wins and they die or are seriously impacted by AWG, they you will have been part of the reason. You and Jack fought against doing anything and partially as a result bad things happened.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      5 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      "Don't bother answering Jack, you simply don't care. I feel sorry for your progeny if you have any."

      "I'm done with you, Jack. You are spouting pure denial and wasting my time."

      Having worked closely with engineers much of my life, I can tell you that Jack is typical in his calm, measured approach to the topic of AGW. It is typical of folks on the left to frame his reasoning as not as virtuous as their own (you don't care!) or to label him (you're a denier!) when he refuses to capitulate to that which he feels is incorrect.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      5 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Exactly HOW is the data tainted in such a way that it invalidates the results?

      Don't bother answering Jack, you simply don't care. I feel sorry for your progeny if you have any.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      5 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Good luck. Enjoy the next 5 years. We will see who is right.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      I'm done with you, Jack. You are spouting pure denial and wasting my time.

      I'm sorry to have to type this, but there are only so many hours in a day. If you are going to insist that the data is corrupt, then I have nothing useful to say, except "It isn't." Your mind is closed. I'm sad, but there it is.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      5 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, here is one question for you. Instead of blindly believing in the evils of increased CO2 concentrations, why don’t you ask your gurus why the world is not much hotter today given we have surpassed 400 ppm?

      Where did the hidden heat go?

      It is at the crux of this debate.

      If CO2 is really the culprit, where did all the projected heat go?

      It was the exact same problem that created the climate-gate email scandal. Climate scientist was asking among themselves why their models were off? They could not explain it...

      Can you?

      They later came up with some lame excuse that the heat was hidden in the oceans...

      Well if that is the case, why didn’t their model account for it?

      It is circular reasoning and does not change the fact that they have few clues as to why their models were wrong or off the target.

      Why don’t they go find out?

      Instead, they double down on their believe that eventually the heat will come...

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      5 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Because your data is tainted. The people that support that theory are more believers in a religion than scientists.

      I am telling you that graph as presented was an attempt to scare people. The hockey stick plot, implied or not, points to a dire situation going forward...yes or no?

      If that is the case, I am telling you it is a false assumption. Temperature records does not increase on such a steep level without correction. Just look to our history of temperature records and it confirms what I am saying. I don’t need some climate scientist to tell me any different than what is right in front of me. That is why, going forward, time is the only way to settle this debate. If you follow that chart, you will see it is not realistic even going out 5 years let alone 30 years.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      I'd say that, quite clearly, both CO2 and insolation affect global temperature. However, the correlation appears better for CO2.

      None of that is controversial, AFAIK. It's what mainstream science would say.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      "The hockey stick was a result of data manipulation."

      That is quite simply untrue. That was an allegation that was made, examined, and found to be false.

      "It is false because if you project forward the slope, it is unattainable."

      That's logically wrong--the curve is based on data, which cannot be compromised by projections forward, correct or otherwise. Moreover, you have no evidence other than your personal incredulity that it is "unattainable."

      "Only people who believes in it, are waving the doom and gloom flag."

      That emotive language with nothing substantive to add to the argument.

      "For most people, and for real scientists and engineer, they know it to be a manufactured event. That is why, most scientists, disavow the hockey stick chart."

      No, they don't. See that long list of work examining it, and substantially validating it.

      "Here is the bottom line, if you believe in Mann and his theory, then you will buy into the dire situation of a 2 degrees rise of global temperature. If you don’t, there problem is not dire and it is in the distant future."

      That's wrong, too. Mann's work, as I explained but you don't seem to be willing to grasp, says *nothing* about the future, except as understanding the past in general does inform understanding of the future. Understanding that the situation we are in is indeed "dire"--and it is--comes largely from numerical modeling of the physical reality.

      "This plot should be a wave of peaks and valleys with a slow rising slope... Not a hockey stick."

      Because you say so? Please! The temperature rise as measured has been fast by geological standards, so of course it looks different than the previous part of the plot. That's what the data say... and the blade of the stick, remember, is the part that is formed from the best, most abundant data.

      Also, take notice that although it differs by slope, it still does have the "peaks and valleys" of variability that you desire:

      http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shar...

      Jack, please be reasonable. You took all of 10 minutes to consider what I wrote below, formulate a response, type it, and hit 'post'. It's quite clear that you didn't bother even to read the links, let alone actually think about them. You're willing to go to scientific presentations you have to get dressed up for and drive to; aren't you willing to consider evidence that's practically handed to you?

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      5 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      I added the chart above...comparing CO2 to temperatures.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      5 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, how do you interpret or explain this chart?

      https://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A...

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      And that wattsup piece is either sad, or funny, or both--pure bafflegab. Most of it is true: that is, all those various things listed may affect local temperature. In any given real-life situation, it's likely that more than one of them will affect the temperature.

      But the conclusion is pernicious. The author says:

      "Good stewards of the environment should never mindlessly blame rising CO2 concentrations for a heat wave or a warming trend unless all the other warming dynamics are considered."

      Well, of course "mindlessness" is not a good thing. But essentially he's saying that we should never say something like "John Doe died of complications of diabetes," if we can say "John Doe died of septic shock due to infection following the amputation of his left foot." And that's just silly. There's room to acknowledge both specific factors, such as those the author lists, *and* broader, underlying causes, such as the global increase in air temperatures due to anthropogenic climate change.

      "Restoring a wetland or planting trees might be the best option to lower regional temperatures." Yes, and the IPCC would agree--though they'd never *tell* to you to do it; they'd just point out that it might well be effective.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      5 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      The hockey stick was a result of data manipulation. It is false because if you project forward the slope, it is unattainable. That is why it is a distortion of the climate change reality.

      Only people who believes in it, are waving the doom and gloom flag.

      For most people, and for real scientists and engineer, they know it to be a manufactured event. That is why, most scientists, disavow the hockey stick chart.

      Here is the bottom line, if you believe in Mann and his theory, then you will buy into the dire situation of a 2 degrees rise of global temperature. If you don’t, the global warming problem is not dire and it is in the distant future.

      This plot should be a wave of peaks and valleys with a slow rising slope... Not a hockey stick.

      Even if you believe there is direct correlation between co2 concentration and rising temperatures, it would not exhibit such rising slope.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Jack, you have a couple of misconceptions in that comment. Let me address them.

      First, the claim isn't that "the world will end in 12 years." The claim is this:

      "In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range)."

      https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/

      In other words, we have 12--now 11, since SR 1.5 is now a year old--years to achieve a 45% reduction in carbon emissions. (And a further 20 to get to net-zero.) If we fail, does the world end? Of course not. But we do suffer a long litany of unpleasant consequences, which you can read about in the driest of terms in the report.

      "The Earth is huge."

      Sure, but so are the energy imbalances, totaled up. They amount roughly to several watts per square meter, sustained now over many decades. It amounts to the energetic equivalent of 2.7 billion Hiroshima-size bombs since 1998.

      Archimedes famously said that if you gave him a big enough lever, a fulcrum (and a place to stand), he'd move the world. The sun is both mover and fulcrum; CO2e is the lever.

      "That is why the hockey stick graph proposed by Mann is not realistic."

      Jack, we've been through this one before. Forgive my bluntness, but it's thoroughly wrong.

      First, the Mann hockey stick has nothing whatever (directly) to do with melting glaciers. Second, it has nothing (directly) to do with the future. Third, it is demonstrably correct (I've duplicated it (or its CO2 cousin, at least) myself from publicly available data.)

      Let me expand on those bare statements.

      1) The Mann hockey stick graph has nothing directly to do with glaciers because it is no more or less than an estimated mean temperature (for the Northern hemisphere.) Mann, Bradley and Hughes, back in 1998 and 1999, compiled the first really quantitative 'proxy record' of paleoclimate. The famous 'hockey stick' graph came out of the 1999 paper; it combined historic instrumental records with a variety of proxies (including the famous tree ring data).

      2) It's implicit in point 1, but the classic MBH 'hockey stick' has nothing to do with the future because its data is completely 'in the past.' MBH made no future projection whatsoever. However, it does demonstrate the close relation between CO2 and global temperature over geological time. That's why it has been the object of (scientifically unsuccessful) attack for those who wish to debunk the mainstream science for 20 years now. However, it has been replicated multiple times, and its conclusions are mostly correct. Which gets us to point #3.

      3) The replication that I did was 'quick and dirty', and actually pertained not to temperature but to CO2, concerning which you had also expressed skepticism. I simply combined the CO2 data from a Greenlandic ice core with the modern Mauna Loa data, and voila, a hockey stick! You can see my graph here:

      https://s1108.photobucket.com/user/brassdoc/media/...

      As mentioned, replications of the temperature hockey stick are numerous in the scientific literature--and I use the word "replications" loosely here, as most subsequent work has used different or partially different methodology and data, demonstrating that the general results of MBH are robust to such changes. Here's a list of them:

      https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/reports/loc...

      Picking one at random, I examined Friedrich et al (2016), "Nonlinear climate sensitivity and its implications for future greenhouse warming." You can find it here:

      https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/11/e1501...

      Its 'hockey stick' has a wavy handle, because they look back ~780 kyears, encompassing quite a few glacial cycles. But it is still a 'hockey stick.'

      A particularly notable one was the PAGES 2K project, which considered a really vast array of proxies:

      https://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2015/...

      So, the bottom line is that the "hockey stick" was not only realistic, it was correct.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      5 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc and SCott,

      There are few sure things in life. One that I can bet my money on is this. The world will not end due to climate change in 12 years as stated by AOC.

      As an engineer, I am familiar with the limits of natural systems. That is to say, it takes a certain amount of time for some effects to happen. That time is dependent on the size or mass.

      For the earth, that size is huge.

      Even if by magic, the average temperature would rise by 5 degrees C tomorrow, the ice glaciers would not melt for another 1000 years.

      That is why the hockey stick graph proposed by Mann is not realistic.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      5 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Scott, thanks.

      Will, it's not an either/or choice. A market isn't really "free" without the protection of the rule of law. (That's a problem for China, where the rule of law exists, but is not robust to gross political interference.)

      In the case of environmental issues, the market as is isn't efficient at allocating costs, because the times and places environmental harms--say, lung disease from air pollution--can be well separated from the times and places where the toxic emission occurs. So the person with the lung disease pays, and the polluter profits. This is called, in the jargon, an "externality" because the cost is outside the the economic system. (Or at least, it appears to be imposed 'from outside', arbitrarily.)

      In other words, there's a disconnect between the polluter, who bears no consequences, and the people affected by the pollution. Several ways of addressing this have been invented. You can 1) regulate the polluting activity, enforcing the prohibition by law; 2) tax the polluting activity in order to discourage it; or 3) charge for the 'right to pollute'.

      These three basic approaches are, in order, regulation, Pigovian taxation (in this context, "carbon fees" or "carbon taxes"), and "cap and trade." The latter two are market-based. But they still don't happen without an intentional, well-designed legal framework for them.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      5 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      And yet another so-called "non-dire" Heat Wave is striking America.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      5 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Great charts, Doc; they all go to prove AWG is REAL. The problem with these charts, of course, is they are based on real data and not wishes so the deniers can't understand what they are telling everybody else.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Jack, China is "escalating" its mining, not its generation.

      https://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-coal-mine-app...

      It's an attempt to replace imported coal with domestic coal.

      And even a short-term increase in the coal-fired electrical generation capacity is not a violation of its Paris commitments, which are in a nutshell to peak emissions by 2030 or if possible earlier. While the Chinese coal-plant pipeline has decreased dramatically, it hasn't decreased to zero, yet. But they will, unless present trends are reversed for some reason--and there's no motivation for that to happen; coal is no longer the cheap option.

      So, no, this is not evidence of "cheating."

      As for your predictions, I'm quite sure that #1, #5, and #6 are completely wrong. Given that Tesla sales are still expanding even as the conventional auto market shrinks, I think there's a good chance that #7 is wrong, too.

      #2 has a shot at being right, not because there is no trend in hurricane strength, but because over 5 years, the variability completely dominates the trend. I'd say your chances are probably 50/50.

      #3 is wrong already, because the oceans have not, in fact been rising at a uniform 3mm per year rate.

      https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/07/02/sea-level-...

      Note graph #4 in particular.

      ("Tamino" is the nom du blog of a professional statistician with numerous publications to his credit.)

      Or this composite SL record:

      https://www.sealevels.org/

      Clear, though non-uniform, trend toward acceleration.

      Even in the short (but very accurate) satellite-era record, detection of SLR acceleration is expected "in the coming decade":

      http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/detection-acc...

      All of which said, I don't expect much acceleration from the current 3.1 mm/yr in just 5 years.

      #4 may well be right, but I'd add a softening of demand as transportation shifts toward electrification as a causative factor.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      5 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      I think the real difference in philosophy is whether we should force compliance by law or allow the free market to sort it out should it become necessary. I favor the latter.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      5 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, It is true that we should be responsible and make smart decisions that will bring about the most effective solutions.

      The problem is, the proposals so far are no way responsible or effective.

      The Paris Accord is a joke. Just recently, we learned that China is escalating their coal production plants contrary to what they agreed to reducing.

      The planet’s biggest polluter is still cheating.

      Since you are making predictions, let me give my two cents.

      1. The planet will experiencing a cooling cycle over the next 5 years due to the solar sunspot cycle.

      2. The storms of category 3 or higher will be within its normal range.

      3. The oceans will rise 3mm per year on average as they have done for the last 100 years.

      4. Oil prices will stabilize at historic lows due to fracking.

      5. Renewable energy will reach a wall due to costs and reliability issues.

      6. All electric cars will also reach a peak as tax credits expires and cost will be prohibitive and not competitive with gasoline.

      7. Tesla will not be profitable within 5 years.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      "In a few years, we will know for sure if the current global warming is here to stay or it is part of a cycle of warming and cooling..."

      I'm quite sure *now*. And that is based on prolonged consideration of all the evidence that's come before me, or that I could seek out, *including* all skeptical arguments, which I've been at pains to consider seriously.

      A prediction:

      In "a few years," we'll see no dramatic change in warming trend; it will keep on at something like the rate we've seen over the last 4 decades. We'll have had a goodly numbers of climate-related disasters--heat waves, droughts, 'rainbombs', and so on. We'll have had in excess of a hundred billion $US in additional economic losses, and another hundred thousand premature deaths.

      Will will still be saying none of it is real. And--it grieves me to say this, Jack--you'll still be saying "In a few more years we'll know for sure."

      Why do I say that? Well, I think the past 4 years are a good indicator of what to expect. It was in 2015 that we published our dual "challenge Hubs" examining selected projections. (Mine is linked below.)

      https://hubpages.com/politics/Climate-Change-Predi...

      Since then, CO2 concentrations have ramped up another 10 ppm; we've seen the five warmest years in the temperature record, with the present year apparently on track to reach #2 on the list, thereby pushing the streak to 6; we've seen multiple climate-related disasters; and we've even seen the end of the much-ballyhooed "hurricane drought" for the US, just to name a few. We've seen climate refugees disrupt politics on a global scale. We've seen warm records continue to far outpace cold records. We've seen the Arctic sea ice continue to decline, and we've even seen a reversal of the modest but significant growth in the Antarctic. We've seen the decline in terrestrial glaciers continue. We've seen really terrible episodes of coral bleaching. We've seen nuisance flooding due to sea level rise increase to semi-regular occurences along the eastern US coast, and we've seen hundreds of millions of dollars devoted to dealing with it. We've even seen hints that it is starting to affect real estate prices.

      But none of it has gotten through. It's still "if", and "we've seen this before."

      But the reality is, no, we haven't seen this before. This pattern of rapid, global, ongoing climate change hasn't been seen during our existence as a species. (The glaciations and deglaciations of the Ice Age meet the "global" and "ongoing" criteria, but not the "rapid" one.)

      We haven't seen it before, and our commensals and food systems haven't, either. You are right to highlight how adaptable humans are; it's our outstanding attribute. But cultural adaptation starts with the recognition of reality.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      6 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Well said Jack and I concur. Have a great day.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      6 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      I guess we have exhausted our arguments...those of us who are skeptics are still skeptics. Those fully committed to climate change caused by humans and want to stop it is still on the same track.

      It was a necessary exercise. At least we have all made our positions clear.

      There should be no doubt as to where we stand.

      Going forward, time will settle the debate one way or another.

      In a few years, we will know for sure if the current global warming is here to stay or it is part of a cycle of warming and cooling...

      More importantly, if it is as dire as projected...? Will flooding, and hurricanes and heat waves be worse?

      I value these discussions because it shows how our different world views can affect how we interpret events and data...

      As I said before, this problem should be a science problem but unfortunately, it has been politicized. Not only that, the data has been corrupted. It is hard to get to the raw facts. Only time will tell.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      6 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      "When climate change becomes a crisis, someone will come up with a solution and probably make a ton of money doing it and probably win the Nobel prize..."

      This is called "complacency," and it can be fatal.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      6 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      The problem with all these projections...is they usually don’t work. They don’t take into account the unexpected.

      In science, there is a quote...”necessity is the mother of inventions...”

      Have you heard of it? Do you know what it means?

      In all our history, the ingenuity of our people have come up with new technology to deal with a pending problem.

      When smog got too bad in the 1970s, we came up with catalytic converters...just one example.

      When climate change becomes a crisis, someone will come up with a solution and probably make a ton of money doing it and probably win the Nobel prize...

    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      6 weeks ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      No, I got your point perfectly, and it is wrong. On what basis do you conclude "We already deal with some extreme climate today. We make do..." when you haven't even started seeing the worst of it yet?

      The Heat Wave data should help you to understand we are past the decade to decade and are now approaching the year to year. When you allow it to get that close, we are well passed dire and on to inevitable where humans cannot adapt, only perish.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      6 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      "You and doc have this obsession with 2 degrees."

      Er, no. It's not an obsession, it is a benchmark, and it wasn't arrived at by either Scott or I. It was proposed decades back by scientists--actually, IIRC, Dr. Jule Charney--and has been more or less adopted by politicians the world over, who need practical targets for action.

      In recent years, the evidence has been accumulating that perhaps this target is too high, and that a target of 1.5 C would be much safer. Sadly, a target of 1.5 C is also very, *very* difficult to hit at this point, because emissions have kept on growing--despite some signs of structural changes toward a more sustainable economy beginning to be seen.

      Jack, I've tried again and again to explain to you why we can't wait to act. So let me try someone else's words:

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019...

      Most of the relevant issues are dealt with in reasonable detail. Please read this.

      "Money" quote:

      "If you keep emitting CO2 for another ten years, CO2 levels in the atmosphere will increase further for another ten years, and then stay higher for centuries to come. Limiting global warming to a given level (like 1.5 °C) will require more and more rapid (and thus costly) emissions reductions with every year of delay, and simply become unattainable at some point. "

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)