Skip to main content

Dear Friends: Time For Climate Action

  • Author:
  • Updated date:

Dear friends, especially in America:

With the Trump administration now in place, there are many reasons for concern. But I want to suggest that the deepest and most profound reason is climate change. 2016 was just announced to have been the warmest year ever measured. By many measures, this followed similar records set in 2014 and 2015. Since a picture is proverbially worth a thousand words, take a look at the graph for a moment.

Instrumental (thermometer) global temps, adjusted for solar, volcanic, and El Nino effects.

Instrumental (thermometer) global temps, adjusted for solar, volcanic, and El Nino effects.

So we know the world is warming. Yes, cold weather still happens, as our friends in Portland, Oregon will be able to confirm, and it will continue to happen for a long time yet. But we are experiencing a warming trend that has been going on for nearly five decades now.

And we can be confident that it will continue, since we know something else, too: we know that the physical properties of the so-called "greenhouse gases" are such that they cause warming in the atmosphere, oceans, and land as their concentrations grow. The science showing that goes back to 1859, and is integral to weather forecasting, so we all make frequent use of it. There is no reasonable doubt about it.

We also know that we are the cause of those increasing concentrations. There are several ways that we know this, but the simplest is basically just doing the accounting: for carbon dioxide, the main GHG, we emit about twice as much as the observed increase. And CO2 levels were pretty stable for many hundreds of thousands of years prior to the Industrial Revolution. There's more: changes in atmospheric oxygen and in the proportions of various carbon isotopes confirm that it is us who have created the more than 40% increase observed since preindustrial times.

And we know one last thing: that what we are doing is not in our own best interest. A reasonably stable climate is what allowed us to create agriculture. A destabilized climate will make it much harder to feed the nine billion mouths that will clamor for food by the end of this century. There are more reasons for concern, of course, but that's a fundamental one.

But in the face of this reality, the Trump administration reportedly intends to defund American participation in not only the Paris Accord, signed by most of the nations of the world just last year, but also in the Framework Convention underlying the Accord itself. American views and technical skill have been central to the work of the UNFCC and have deeply shaped the agreement that the Trump Administration now proposes to turn away from. The loss to the global fight to address climate change would be grave.

Nor, if public opinion polls are to be believed, does the government represent the people in this. For years, upwards of 60% of Americans have said that they are concerned about climate change, and would like to see action to address it. Yet this government--Administration and Legislature alike--are bent on the opposite course.

It is undemocratic--and deeply ironic, given that Mr. Trump claimed in his inaugural that he was handing back power to the people.

The first step in resisting this folly is to make it clear to our legislators and to Mr. Trump that we are not fooled by climate denialism and its industry shills, nor do we intend to accept the theft of our children's and grandchildren's future in the name of short-term profit.

Right now, you can make a 'down payment' on action by signing a petition online:

But the 'cheap grace' of such things isn't going to be enough. We need organization and ongoing involvement. Consider joining or even starting a branch of an action group such as Citizens Climate Lobby, or of Their websites are here:

It must be admitted that we are partly to blame for the current disastrous situation. We knew the truth, most of us, but didn't do much about it, for the most part. We did what humans tend to do--put off dealing with the truly important in favor of the merely urgent. In that sense, we have got "the government we deserve".

But now the choice is clear. The current government will put us all in jeopardy. Time to act, or quit pretending that we care.

Hurricane Matthew aftermath, Edisto Beach, SC, 2016.

Hurricane Matthew aftermath, Edisto Beach, SC, 2016.


Doc Snow (author) from Camden, South Carolina on March 18, 2017:

No offense, Jack, but you wrote this:

Scroll to Continue

"The chart of projected temperature as the Mann hockey stick is going to be the death of climate change. "

I think I can be forgiven for thinking the topic was the Mann hockey stick graph.

However, referring to the graph of projected rise at the end of your Hub, it's quite compatible with the projection that I discussed in my last reply--that of RCP 8.5, as given in AR5.

If you refer to AR5, you will find long-term climate projections addressed in Chapter 12. It's here:

The chapter bibliography starts on page 1120, and concludes on page 1136. Each page has approximately 50 entries, excepting the last, which has only 8 ("Zhuang" to "Zunz", if anyone cares). So, they cite something close on the order of 850 research papers.

You cite "any math major" who "can see". That's called "argument from incredulity", and it proves nothing whatever about the topic at hand.

You say that 'the scientists' are scaring people. Should we never talk about cancer because it's scary? About ISIS? About the prospects of recession or inflation? I think you'd agree that it doesn't help to avoid 'scary' topics--not if we are looking for good outcomes, anyway.

Jack Lee from Yorktown NY on March 14, 2017:

Doc, I just posted a hub about extreme weather in the past 400 years...

Jack Lee from Yorktown NY on March 13, 2017:

Doc, I didn't say the Mann hockey chart made any projections. It was Al Gore in his famous documentary that made the projections. The graph was posted on my hub at the end. He stood on a crane that lifted him over 20 feet off the ground...

The point being, any math major can fit a curve on the Hockey stick and see that there is mo way the future will happen in that way. You can have a spike in temperature over a few years due to el nino but that does not translate to a run away global warming.

That was my argument that the climate scientists use it to scare people the same they try to do with ocean rise that will flood Miami and NYC... never going to happen in your or my lifetime.

Doc Snow (author) from Camden, South Carolina on March 13, 2017:

Jack, you are getting farther and farther out there.

With regard to your question about budget, I don't know why you would think that a large budget automatically means an adequate budget, which seems to be the logic you are using. Just because the EPA gets about 8 billion currently doesn't mean that the tasks they are assigned to carry out require a small fraction of that.

I looked at an EPA budget summary document. You can find it here:

According to it, goal #1 of 5 agency goals is to mitigate carbon, particulate and toxic emissions affecting air quality. In other words, both the 'climate' and 'non-climate' aspects of air pollution. That goal accounts for less than 14% of the total agency budget. So no, cutting all regulation of carbon pollution (a dangerous and irresponsible step anyway) would not afford 'lots' of budget for other activities that you approve of more.

For the record, the other 4 goals are:

--Protecting America's waters (45%)

--Cleaning up communities and advancing sustainable development (23%, more than half of which is 'superfund' type cleanup)

--Ensuring the safety of chemicals and preventing pollution (percentage not given)

--Law enforcement and compliance (percentage not given)

Re your second comment:

"The chart of projected temperature as the Mann hockey stick is going to be the death of climate change. "

You've said that before, and I've replied before. I don't know whether you saw that response or not; certainly you haven't absorbed it. But please listen:

*There is no such 'chart.'* It simply doesn't exist. Mann, Bradley, and Hughes created the 'hockey stick graph' in 1999; it summarized the results of their study of paleotemperatures as determined by proxy measurements of various types. It showed a dramatic increase in contemporary global mean surface temperature.


You can verify that for yourself by looking at the actual paper, here:

The 'hockey stick' graph is figure 3, and it is clearly stated that the 'raw data' (ie., temps) are for the period 1902-1998.

Now, perhaps you are going to say that you mean some *other* "chart of of projected temperature" and it doesn't matter that you got the wrong name. Certainly charts of projected temperature do exist--for example, in the various Assessment Reports. But details matter, and if we can't tell what you are talking about, then how can we respond with any precision?

So, if we talk, for argument's sake, about the projections in AR5, we get an upper bound of 5.4 C in 2100 for the worst emission scenario, RCP 8.5. That's in the summary, here:

Can you cite one 'real scientist' who has anywhere claimed that that is energetically impossible? I really, really doubt it, because according to reconstructions of deep geologic history, Earth has been much warmer than that several times in the very deep past. (AKA, 'hothouse Earth' episodes.)

Jack Lee from Yorktown NY on March 12, 2017:

Doc, one more thing. The chart of projected temperature as the Mann hockey stick is going to be the death of climate change. Any real scientist will tell you that plot is unsustainable with time. Meaning, the earth with all the golbal warming speculations, cannot sustain that kind of a rise in global temperature. There is not enough heat energy to product that effect going out 20 years.

Jack Lee from Yorktown NY on March 12, 2017:

The EPA annual budget in 2016 was 8.14 Billion dollars.

You mean to tell me a fraction of that cannot be sufficient to regulate clear air and clean water...

If they stop demonizing co2 as a pollutant, perhaps they have the time and energy and money to do what is in their mandate.

Why do the emplyees at the EPA need to attend the Paris summit on climate change? What good did that do for anyone?

Doc Snow (author) from Camden, South Carolina on March 12, 2017:

Jack, I challenge you to support the suggestion that cutting a quarter of the EPA budget and a fifth of their personnel would leave sufficient resources for enforcement of non-climate pollution rules. What evidence suggests this?

I'd also note that climate pollution IS part of the EPA mandate--not because of some political decision, but because (IRC) there was a formal science-based endangerment finding. That finding was the basis of the court ruling that the EPA not only had jurisdiction to address such pollution, but a duty to do so.

Jack Lee from Yorktown NY on March 09, 2017:

The answer is simple. If the EPA, just stick to their mandate and worry about clean air and clean water... they should have plenty of budget.

It's when they tie climate change to their work that cost more and people... I can say the same for other agencies such as NASA...

Doc Snow (author) from Camden, South Carolina on March 09, 2017:

Jack, the only 'evidence' that NOAA is 'politicized' is that people like Breitbart say so. And Breitbart is overtly political, and not known for accuracy.

What happened to your "the science will be audited?" This is pure suppression.

And as for the EPA, can you explain how they are supposed to carry out effective enforcement to defend the "clean air and clean water" the President says he wants when the budget is to be cut by 24% and personnel by 20?

Jack Lee from Yorktown NY on March 05, 2017:


I guess it is not a surprise to you that I support the cuts to funding of NOAA because they have been so politicized. In fsct, the cuts should also apply to other agencies such as the EPA and to NASA...

Doc Snow (author) from Camden, South Carolina on March 05, 2017:

It's been some time since I predicted that the new political Establishment would simply defund climate science, and somewhat less since I identified the attempt to generate a new 'Climategate' moment over the so-called "Pausebuster" paper, Karl et al 2015, as a propaganda salvo preparing that effort.

Here's the payoff:

Doc Snow (author) from Camden, South Carolina on February 11, 2017:

Jack, the WUWT 'graphs' piece is overtly propaganda--or, if you want to be kinder, rhetoric.

Graphs 1 & 3 are actually pretty pointless--yes, climate changes without human inputs; climate science started with that realization, back in the late 18th century, even if folks like Mr. White write as though it's a new revelation. And yes, it's possible to construct graphs to minimize the appearance of change. That is usually called "bad practice."

Graph 4 is, IMO, something of an 'own goal.' All other criticisms aside, if the magnitude of change over 140 years is one-third of that experienced over 10,000 years, that demonstrates a high rate of change ocurring. (However, I do have another criticism, which is that the GISP2 core is *not* a "reliable proxy" for NH temperature--it is a *local* record.)

As for the remaining graph, Gavin Schmidt critiques it in much more depth than I ever could:

NB--I think this is the same one, but am not completely sure as the RC graphic doesn't display well on my phone. So it may be that it's a different iteration of Christy graphing. Still, the points should still apply. And note the alternate graphs of the same data on p. 5.

Finally, note that focusing on tropical tropospheric trends, as Christy does, is a bit of a cherry pick in that there is good agreement between modeled and observed *surface* temps. It's fine, of course, to point out the weakest point in the simulated record, but less so to 'forget' that that is only part of the picture.

Doc Snow (author) from Camden, South Carolina on February 10, 2017:

Jack, I tried to respond to your comments a couple of days ago, but apparently that comment didn't go through. Connectivity isn't great in the Sonora desert.

Anyway, Gavin Schmidt at RC has a sensible post on this topic. It hyperlinks many of the many stories and comments on this topic, and is worthwhile for that alone.

To keep it brief:

Paris wasn't passed because of Karl et al. Paris was the culmination of a process going on since the 2009 Copenhagen COP. The primary scientific references remain the Assessment Reports. David Rose, who 'broke' this 'story', framed the latest, AR5, as a "blockbuster" because it discussed the so-called 'pause', but completely mischaracterized it.

In AR5, the 'pause' discussion was a short sidebar item. It was made abundantly clear that the long-term prognosis was not significantly affected.

Why did Mr. Rose do this? The only reason I can propose is that by doing so, he can promote the false idea that Naive Liberals have been sold Paris on demonstrably false basis by his imagined cabal of Evil Scientists. In that way, he builds political capital for dismantling of Paris. He's obviously been followed in that by a myriad of Rush wannabees.

In an earlier comment, you suggested that I missed the departure from BAU implied by the election. I think you still fail to recognize it's magnitude. There will be no 'audit' of climate science. But there will be a neutering, gutting, or even complete destruction of it in the US, if the current government is allowed its head.

They don't give a damn about science. They just want to keep those campaign donations flowing, be it Exxon, Shell, or whomever.

Jack Lee from Yorktown NY on February 06, 2017:

Here is link to full paper by Karl el. on the pause -

Jack Lee from Yorktown NY on February 06, 2017:

Doc, checkout my latest hub on Whistleblowers -

It relates to everything you've been told by the climate science community...

You have been duped and you still don't get it or even allow yourself to question it?

I tried to warn you all these times...

Jack Lee from Yorktown NY on February 02, 2017:

Here is a link from wuwt that shows climate change is within normal variations ...

Jay C OBrien from Houston, TX USA on January 25, 2017:

Jack Lee: the eruption of Krakatoa in 555 AD was Ten Times the magnitude of the 1880's eruption. There is nothing Man can do to stop such catastrophes. All we can do is monitor volcanic and asteroid activity and plan for the survival of a few people as best we can.

As an aside, I believe the Toba eruption 76,000 years ago caused the remaining people to reproduce with Incest. Incest is what caused the genetic problems in humans today.

Jack Lee from Yorktown NY on January 24, 2017:

Jay, actually Krakatoa was in 1883. I know it well. Many events were natural causes. Man has little control over... what makes us think we can change it now?

Jay C OBrien from Houston, TX USA on January 24, 2017:

There have been several "climate changes" in earths' history which caused whole extinctions. We should not look to push the upper limits of population, but look to population survival at the highest technological level. Besides extinction events there have been catastrophes which just about wiped out humanity. See Toba Catastrophe Theory. Also see Krakatoa's' eruption in 555 A.D. I suggest fewer people living better.

Jack Lee from Yorktown NY on January 24, 2017:

doc, I read the article and agree with the first part. The earth is huge and human innovation will help make the growth work...

Necessity is the mother of inventions...

Who know, if we can invent a new and cheap way to desalinate sea water?

With regard to climate change, I am still a skeptic. For example, a warming climate can actually help food production...

Again, you are making the assumption that the current temperature of the earth is ideal for our survival?

Who made that the final fact?

All thru our history, and the earth's, there have been climate changes and we have adapted... that was the key to our survival.

Jack Lee from Yorktown NY on January 24, 2017:

doc, Of course I know it is limited. The key question is what is the full capacity? Is it 5 billion people, 10 billion people or 50 billion people?

If it is 5 billion, how are we able to sustain 7 billion in 2017? If it is 10 billion, we still have 3 billion to go...

If it is 50 billion, then we have little to worry about... by then, we may be exploring the stars ala Star Trek...Space the Final Frontier...

Doc Snow (author) from Camden, South Carolina on January 24, 2017:

Jack, I'm flabbergasted.

Of course the Earth is finite, and it is limited in significant ways. That's just physical reality. Insolation, fresh water, forests, key nutrients, and more--all finite.

Doc Snow (author) from Camden, South Carolina on January 24, 2017:

"Doc, I don't think you realized what happened this election of Trump. There will be no business as usual..."

Jack, that was the whole point of this Hub. The highjacking of the Federal government by fossil fuel interests is a tragedy not only for the US but for the world.

When I told you that I expect the government not to 'audit' climate science, but rather to seek to suppress it as completely as they can, I rather thought that was pretty exceptional--very far from "business as usual."

Jack Lee from Yorktown NY on January 24, 2017:


Here is link to story -

During the 1970s, I heard the same argument about global hunger...

How our globe cannot support x number of people and we must control population growth...

Now, 40 years later, it is global warming that will be the killer...

What you and others fail to understand is that the earth is not a fixed "pie" and that it can only be so large. In fact, the beauty of God's creation is that it is growing in many aspects. God have provided energy resources, and human resources and raw material resources that can accommodate a large growing population.

No scientist have done the calculation of the upper bound as far as I can tell...

It was estimated that the sum total of all human produced items can fit inside a cube of 300 miles. Do you understand how little that is compared to the size of the earth, a globe 8000 miles in diameter. Do the math... please.

Jay C OBrien from Houston, TX USA on January 24, 2017:

"Does he favor genocide?"

No, a Vasectomy is Not genocide. Do not overreact.

True, population control is not the sole answer, but part of the solution. More importantly, it is something an individual can do. Common people cannot affect policy. Our political system is one of Bribery. Unless you are very rich you will be ignored. So, no more talk of politics, please.

Jack Lee from Yorktown NY on January 23, 2017:

Doc, I hope you will join me to set Jay C straight. Reducing human population is not the answer. It takes slightly over 2.0 birth rate to maintain a stable population. To see what happens to a society, look at Japan and Western Europe such as Germany, their country population is aging and will not have enough people to sustain in the next 50 years.

Doc, you see what extreme policies can do and climate change proponents is what theory want. One IPCC official has gone on record saying our world can only sustain a maximum population of 3 billion people. Does he favor genocide?

Jay C OBrien from Houston, TX USA on January 23, 2017:

Go Green, Get a Vasectomy.

If every man got a vasectomy after one child we could cut world population in half in one generation. That means less pollution, etc. Vasectomies are common and cheap.

Get Yours Today!

Jack Lee from Yorktown NY on January 23, 2017:

Doc, I don't think you realized what happened this election of Trump. There will be no business as usual...

The likes of funding Solyndra will not happen. The agencies of NASA will not be focusing on climate change but space exploration. The EPA will loose many of its funding and its overreach of regulations that hurt coal...I can go on and on...

As I said before, if all you have is a hammer, everything else look like nails. Thst was what happened under Obama and his global view. Now, it is America first.

Doc Snow (author) from Camden, South Carolina on January 23, 2017:

"...climate change science is about to get a huge "audit"."

I bet nothing of the sort is even attempted by the government. An 'audit' would require looking at the data and methods, and that would end up just confirming results that have already been confirmed over and over again. I dare say many of the politicians involved know or suspect that.

What they may--I would actually say "will probably"--do is to just defund the science altogether. They won't look because they don't want to see, and they are more than ready to make sure that no-one else can look either. Here's the nominee for OMB on a parallel topic:

Doc Snow (author) from Camden, South Carolina on January 23, 2017:

"...that last link you provided is totally biased and false."

Based on what? How do you assess that? And which part of the presentation, because there are several pieces to it?

Here is what Lazard is:

They are a consulting business, and a highly-established and successful one--not an advocacy group.

"[Climate change science has] misled the people on the dangers and have profited."

You've presented exactly zero evidence that that is true. I would argue--and with abundant evidence--that the only forces misleading anyone on climate are the fossil fuel interests behind WUWT, GWPF and similar groups.

"It is time for some accountability..."

Indeed it is. The government has been highjacked. The people's justified concern on climate change (and other issues, but that's not the topic here) needs to be respected.

Jack Lee from Yorktown NY on January 23, 2017:

doc, that last link you provided is totally biased and false. If it was true, we should end all subsidies as of right now...

Under a new Trump administration, the EPA will be defanged when it comes to coal production and power generation.

We will see how this play out but climate change science is about to get a huge "audit". They have misled the people on the dangers and have profited. It is time for some accountability...

Doc Snow (author) from Camden, South Carolina on January 23, 2017:

Thanks to all for their comments!

Jack: "...climate change did not even make it to the top 10. What does that tell you?"

What does it tell you that it made the top 12? The question asked wasn't whether the respondent was for or against the environment. The question was, how worried were they about climate change. The numbers support what I said in the first place.

Lee: "The world is moving on to an alternative energy future so it's up to us to decide to lead the world or follow China."

Yes, as the world moves on the Paris targets, risks arise for the US, both in economic and diplomatic terms.

Jay: "I think what is important is to act for ourselves and understand that our government is not really within the control of the common man."

You aren't kidding. The government has been completely highjacked on this issue. But it can be reclaimed if we want it badly enough--meaning, want it badly enough to actually work and sacrifice to get there.

Jack (2): "Renewable energy... will be adopted in mass when the cost is competitive with oil, gas and coal...."

And that time is here already in some jurisdictions, and will be arriving soon in many others. Here's a summary on that topic, dealing with the situation in 2015. (Haven't seen an update for 2016 yet, but the cost trends on renewables did continue, both for wind and solar, so the picture will be better for renewables in 2016 than it was in 2015.)

Also worth considering is this report. It's more 'partisan' but also quite up-to-date. And it is based on a reliable 3rd party analysis (Lazard).

Jack Lee from Yorktown NY on January 22, 2017:

Renewable energy like solar and wind and nuclear... will be adopted in mass when the cost is competitive with oil, gas and coal. That is the bottom line. You can give credits and tax incentive all day long but that is only temporary. Wait till the incentive disapppear, and see what survives in the market place. I was in China twice this past year. They have adopted electric scooters in the cities in a big way but in the countryside, coal power is the main source. The reason is simple economics. Coal is readily available and cheap.

Jay C OBrien from Houston, TX USA on January 22, 2017:

I think what is important is to act for ourselves and understand that our government is not really within the control of the common man. What can You and I do about climate? I suggest reducing world population one decision at a time: Get A Vasectomy! Encourage others to do so... after a sperm donation.

Lee. (Chefsref) on January 22, 2017:

I see little point in checking the polls. The most important issues to people will always be what affects them right now, thus we can borrow from our kids to pay for our tax cuts and constant wars.

I think if we are to ever progress on the climate change issue we need to change how we talk to each other.

So, instead of talking about cutting fossil fuel use how about the benefits of developing alternatives? China is going full speed developing solar (even tho' they keep building coal plants) We would benefit by building up our solar, wind, hydro etc etc. More well paying jobs, more products and technology to sell and a side effect of lower pollution.

Big business and the right wing talk bubble has already convinced millions that they know more than the 97% of environmental scientists that

study the environment.

Now get them to try to defend 19th century technology while the rest of the world moves forward. Will the US remain stubbornly defending our buggy whip business?

The world is moving on to an alternative energy future so it's up to us to decide to lead the world or follow China.

I live in Florida where our wize and benevolent governor has told state employees not to use the term "global warming". So far Miami is still flooding at high tide, I guess they ignored the memo.

Jack Lee from Yorktown NY on January 22, 2017:

Doc, I think you are missing my point. Yes people will say it when they are polled. Who is going to say they are against the environment?

Yet, when put in context, what they consider to be the most important issue of our times, climate change did not even make it to the top 10. What does that tell you?

Doc Snow (author) from Camden, South Carolina on January 22, 2017:

Uh, Jack, what your link says on its face is that 52% of registered voters thought that the environment was "very important" to their vote in 2016. Not sure how you think that that disagrees with what I said.

You might also consider this more recent poll from Pew:

I probably don't need to elaborate on that one.

In general, when the public is polled on climate change, more than 60% say that it's a problem and they want action. That's been true for many years, and continues to be true. For instance, in 2016 Pew broke down climate change concern by party. But note that the very first question shows a plurality of 38% of all registered voters expressing "a great deal" of concern over the issue, and a further 35% expressing "some concern."

For a longitudinal view, here is the Gallup view from over the years:

You'll note that the numbers are moving my way, not yours.

Jack Lee from Yorktown NY on January 22, 2017:

doc, who is out of touch? not me.

Here is the link to top issues in 2016 as reported by the Pew Research -

Environment (climate change) comes in at number 12 on the list.

Doc Snow (author) from Camden, South Carolina on January 22, 2017:

Alternative, I would not dream of censoring you (and as far as I know, you are free to repost your own comment regardless of what I do.) Just offering some feedback.

Jack, you appear to me to be completely out of touch on this issue. The "American people" have consistently said that they are concerned about climate change and would like to see effective action to address it. The election of Mr. Trump isn't a refutation of that, given that he lost the popular vote by a margin of nearly 3 million, and that climate change wasn't a major campaign issue (though IMO it certainly should have been.) Climate change was, however, a significant component in bringing millions to the streets yesterday.

Second, it is not climate change activists who have 'politicized' the issue. The Framework Convention was negotiated under Bush senior (whom I wish a speedy recovery in his current struggle with respiratory illness), and sustained throughout his son's administration. Climate science has been recognized by GOP figures from John Huntsman and Lindsay Graham to Olympia Snow and Bob Inglis. No, the politicization has arisen from vested interests such as ExxonMobil who have chosen to become "merchants of doubt" in defense of their unsustainable business model.

As to the "millions who will suffer," it isn't clean energy that will cause that, it is climate change. Take, for instance, the case of Narendra Modi, a conservative politician who has presided over a major deployment of renewable energy during his two years in office. The result so far has been economic growth in the 7% range (outpacing China) and an 80+% favorability poll. If that's "suffering", then I guess it "hurts so good."

Finally, I must flatly disagree with your last statement: not just just "limiting", but actually *eliminating* net carbon emissions is not only "the answer", it's the *only* answer. That follows from physical fundamentals. We may not like that answer, but our preferences don't drive how reality is structured.

Jack Lee from Yorktown NY on January 22, 2017:

Doc, As expected, I disagree with your assessment of climate change. Your position is well know here on HubPages. The american people have rejected the dire warnings of Al Gore and Hansen and Mann. They are the ones you should be targeting for turning this topic into a political one. They have misled the american youth in particular. I have some first hand knowledge of this. Some of my own relatives have bought into this. They are beginning to see the truth. I hope you will also reconsider. The proposals put forth by the climate change organizations are destructive to many people in real terms. You may not be personally affected, but millions around our country and the globe will suffer if these proposals are implimented or mandated...I believe in protecting our environment such as clear air and clean water... Limiting CO2 output and fossil fuel is not the answer.

Alternative Prime from > California on January 21, 2017:

Hi Doc ~ My Comment as usual is FILLED with Factual Data & my Creative Writing Style is the way I roll, however, if the Input is not appreciated, please DELETE my Comment so I can use the Content elsewhere ~ THX ~ AP

Doc Snow (author) from Camden, South Carolina on January 21, 2017:

Thanks for commenting. I'm in agreement with a lot of of your criticisms.

That said, I personally would like to see more fact, less use of name-calling which may make us feel good but doesn't illuminate, and less use of caps. I know it's meant to emphasize, but it makes me as a reader skip over the very points you want to most stress. Just a suggestion...

Alternative Prime from > California on January 21, 2017:

Unfortunately for OUR ONLY Habitable Planet, the SEVERE Detrimental Effects of "Climate Change" will NEVER be adequately Addressed as long as this Pseudo-President Remains in OUR White House ~

Even "Trump VOTERs" are beginning to DEFECT away from SWINDLER Donald's CON-Job, and toward the Emerging "GLOBAL Resistance" Against his Pseudo-Presidency ~ Just witness the MASSIVE Global Protests of Resistance AGAINST Him Today ~

* Scott PRUITT ~ "Drumpfs" EPA Nominee has DOUBTs about the Existance of Man-Made "CLIMATE Change" ~ But don't worry about a thing ~

* Dangerously IGNORANT Hillbilly DUMBELL Rick Perry who expressed his "Seething DESIRE" to ELIMINATE OUR Energy Dept was nominated by "Drumpf" to be IN CHARGE of this AGENCY ~ YES it's TRUE. I kid U NOT ~ Everyone should Investigate ~

* General Mattis ~ an Anemic Looking FRAIL Fellow who appears to be in "DIRE Need" of ObamaCare & is STUCK in the PAST Fighting WW1 & 2 in his HEAD, will be in CHARGE of OUR Military


* Tom PRICE ~ a GUY who should be on TRIAL for "STOCK Fraud" & has a PLAN to SLASH Medicare & Medicaid by 1 TRILLION Dollars is "Drumpfs" Nominee for Health & Human Services Dept ~

Betsy DeVos ~ a GREED Driven "ANTI-Public Schools" Woman who has TIES to the Massive FORTUNE which was Acquired via the Get Rich QUICK "PYRAMID Scheme" AMWAY & who Reportedly has made many WEALTHY Corporations even WEALTHIER by Advocating the DILUTION of Public Schools in FAVOR of "FOR Profit" Charter Schools & VOUCHERs is NOMINEE for Dept of Educations ~

Believe it or NOT, this is NO JOKE these are ACTUALLY his Nominees ~ But FORTUNATELY, even his "VOTERs" are beginning to Realize his Gargantuan HOAX perpetrated on the USA ~

Doc Snow (author) from Camden, South Carolina on January 21, 2017:

What do you think? Do you agree or disagree? And what do you think should be done today? Do you have an organization that you feel is helpful in addressing the climate crisis?

Related Articles