Guest Opinion: Palo Alto needs to step up its Green New Deal | January 25, 2019 | Palo Alto Weekly | Palo Alto Online |

Palo Alto Weekly

Spectrum - January 25, 2019

Guest Opinion: Palo Alto needs to step up its Green New Deal

by David Coale

It has been exciting to hear about the Green New Deal (GND) being talked about across the nation. Here at home, Palo Alto has committed to an 80-percent reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 — the 80-by-30 goal. This goal was adopted in 2016, so you could say Palo Alto has laid the groundwork for its GND already; but even though city staff has been working on this, the overall plan is not widely known. With California's recent Climate Action Summit in San Francisco last September, a United Nations report, and even the climate report from the White House, all saying that climate change is worsening at a faster pace than we thought, I think the City of Palo Alto needs to step up its efforts to enable our community to seriously address climate change.

This story contains 914 words.

Stories older than 90 days are available only to subscribing members. Please help sustain quality local journalism by becoming a subscribing member today.

If you are already a subscriber, please log in so you can continue to enjoy unlimited access to stories and archives. Subscriptions start at $5 per month and may be cancelled at any time.

Log in     Subscribe

David Coale is a board member of Carbon Free Palo Alto, was on the city's Green Building Technical Advisory Committee and is a former Acterra board member.

Comments

32 people like this
Posted by Sanctimonious City
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 25, 2019 at 10:14 am

Sanctimonious City is a registered user.

It is as simple as lettuce vs. potato chips.

The only way for an economy as large as California to become fossil fuel independent would be to heavily invest in nuclear and hydro electric power. Does the green future you envision include two dozen shiny new neon reactors along the coastline and dams on every major river?

All those $300K windmills that sit idle in the desert valley won't cut it. The next time you drive down to LA or Palm Springs, I encourage everyone to count the ones that aren't turning as you drive by and see how fast you can get to $1 billion in squandered taxes.

Other sources like solar don't have the energy density necessary to sustain a modern standard of living. The dirty little industry secret is that current commercial solar panels only operate between 19-21 percent efficiency. Worse yet, we don't have the battery technology to store electricity at scale so much of what gets generated is wasted. Even after five decades of working on the problem it still suffers from too much when you don't need it and too little when you do. Think about that the next time you approvingly admire all the money wasted on putting solar panels in school parking lots.

The socialist politicians wish to enforce a restricted lifestyle on the citizens by forcing them into high density housing and bike lanes. They even use terms like "Road diet" to imply you need to step up and get back into shape.

The New Green Deal is a raw deal for taxpayers and the environment.


18 people like this
Posted by @Sanctimonious Poster
a resident of Mountain View
on Jan 25, 2019 at 10:19 am

[Portion removed.]

If you honestly think that hydro power is the way to go, think about all the years that the western United States is dealing with drought. You think you can generate electricity when there's no water flow? And as for nuclear -- uh, no. It's been well established that nuclear power carries far more risks than advantages.

[Portion removed.]


31 people like this
Posted by David Coale
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 25, 2019 at 11:06 am

Actually the shift to renewables to power the world is possible and cost effective.

See Mark Jacobson's work on this (professor at Stanford):

Web Link


34 people like this
Posted by Bret Andersen
a resident of Palo Verde
on Jan 25, 2019 at 11:53 am

Thanks to Mr. Coale and the Weekly for this informative message about the practical way forward to reduce vast bulk of local GHG emissions. Cities play a vital role in making it easy and affordable for residents and businesses to make smart long term choices as we switch away from fossil fuels. The City holds the keys to removing the main barriers to residents' chosing climate friendly transport and building energy systems. These come in the form of outdated building codes, complicated and costly permitting requirements, miss-priced energy/parking/roads, high up-front costs of building energy upgrades (on-bill financing would make them affordable for anyone). Please lobby the City Council to make climate action along these lines a City priority.


11 people like this
Posted by Keep California Great
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Jan 25, 2019 at 12:04 pm

[Post removed.]


23 people like this
Posted by Elizabeth
a resident of South of Midtown
on Jan 25, 2019 at 1:36 pm

Thanks for posting a well-thought and reasoned op-ed, David. Totally agree about the importance of City Council making climate change a priority for upcoming year. We also see that the American public writ large is convinced at an unprecedented and accelerating level that climate change is real, human-caused, and will impact them (Yale Program on Climate Change Communication). And I'm sure Palo Altans rank higher than the American average of 72%.

David is also consistent with other Bay Area cities in asking to focus efforts on electrification of energy and transportation. Transportation is over 60% of Palo Alto's current greenhouse gas emissions, and the largest single source of GHG emissions in the Bay Area, California, and United States. While California is lauded for being a climate champion, transportation related GHG-emissions (i.e. VMT per California resident) is still increasing.

All-electric new construction should be heavily incentivized/required. I cannot yell loud enough how much I hate the idea of building new parking garages at exorbitant financial and environmental costs when a modal shift could be further accommodated by investments in bike/ped infrastructure and transit. We already have made so much progress in the schools for widely adopting alternative commutes, now we must expect the same from other groups of Palo Altans. California Ave employees, I'm looking at you...

Lastly, I want to emphasize the importance of Palo Alto's strong climate agenda, not only in minimizing carbon emissions rooted in our own city limits, but in leading the pack and providing precedent. Among American and Canadian city sustainability staff, progress and ambition in climate plans and achievements is fiercely competitive and status-oriented. City Councils in the Bay Area and even beyond wil--and already do--look to Palo Alto's progress as pressure on their own municipality to jump on the climate wagon.

Bring on the Green New Deal!


25 people like this
Posted by Dennis
a resident of Terman Middle School
on Jan 25, 2019 at 2:34 pm

Thanks David for the insightful article. It is good to hear about the progress we have made in this area. Climate change seems to be one of the foremost challenges we (the world) face and I am all for taking steps to reduce GHG emissions. That said, I think it is important to keep things in perspective.

Climate change is a global phenomenon. Don't get me wrong; I understand the motivation to not building parking garages (and, in that particular case, agree). But every day farmers are clear-cutting the Amazon forest to eke out a living, China is pumping out coal emissions to fuel its economy, etc... Where I grew up, it's 95+ degrees for 6 months of the year and ACs are running 24 hours a day. These things will continue whether we set a good example here or not.

I think technological advancement applicable to large percentages of the world is the key change we need to make to combat global warming (okay, something like mass migration to super-cities in temperate climates would also work, but...) As David mentions, we *have* made great strides in renewable energy and other areas, and Silicon Valley is a part of this. Our area is full of brilliant minds.

I think Palo Alto should focus on allowing people and companies here to keep developing critical technologies relevant to climate change. If this means increasing zoning density to encourage industrial and multifamily development, or building a few more roads to cut down on gridlock, are we willing to take that step? Consider Marin County. For all the good intentions in the world there, the area is mostly not a cradle of science and technology (and is also, incidentally, extremely car-dependent.) I think we should be careful to avoid the allure of that kind of model.

Thanks for reading


40 people like this
Posted by Well said.
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 25, 2019 at 3:22 pm

Well said. is a registered user.

Thoughtful article, David. I have been making changes in my life to reduce my carbon footprint. We are all in this together!

I'm getting to know my neighbors better because I walk about more and run into them without the barrier of a car interrupting our opportunity to interact. I save time by not trolling for auto parking because parking my bike is easier. I am enjoying this simpler life. I am losing weight and getting more fit by walking and biking and taking transit more. I am enjoying a cozier home because I replaced my single pane windows with double pane windows. These are small things, I know. However, if each of us does our part, collectively we can make a real difference.

I'm getting older. I would like the city to invest in public transit, not parking garages.

While the airplane noise does bother me, I don't think it should be our city's top priority. The city doesn't control air traffic. If we want to effect change there, we need to talk with with the FAA.


19 people like this
Posted by No more alarmism!
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 26, 2019 at 2:39 pm

More global warming alarmism. The one sure thing is that it will cost more for PA citizens! We have access to abundant natural gas and newer nuclear technologies...and, unlike solar and wind, they both provide base load electricity.


18 people like this
Posted by Keep California Great
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Jan 26, 2019 at 3:13 pm

>> More global warming alarmism

Another fact-less post. At least try the typical right-wing misreading of data - such as: last year was cooler than the year before.

It was only the FOURTH WARMEST YEAR on record. Web Link

>> The socialist politicians

Such as? After you name two, I'm sure your list gets very thin. And all it is anyway, is deflection from science.

Scientists - another well known group of socialists!

(not)


19 people like this
Posted by Sanctimonious City
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 29, 2019 at 10:51 am

Sanctimonious City is a registered user.

The meaning of precision and accuracy are simple lessons given in every high school chemistry class and they should be applied to the climate change hysteria.

We don't have the means to measure the current level of changes in the earth's average aggregate temperature to a degree of precision or accuracy beyond the margin of error.

Ice cores and tree rings don't cut it. Modern thermometers, satellites and sea based sensors have only been around for about 40 years. Hardly long enough for a planet that is about 4.5 billion years old.

In the scientific method, predictions are made, tests are conducted and data is evaluated and the hypothesis gets amended based on evidence.

So far, every major prediction (Fewer polar bears, disappearing glaciers, rising sea levels, more hurricanes etc.) have invalidated the doomsday scenario so relentlessly hyped. Most obviously, the infamous Al Gore touted, Mann et. al. hockey stick forecast was a huge bust. How is that for an Inconvenient Truth?

So why has the hypothesis not been adjusted to a more reasonable outcome as would be expected? Certainly the spread sheet models have been vigorously re-spun and data sets retroactively changed to solve for the same doom and gloom result. As time goes by, the run away feedback loop and tipping point always gets pushed just beyond the horizon.

The reason is because climate change has become an ideology pursued as a secular religion rather than a scientific theory. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Climate Change is supposedly "our generation's WWII" without an environmental Pearl Harbor. A better WWII analogy would be Operation Bodyguard where the Allies convinced Hitler that there would be an invasion in Normandy with a ghost army of inflatable tanks that did not exist.

[Portion removed.]


9 people like this
Posted by HighDensity
a resident of another community
on Jan 29, 2019 at 11:07 am

If anyone here considers themselves a strong advocate for environmentalism and considers global warming to be a grave threat to the stability of civilization, but at the same time fights against high density housing in Palo Alto due to character of the neighborhood concerns, then you're a phony that would rather exacerbate the environmental impacts of suburban sprawl and long commutes rather than make meaningful attempts to have society tackle the global warming crisis.


30 people like this
Posted by Keep California Great
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Jan 29, 2019 at 11:20 am

>> climate change has become an ideology pursued as a secular religion rather than a scientific theory

Most scientists say you are wrong (95%+) so we should believe your tripe because you make long, inane posts that use a NY congress critter who took office a month ago as your bogey-man?

So, you think we should believe an AOC speech, but you do not believe science.

[Portion removed.]


19 people like this
Posted by Sanctimonious City
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 29, 2019 at 12:40 pm

Sanctimonious City is a registered user.

Jacque Cousteau famously said that since the surface of the Earth is comprised of 71% water, a better name for our planet would be the planet Water.

Our earliest complete satellite coverage of the oceans to measure sea surface temperature started in 1982. We have only had a comprehensive network of sea based sensors since the mid 1990s.

The likelihood of predicting the average global temperature over the next 50 years to within 1-2 degrees with less than 40 years of imprecise, poorly integrated data is extremely small. The statement that 95%+ "scientists" think they can just shows the scientific process has been corrupted.

[Portion removed.]


21 people like this
Posted by Keep California Great
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Jan 29, 2019 at 1:41 pm

[Portion removed.]

You call believers in science and fact the following:
- socialist politicians
- cultists
- far worse in your rants in other threads

Dropping Cousteau's name in your word salad doesn't make your nonsensical posts look any better.

Once you mock the bulk of the scientific community by putting the word science in quotes - you've said all any thinking individual needs to know. You rarely attempt to document your [portion removed] theories, because you have no way of substantiating them.

NASA:
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
Web Link

There's consensus from the vast majority of science, and then there are the conspiracy theorists.

[Portion removed.]



14 people like this
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Jan 30, 2019 at 12:45 am

^ circa 1970 when I was in high school 95%+ of scientists said we'd be out of oil by now.


20 people like this
Posted by @musical
a resident of another community
on Jan 30, 2019 at 1:19 am

It's incredibly unfortunate that a problem your generation caused and now fights against solving won't be around to endure the costs nor bear the burden of fixing.


16 people like this
Posted by No more alarmism!
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 30, 2019 at 8:36 am

When I was in high school many 'scientists' were predicting a new ice age. And yes, the world was running out of oil. Many of the so-called 'scientists' that push global warming alarmism are not even remotely involved in climate research...and if they dare to utter a skeptical word about the global warming scare they would lose their government grant(s). Palo Alto should not be taken in by this global warming con job...we will waste a ton of money!


127 people like this
Posted by Keep California Great
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Jan 30, 2019 at 9:00 am

>> circa 1970 when I was in high school 95%+ of scientists said we'd be out of oil by now.

Prove it with a link. I'm sure Heartland or some other oil/coal sponsored think tank biostitutes would have all that info, if it existed. Go find it.

>> Many of the so-called 'scientists'
>> many 'scientists'

Proof? Links? NASA gave you a list of PEER-REVIEWED studies. Where's your peer-reviewed studies to support your lies?

>> the global warming scare
>> this global warming con job

Wow. Most of the conspiracy theorists have at least backed off on the existence of Climate Change and now, only falsely argue how much humans have caused.

[Portion removed.]






Like this comment
Posted by No more alarmism!
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 30, 2019 at 10:21 am

[Post removed.]


10 people like this
Posted by @No more alarmism
a resident of another community
on Jan 30, 2019 at 10:26 am

[Post removed.]


6 people like this
Posted by Keep California Great
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Jan 30, 2019 at 10:53 am

[Post removed.]


18 people like this
Posted by Sanctimonious City
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 30, 2019 at 11:22 am

Sanctimonious City is a registered user.

[Portion removed.] You still have not stated which of the following points you dispute:

1. Precision - we don't have a global network of sensors good enough to measure the degree of change smaller than the margin of error.

2. Accuracy - we don't have an integrated network of sensors that have sufficient consistency of method, measurement and technology to normalize to a degree smaller than the margin of error.

3. Coverage - At best, we have had a minimal global network of sensors for land, sea and atmosphere that could be combined since the mid 1990s.

4. Failed predictions - all the catastrophic predictions dependent on a run away feedback loop and tipping point have been invalidated over the last 20 years yet the claims have yet to be dropped or revised downward.

Like a dog chasing its tail, we keep changing where we measure and what we call it in order to keep the scary headlines rolling. Is it surface temperatures, sub-surface temperatures, upper atmosphere temperatures or total absorbed energy?

At worst, what we are left with from actual empirical measured data is an apparent tiny increase in the average global temperature that falls within the margin of error of our current abilities to take, combine and normalize measurements. Whether it will continue to go up, stay flat like the last 15 years or go down nobody knows but we will need to make 100 years of very disciplined and consistent measurements to find out.

Hardly a cause for panic or a reason to commit 2/3 of the world to poverty and suffering. Every year that goes by without reconciling prediction with measurement damages the integrity of the process.

[Portion removed.]


90 people like this
Posted by Novelera
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 30, 2019 at 11:45 am

Novelera is a registered user.

@Sanctimonious City: I'd be thrilled to have as much time on my hands as you apparently have to post your theories that run counter to most accepted scientific conclusions.


44 people like this
Posted by Keep California Great
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Jan 30, 2019 at 11:49 am

[Portion removed.]

>> all the catastrophic predictions dependent on a run away feedback loop and tipping point have been invalidated over the last 20 years

*ALL*?

Should be pretty easy to list the top ten erroneous predictions in the last 20 years (re: loops and tipping points from peer reviewed studies since 1999, with links, not your imaginative hyperbole from fringe websites)

Look forward to your list of peer reviewed erroneous studies since 1999, since you claim EVERY one of them is wrong.


26 people like this
Posted by Keep California Great
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Jan 30, 2019 at 11:53 am

>> the Midwest's Polar Vortex

Balanced with the extreme heat that has so much of Australia burning.

Extreme weather patterns, just another result you'll find in your top ten list of erroneous predictions in the last 20 years, from peer reviewed studies, with links.

Maybe you can find that list of links on youtube!


18 people like this
Posted by Chris G Zaharias
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 30, 2019 at 1:21 pm

Chris G Zaharias is a registered user.

@Sanctimonious - thank you for being a sorely-needed voice of reason, and for being willing to speak up. PA's eco-fascism has made it hard for those of us who know climate change to be a religion to fight back.

@Keep California Great - IMO, until you address @Sanctimonious' incredibly rational, well-founded points, you will continue to sound like nothing more than a defender of a *faith*.


18 people like this
Posted by Keep California Great
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Jan 30, 2019 at 1:34 pm

Looked back on some of your posts, Chris Zaharias, and I'm not too worried.

Similar questions have been put to you and you ignored them.

Where is your peer reviewed scientific data?

Why does the consensus of the scientific community tell us you are wrong?

When did you finally accept that the earth was warming more rapidly than anytime in recorded history?

Last year? The year before? After how many years of being a conspiracy theorist Climate Change Denier?


12 people like this
Posted by No more alarmism
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 30, 2019 at 1:50 pm

I provided a link to Richard Lindzen, American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere...he has many peer-reviewed papers. He is an actual climate scientist...worth a serious look.

You might also look up Freeman Dyson...ever heard of him?

We don't need any more alarmist con jobs! Ever hear of Michael Mann and climategate?


8 people like this
Posted by Keep California Great
a resident of Green Acres
on Jan 30, 2019 at 2:01 pm

[Post removed.]


28 people like this
Posted by Keep California Great
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Jan 30, 2019 at 2:10 pm

Your fraudulent example Richard Lindzen said in Feb 2012: "...one can see no warming since 1997."

A year after 2010 became the warmest year on record.

A quick google (and I mean really quick) can find a considerable list of his mistakes, false claims, errors, etc..


11 people like this
Posted by Dan
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 30, 2019 at 4:14 pm

Guess I better knock down my house quick, diesel truck all the debris to the landfill, and rebuild before the city adds more dumb requirements and restrictions such as adding an electric charging station for the Tesla car that I don’t own and have no desire to purchase. I can add a low flow shower head and high clog toilet ... that should compensate for the environmental waste of rebuilding/remodeling... then since natural gas will be illegal I need an electric tank water heater instead of tankless gas heater so it will be overall less efficient, but at least each individual electron coming through the common power grid shared with neighboring cities is certified carbon neutral.


1 person likes this
Posted by No more alarmism
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 30, 2019 at 7:14 pm

[Post removed; do not use all-caps please.]


26 people like this
Posted by Keep California Great
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Jan 30, 2019 at 7:56 pm

[Post removed due to deletion of referenced comment.]


16 people like this
Posted by Keep California Great
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Jan 30, 2019 at 8:00 pm

[Post removed due to deletion of referenced comment.]


Like this comment
Posted by No more alarmism
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 30, 2019 at 9:32 pm

[Post removed.]


4 people like this
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Jan 31, 2019 at 1:27 am

Fond memories of the original Earth Day, 1970. Heady times!
We had several well-known guest speakers at Cubberley.
Paul Ehrlich is still wandering around here somewhere.
That must surprise him. Everything takes longer than expected.


7 people like this
Posted by No more alarmism!
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 31, 2019 at 8:44 am

@ musical: Ah yes, Paul Ehrlich...he is always predicting catastrophe in ten years, every ten years!


7 people like this
Posted by Make California Great Again
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Feb 2, 2019 at 12:28 pm

When are any of you gonna relize, It’s not about saving the environment, but rather having full control over the money and people.


20 people like this
Posted by Keep California Great
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Feb 2, 2019 at 1:17 pm

>> When are any of you gonna relize (sic)

When will you realize that opinions without fact may make you feel better, but are essentially useless in adding to the conversation.

Facts move it forward, such as:

NASA - Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

One also notes your moniker - can you give us the date that California ceased being great, in your mind?


7 people like this
Posted by No more alarmism!
a resident of Barron Park
on Feb 2, 2019 at 1:48 pm

NASA is all over the place with respect to global warming alarmism/hysteria. See the following:

Web Link

Palo Alto should NOT get involved in this morass...it will just mean that we pay more...and get less!


22 people like this
Posted by Keep California Great
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Feb 2, 2019 at 2:17 pm

Nice link!! Thanks for making the point!

An opinion piece in *Forbes* seven years ago, by a Climate Change denier!

And how many peer-reviewed studies has he conducted? Oh wait - none. Unless they are in his field - space ARCHITECTURE.

Sheesh. Do you even use google???


6 people like this
Posted by No more alarmism!
a resident of Barron Park
on Feb 2, 2019 at 6:30 pm

Eco-catasrophism is never a good basis upon which to make Palo Alto city policy.

(from the Forbes article): "...John S. Theon, retired chief of NASA’s Climate Processes Research Program, took issue with the interference charge, stating: “Hansen was never muzzled, even though he violated official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen has embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claim of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.”

Theon also testified that: “My own belief concerning anthropogenic [man-made] climate change is that models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit”. He observed: ”Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modeled in the observations, nor explain how they did it…this is contrary to the way science should be done.” He then went on to say “Thus, there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy”."


6 people like this
Posted by Keep California Great
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Feb 3, 2019 at 11:01 am

Well done! You've proved you can copy and paste random noise from the Forbes article 7 years ago, by a Climate Change Denier (Larry Bell) who has been debunked repeatedly.

Now you quote Bell's ramblings about Theon, who once uttered the inanity: “climate models are useless.”

Useless?

Theon retired from NASA 15 years prior to your linked article (97?), moved on from NASA to take Big Oil money at Heartland for awhile (ie.. 'biostitute'.) I have no idea what he's doing these days.

So what gives? What's Theon done, ever? Any peer-reviewed studies to back his absurd claims? Or was the highlight of his life as bean-counter, with no supervisory role over Hanson (as he claimed/attempted to claim)?

[Portion removed.]


Like this comment
Posted by Politics?
a resident of Mountain View
on Feb 3, 2019 at 3:01 pm

@Keep CA Great, you keep asking for proof and I’m curious, do YOU have proof? Not projections, not suppositions, not “studies show likely” but actual, solid proof?

Please share.


12 people like this
Posted by Keep California Great
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Feb 3, 2019 at 3:22 pm

Hottest ten years in recorded history have been in this century.

The agencies that support the National Climate Assessment - which tells you everything you need to know about how bad it's getting:

NOAA
DOA
DOC
DOD
DOE
HHS
DOI
DOS
DOT
EPA
NASA
NSF
Smithsonian Institution
USAID

On the other side? A bunch of conspiracy theorists.

And you?

So I'm sticking with the Departments of Defense/Energy/Agriculture, NASA, National Sciences, etc.. What do you have? I'm really curious what on earth makes someone hate/object to facts, science, etc..


3 people like this
Posted by Political?
a resident of Mountain View
on Feb 3, 2019 at 4:10 pm

[Post removed.]


8 people like this
Posted by Evelyn
a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Feb 3, 2019 at 6:00 pm

Afraid to read the summary of the National Climate Assessment?
[Portion removed.]


2 people like this
Posted by Political?
a resident of Mountain View
on Feb 3, 2019 at 11:00 pm

Sigh. Let’s try this again. @KCG, can you provide PROOF. You referenced quite a few organizations but I don’t see any PROOF.


18 people like this
Posted by Keep California Great
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Feb 4, 2019 at 9:32 am

You're too lazy to read even the Overview? Yet, you demand 'proof'?

You'd like the entire FOURTH NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT climate assessment and citations/links copied and pasted here? My guess is you would also like it dumbed-down to Breitbart-like levels of accessibility.

______

CHAPTER 1
Overview
Introduction
Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities.
The impacts of global climate change are already being felt in the United States and are projected to intensify in the future—but the severity of future impacts will depend largely on actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the changes that will occur.

See Web Link for evidence.


Members:

Department of the Interior

Department of Energy

U.S. Global Change Research Program

Department of Health and Human Services

U.S. Agency for International Development

Smithsonian Institution

Department of Commerce

Department of Defense

Department of Agriculture

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Department of Energy

Department of Transportation

Environmental Protection Agency

Department of the Interior

Department of State

National Science Foundation

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

U.S. Geological Survey

Add in:

Texas Tech University
University of Washington
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
University of Illinois
Rutgers University
North Carolina State University
Texas A&M University
Columbia University
University of California, Irvine
University of Massachusetts
California Department of Water Resources
... and many, many more.


Your next response/whine: but where's the prooooooooofffff?!? I can't read that much! My link is broken! The sun got in my eyes! My dog ate the FOURTH NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT homework!


12 people like this
Posted by Keep California Great
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Feb 4, 2019 at 9:36 am

>> You referenced quite a few organizations

I added more. You wouldn't be blamed for realizing that's representative of the entire scientific community.

And you have the snakes at Heartland (funded by Exxon, etc..) so gosh, it's pretty close!


11 people like this
Posted by No more alarmism!
a resident of Barron Park
on Feb 4, 2019 at 11:21 am

In 2007 James Hansen, the guru of global warming alarmism and NASA administrator, stated that most of Greenland’s ice would soon melt, raising sea levels 23 feet over the course of 100 years. Impossible! Nonsense!

And yet you give us a list of scientists, all funded by grants that are judged by peers who have drunk Hansen's kool aid. And then you call the skeptics bad names, as if that could cover for your lack of due diligence.

Once again, Palo Alto should not listen to the eco-catastrophists. Remember, they used that excuse (got to lower CO2!) to support the high speed rail...until they actually determined what it would cost and the disruption it would cause.


22 people like this
Posted by Keep California Great
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Feb 4, 2019 at 1:40 pm

Link to the 23 feet study/report? (I won't hold my breath.)


>> And yet you give us a list of scientists, all funded by grants that are judged by peers who have drunk Hansen's kool aid.


The Department of Defense?

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory?

Department of the Interior?

Department of Energy?

Department of Health and Human Services?

U.S. Agency for International Development?

Smithsonian Institution?

Department of Commerce?

Department of Agriculture?



Please tell us why those departments would be part of your fantasy conspiracy?


8 people like this
Posted by Sanctimonious City
a resident of Barron Park
on Feb 4, 2019 at 6:21 pm

Sanctimonious City is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


Like this comment
Posted by Keep California Great
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Feb 4, 2019 at 6:35 pm

[Post removed.]


Like this comment
Posted by Keep California Great
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Feb 4, 2019 at 6:37 pm

[Post removed.]


2 people like this
Posted by No more alarmism!
a resident of Barron Park
on Feb 4, 2019 at 8:37 pm

[Post removed.]


6 people like this
Posted by Sanctimonious City
a resident of Barron Park
on Feb 4, 2019 at 10:05 pm

Sanctimonious City is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


2 people like this
Posted by No more alarmism!
a resident of Barron Park
on Feb 4, 2019 at 10:09 pm

[Post removed.]


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

 

PRICE INCREASES MONDAY

On Friday, October 11, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

Register now